Quote from: edkyle99 on 12/28/2015 10:50 pmQuote from: Antilope7724 on 12/28/2015 12:11 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 KyleIf 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.
Quote from: Antilope7724 on 12/28/2015 12:11 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
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.
According to Astronautix.comSummaryLaunch Vehicle Flyaway Costs: Difference Payload (LEO) DifferenceTitan IIIC 66.7M -37.3M 13,1000KG -5,500Titan IIIM 17,000KG -1,600KGTitan IVA 89.3M -14.7M 17,7000KG -940KG Titan IVB: 84.3M -19.7M 21,000KG +2,400KGSaturn IB: 104.0M --.-M 18,600kgSaturn 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 dollarsTitan IIIMLEO Payload: 17,000 kg (37,000 lb) to a 185 km orbit.Launch Price $: 22.000 million in 1965 dollars.Titan IVALEO 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 dollarsTitan IVBLEO 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 IBLEO 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
Quote from: Brovane on 12/30/2015 07:58 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 12/28/2015 10:50 pmQuote from: Antilope7724 on 12/28/2015 12:11 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 KyleIf 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
Quote from: Brovane on 12/31/2015 01:54 amI 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_skywardI 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Antilope7724 on 12/28/2015 12:11 amWhat 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.
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.
DOD doesn't want to get in bed with NASA
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.
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.
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.
"The Saturn 1-B/Centaur program was terminated in 1968." - pg 85http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uiug.30112065968536;view=1up;seq=103
Quote from: Antilope7724 on 12/31/2015 04:23 pm"The Saturn 1-B/Centaur program was terminated in 1968." - pg 85http://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
Quote from: edkyle99 on 12/31/2015 04:38 pmQuote from: Antilope7724 on 12/31/2015 04:23 pm"The Saturn 1-B/Centaur program was terminated in 1968." - pg 85http://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 KyleSo which one is correct?
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
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.
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.