QuoteTakalok - 29/3/2008 8:10 AMI think it's reasonable to say that Saturn as a system is safer than STS as a system simply because of the Launch Escape System (LES), which STS doesn't have. The launch of Soyuz T-10-1 in 1983 is a pretty good demonstration of that. Constellation is going back to a capsule with a LES like Saturn had for good reason.From a crew survival point of view, I completely agree. I assumed (perhaps mistakenly) the discussion was about the launcher, not the LV/Spacecraft combination.
Takalok - 29/3/2008 8:10 AMI think it's reasonable to say that Saturn as a system is safer than STS as a system simply because of the Launch Escape System (LES), which STS doesn't have. The launch of Soyuz T-10-1 in 1983 is a pretty good demonstration of that. Constellation is going back to a capsule with a LES like Saturn had for good reason.
Doesn't mean it's safer. The Shuttle went 122 missions with only one time when the LES might have been usefulKarl Hallowell
Patchouli - 30/3/2008 2:30 AMI wonder if a modern Saturn like vehicle well a Saturn in spirit could be cost effective.
F-1 ArticleRocketdyne estimated that activation of the production line would cost $315 million in 1991 dollars. A significant chunk of that money, $100 million, would be required to pay for four test engines and a spare. These costs apparently did not include reactivation of the special test stands that had been used for the F-1.
Astronautix.com lists the cost of a Saturn V as $ 431M in 1967. That is the equivalent of $2.6 B today. I had not realized it was nearly so much.
Quote from: johng on 03/24/2008 02:06 pmAstronautix.com lists the cost of a Saturn V as $ 431M in 1967. That is the equivalent of $2.6 B today. I had not realized it was nearly so much.Well... Didn't SLS has proved to be costing well beyond $4B per launch?Sure, Commerical Alternatives to Heavy Weight launchers do exist now (*coughs* Starship ), but Maybe, just maybe, if Saturn V continued to be in production now, it would have been way more capable than it was in 1972, i.e, 60+ tons to moon i guess, and still cost less than SLS Block2, and don't forget.... No additional dev cost.. Hmm.. any replies? :-)
This is an old thread, but back in the late 1960's they were considering upgrading the Saturn V. They were going to upgrade the F-1 engines from 1.5 million lbs thrust to 1.8 million. They were going to upgrade the J-2 engines from 200,000 lbs thrust to 250,000 lbs thrust. That would be 9 million lbs thrust on the booster and the second stage would go from 1 million lbs thrust to 1,250,000 lbs thrust.
Then, they considered putting a heat shield on the top of the first stage and landing it engines up in the ocean by parachute. They also considered doing the same for the third stage, using parachutes and landing legs after reentry.
They also considered adding two liquid fueled boosters using F-1's to the side of the Saturn V booster to push it to around 12 million lbs thrust to the limit of the flame trenches at 39a and 39b pads. This could have greatly increased the LEO payload capability beyond 150 tons and the TLI capability. This would have cost very little in comparison to building new transporters, launch facilities, new SSME's solids, etc that shuttle ended up costing.
By allowing reuse of the booster and the third stage, would have cut costs. As time went on, with today's standards, 3D printed engines and parts could have been used to cut costs even more.
Well, it never happened. F9 lifts the equivelant of the Saturn IB to LEO, and can deliver to higher orbits. FH can twice that with reuse. Now we are getting Starship/Superheavy, hopefully New Glenn, Vulcan with SMART reuse of engines, maybe ACES. Also Neutron will be coming along. No need to build Saturn V again. Superheavy is the new Saturn V booster at over twice the thrust for more payload, cheaper engines, and more robust design for reuse.
The Saturn V was largely derived from a US Army ballistic missile, and the cost of building a new Saturn V today would be about 2 billion dollars.
There was nothing like the Saturn V and there won't be anything like the Saturn V.
Quote from: Komodo Lizard on 06/30/2022 04:05 pmThere was nothing like the Saturn V and there won't be anything like the Saturn V. Because there doesn't need to be one.
Different times.The Saturn V was also style and looks based, not just fucntion to get to the moon. There is no way in the 1960s that NASA would have had a moon rocket that looked like the SLS. America(and much of the world) was a very different place in those times.
Saturn V design was not built for "style". It was designed to get 45 tonnes (or whatever it was) trans-lunar. It was 33 feet max diameter because that was as big as they could weld and transport the stages. The height and number of stages followed from the performance requirements given the available F-1 and J-2 engines. The "style" you may be seeing was added functionality. It was painted white, for example, to reduce solar heating, with black roll bars for optical tracking. SLS uses spray-on foam insulation to minimize propellant boil-off instead of white paint. The first stage fins were there to add abort stability. If Saturn V production had continued, there would likely have been less paint and no fins as time passed. - Ed Kyle