Author Topic: Landing a Saturn S-IB, Falcon 9 style  (Read 30515 times)

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Landing a Saturn S-IB, Falcon 9 style
« Reply #60 on: 03/10/2018 08:23 am »
Agreed, re: the first stage.  The biggest bang for the buck would have been to change the second stage, rather then mussing with the S-IB stage.  Shifting to a LOX/RP second stage powered by three Atlas sustainer engines, designed for Atlas sustainer type propellant mass fractions, could have reduced launch costs with minor loss of performance to LEO.  A benefit would have been that the entire machine would have used, essentially, the same engines as NASA's Atlas-Centaur.

But, as we've discussed, the first stage would had to have been substantially redesigned and re-engined  to achieve Falcon 9 like recovery - and recovery would have bit hard into performance.

 - Ed Kyle 

and with perfect hindsight, this is a Falcon 9R, just as Lobo said.  ;D

Now it only miss a Dragon 2. The closest thing would be Big Gemini.

So at the end of the day, S-IB reusable first stage + Atlas sustainer stage 2 + Big Gemini become a kind of 1975 poor man's SpaceX stack and (with perfect 2018 20/20 hindsight) we know it could work, unlike the Shuttle.
Hight flight rates, 50 000 pound to orbit, crew of 7 to a space station, partially reusable, fly off The Cape Apollo launch gantries.
What's not to like ?
(note: this post is not entirely serious. don't take it seriously).

now take Emmett Brown DeLorean and flyback to 1969 and show this concept to George Mueller, the "father of the space shuttle". And watch his reaction. I'm not sure the concept would really convince him.

Note: Mueller lived long enough (he died in 2015) to see Falcon 9 fly, and of course he showed SpaceX the way (somewhat) with Kistler... I wonder if he gave some interviews or oral history near the end of his life, it might be interesting to have the feelings of a veteran from the Apollo days...
« Last Edit: 03/10/2018 08:30 am by Archibald »
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Landing a Saturn S-IB, Falcon 9 style
« Reply #61 on: 03/12/2018 09:18 pm »
A 9th center engine would be necessary for any future potential attempt at propulsive landing), so just add it in right there),

I'm thinking that the 9th engine would have to have been of less thrust than the H-1, unless the H-1 could have been made to throttle down to about 100,000 lb.  The reason is that I suspect the hover-slam landing would have been beyond the capability of circa 1970 avionics.  On the other hand, without hoverslam, the whole landing is more propellant intensive, so maybe that's just another reason the concept would not have been practical.

Quote
So yes, a 1st stage with significantly better characteristics, for sure.  Otherwise, just going to a mono core and changing nothing makes little sense

Come to think of it, even though the stage's relatively high structural fraction didn't hurt its performance as a launch vehicle very much, it would have made rocket-powered boost-back and recovery very propellant thirsty.  So I suppose a first stage redesigned for much less weight was essential.  That then means, though, that the H-1 must throttle even deeper.  If you got the stage's structural fraction down to an F9-like 4%, that would be about 40,000 pounds' dry weight, giving the H-1 a very long way to throttle.

Another issue occurs to me with the whole concept, namely cost savings.  I don't know the ratio of the costs of F9's two stages, but for a first guess I'd start with the ratio of Merlins on each, making the second stage about 1/9 the cost of the first.  I'm sure it's actually more expensive than that (for one thing, it's got an Mvac, with a long nozzle that's produced in relatively low numbers).  But still, it seems likely that the first stage represents most of the cost of the rocket.

With the classic Saturn IB, however, studies of various improved versions show that the two stages are similar in cost.  The precise numbers depend on production rates for both the Saturns IB and V, since making S-IVB-500s for the Saturn V helps keep unit costs down for the S-IVB-200s flown on the IB.  But, the point is, you go to all this trouble and accept some loss of payload to recover only about half the value of the launch vehicle.  Probably not viable.
« Last Edit: 03/12/2018 09:19 pm by Proponent »

Offline Hog

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2846
  • Woodstock
  • Liked: 1700
  • Likes Given: 6866
Re: Landing a Saturn S-IB, Falcon 9 style
« Reply #62 on: 03/13/2018 12:55 pm »
Does having a new rocket that is designed for an erect/vertical landing mean that previous rockets would benefit from such a landing?

Looking cool/generating followers/getting hits is one thing, designing a rocket for a purpose using sound logic and engineering practices is another.  The synergy of both attracts the best of both worlds, but unfortunately also the worst.

Pic #1 side view of a Rocketdyne H-1 LOX/RP-1, Gas-Generator styled, rocket engine
Pic #2 performance of H-1 engine and its later uprating
Pic #3  8 Rocketdyne H-1s mounted on the Test Stand
Paul

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: Landing a Saturn S-IB, Falcon 9 style
« Reply #63 on: 03/14/2018 04:24 pm »
A 9th center engine would be necessary for any future potential attempt at propulsive landing), so just add it in right there),

I'm thinking that the 9th engine would have to have been of less thrust than the H-1, unless the H-1 could have been made to throttle down to about 100,000 lb.  The reason is that I suspect the hover-slam landing would have been beyond the capability of circa 1970 avionics.  On the other hand, without hoverslam, the whole landing is more propellant intensive, so maybe that's just another reason the concept would not have been practical.

As I said in my line there, a 9th engine would be necessary for any future potential attempt at propulsive landing.  Meaning, yes, it was probably impossible in the 1970's to do, as has been mentioned.  Especially with the H-1 itself, or even it's successor, the RS-27.  But to do it, you need a 9th engine, of some sort.  You need an odd number of engines.  With an even number, you need to land on two or four engines, then you need even deeper throttle ability than one.  So when the S-1B stage is replaced with a newer mono core version, add the 9th engine right then, and then 10 or 15 years down the road, when the technology is there for the guidance and other things, then you look at the engines and either come out with a new version of H-1/RS-27 that can sufficiently throttle, or come out with a new kerolox engine entirely if that's impossible to do with the H-1/RS-27.  But that would be after 10-15 years of operating this mono core expendably.  It doesn't have to land right away, but just plan for that capability later with that center 9th engine.  The additional thrust of the 9th engine, upgrading to RS-27, and additional propellant of the mono core, gives the upgraded Saturn 1B a decent performance boost too in the interim. 

So yes, a 1st stage with significantly better characteristics, for sure.  Otherwise, just going to a mono core and changing nothing makes little sense

Come to think of it, even though the stage's relatively high structural fraction didn't hurt its performance as a launch vehicle very much, it would have made rocket-powered boost-back and recovery very propellant thirsty.  So I suppose a first stage redesigned for much less weight was essential.  That then means, though, that the H-1 must throttle even deeper.  If you got the stage's structural fraction down to an F9-like 4%, that would be about 40,000 pounds' dry weight, giving the H-1 a very long way to throttle.

Another issue occurs to me with the whole concept, namely cost savings.  I don't know the ratio of the costs of F9's two stages, but for a first guess I'd start with the ratio of Merlins on each, making the second stage about 1/9 the cost of the first.  I'm sure it's actually more expensive than that (for one thing, it's got an Mvac, with a long nozzle that's produced in relatively low numbers).  But still, it seems likely that the first stage represents most of the cost of the rocket.

With the classic Saturn IB, however, studies of various improved versions show that the two stages are similar in cost.  The precise numbers depend on production rates for both the Saturns IB and V, since making S-IVB-500s for the Saturn V helps keep unit costs down for the S-IVB-200s flown on the IB.  But, the point is, you go to all this trouble and accept some loss of payload to recover only about half the value of the launch vehicle.  Probably not viable.

I don't disagree with any of that.  But when STS was built, reusability was more for optics than actual cost savings.  I think they'd originally looked at liquid fly back boosters for it, but the technology just wasn't there yet (like the S-1B propulsive landing in the 70's), but opted for SRB's instead.  But those need to be fished out of the ocean, towed back to Port, disassembled, and shipped back to Utah for refurbishing and refueling before being sent back to KSC for assembly.  I think even then they knew that wouldn't save any money, but they needed the optics of reusability, after Apollo with this huge Saturn V rocket that threw away everything but the tiny Command Module.
A propulsive landing S-1B was pretty much impossible in the 70's, but you could upgrade it with the future capability.  The optics would be there "Future landing reusable booster". (Plus that -is- the title of this thread.  ;)  ) And that's why I think a mini-shuttle would have been politically more viable than a Big Gemini or retaining the Apollo CSM or something.  As lifting body and runway landing tech was available in the 70's.  But keep it much more small and simple and easy with simple/robust TPS to do at that time with those budgets.   So now you have a reusable crew orbiter, and a booster that will be reusable in the future. 
They could try parachute and water landing in the interim if they wanted, for optics of reusability.  May not have saved any money after refurbishments, but it didn't for the SRB's either and that didn't seem to change the optics that the SRB's were "reusable".    And the H-1's had been tested in the salt water and came through pretty well, as I recall.  That should check the boxes of "reusability" that were sexy at that time, making this concept more plausible, IMO.

Now...what if they never actually got around to adding propulsive landing?  Oh well...like you said, it probably wasn't going to be a real cost savings anyway.  ;)   But there's things you say and do to get something built and flying.  Once it is, it's harder to cancel and switch horses down the road.  10 or 20 years later it's hard to cancel just because the booster never actually landed propulsively. 

The S-IVB was just a more expensive stage than the F9.  More cost effective would have probably to have made a kerolox upper stage that used an RS-27A vacuum engine.  That should have been cheaper and have had more commonality.  As I advocate over on my thread here:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36711.0

But if basically retaining Saturn 1B as a soley NASA rocket in the post Apollo era, and considering F9-like landings of the booster, hard to say if that entirely brand new stage would have be accepted at the time vs. retaining the existing S-IVB for some more production runs?   The mono core S-1B would be mostly a new stage, granted.  But for the purposes of this thread's title, a 9th engine would need to be added to the S-1B, and thus, more propellant to feed it (even more with the higher thrust RS-27's), so stretched Jupiter and Redstone tanks, who production would have been shut down for awhile by that time I think?  So by the time you have that modified S-1B, might as well just go mono core at that time while you are at it.  But the S-IVB was pretty much good to go as it was, with just upgrading the J2 to the cheaper/better J2S which was pretty much ready to fly at that time.  Then made incremental improvements and costs savings on it.  That was probably the more plausible way it would have lined up, IMO.  As always, I could be wrong.  :)
« Last Edit: 03/14/2018 04:28 pm by Lobo »

Offline Bloke2012

  • Member
  • Posts: 1
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Landing a Saturn S-IB, Falcon 9 style
« Reply #64 on: 04/04/2018 10:14 pm »
Hi guys. Long time lurker. This discussion reminded me of the first serious adult space book I purchased as a teenager in the 70s. Frontiers of Space, by Bono and Gatland. Which had descriptions of various plans for returning Saturn stages. These are the Saturn SIVb and S1c pictures that illustrated the plan. Hope these pictures are of interest.
« Last Edit: 04/04/2018 10:24 pm by Bloke2012 »

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: Landing a Saturn S-IB, Falcon 9 style
« Reply #65 on: 04/16/2018 05:24 pm »
Bloke,

Interesting.  Seems like it'd make more sense to land engine down though,even if not actually using the J2 to land, having some landing engines on the MTS would help keep a lower center of gravity than with the engine up top. 

The S-1C would makes sense to water land nose first, if they could keep the engines up out of the water, and to keep them from impacting first which could risk impact damage to the engines, as well as the salt water exposure.  Blowing the O2 dome would be the attempt to create a piston deceleration on impact and ballast the heavy engines to keep them up out of the water, as I understand.
Although I then wonder how much of the stage itself would be adequately reusable given the top dome needs replaced and the tanks are full of water.  And there could be damage of the barrel walls or tanks from that impact.  The jettisonable 4-engine ring concept of the S-1D seems more simple, and the engines are the most expensive bit of the whole stage.  They would hit the water, and be exposed to it, but with simple gas generator type engines, I don't know that that would be too hard to clean the up after.  Especially if there was a vessel downrange that could pluck them out of the water in short order, limited their salt water exposure to the bare minimum. 
Plus then you'd have the Saturn VB 1.5 stage to orbit booster that could be used stand alone.

Some pretty interesting concepts if history had taken a different tact and the Saturn hardware had been stuck with and continued funding.

Ironically, once you calculate up all of the money it took to develop STS, including modifications to KSC which was already set up for Saturn, they probably could have kept Saturn V and/or some INT derivatives and just flown that.   While adding in some limited reusability like the reusable S-1C, along with upgrades to the hardware and manufacturing process as they'd be building long term, rather than just in a limited batch or two...And saved money.

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Landing a Saturn S-IB, Falcon 9 style
« Reply #66 on: 04/18/2018 12:28 am »
Lobo wrote:
Quote
Bloke,

Interesting. Seems like it'd make more sense to land engine down though, even if not actually using the J2 to land, having some landing engines on the MTS would help keep a lower center of gravity than with the engine up top.

The whole 'landing' kit was supposed to mass around 6,500lbs with about half that for the 'legs' (deployable but of fixed length with no 'shock' absorption) and the 'crushable' landing segment. Which would pretty well 'balance' out the mass of the J2 and thrust structure or real close. Couple that with the reentry shield and the fact you're trying to keep it 'nose-forward' for most of the flight anyway landing on the 'nose' is actually easier than trying to transition the stage in flight. (Something SpaceX has learned quite well)

Since you are 'recovering' a second stage from full orbital velocity, you really just want to get it back down as simple as possible BUT you have to keep in mind that all this 'recovery' gear and systems have to deal with having adapters and payloads put on 'top' of them as well.

Quote
The S-1C would makes sense to water land nose first, if they could keep the engines up out of the water, and to keep them from impacting first which could risk impact damage to the engines, as well as the salt water exposure.

Note: The engines still get 'dunked' they just don't have to deal with a lot of 'impact force' initially. As it is the stage "gradually" (over about three minutes was the value IIRC) rolls over to an 'engine-down' and the LOX tank drains of water. The empty RP1 tank keeps the whole thing afloat.

Quote
Blowing the O2 dome would be the attempt to create a piston deceleration on impact and ballast the heavy engines to keep them up out of the water, as I understand.

Half right :) Air trapped in the LOX tank blows out a set of installed 'holes' in the base of the tank using the air and water as an impact cushion. Because you have those 'holes' you can't seal the tank again so the whole thing WILL rollover to an 'engine-down' stable position. The RP1 tank which is still sealed, (we'd hope :) ) ends up being the main floatation system for the stage.

Quote
Although I then wonder how much of the stage itself would be adequately reusable given the top dome needs replaced and the tanks are full of water. And there could be damage of the barrel walls or tanks from that impact.

Part of the mass increase is strengthening the sides of the tanks and vehicle structure to take the impact loads. The LOX dome WAS a separate part of the tank and it's instillation (supposedly) being observed by WVB was the inspiration for the idea from what I understand. "Static" tests in a pool with a Redstone rocket and Jupiter tankage showed it was workable but how so "in-real-life" is a question.

Quote
The jettisonable 4-engine ring concept of the S-1D seems more simple, and the engines are the most expensive bit of the whole stage. They would hit the water, and be exposed to it, but with simple gas generator type engines, I don't know that that would be too hard to clean the up after. Especially if there was a vessel downrange that could pluck them out of the water in short order, limited their salt water exposure to the bare minimum.

Well they were 'assuming' the testing of the H1 would be applicable to the F1 but since the never actually tried it... As for being 'simpler' you're right but... Recovery of the 'ring' was problematical as Michel Van noted in the other thread:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45341.msg1810605#msg1810605

And you'd need some sort of 'impact attenuation' system which you don't have with the ring but do with the stage itself. Plus the engines ARE going to is the water bell first which is a problem and maybe a big one without MORE weight in a set of radar activated retro-rockets, (which was initially suggested for the Saturn-1 recovery for the same reason; it landed engines down) and all that implies.

Quote
Plus then you'd have the Saturn VB 1.5 stage to orbit booster that could be used stand alone.

Well yes, but for how much cargo on-orbit compared to the overall cost? Between 49Klbs and 63Klbs according to Boeing as long as they used stretched tanks. Otherwise it couldn't make orbit with any payload. Simpler but is it cost effective?

Quote
Some pretty interesting concepts if history had taken a different tact and the Saturn hardware had been stuck with and continued funding.

Well, yes that was my initial point a while ago :)

Quote
Ironically, once you calculate up all of the money it took to develop STS, including modifications to KSC which was already set up for Saturn, they probably could have kept Saturn V and/or some INT derivatives and just flown that. While adding in some limited reusability like the reusable S-1C, along with upgrades to the hardware and manufacturing process as they'd be building long term, rather than just in a limited batch or two...And saved money.

Well, actually the answer at the time wasn't as clear. The STS was supposed to be fully reusable from the start and that it wasn't nor was it as 'cost-effective' as promised wasn't an 'engineering' issue but a political and policy issue. If the US committed to continuing to go to the Moon 'occasionally' keeping Saturn and Apollo with some reusability might make sense. We weren't and so Saturn had to die and be replaced with what was hoped would be an economical and regular access to space vehicle which the OTL-STS wasn't. OTL-STS was NASA trying to 'retain' heavy lift while at the same time placing manned spaceflight in the forefront of operations mode. It was the "right" answer to the "wrong" question but given that politically and publicly there was going to be no further support for Saturn and Apollo (both of which were inextricably tied to the "Lunar" and beyond mission) the 'answer' seemed to be to build a reusable "Saturn" class LV from the ground up.

As it was there was a significant lack of support for even the STS we got let alone something 'better' or more capable

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: Landing a Saturn S-IB, Falcon 9 style
« Reply #67 on: 04/18/2018 12:29 am »
Bloke2012, thanks for the scans of the SIVB concept. They are hard to find. As for the S1C recovery you can find the full pamphlet here:
http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum29/HTML/000880.html

Annoyingly what's in the book is about it for 'details' on the concept :(

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 Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Landing a Saturn S-IB, Falcon 9 style
« Reply #68 on: 04/18/2018 04:44 am »
Frontiers of space is such an amazing book. Highly recommended reading, folks !
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: Landing a Saturn S-IB, Falcon 9 style
« Reply #69 on: 04/18/2018 04:48 pm »
Hiya Ranulf,

The whole 'landing' kit was supposed to mass around 6,500lbs with about half that for the 'legs' (deployable but of fixed length with no 'shock' absorption) and the 'crushable' landing segment. Which would pretty well 'balance' out the mass of the J2 and thrust structure or real close. Couple that with the reentry shield and the fact you're trying to keep it 'nose-forward' for most of the flight anyway landing on the 'nose' is actually easier than trying to transition the stage in flight. (Something SpaceX has learned quite well)

That does make more sense then.  However you've created the issue of having to have doors in your nose heat shield in order to land on the nose like this.  I'm not saying it can't be done, and indeed was for STS and X-37B, but those are obviously points of failure in the heat shield. 
I suppose of doing a 180 degree transition prior to landing was thought to be too difficult, then that might be considered a necessary trade.  But I still think it'd have been better try to develop transition, and then keep all the extra mass in the base, and an uninterrupted TPS.  As always, I could be wrong.  :)

Note: The engines still get 'dunked' they just don't have to deal with a lot of 'impact force' initially. As it is the stage "gradually" (over about three minutes was the value IIRC) rolls over to an 'engine-down' and the LOX tank drains of water. The empty RP1 tank keeps the whole thing afloat.

Ahhh...thanks for all of the good info there on the ballute S-1C landing concept


Well they were 'assuming' the testing of the H1 would be applicable to the F1 but since the never actually tried it... As for being 'simpler' you're right but... Recovery of the 'ring' was problematical as Michel Van noted in the other thread:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45341.msg1810605#msg1810605

This actually gets back to something I posted on my thread about cost comparison of Saturn 1B vs. Saturn VB/S-1D.  If they were just retaining the S-1C stage as a 1.5 stage to orbit LV for support of a LEO space station and have some sort of small reusable spacecraft (HL-20 or similar), then an interesting concept would be to replace the F-1's with H-1's, and go a little Falcon style with several small, cheap, mass produced engines which could accommodate an engine out scenario.  -AND- they test resistant to sea water.  Obviously such an LV doesn't need all of that thrust that 5XF-1's produced, as it's only needing to get 20-25mt payload off the ground, rather than the S-II, S-IVB, plus payload of the whole Saturn V stack.
Also the H-1's (and derivatives) would then be shared with other LV's of the post-Apollo era like Atlas and Delta for cost sharing.  I actually kinda like that concept.  The MPS would need to be redesigned, but it would needed to have been anyway with a jettisonable engine ring.

And you'd need some sort of 'impact attenuation' system which you don't have with the ring but do with the stage itself. Plus the engines ARE going to is the water bell first which is a problem and maybe a big one without MORE weight in a set of radar activated retro-rockets, (which was initially suggested for the Saturn-1 recovery for the same reason; it landed engines down) and all that implies.

Would the ring have to land bells down?  Could the chutes be attached in a way so that it hit the water engines up?  So that the structure hit the water first, which seems like it could more easily be made to withstand that impact.  Perhaps an airbag could be added to help cushion the impact, to avoid the concept of retro rockets all together.


Quote
Plus then you'd have the Saturn VB 1.5 stage to orbit booster that could be used stand alone.

Well yes, but for how much cargo on-orbit compared to the overall cost? Between 49Klbs and 63Klbs according to Boeing as long as they used stretched tanks. Otherwise it couldn't make orbit with any payload. Simpler but is it cost effective?
*snip*
Well, actually the answer at the time wasn't as clear. The STS was supposed to be fully reusable from the start and that it wasn't nor was it as 'cost-effective' as promised wasn't an 'engineering' issue but a political and policy issue.

I think it'd be pretty cost effective if the whole Saturn V stack and SAturn 1B were not to be retained, but only some Saturn hardware.  As we know, the most likely path post Apollo no matter what was to go to LEO to man and service a space station.  That's what the Shuttle was envisioned to do, until Nixon said NASA could have the Shuttle or Space Station, but not both. (If memory serves correctly).   So all of these hypotheticals sort of assume NASA chose option B instead of Option A.  As amazing as it would have been for the whole Saturn stack to be retained and funding allocated for more lunar missions, that just wasn't the reality of the day.  But I also find it hard to wrap my head around the decision to scrap all of that hardware and development and start over.  I get STS was over promised, and overly optimistic, but still.  These are some brilliant minds involved at the time.  There must have been those who had a pretty good idea that it wasn't going to work out like advertised.  The paint was barely dry on the Saturn hardware and launch facilities for Pete's sake!  Burning it all to the ground (figuratively) and starting fresh after only a couple years of operation just blows my mind.  Had pragmatism won out, then I think this S-1D LV could have been cost effective, yea.  All the facilities were already set up to process and launch it.  It fit with the ML's already (except the modified milk stool one, but that could be easily modified back).  etc.  Put an HL-20 type reusable shuttle on top, and recover the majority of the engines, and there you have as much reusability as the shuttle had basically, and similar payload.  Just have to launch the space station segments without the crew, but the Russians did that pretty well with Mir and their portion of the ISS.  So don't see much issue with building a space station like that.

So just retain that one bit as a 1.5 stage "Large Atlas" booster, and work on having the recoverable engine ring.   Maybe even better if refitted with H-1 engines.  The H-1C variant that wasn't developed would have had the H-1 at 250klbs of thrust.  Probably could have gotten away with maybe 2-3 of those fixed to the stage in the center, and an engine ring of maybe 18?  Maybe some extended nozzles on the center ones for better vacuum performance.
The S-1C was about 5Mlbs weight wet.  25mt of payload would be another 55,000lbs.  So at 250,000lbs each H-1C, around 21 would be needed to get it off the ground, assuming a stretch wasn't needed.  Would have significantly less engine mass too, although that's just a small fraction of the total fueled mass.

The ballute landing S-1C would only have worked if an upper stage was retained as well, obviously.  It might not have allowed for effective reuse of the tanks themselves, given how many "give" points it needs, but as you said, the stage may have just been useful to land the F-1 engines intact, which then could be reused.

« Last Edit: 04/18/2018 04:51 pm by Lobo »

Offline libra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1818
  • Liked: 1228
  • Likes Given: 2357
Re: Landing a Saturn S-IB, Falcon 9 style
« Reply #70 on: 05/23/2021 04:08 pm »
Bringing back this oldie to life.

I've cleaned up the Bellcomm document "Propulsive landing of ballistic vehicles" dated June 30, 1971 - incredibly enough, two days after Elon Musk was born (fate ? destiny ?)

Attached is also a paper about the X-24C propulsion: which had to throttle down for cruise at mach 6. The solution they found was a mix of Atlas LR-105 (derated) and LR-101 verniers.

(excerpt below)

Quote
The propulsion system selected as the prime candidate was the Rocketdyne LR-105 rocket engine with twelve Rocketdyne LR-101 Atlas vernier engines, due to the mass growth potential it provided.

As far as the basic thrust engine and vehicle performance are concerned, the LR-91 (Titan 2nd stage), and LR-105, Atlas sustainer, are essentially the same.

The LR-81 Agena engines were ruled out because of the highly toxic IRFNA oxidizer.

The LR-99 was specified for study because it is man rated, throttleable, and available. Due to the limited throttling capability of the basic LR-99 and LR-105 (132.6 kN and 204.6 kN, respectively, compared to 71.2 kN required) other cruise modes needed consideration.

Excess thrust during cruise is detrimental in two respects. Excess propellant is burned and the speed brake requirements add considerable vehicle mass.

A derated LR-105 was included with a throttling capability down to 57.8 kN.

Several cruise engine options were included. To allow flexibility between rocket cruise time and boosted Mach number, a common propellant is required. LR-101's are compatible with the LR-105 and, in fact, can utilize the LR-105 propellant pumping system.

This gives a high degree of flexibility insofar as number of chambers used in combination with the potential throttling capability of the LR-105 pumps. The LR-101 thrust can vary from 2. 74 to 6. 23 kN per chamber.

Sooo, since the H-1s were not able to throttle, I was wondering about the following alternative: replace the four outer H-1s with four  "mix" of derated LR-105 + verniers, for a smooth landing.

Later the four H-1 in the center could be replaced by a F-1 but that's another story.

Thoughts ?

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: Landing a Saturn S-IB, Falcon 9 style
« Reply #71 on: 06/04/2021 07:16 pm »
Quote from: libra link=topic=45031.msg2242435#msg2242435


Sooo, since the H-1s were not able to throttle, I was wondering about the following alternative: replace the four outer H-1s with four  "mix" of derated LR-105 + verniers, for a smooth landing.

Later the four H-1 in the center could be replaced by a F-1 but that's another story.

Thoughts ?

Well, that's not a bad line of thinking, in my opinion.
But the LR-105's only had maybe 1/4 of the thrust that the H-1 was going to be upgraded to.  And I don't think you'd want to keep the F-1 production line running if it was only going to produce a few a year.  Those were very expensive engines.  Even if the stages were landed and reused, you would probably run into a SSME situation where they were reused, but the costs of refurbishment between flights and very low production rates meant they still ended up costing about as much as new engines.
Better would be to mass produce the H-1's and upgrade them to be throttleable.
Both the H-1 and LR-105 were kerolox Rocketdyne engines, one would think they should be able to make H-1's throttle as the LR-105's were.  If for some reason they couldn't, then might be better to redesigng the MPS and put a cluster of gimballed LR-105's in the center, and then put a ring of fixed H-1's around the outside.  There was lots of room on the S-1B to accommodate those engines as it was so wide....like a fat F9 thrust puck.    You'd want your throttleable landing engines in the center rather than around the outside ideally.  So just invert the gimballed and fixed engines on the thrust puck.   If you had say 2 or three LR-105's in the center gimballing, then it should still have control authority in case of a loss of a center engine during ascent so at least the mission should still be successful.  IF you have just one center gimballing H-1 and you lose it, you lose control authority and thus the whole mission.
I'm not necessarily a fan of having a "mix" of engines on the same stage, but if the LR-105's costs were being shared with Atlas during that time, then it might not be too bad.
It's a plausible idea I'd think.
« Last Edit: 06/10/2021 01:29 am by Lar »

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Landing a Saturn S-IB, Falcon 9 style
« Reply #72 on: 06/10/2021 10:25 am »
I've cleaned up the Bellcomm document "Propulsive landing of ballistic vehicles" dated June 30, 1971

Thanks!  Would you happen to have the original document?

Offline libra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1818
  • Liked: 1228
  • Likes Given: 2357
Re: Landing a Saturn S-IB, Falcon 9 style
« Reply #73 on: 06/10/2021 11:00 am »
I just can't believe it wasn't attached to this thread but... frack, it wasn't. "Weirder and weirder" as would say Alice (in wonderland).

http://americanrocketnews.com/19790072472_1979072472_Propulsive_Landing_of_Ballistic_Vehicles.pdf

And attached.
« Last Edit: 06/10/2021 11:04 am by libra »

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Landing a Saturn S-IB, Falcon 9 style
« Reply #74 on: 06/10/2021 12:37 pm »
http://americanrocketnews.com/19790072472_1979072472_Propulsive_Landing_of_Ballistic_Vehicles.pdf

And attached.

Thanks!  And bravo for attaching the paper, since we've all learned the hard way that links don't always last.

Next question:  how did you find that link?  I've gone to americanrocketnews.com but see no evidence of documents available on the site.  Are there more nuggets to be downloaded from that site?

Offline laszlo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 920
  • Liked: 1235
  • Likes Given: 530
Re: Landing a Saturn S-IB, Falcon 9 style
« Reply #75 on: 06/10/2021 03:46 pm »
...The reason is that I suspect the hover-slam landing would have been beyond the capability of circa 1970 avionics.  ...

1970's avionics were plenty capable for a hoverslam. They were better than what landed us on the moon, so controlling a powered descent on Earth was not out of the question. For example, by the time of the ASTP flight in 1975, hand-held calculators were capable of performing the rendezvous calculations that were originally done by the AGC.

Even 1950's electronics would have been able to handle it. It would have just been a matter of keeping the avionics on the ground and the control circuitry on the rocket. Doing the heavy number crunching on the ground with dedicated mainframes and just sending the solution to the booster, sort of the way Alexa interprets a voice request at the Amazon server farm instead of in your living room would allow very simple gear on the booster. By landing at a heavily instrumented range with a small mainframe farm, the on-board avionics could have been limited to telemetry and control radios and standard auto-pilot control circuitry, basic 1950's stuff.

Avionics is not what kept us from having a fly-back S-1B.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Landing a Saturn S-IB, Falcon 9 style
« Reply #76 on: 06/10/2021 04:23 pm »
Even 1950's electronics would have been able to handle it.

wrong.  Most "electronics" in rockets in the 50's was mechanical cams for control.  And you are ignoring GPS.

Offline libra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1818
  • Liked: 1228
  • Likes Given: 2357
Re: Landing a Saturn S-IB, Falcon 9 style
« Reply #77 on: 06/10/2021 04:29 pm »
http://americanrocketnews.com/19790072472_1979072472_Propulsive_Landing_of_Ballistic_Vehicles.pdf

And attached.

Thanks!  And bravo for attaching the paper, since we've all learned the hard way that links don't always last.

Next question:  how did you find that link?  I've gone to americanrocketnews.com but see no evidence of documents available on the site.  Are there more nuggets to be downloaded from that site?

You are welcome.  I knew I had it on my HD but felt lazy (and on the wrong computer)

So I went browsing on the Internet / Google. I knew vaguely the title but I wasn't finding the damn thing.

In the end it can be found putting "Propulsive Landing ""Ballistic Vehicles" on Google; brings the website you have identified.

Which I had never heard of before !

In passing, this document was on the NTRS (and thus Google searches) a long time ago - I have it on my HD since 2012 at least -  but it is no longer there and can't be found easily or at all, except at that website.

Offline libra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1818
  • Liked: 1228
  • Likes Given: 2357
Re: Landing a Saturn S-IB, Falcon 9 style
« Reply #78 on: 06/10/2021 04:37 pm »
http://americanrocketnews.com/

Eureka ! It is a "spinoff" of an alternate history at  AH.com.

An alternate space history

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/rockwell-flyer-the-story-of-the-x-33-and-beyond-timeline-in-a-post.444834/

They seemingly have created a website for the story (pretty cool idea when you think about it).

And I know one of the authors has posted right here a while back ;)

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Landing a Saturn S-IB, Falcon 9 style
« Reply #79 on: 06/10/2021 04:47 pm »
But is there some way of searching for documents on americanrocketnews.com when we have no idea what they may be called?

By the way, I just googled "propulsive landing of ballistic vehicles" and got a link to the same Bellcom paper at www.cizadlo.us.  But, again, I have no idea how to find other papers that may be publicly available there.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1