Author Topic: What if the Saturn IB had kept flying?  (Read 138470 times)

Offline Hog

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2846
  • Woodstock
  • Liked: 1700
  • Likes Given: 6866
Re: What if the Saturn IB had kept flying?
« Reply #20 on: 11/09/2014 02:48 am »
Could cost per person to orbit be considered?  Aside from pure cost of cargo to orbit discussions, comparison of STS to other systems is problematic IMO.
Paul

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: What if the Saturn IB had kept flying?
« Reply #21 on: 11/09/2014 05:36 am »
So would you recommend something like a super-sized HL-20 being launched by the Saturn IB?  Or perhaps a 70s-era mega-sized Cygnus equivalent?  It seems like you're saying that the biggest problem for the Saturn IB wasn't the rocket but the Apollo CSM that launched atop it. 


Yes pretty much along those lines.

Quote
I don't know about half the mass of Skylab, Patchouli.  That's one heck of a lot of mass (77,088 kg/2 = 38,544 kg).  You would need to have a Saturn IB evolved to fling up some 83% more into orbit.  That's going to require huge upgrades to the rocket.  You would probably need an all-new core stage, preferably one with a single set of tanks and a common bulkhead.  Going by chamber pressure, you'd need new H-1B engines with at least 1250 psi chamber pressure to pull it off (added efficiency would cut the thrust requirements).  You'd also probably need to mount a second J-2S engine on a much enlarged upper stage.  That sounds like a lot of expense, so maybe it would be better just to make modest changes, like upgrading to a J-2S engine up top or chopping the fins off the core stage? 


Actually it seems you don't need much in the way of modification to get more payload out of the Saturn IB.

Add four Titian SRMs gets the payload up to 33,000kg
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/satrnibd.htm

The same but with a tank stretch, and starting the H-1s in the IB stage at altitude and you can get 48,000 kg.
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/satint11.htm

« Last Edit: 11/09/2014 05:43 am by Patchouli »

Offline Hyperion5

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1681
  • Liked: 1373
  • Likes Given: 302
Re: What if the Saturn IB had kept flying?
« Reply #22 on: 11/09/2014 05:47 am »
Could cost per person to orbit be considered?  Aside from pure cost of cargo to orbit discussions, comparison of STS to other systems is problematic IMO.

I understand that the STS was more flexible in that it could lift up to 8 crew and a payload.  It certainly was no slouch in either department, being able to simultaneously carry 8 crew and up to around 24,400 kg of payload.  A Saturn IB could not have accomplished both at the same time, though the max payload a Shuttle ever lifted was only 22,781 kg (the Chandra X-Ray Observatory). 

So yes, in terms of overall capability, any Saturn IB-launched spaceplane or "Big Gemini" would have lost out, though there's every chance the Saturn would have been a cheaper pure cargo hauler.  The problem with this argument is it ignores one incredible advantage the Saturn IB had over STS: safety.  The only lives lost atop a Saturn IB were lost not because of the rocket but due to the bad design of the original Apollo capsule.  So we can pretty safely say that the Saturn IB itself never killed an astronaut.  The STS on the other hand killed more crewmembers than all other manned vehicles put together, especially if you only count crew lost during flight.  Any spaceplane or new capsule atop the Saturn IB could have had LAS capability all the way to orbit, not to mention some engine-out capability early in flight.  In terms of safety, had we known just how dangerous the Shuttle's design was, I would venture a guess that Nixon would have gone with an alternative. 

That alternative could have been any number of things, from a reusable spaceplane launched from a Titan IIIM to an Block III Apollo CSM launched atop a Saturn IB.  Given the Apollo CSM's incredible cost however, I would venture a guess that we would have seen a reusable spaceplane.  In this case we would have had a choice between the Titan IIIM or the Saturn IB as its launcher.  While the Titan may have been cheaper, the Saturn was safer, more capable, and could have been made into a reusable LV had a new core stage with nine H-1 engines been used.  Given the craving for reusability in that era, I would have to give the edge to the Saturn IB.  That's not to say the Titan IIIM was a bad choice, it's just a choice that would never have allowed NASA to have a potentially fully reusable LV. 
« Last Edit: 11/09/2014 05:52 am by Hyperion5 »

Offline Hyperion5

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1681
  • Liked: 1373
  • Likes Given: 302
Re: What if the Saturn IB had kept flying?
« Reply #23 on: 11/09/2014 06:10 am »
So would you recommend something like a super-sized HL-20 being launched by the Saturn IB?  Or perhaps a 70s-era mega-sized Cygnus equivalent?  It seems like you're saying that the biggest problem for the Saturn IB wasn't the rocket but the Apollo CSM that launched atop it. 


Yes pretty much along those lines.

So then, which of those designs would you have favored?  I'm thinking a super-sized version of the HL-20 would have been about the perfect people hauler for up to 10-12 crew at a time.  Could an unmanned version with autopilot been a good cargo hauler as well?  Or would you use an entirely different vehicle for hauling cargo versus crew? 

I don't know about half the mass of Skylab, Patchouli.  That's one heck of a lot of mass (77,088 kg/2 = 38,544 kg).  You would need to have a Saturn IB evolved to fling up some 83% more into orbit.  That's going to require huge upgrades to the rocket.  You would probably need an all-new core stage, preferably one with a single set of tanks and a common bulkhead.  Going by chamber pressure, you'd need new H-1B engines with at least 1250 psi chamber pressure to pull it off (added efficiency would cut the thrust requirements).  You'd also probably need to mount a second J-2S engine on a much enlarged upper stage.  That sounds like a lot of expense, so maybe it would be better just to make modest changes, like upgrading to a J-2S engine up top or chopping the fins off the core stage? 


Actually it seems you don't need much in the way of modification to get more payload out of the Saturn IB.

Add four Titian SRMs gets the payload up to 33,000kg
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/satrnibd.htm

The same but with a tank stretch, and starting the H-1s in the IB stage at altitude and you can get 48,000 kg.
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/satint11.htm

Ah, so you mean to bridge the gap by strapping Titan SRMs to the Saturn IB.  Left unmentioned by these studies is the fact that any late 70s-era Saturn IB would have been using a much lighter instrument panel and the J-2S engine.  Put the effect of both of those together and we're looking at an additional 2-3 tonnes to orbit.  Btw, had you topped the resulting Saturn with a encapsulated Centaur stage it would have made the perfect 80s-era LV for Mars and Gas Giant missions.  You would have been able to send orbiters to Jupiter in 1980 rather than in the 1990s. 

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: What if the Saturn IB had kept flying?
« Reply #24 on: 11/09/2014 05:23 pm »
Another solution might be to see what it would take to cost reduce the Apollo CSM which might be a good stop gap measure anyway until a HL-20 type vehicle is flying.

Modernize the avionics maybe even have them be the block I of the HL-20 and replace the SM with a smaller and cheaper one.
Replace the large SPS engine with the TR-201 from the Delta-P.

Loose the fuel cells for batteries and solar cells.

As for the cargo vehicle maybe a stripped down LM decent stage with a MOL size cargo container.

« Last Edit: 11/09/2014 05:26 pm by Patchouli »

Offline RyanC

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 469
  • SA-506 Launch
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: What if the Saturn IB had kept flying?
« Reply #25 on: 11/09/2014 11:49 pm »
Here is where the math doesn't favor larger station, the US infrastructure doesn't allow for spacecraft or payloads larger than the shuttle payload bay.

I wonder how Skylab arrived at the VAB from California, then.  :o

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: What if the Saturn IB had kept flying?
« Reply #26 on: 11/10/2014 12:29 am »
Here is where the math doesn't favor larger station, the US infrastructure doesn't allow for spacecraft or payloads larger than the shuttle payload bay.

I wonder how Skylab arrived at the VAB from California, then.  :o

Skylab was a launch vehicle stage and not a spacecraft.  It is an exception.  I selected my words specifically with it in mind.  Skylab was the only space station that was a rocket stage, the rest were purpose built.
« Last Edit: 11/10/2014 12:30 am by Jim »

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: What if the Saturn IB had kept flying?
« Reply #27 on: 11/10/2014 01:31 am »

I wonder how Skylab arrived at the VAB from California, then.  :o

They used the Super Guppy to carry it.

« Last Edit: 11/10/2014 01:32 am by Patchouli »

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39218
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32738
  • Likes Given: 8196
Re: What if the Saturn IB had kept flying?
« Reply #28 on: 11/10/2014 02:58 am »
Had NASA wanted to build the ISS with such a launcher, they would not have needed to design segments as small as the ISS Destiny module.  You could have built the ISS with far fewer modules at less cost. 
Unsupported statements.
Destiny is not small.  The ISS is not for want of space.
And it would not be cheaper.

The Saturn IB payload mass to a 370 km and 50° orbit is only 14.2 t, similar to the Space Shuttle. Thus, the modules would have been similar in size and mass to that carried in the Space Shuttle.

I've heard that you can work in ISS all day and not see anyone! So, yes there is plenty of space on ISS.

The average Space Shuttle launch (not including development) was about $500M. Each Saturn IB had a production cost of $46.7M around 1966. That is $343M today using normal inflation. Adding in launch operations and that would easily cost $500M a launch total.

However, instead of designing and building the Space Shuttle in the 1970's, NASA could have designed and built a Space Station instead. It wouldn't have been any cheaper or larger than ISS, but it would have been available 20 years earlier.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline Hyperion5

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1681
  • Liked: 1373
  • Likes Given: 302
Re: What if the Saturn IB had kept flying?
« Reply #29 on: 11/10/2014 03:38 am »
Had NASA wanted to build the ISS with such a launcher, they would not have needed to design segments as small as the ISS Destiny module.  You could have built the ISS with far fewer modules at less cost. 
Unsupported statements.
Destiny is not small.  The ISS is not for want of space.
And it would not be cheaper.

The Saturn IB payload mass to a 370 km and 50° orbit is only 14.2 t, similar to the Space Shuttle. Thus, the modules would have been similar in size and mass to that carried in the Space Shuttle.

We're going to be building a joint space station with the USSR in the 1970s in this scenario?  I think that's unlikely, Steven, especially considering how bad US-Soviet relations got after 1979.  Could you re-do the orbits and assume a more benign, Cape Canaveral-friendly orbit? 

I've heard that you can work in ISS all day and not see anyone! So, yes there is plenty of space on ISS.

The average Space Shuttle launch (not including development) was about $500M. Each Saturn IB had a production cost of $46.7M around 1966. That is $343M today using normal inflation. Adding in launch operations and that would easily cost $500M a launch total.

However, instead of designing and building the Space Shuttle in the 1970's, NASA could have designed and built a Space Station instead. It wouldn't have been any cheaper or larger than ISS, but it would have been available 20 years earlier.

So they're close to even on economics.  I still think that had NASA known how dangerous STS was as it was proposed, they would have gone with an HL-20 style reusable spaceplane flung into orbit via a Saturn IB.  It would have abort capability all the way to orbit plus its wings would have been kept well-clear of any ice.  I would have used the same propellant mixture in the Dream Chaser just to up crew safety as well. 

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39218
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32738
  • Likes Given: 8196
Re: What if the Saturn IB had kept flying?
« Reply #30 on: 11/10/2014 05:58 am »
We're going to be building a joint space station with the USSR in the 1970s in this scenario?  I think that's unlikely, Steven, especially considering how bad US-Soviet relations got after 1979.  Could you re-do the orbits and assume a more benign, Cape Canaveral-friendly orbit?

Skylab flew at 50°. I'm not sure why they chose that inclination, but it does allow the Space Station to fly over all of the US states except Alaska as well being a better platform for Earth observation. Anyway, at 28.4° Saturn IB could put 15.1 t into a 370 km orbit. That's an increase of 0.9 t or 6.3%.
« Last Edit: 11/10/2014 06:00 am by Steven Pietrobon »
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: What if the Saturn IB had kept flying?
« Reply #31 on: 11/10/2014 12:18 pm »
Skylab flew at 50°. I'm not sure why they chose that inclination, but it does allow the Space Station to fly over all of the US states except Alaska as well being a better platform for Earth observation.

It was for earth observation

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: What if the Saturn IB had kept flying?
« Reply #32 on: 11/10/2014 12:32 pm »

I wonder how Skylab arrived at the VAB from California, then.  :o

They used the Super Guppy to carry it.


Wrong. 

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4011/part3b.htm

September 6-7

A special ceremony at McDonnell Douglas, Huntington Beach, marked completion of the OWS, the main section of the Skylab space station. The OWS, with a volume equivalent to that of a five-room house, was being readied for shipment to Cape Kennedy aboard the USNS Point Barrow. The trip would take 13 days.

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: What if the Saturn IB had kept flying?
« Reply #33 on: 11/10/2014 05:27 pm »
Granted, the Titan IIIC could not lift as much as the Saturn IB at the start, but by the time we got to the ISS era, the Titan IV had nearly the same size and payload capabilities as the shuttle.  With automated docking, we could have relatively easily assembled at least the core of ISS.

At the same time given the scenerio there would have been about30+ years of development on the Saturn-1B as well. I suspect that there would be very little "gap" in capability between what the Titan was doing at the time and an uprated Saturn-1 was capable of :) And with proper development I'd expect a pretty much fully reusable TSTO to have emerged from the original Saturn-1 design by the same time.

Quote
I'm not really sure which would have been better. I think now the economics of the combined use by NASA and USAF would have driven the cost of Titan down, even gives the need to change facilities to accommodate Titan.  But, as I speculate, an expenditure od existing Saturn and Apollo hardware would have covered the gap and allowed the cost to be spread over a period of years.

Either or I suppose though I'd question that either NASA or the Air Force would find it "convienent" to be forced into using the same launcher as happened with the Shuttle. One or the other is going to end up having "majority" say over design decisions and capability requirements and I'm pretty sure that given the chance (such as NASA continuing to use the Saturn-1 model LVs) that the AF would have bowed out in favor of sticking with the Titan familiy alone. NASA even without the Shuttle would have wanted (eventually) some kind of reusable LV and Titan could never be that while Saturn-1 was already well along the that path from the start. Meanwhile the Air Force wanted something that was "cheaper" but capable of being built up as time went on. Titan-IV would have been the Air Forces toughest fight because it would have come at a time when NASA's LVs in the form of upgraded Saturn-1s was exceeding the Titan series and at the same time becoming reusable and therefore "cheaper" as flights went on.

If the budgets were tight enough I could see it coming down to an "executive" decision and in this case the Titan-IV would be very hard pressed to have a viable case for its development.

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: What if the Saturn IB had kept flying?
« Reply #34 on: 11/10/2014 06:39 pm »
Hyperion5; Question? How did you go from "assuming" continued flights of the Saturn-1 LV to ALSO assuming the ability to keep the Saturn-V production going even in a limited way? I'm currious because I can't reconcile it with he bugets NASA had to work with even without "assuming" that upgrades would take place. (And I can't see any way of those in charge at NASA NOT trying to take advantage of having Saturn-V available to NOT drop Saturn-1 in favor of variations of the Saturn-V such as S-1D) There just doesn't seem to be enough money to put both LVs into production again AND upgrade them significantly.

The ISS (Interim Space Stations Or alternatively Interim Orbital Workshops) station program would seem possible but not with both Saturn-1 and Saturn-V LV production under the "real-world" budget.

Ok, read onward, point though:
I was comparing the ISS with a theoretical 1970s-era station based around Skylabs (but suitably modified).  We're talking about 2-3 years of sustaining the Saturn V's assembly lines, not 20 or more.  Given that short extension period, I'm willing to bet that six Saturn V launches and 1 Titan IIIE launch would have led to a station dramatically cheaper (inflation-adjusted) than the ISS.

Actually we're talking having to RESTART the entire Saturn-V production lines, all of them across the US, and all transportation systems there-of which was quite a chunk of change when the budget for NASA is falling fast, THEN "2-3 years" or production followed by another shut-down (of the S-1C and S-II lines) and that would include an OVER-production of S-IVB "Skylab" stages and parts. For a station that is obsolete by the mid-1980s?

So, I can"guarantee" that the "math" favors shuttle size payloads.

Close... Right "sentiment" but wrong excution :) The "math" favors LAUNCH VEHICLE sized payloads and is dependent on which launch vehicle is used. The Russians used Proton, we used the Shuttle but if we talk "alternatives" as we're supposed to be doing here then the alternative is an enhanced Saturn-1 type booster and some type of "dedicated" station module either something derived from the S-IVB tanakge (about half the size of Skylab say) or LMAS-section adapted:
http://nassp.sourceforge.net/wiki/Future_Expansion#SLA_Workshop
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4011/p70.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/apoolmal.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/l/lamlstat.gif

Yes if one assumes that the Saturn-V is the "launch vehicle" available then the station modules get bigger (as does the station itself) faster with fewer launches, but the assumption here is that the Saturn-1 is the LV of choice here. As fast as Titan grown and as 'cheap' as it is once NASA starts working on reusablity the argument favors Saturn-1 sized station modules.

Here is where the math doesn't favor larger station, the US infrastructure doesn't allow for spacecraft or payloads larger than the shuttle payload bay.  None of the major US spacecraft producers are near navigable bodies of water.  You would have to build a dedicated facility some where on the US waterways to produce such a space station. Also, you would have to greatly upgrade in the facilities at KSC to handle such modules. 

Uhm, by that "logic" Jim the Saturn=-V could never have been built and nothing could be flown on the Saturn-1 as it would be "impossible" to get the payload to the Cape :) Upgrading KSC is a given (it happened for the Shuttle) and some upgrades of transportation is to be expected as well. (You actually shoot this idea out of the water later {pun intended} becasue they can and did ship the Skylab OWS section of the S-IVB stage by water from California to the Cape. So the capability already was in place to support such operations :) )

"Larger" payload would be shipped by similar or alternative means so there is no "contradiction" here except that in "reality" the Shuttle payload bay size dictated payload size. Similarly AVAILABLE LV size would have dictated the size of payload with alternative launch vehicles.

Besides, who said anything about the 1990s?  I was comparing the ISS with a theoretical 1970s-era station based around Skylabs

The comparison has to be for the same timeframe.  There was no money for such a station in the 1970s.  So your point fails

Can't say I agree that the timeframe is that vital.  Both of the space stations are metallic-walled and in LEO.  In any case, I already laid out where you'd get the money: you would simply take the money that was used for the Shuttle's development, of which there was quite a lot in the 1970s.[/quote]

Uhm Jim has a bit of a point though since at the same time you're also re-starting and ramping up Saturn-V production AND improving performance on the Saturn-1 series. The REASON there was "quite-a-lot" of money for Shuttle development (there wasn't actually which was the main problem) in the 1970s was that everything else was starved for funding to ALLOW that money to be spent on the Shuttle development. It still wasn't enough.

Look at the facts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA

NASA's budget from 1970 to 1979 was still falling yearly and it was an uphill battle in Congress EACH YEAR to get waht they got WITH an on-going "National Space Shuttle Development Program" as the program of record AND a hostile Congress to boot. The budget didn't start climbing unitl the VERY late 1980s and even then it was slow.

This is exactly why I can't see NASA being able to afford re-starting the Saturn-V line and why I feel it's important to improve what you 'have' and fly it as much as possible during that time period. If NASA can have even a partially reusable, up-rated Saturn-1 flying by 1975 they will have bigger oppotunities available to them. 

(Stopping this one here :) )

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: What if the Saturn IB had kept flying?
« Reply #35 on: 11/10/2014 06:58 pm »

Uhm, by that "logic" Jim the Saturn=-V could never have been built and nothing could be flown on the Saturn-1 as it would be "impossible" to get the payload to the Cape :) Upgrading KSC is a given (it happened for the Shuttle) and some upgrades of transportation is to be expected as well. (You actually shoot this idea out of the water later {pun intended} becasue they can and did ship the Skylab OWS section of the S-IVB stage by water from California to the Cape. So the capability already was in place to support such operations :) )


Wrong.  As I said, there are no spacecraft companies near waterways, only booster companies.   No real payloads were flown on Saturn I.
KSC was not "upgraded" for shuttle.  Existing facilities were used for payloads.  The only new facility came online after Challenger, PHSF, and its first use was a Titan IV payload.  The USAF had the SPIF, it was only "new" facility.
« Last Edit: 11/10/2014 06:59 pm by Jim »

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: What if the Saturn IB had kept flying?
« Reply #36 on: 11/10/2014 07:33 pm »
Now why on Earth would NASA keep flying the Saturn IB?  Well for one the infrastructure was all there, unlike with the actual Shuttle (in terms of pad infrastructure).  It would have been vastly cheaper to have kept flying the Apollo CSM atop the Saturn IB than to modify any other rocket to do the task. 
The problem is that NASA did not have the money.  It had to cancel both Saturns in 1967-68, thanks to Vietnam and LBJ's Great Society.  Later it did not even have enough funds to fly the Saturns that it had already built.  Two Saturn V and two complete Saturn IB rockets (along with first stages for three more) were never flown.  Any scenario that keeps Saturn IB alive has to include lots of money that wasn't there.
I don't know, Ed.  I was under the impression that the Shuttle itself wasn't exactly a a champion of cheap development.  If we were to compare the yearly costs of Shuttle development with the cost of a Saturn IB w/Apollo CSM launch, what kind of ratio do we get?
According to the following calculations, Apollo 7 cost about $920 million in today's dollars, assuming CPI inflation.  The real number would likely be higher.  NASA could probably only do two or three such missions on an annual STS budget.  For that they would only get crew, and not the payload that Shuttle also provided.
http://www.asi.org/adb/m/02/07/apollo-cost.html

On the other hand, NASA would have avoided the $14 billion then-year dollar cost of Shuttle development.

Or, two cargo one crew, or any combination there of actually :) And that assumes that the prices aren't adjusted to take into account enhanced capability and possible reusablity which is admittly harder to calculate.

And NASA didn't in fact "cancel" Saturn as much as not opt to continue production with another order. The cost to restart the Saturn lines was quoted in another thread and are not insignificant but if only the Saturn-1 was restarted the costs would of course be less than starting both and probably significanly less than re-starting the Saturn-V lines. The main reason that NASA lacked funding (OTHER than the falling budget that is) is because after 1970 funding was mainly allocated to Shuttle development rather than continued Apollo operations per the "Shuttle" decision.

We do have to keep in mind that NASA DOES have other requirements for funding (the "other" A and all that) so we can't assume that full funding will be available for NASA HSF operations but should probably assume that most of NASAs budget at any point will be directed that way.

So we can "assume" at this point that while overall less funding is available for operations and upgrading there is actually "more" general monies available for operations and upgrading, AND an earlier "start" date compared to Shuttle operations :) (Are we going to assume that Skylab-II flies? At this point we still have one (1) Saturn-V left and the pretty much "finished" Skylab-II so I think it would make sense to do so even if the "follow-up" is LMAS-type stations added to the basic Skylab-II station)

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: What if the Saturn IB had kept flying?
« Reply #37 on: 11/10/2014 08:06 pm »

Uhm, by that "logic" Jim the Saturn=-V could never have been built and nothing could be flown on the Saturn-1 as it would be "impossible" to get the payload to the Cape :) Upgrading KSC is a given (it happened for the Shuttle) and some upgrades of transportation is to be expected as well. (You actually shoot this idea out of the water later {pun intended} becasue they can and did ship the Skylab OWS section of the S-IVB stage by water from California to the Cape. So the capability already was in place to support such operations :) )


Wrong.  As I said, there are no spacecraft companies near waterways, only booster companies.   No real payloads were flown on Saturn I.
KSC was not "upgraded" for shuttle.  Existing facilities were used for payloads.  The only new facility came online after Challenger, PHSF, and its first use was a Titan IV payload.  The USAF had the SPIF, it was only "new" facility.

Jim your reaching here, badly :) You're "wrong" because of course you have no experiance or knowledge to base your "assumptions" on. Why? Because we're talking alternate history here. For a moment try to recall the orginal "assertion" which was the construction of "space station" modules BY THOSE SAME BOOSTER CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES at their home plants. Impossible right? Uh, no as you point out such was in fact done at Hunington Beach. JPL could never have transported a "large" probe to Los Angles harbor correct, Boeing couldn't find an oulet to the sea nearby? Huges had no access to any port? Need I go on? And that all of course assumes that no one thinks to build "modular" satellites that are assembled at the Cape for launch. Which is pretty silly considering ALL the aforementioned companies DID consider doing so should larger satellite and spacecraft be required.

Far fewer "changes" would have been required to be done to fit the already existing Saturn LVs than had to be re-done to fit and service the Shuttle stacks Jim so saying that KSC was not "upgraded" to fit the Shuttle is like saying, well that nothing at KSC was even CHANGED to fit the Shuttle and its operations which is obviously un-true.

Finally your trying to point out that "no real payloads" were flown on the Saturn-1/B is pretty silly. The Apollo-CM wasn't a 'real' payload? Nor the LM? The Skylab crews were "not-real" either then?

Jim; You'd be "right" if this was about what really happened and not what could have happened. Instead of building the Shuttle the idea is that they instead kept flying, finding missions for and kept improving the Saturn-1 launch vehicle. So far your argument has boiled down to "they didn't" and left it there :)

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: What if the Saturn IB had kept flying?
« Reply #38 on: 11/10/2014 08:47 pm »
Saturn-1 and limitations on "crew-and-cargo":

Lest we forget they DID actually study reusing the Apollo CM, (which if you read the reports they were onto the course of an early "ApolloLab" {aka DragonLab} configuration as well as land landings) which part of can be found here:
Volume-II
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19680020076.pdf
Volume-III
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19680017507.pdf
Volume-IV
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19680018420.pdf

Between this and the studies for the ferry CM it was pretty sure you could get to around 5 or 6 crew at some point. I once saw an illustration for a "full-size" (S-II stage) diameter reentry vehicle based on Apollo. Held around 20 astronauts in NOT very comfortable crowding but again I don't see saving the Saturn-V stages. So about the biggest assuming no LMSA that's about 20 feet in diameter... I'm still thinking an LRV fits the bill :)
(The other thing is a lifting body "HL10" or so would probably require redesigning and reinforcing the S-IVB stage to handle the ascent aero-loading, while a ballistic or biconic shape probably could be "spoiled" easier)

Again the main issue is needing something that can bring to the station and dock various "modules" and cargo. As suggested an "orbita manuvering module" built from LM parts might fit the bill. An arm on the station is shown often and in reality was a great help as well. An LM based orbital tug perhaps?

What's our 'assumed' up-mass at so far? Last I heard it was a set of 4 Titan boosters, some stretched tanks and air-lit H1s for around 48,000kg (105,821lbs) "plus" a couple of mt for improved materials by say 1975? Somewhere along the way we'd (I hope) want to assume some "loss" due to including resuability into the designs. I recalled the S-IVB recovery kit was supposed to mass around 6,000lbs (2,722kg) but not what was called for for the S-1B stage. (I seem to recall a mention of around 10,000lbs for the original "full-up" stop-10-feet-above-the-water system with solid retrorockets and all but I think that's more than a bit excessive.

Cost for production of a Saturn-1B was listed as 46.7 Million dollars in 1966 (343 Million today) of which about 2.5 Million was the eight H1 engines which we know could be recovered and refurbushed for 5% of the cost of a new engine. You're bulk of your costs is still the rest of the vehicle so how much can we "assume" in savings if they can reuse the whole S-1B and/or S-IVB stage? That would I think be the "deal-breaker" if you can't significantly decrease costs while increasing flight rates which is what the Shuttle was supposed to do.

Frankly we still don't have "hard" evidence of this being possible today let alone when this would have been running head-to-head with the idea of a fully reusable shuttle to service a space station. We're faced right here with much the same situtation that they had back then even though we KNOW how the Shuttle turned out. What numbers do we have to suppport our contention that continuing to fly the Saturn-1B even as an RLV has merit?
("I" am pretty sure that we can do so but have no idea where to start with the numbers we have on hand... Suggestions?)

Randy
« Last Edit: 11/10/2014 08:48 pm by RanulfC »
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: What if the Saturn IB had kept flying?
« Reply #39 on: 11/10/2014 09:46 pm »
1.  JPL could never have transported a "large" probe to Los Angles harbor correct, Boeing couldn't find an oulet to the sea nearby? Huges had no access to any port? Need I go on?

2.  And that all of course assumes that no one thinks to build "modular" satellites that are assembled at the Cape for launch. Which is pretty silly considering ALL the aforementioned companies DID consider doing so should larger satellite and spacecraft be required.

3.  Far fewer "changes" would have been required to be done to fit the already existing Saturn LVs than had to be re-done to fit and service the Shuttle stacks Jim so saying that KSC was not "upgraded" to fit the Shuttle is like saying, well that nothing at KSC was even CHANGED to fit the Shuttle and its operations which is obviously un-true.

4.  Finally your trying to point out that "no real payloads" were flown on the Saturn-1/B is pretty silly. The Apollo-CM wasn't a 'real' payload? Nor the LM? The Skylab crews were "not-real" either then?



1.  Yes, you have to go on because you haven't said anything right.   None of those locations could get a payload larger than shuttle class (15 feet diameter) to a port. 

2. That still is wrong. 
a.  The factory I&T area are still constrained to shuttle size.  Still have to built and test the payload assembled before breaking it down to send to the launch site.  Our "infrastructure" is still limited to shuttle size.  No vacuum chambers larger, no shaker tables that are larger.
b.  transportation infrastructure still limits one dimension to 15 feet. 

3.  Quite wrong.  Nothing was changed to "fit" the shuttle.  The existing facilities didn't have to be enlarged.  The O&C highboy was used as is for shuttle.  It was not upgraded.  Nor was SAEF-1/Weights & Balance/Pryotechnics installation facility which became the VPF.   Cape buildings such as AO, AM, S, ESA-60, DSTF etc were used as is.  GSE installed does not count as facility mods.

4.  CSM is not a "real" payload, it is manned and is excluded. 

Tags: Saturn IB saturn 1B 
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0