Author Topic: A re-engined Saturn IB  (Read 54267 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: A re-engined Saturn IB
« Reply #40 on: 12/31/2015 01:46 am »
As the DOD payloads get heavier the Saturn-1B then replaces the Titan-III LV.  The Saturn-1B becomes the main go to vehicle for Heavy Lift launches for the US.
This particular subject has been discussed extensively on these forums before.  Saturn IB would not, could not, have replaced Titan IIIC or Titan IIID, etc.  Saturn IB didn't have the necessary upper stage, it didn't have a West Coast launch pad, and it cost far, far more than the Titans. 

 - Ed Kyle

If NASA continued using the Saturn 1 instead of developing the Space Shuttle.  You could potentially have a scenario of the Saturn being used for DOD payloads instead of developing the Titan IV LV to handle the increased payload requirements for the DOD that the Titan IV handled.     

Wrong, that has discounted many time.  There is no scenario where the DOD uses Saturn vehicles.

Offline Brovane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • United States
  • Liked: 828
  • Likes Given: 1797
Re: A re-engined Saturn IB
« Reply #41 on: 12/31/2015 01:52 am »
According to Astronautix.com

Summary
Launch Vehicle                 Flyaway Costs:   Difference                    Payload (LEO)     Difference
Titan IIIC                         66.7M                -37.3M                        13,1000KG              -5,500
Titan IIIM                                                                                    17,000KG               -1,600KG
Titan IVA                         89.3M                  -14.7M                       17,7000KG              -940KG     
Titan IVB:                        84.3M                  -19.7M                       21,000KG                +2,400KG
Saturn IB:                      104.0M                   --.-M                         18,600kg

Saturn IB would need a West Coast pad and could not lift a fully fueled service module; about 50% of fuel was not laoded.

The Apollo would have to be redesigned somewhat, probably a smaller service module based on the Transtage, looking something like the attached or the Orion.                         





Titan IIIC:
American orbital launch vehicle. Titan 3A with five segment solid motors. Man-rated design originally developed for Dynasoar spaceplane.
LEO Payload: 13,100 kg (28,800 lb) to a 185 km orbit.
Launch Price $: 18.000 million in 1985 dollars.
Flyaway Unit Cost $: 66.700 million in 1965 dollars

Titan IIIM
LEO Payload: 17,000 kg (37,000 lb) to a 185 km orbit.
Launch Price $: 22.000 million in 1965 dollars.

Titan IVA
LEO Payload: 17,700 kg (39,000 lb) to a 185 km orbit.
Launch Price $: 400.000 million in 1985 dollars.
Flyaway Unit Cost $: 89.360 million in 1997 dollars


Titan IVB
LEO Payload: 21,680 kg (47,790 lb) to a 150 km orbit at 28.60 degrees.
Development Cost $: 15,800.000 million.
Launch Price $: 432.000 million in 1985 dollars.
Flyaway Unit Cost $: 84.300 million in 1996 dollars in 1999 dollars.

Saturn IB
LEO Payload: 18,600 kg (41,000 lb) to a 185 km orbit at 28.00 degrees.
Development Cost $: 1,002.200 million.
Launch Price $: 107.000 million in 1965 dollars in 1967 dollars

In this document I show a launch price of $55 Million for a Saturn IB in 1972 dollars.  http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/ch6.htm  This would get us about $312 Million in 2015 dollars. 

With a Titan IVB having a launch price of having a launch price of $432 Million in 1985 dollars.  This would equal a Titan IVB having a launch price of $900+ Million 2015 dollars.  Makes the Delta IVH look like a bargain.

For the Saturn-1B if production continued the 8xH-1 Engines could be swapped for a single F1A and which would simply the S-1B first stage and would reduce production costs and improve performance.   The S-IVB stage would have a J-2 engine swapped out with a J-2S engine which was designed to replace the J-2 engine with minimal changes.  These changes would push the payload of the Saturn-1B up to 24,000 kg to 185x185, 28.5 Orbit.  To me this would result in a fairly good LV at minimal development cost especially when compared to the Space Shuttle.  This LV would also be more cost effective than the Titan-IV as DOD payload increased in mass.   

As we can see with the Delta-IV it is certainly possible to modify SLC-6 at Vandenberg to take a LV the size of the Saturn-1B.  It is even possible to put in place the necessary architecture at Vandenberg to allow off-loading of large stages from ship transport. 
"Look at that! If anybody ever said, "you'll be sitting in a spacecraft naked with a 134-pound backpack on your knees charging it", I'd have said "Aw, get serious". - John Young - Apollo-16

Offline Brovane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • United States
  • Liked: 828
  • Likes Given: 1797
Re: A re-engined Saturn IB
« Reply #42 on: 12/31/2015 01:54 am »
As the DOD payloads get heavier the Saturn-1B then replaces the Titan-III LV.  The Saturn-1B becomes the main go to vehicle for Heavy Lift launches for the US.
This particular subject has been discussed extensively on these forums before.  Saturn IB would not, could not, have replaced Titan IIIC or Titan IIID, etc.  Saturn IB didn't have the necessary upper stage, it didn't have a West Coast launch pad, and it cost far, far more than the Titans. 

 - Ed Kyle

If NASA continued using the Saturn 1 instead of developing the Space Shuttle.  You could potentially have a scenario of the Saturn being used for DOD payloads instead of developing the Titan IV LV to handle the increased payload requirements for the DOD that the Titan IV handled.     

Wrong, that has discounted many time.  There is no scenario where the DOD uses Saturn vehicles.

I respect your opinion Jim but I can see a scenario were the DOD would use the Saturn, well a modified version.  http://wiki.alternatehistory.com/doku.php/timelines/eyes_turned_skyward
"Look at that! If anybody ever said, "you'll be sitting in a spacecraft naked with a 134-pound backpack on your knees charging it", I'd have said "Aw, get serious". - John Young - Apollo-16

Offline Antilope7724

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 411
  • Watched Freedom 7 on live TV
  • California
  • Liked: 278
  • Likes Given: 247
Re: A re-engined Saturn IB
« Reply #43 on: 12/31/2015 02:32 am »
As the DOD payloads get heavier the Saturn-1B then replaces the Titan-III LV.  The Saturn-1B becomes the main go to vehicle for Heavy Lift launches for the US.
This particular subject has been discussed extensively on these forums before.  Saturn IB would not, could not, have replaced Titan IIIC or Titan IIID, etc.  Saturn IB didn't have the necessary upper stage, it didn't have a West Coast launch pad, and it cost far, far more than the Titans. 

 - Ed Kyle

If NASA continued using the Saturn 1 instead of developing the Space Shuttle.  You could potentially have a scenario of the Saturn being used for DOD payloads instead of developing the Titan IV LV to handle the increased payload requirements for the DOD that the Titan IV handled.     

Wrong, that has discounted many time.  There is no scenario where the DOD uses Saturn vehicles.

In addition to the Saturn being uneconomical, I wonder if service rivalry entered into it? The Army team invented the Jupiter and the Air Force was forced to deploy it, but never really liked it. When the Army lost control of missiles with range over 200 miles, the Jupiter was an orphan forced on the Air Force. They never really liked it. It was basically DOA. They already had the Thor and used that for their satellites. The Jupiter went nowhere as a launch vehicle except for a few NASA launches as Juno. After the Jupiter was deactivated in Italy and Turkey, it was never heard from again.

Maybe the same was the case for Saturn, the Army developed it and NASA inherited the rocket and the Army rocket team. The Saturn was "not invented here" and the Air Force developed heavy lift from its Titan line of missiles. That may also be part of the reason the Air Force didn't adopt or further develop the Saturn.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: A re-engined Saturn IB
« Reply #44 on: 12/31/2015 02:39 am »

I respect your opinion Jim but I can see a scenario were the DOD would use the Saturn, well a modified version.  http://wiki.alternatehistory.com/doku.php/timelines/eyes_turned_skyward

I don't buy it.  Still non plausible.  Especially, the Delta 4000.
« Last Edit: 12/31/2015 02:41 am by Jim »

Offline Brovane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • United States
  • Liked: 828
  • Likes Given: 1797
Re: A re-engined Saturn IB
« Reply #45 on: 12/31/2015 03:08 am »

I respect your opinion Jim but I can see a scenario were the DOD would use the Saturn, well a modified version.  http://wiki.alternatehistory.com/doku.php/timelines/eyes_turned_skyward

I don't buy it.  Still non plausible.  Especially, the Delta 4000.

I respect your opinion but in this instance I disagree.  The DOD faced with the decision to either develop the Titan-IV for larger payloads or procure a Saturn derived launch vehicle that is already being actively used by NASA with a excellent launch record.  You then add on top to this the Saturn-1 having about 1/2 the launch cost of a Titan-IV.  I could very easily see a plausible scenario that the Saturn derived launch vehicle is chosen by the DOD. 
"Look at that! If anybody ever said, "you'll be sitting in a spacecraft naked with a 134-pound backpack on your knees charging it", I'd have said "Aw, get serious". - John Young - Apollo-16

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: A re-engined Saturn IB
« Reply #46 on: 12/31/2015 03:29 am »

I respect your opinion but in this instance I disagree.  The DOD faced with the decision to either develop the Titan-IV for larger payloads or procure a Saturn derived launch vehicle that is already being actively used by NASA with a excellent launch record.  You then add on top to this the Saturn-1 having about 1/2 the launch cost of a Titan-IV.  I could very easily see a plausible scenario that the Saturn derived launch vehicle is chosen by the DOD. 

Still not a viable scenario.

A.  NASA's flight rates for Saturn are unrealized just like the shuttles.  They wouldn't be launching anymore than SLS.
B.  DOD doesn't want to get in bed with NASA. It was forced for the shuttle
c.  the "lower' Saturn-1 costs are unsupported.  Same goes for the launch record.
d.  Titan IV is just a continuation of the Titan family.
e.  Saturn had no west coast capability and Saturn wouldn't be using the ITL on the east coast.  Both are non starters.
f.  Payloads define launch vehicles.  There is nothing pushing the DOD to Saturn.

People don't realize how ingrained Titan was with the USAF and NRO.  That is why early Atlas V look like a Titan
« Last Edit: 12/31/2015 03:32 am by Jim »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: A re-engined Saturn IB
« Reply #47 on: 12/31/2015 03:41 am »
In addition to the Saturn being uneconomical, I wonder if service rivalry entered into it? .... 
Maybe the same was the case for Saturn, the Army developed it and NASA inherited the rocket and the Army rocket team. The Saturn was "not invented here" and the Air Force developed heavy lift from its Titan line of missiles. That may also be part of the reason the Air Force didn't adopt or further develop the Saturn.
Each launch system was developed for its payloads.  Saturn was the reliable man-rated Apollo booster.  Titan was the cost effective solution for its needs.

Saturn IB was developed to orbit Apollo CSM (16.5 tonnes to 230 x 300 km x 31.6 deg).  Titan 3B was developed to orbit Gambit 3 (3 tonnes to 140 x 420 km x 110.8 deg) and, later, Jumpseat (0.7 tonnes to Molniya orbit) and Quasar (0.63 tonnes to 500 x 39,200 km x 57 deg).  Titan 3C and 3D were developed to orbit Hexagon (13.3 tonnes to 155x285 km x 94.5 deg) and DSP (1.04 tonnes to GEO) and DSCS (1.22 tonnes to GEO) and Kennen (13.5 tonnes to 300 x 500 km x 97 deg). 

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Usili

  • Member
  • Posts: 20
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 86
Re: A re-engined Saturn IB
« Reply #48 on: 12/31/2015 03:43 am »
What are you going to launch on the Saturn IB other than an Apollo capsule?  Its capacity is about 18,000kg to orbit. Are there enough large payloads to justify keeping it around without Apollo? Also, every time you launch, you throw away a potential Skylab in the S-IVB 2nd stage. Seems like a pretty expensive expendable launch system.

Well, deep space probes for one. The Saturn IB-Centaur as I understood would have had similar performance to the Titan IIIE, so that might have served as an effective platform for deep space missions by NASA alongside manned flights.

Offline Antilope7724

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 411
  • Watched Freedom 7 on live TV
  • California
  • Liked: 278
  • Likes Given: 247
Re: A re-engined Saturn IB
« Reply #49 on: 12/31/2015 05:34 am »
What are you going to launch on the Saturn IB other than an Apollo capsule?  Its capacity is about 18,000kg to orbit. Are there enough large payloads to justify keeping it around without Apollo? Also, every time you launch, you throw away a potential Skylab in the S-IVB 2nd stage. Seems like a pretty expensive expendable launch system.

Well, deep space probes for one. The Saturn IB-Centaur as I understood would have had similar performance to the Titan IIIE, so that might have served as an effective platform for deep space missions by NASA alongside manned flights.

von Braun never liked the Centaur due to its light balloon tank design. He had to be ordered by higher ups to oversee the Centaur progress for NASA Marshall. He was really only interested in the RL-10 use for the S-IV stage. NASA stopped development of the Saturn IB / Centaur in 1968.
I don't think NASA was ever very serious about adding the Centaur to the Saturn IB. Maybe because the funding wasn't there for its use beyond launching Apollo spacecraft.

Online mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 369
  • Likes Given: 260
Re: A re-engined Saturn IB
« Reply #50 on: 12/31/2015 07:15 am »


In this document I show a launch price of $55 Million for a Saturn IB in 1972 dollars.  http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/ch6.htm  This would get us about $312 Million in 2015 dollars. 

With a Titan IVB having a launch price of having a launch price of $432 Million in 1985 dollars.  This would equal a Titan IVB having a launch price of $900+ Million 2015 dollars.  Makes the Delta IVH look like a bargain.

For the Saturn-1B if production continued the 8xH-1 Engines could be swapped for a single F1A and which would simply the S-1B first stage and would reduce production costs and improve performance.   The S-IVB stage would have a J-2 engine swapped out with a J-2S engine which was designed to replace the J-2 engine with minimal changes.  These changes would push the payload of the Saturn-1B up to 24,000 kg to 185x185, 28.5 Orbit.  To me this would result in a fairly good LV at minimal development cost especially when compared to the Space Shuttle.  This LV would also be more cost effective than the Titan-IV as DOD payload increased in mass.   

As we can see with the Delta-IV it is certainly possible to modify SLC-6 at Vandenberg to take a LV the size of the Saturn-1B.  It is even possible to put in place the necessary architecture at Vandenberg to allow off-loading of large stages from ship transport. 

OK.  Trying to compare launch costs is like apples and oranges, because we do not have the data necessary to really compute it and its proprietary.  I used Astronautix numbers, not because they are necessarily right, but because he states the cost in a constant dollar value and it shows a general relationship.

And, while you did not cite Eyes Turned Skyward, lets quite using that to try to support your position.  It would be like me quoting Stephan Baxter's "Voyage" or me citing my Titan-Apollo thread as a reason we should have gone to Mars or maintained a post-Apollo shuttle program.  They are pleasant excursions, nothing more.  ETS also does not appear (I have not read the whole thing through quite yet) to cite hard numbers as to why things are.

The historical timeline shows that the country (people, president, and congress) did not support a long standing space program.  The shuttle was adopted because NASA did a good job selling it, even though it under delivered, and the leaders felt we had to continue in space.  Could we have turned to Mars or a space station?  Yes.  But we didn't.

This trend continues today, if it didn't (and perhaps if NASA was a little less arrogant), we would be flying Orion off of Delta IV to the ISS instead of hitching rides on Soyuz.  Even so, we will have to wait until at least 2023 (20 YEARS!) before SLS-Orion flies to nowhere and perhaps the CST-100 and Dragon 2 will fly before then to the ISS, but no where else.

1.  Saturn IB could not lift a fully fueled Apollo.
2.  Titan IIIM nearly closed the payload gap with Saturn IB at less cost.
3.  To sustain either a Saturn IB or Titan based HSF program, a new Apollo SM would have to be developed.)
4.  Saturn IB could not lift a shuttle size payload to LEO (24,400 KG, +5800 KG) but could have matched it with air frame lightening, further developed H-1s, or solid strap-ons.
5.  Shuttle was VERY Expensive,  Again from Astronautix.com"
          LEO Payload: 24,400 kg (53,700 lb) to a 204 km orbit at 28.50 degrees.
          Payload: 12,500 kg (27,500 lb) to a 407 km 51.6 deg orbit.
          Launch Price $: 245.000 million in 1988 dollars.
          Flyaway Unit Cost $: 63.000 million in 1977 dollars.
6.  Titan IIIM/IV could have launched the ISS at less cost.
7.  Shuttle was oversold and underperformed.
8.  A plausible alternative to the shuttle was the S-ID stage.  A stage and a half design, it dropped the four outer engines, could put itself into orbit, would have supported a two stage Saturn V variant of either S-ID+S-II or S-ID+SIV or the full stack, and provided the potential for recovery of the F-1 engine pod, providing greater payload at a similar level or reusability to the Shuttle.  (50,000KG)
9.  Aerospace companies and NASA undoubtedly wanted to build something new rather than maintain an old system with incremental improvements.
10.  NASA and DOD do not work well together.
11.  Public Opinion does not support a high tempo space program, NASA is unable to sell it (and in my opinion looks like it cannot even return to US launched HSF), Government does not support it, and unmanned operations appear to provide a greater ROI.  (unsupported claim by me)


With this little summary, I think there were two viable alternatives to the Shuttle, were we to focus on LEO operations and a space station.

1.  Use Titan.  We would have had to develop the new CSM combination, space station modules, and automated docking procedures.  In addition, we would probably have made an automated cargo vehicle.
2.  Develop the S-1D.

In terms of cost and development time (everything takes longer and costs more than you think it will - whatever it is, double it), and a greater commonality between NASA and DOD (perhaps supporting 4 pads) could have driven down costs and fully supported space station operations as we have seen with shuttle, the logical path is Titan.
 Remaining Saturn's could have been used to orbit space station components while new hardware was developed.

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: A re-engined Saturn IB
« Reply #51 on: 12/31/2015 01:40 pm »
Quote
DOD doesn't want to get in bed with NASA

I wonder about their reactions had NASA been forced by politics to use Titan III as the launch vehicle of a capsule (the shuttle being cancelled in this scenario)
Of course Viking, Voyager and Helios used LC-40 / 41. But imagine that instead of six launches and three years, NASA used LC-40/41 for twenty years at 4 flights a year, thus 80 launches ?

Would 4 annual NASA launches disrupt or disturb LC-40/41 use by the military ?

Quote
1.  Use Titan.  We would have had to develop the new CSM combination, space station modules, and automated docking procedures.  In addition, we would probably have made an automated cargo vehicle.

The Agena would have been perfect for the tug job. That rocket stage had a truly huge hidden potential. Got my own story here. Read, enjoy the ride, and happy new year.
http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=366697
« Last Edit: 12/31/2015 01:45 pm by Archibald »
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: A re-engined Saturn IB
« Reply #52 on: 12/31/2015 03:49 pm »
von Braun never liked the Centaur due to its light balloon tank design. He had to be ordered by higher ups to oversee the Centaur progress for NASA Marshall. He was really only interested in the RL-10 use for the S-IV stage. NASA stopped development of the Saturn IB / Centaur in 1968.
I don't think NASA was ever very serious about adding the Centaur to the Saturn IB. Maybe because the funding wasn't there for its use beyond launching Apollo spacecraft.
Saturn 1B/Centaur was canceled in 1965, along with plans for extensive Saturn IB flights for the Apollo Extension Series (AES).  These were the first big program cuts when NASA's Apollo-era budgets topped out.  Final cuts to Saturn IB itself took place in August 1968, when new-orders were canceled and production shutdown was initiated.

Centaur was a problem child.  Originally under MSFC control, it suffered multiple failures in ground testing, then failed during its first flight in 1962.  Von Braun subsequently recommended that Centaur be canceled, but NASA shifted management to Lewis Center under Abe Silverstein's control.  Lewis poured money into the project, increasing development costs from $59 to $350 million, but, still, three of the next four flights failed, including AC-5 which in 1965 blew up on and destroyed the single Atlas-Centaur launch pad then in use.  Given that record, it is easy to see why Congress and NASA HQ targeted Saturn IB/Centaur for cuts.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 12/31/2015 04:03 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Antilope7724

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 411
  • Watched Freedom 7 on live TV
  • California
  • Liked: 278
  • Likes Given: 247
Re: A re-engined Saturn IB
« Reply #53 on: 12/31/2015 04:23 pm »
A really good reference about the Centaur stage is: (you can read it on line)

Taming liquid hydrogen : the Centaur upper stage rocket, 1958-2002 / Virginia P. Dawson and Mark D. Bowles.

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uiug.30112065968536;view=1up;seq=1

Some quotes from the book about what I was referring to in my post above:

"Although Marshall had little interest in Centaur, the RL10 engine figured prominently in its
plans because von Braun was counting on an uprated version of the engine for the Saturn S-IV
liquid-hydrogen upper stage. In February 1960, he began to lobby to take over RL10 engine
management from the Air Force." - pg 26
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uiug.30112065968536;view=1up;seq=44

"Huntsville Indifference

As early as March 1961, Headquarters expressed increasing impatience with von Braun's
indifference to the fate of Centaur. Don Ostrander, Director of NASA'S launch vehicle
programs, began to pressure von Braun to exercise greater oversight of the program. He
presented him with a long confidential memo that almost certainly raised the hackles of the
Huntsville team. It included a management checklist. Ostarander called Centaur "the most
urgent task before us at this time." It was needed not only for Surveyor and Mariner, but also
for "its hardware contribution to Saturn." Ostarander demanded that Centaur be "supported
fully by the best talent available to Saturn." He instructed von Braun not only to submit
informal monthly progress reports to Headquarters, but also to deliver them in person..." - pg 31
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uiug.30112065968536;view=1up;seq=49

"The Saturn 1-B/Centaur program was terminated in 1968." - pg 85
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uiug.30112065968536;view=1up;seq=103
« Last Edit: 12/31/2015 04:26 pm by Antilope7724 »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: A re-engined Saturn IB
« Reply #54 on: 12/31/2015 04:33 pm »
You then add on top to this the Saturn-1 having about 1/2 the launch cost of a Titan-IV.  I could very easily see a plausible scenario that the Saturn derived launch vehicle is chosen by the DOD. 
Saturn IB/Centaur could not lift as much as Titan IV.  It would had to have been upgraded, just as Titan had to be upgraded.

Here is something else to consider when comparing Saturn IB/Centaur to Titan IIIC/D/E, etc.  Titan IIIC with Transtage was a launch vehicle that used solid motor boosters and hypergolic storable propellant upper stages.  Transtage itself used pressure fed hypergolic engines.  This relative simplicity allowed Titan IIIC to begin successfully placing satellites directly into GEO or near-GEO as early as 1966. 

Centaur did not achieve its first successful GTO mission until August 1969 (after Apollo 11!), and it didn't do long-coast 3-burn GEO-insertion flights until the mid 1990s on Titan IV, nearly three decades after Titan IIIC achieved the mark.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 12/31/2015 05:03 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: A re-engined Saturn IB
« Reply #55 on: 12/31/2015 04:38 pm »
"The Saturn 1-B/Centaur program was terminated in 1968." - pg 85
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uiug.30112065968536;view=1up;seq=103
"Saturn IB/Centaur terminated in mid-October 1965"
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4212/app-c.html

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Antilope7724

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 411
  • Watched Freedom 7 on live TV
  • California
  • Liked: 278
  • Likes Given: 247
Re: A re-engined Saturn IB
« Reply #56 on: 12/31/2015 04:42 pm »
"The Saturn 1-B/Centaur program was terminated in 1968." - pg 85
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uiug.30112065968536;view=1up;seq=103
"Saturn IB/Centaur terminated in mid-October 1965"
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4212/app-c.html

 - Ed Kyle

So which one is correct?

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: A re-engined Saturn IB
« Reply #57 on: 12/31/2015 04:54 pm »
"The Saturn 1-B/Centaur program was terminated in 1968." - pg 85
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uiug.30112065968536;view=1up;seq=103
"Saturn IB/Centaur terminated in mid-October 1965"
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4212/app-c.html

 - Ed Kyle

So which one is correct?
They cut funding in 1965, effectively killing the program.  It hung around as a future possibility, with proponents calling for it to be funded, until 1968.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Brovane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • United States
  • Liked: 828
  • Likes Given: 1797
Re: A re-engined Saturn IB
« Reply #58 on: 12/31/2015 07:45 pm »

Still not a viable scenario.

A.  NASA's flight rates for Saturn are unrealized just like the shuttles.  They wouldn't be launching anymore than SLS.

The flight rate would be dependent on need.  If a Saturn-1 is used to transport personnel/cargo to a Space Station (Instead of the Shuttle) then you would probably have a flight rate of 5-6 launches a year.  It isn't like the Cape is short of pads that can handle the Saturn-1.  I count 5 different pads that could handle the Saturn-1.

B.  DOD doesn't want to get in bed with NASA. It was forced for the shuttle

Very true. 

c.  the "lower' Saturn-1 costs are unsupported.  Same goes for the launch record.

The book "To Reach the High Frontier" shows a Titan IV launch cost of $500-$540 Million in 1993 dollars.

The cost of the Saturn-1B is referenced here (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/ch6.htm ) as $55 Million in 1972 dollars.  If we adjust for inflation we get $190 Million in 1993. 

$190 Million versus $500 Million is significantly.  Even if we take into account that CPI adjustment can throw of the figures some.  The Titan-IV was a incredibly expensive LV.  We can even adjust the Saturn-1B figures by 30% upward to take into account CPI discrepancies and we arrive at $250 Million.         

d.  Titan IV is just a continuation of the Titan family.

If NASA is flying a Saturn-1 derivative that could meed DOD launch needs for a average launch cost of about 50% of a proposed Titan-IV LV.  The DOD is going to pressed by Congress to explain why they should pay for a Titan-IV program.  The DOD answer of "We don't want to get in bed with NASA" isn't going to well received by Congress. 

e.  Saturn had no west coast capability and Saturn wouldn't be using the ITL on the east coast.  Both are non starters.

There is no technical reason why SLC-6 at Vandenberg couldn't be modified to launch a Saturn-1.  LC-37 launch complex could be modified to support DOD Saturn-1 launches just as it supports Delta-IV DOD launches currently. 

f.  Payloads define launch vehicles.  There is nothing pushing the DOD to Saturn.

Except financial pressure.

People don't realize how ingrained Titan was with the USAF and NRO.  That is why early Atlas V look like a Titan

I am very sure the Titan was ingrained with the USAF.  However if NASA is flying a LV that could meet the USAF needs at 1/2 the price of Titan-IV launches this is going to be a big stick to overcome any institutional inertia. 
« Last Edit: 12/31/2015 08:17 pm by Brovane »
"Look at that! If anybody ever said, "you'll be sitting in a spacecraft naked with a 134-pound backpack on your knees charging it", I'd have said "Aw, get serious". - John Young - Apollo-16

Offline Brovane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • United States
  • Liked: 828
  • Likes Given: 1797
Re: A re-engined Saturn IB
« Reply #59 on: 12/31/2015 08:14 pm »
OK.  Trying to compare launch costs is like apples and oranges, because we do not have the data necessary to really compute it and its proprietary.  I used Astronautix numbers, not because they are necessarily right, but because he states the cost in a constant dollar value and it shows a general relationship.

We do have the data to compute launch costs of the Saturn-1B and the Titan-IV.  I find it funny that all of a sudden when the figures show that the Titan-IV is about double the launch cost of the Saturn-1B you don't want to compare launch costs anymore. 

And, while you did not cite Eyes Turned Skyward, lets quite using that to try to support your position.  It would be like me quoting Stephan Baxter's "Voyage" or me citing my Titan-Apollo thread as a reason we should have gone to Mars or maintained a post-Apollo shuttle program.  They are pleasant excursions, nothing more.  ETS also does not appear (I have not read the whole thing through quite yet) to cite hard numbers as to why things are.

If we are looking at what theoretically a Saturn-1B with a F-1A engine and J-2S engine would perform then yes I will be using the numbers in "Eyes Turned Skyward" to cite what the theoretical performance of such a LV would be.  This entire thread is about if a Saturn-1B with a single F-1A would be viable. 

The historical timeline shows that the country (people, president, and congress) did not support a long standing space program.  The shuttle was adopted because NASA did a good job selling it, even though it under delivered, and the leaders felt we had to continue in space.  Could we have turned to Mars or a space station?  Yes.  But we didn't.

This trend continues today, if it didn't (and perhaps if NASA was a little less arrogant), we would be flying Orion off of Delta IV to the ISS instead of hitching rides on Soyuz.  Even so, we will have to wait until at least 2023 (20 YEARS!) before SLS-Orion flies to nowhere and perhaps the CST-100 and Dragon 2 will fly before then to the ISS, but no where else.

I don't doubt this.  The Nixon administration wanted to cut NASA spending.  This was a era of limits compared to funding NASA received in the 60's.

1.  Saturn IB could not lift a fully fueled Apollo.

For Earth Orbit you don't need a fully fueled Apollo SM. 

2.  Titan IIIM nearly closed the payload gap with Saturn IB at less cost.

A re-engined Saturn 1B with J-2S engine would lift 24,000kg to LEO and is large enough diameter to leverage the Apollo hardware that is already developed. 

3.  To sustain either a Saturn IB or Titan based HSF program, a new Apollo SM would have to be developed.)

A modified Apollo SM would have to be developed.  They certainly wouldn't have to start over from scratch with a Apollo derived SM.
 
4.  Saturn IB could not lift a shuttle size payload to LEO (24,400 KG, +5800 KG) but could have matched it with air frame lightening, further developed H-1s, or solid strap-ons.

The steps of replacing the 8xH-1 engines with a single F1A engine and a single monolithic tank would not only reduce the cost of the Saturn-1B 1st stage but it would also decrease the 1st stage mass. 

8.  A plausible alternative to the shuttle was the S-ID stage.  A stage and a half design, it dropped the four outer engines, could put itself into orbit, would have supported a two stage Saturn V variant of either S-ID+S-II or S-ID+SIV or the full stack, and provided the potential for recovery of the F-1 engine pod, providing greater payload at a similar level or reusability to the Shuttle.  (50,000KG)

From a development perspective the modification of the Saturn-1B to support a single F1A engine and replacement of the J-2 engine with a J-2S engine carries less risk and would require less funding.

9.  Aerospace companies and NASA undoubtedly wanted to build something new rather than maintain an old system with incremental improvements.

Don't disagree. 

10.  NASA and DOD do not work well together.

I agree.

11.  Public Opinion does not support a high tempo space program, NASA is unable to sell it (and in my opinion looks like it cannot even return to US launched HSF), Government does not support it, and unmanned operations appear to provide a greater ROI.  (unsupported claim by me)

A 4-6 launches per year of a Saturn-1B to support a Space Station in orbit isn't a high tempo space program. 

With this little summary, I think there were two viable alternatives to the Shuttle, were we to focus on LEO operations and a space station.

1.  Use Titan.  We would have had to develop the new CSM combination, space station modules, and automated docking procedures.  In addition, we would probably have made an automated cargo vehicle.
2.  Develop the S-1D.

In terms of cost and development time (everything takes longer and costs more than you think it will - whatever it is, double it), and a greater commonality between NASA and DOD (perhaps supporting 4 pads) could have driven down costs and fully supported space station operations as we have seen with shuttle, the logical path is Titan.
 Remaining Saturn's could have been used to orbit space station components while new hardware was developed.

All these options carry more development risk than just going with a re-engined Saturn-1B, which was the point of this thread. 
« Last Edit: 12/31/2015 08:18 pm by Brovane »
"Look at that! If anybody ever said, "you'll be sitting in a spacecraft naked with a 134-pound backpack on your knees charging it", I'd have said "Aw, get serious". - John Young - Apollo-16

Tags:
 

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