Author Topic: Skylab Reuse study- 1978  (Read 39236 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #60 on: 12/02/2008 03:29 pm »
I'm inclined to agree that it never would have happened, but I'm thinking that more for political rather than technical reasons.


I'm skeptical of the cost figures on several grounds.  First of all, probably one reason that Titan looked cheaper was that its fixed costs were could be borne in large part by the Titan ICBM.  But in 1970s, that advantage would vanish as ICBM run was completed.


To top it all off, the III-C's capability to LEO was only about 70% that of the IB.  Apparently that was adequate in 1970, but over then next two decades the Air Force spent billions upgrading the Titan (the 34D, the 4A and 4B) so that by the 90s it had about the same capability that the IB had demonstrated in 1966.

I think you and I are looking at flight rates for different reasons.  I was trying to estimate the demand for heavy launches, for which purpose the III-B is not relevant.  If I understand your point correctly, you're referring to the fact that the III-B's relatively frequent launches lowered costs.  That's a relevant point.  In my scenario, I suppose I would transfer the III-B's payloads to the Atlas-Centaur.  That wouldn't help Saturn's economics, but it would help Atlas's.

But then it does mean building a West Coast launch capability not only for the IB, but for the Atlas-Centaur as well.  I would have thought that wouldn't have been too big a deal, since VAFB was already capable of handling Atlas Agenas.  And if SLC-6 could be adapted for the Shuttle, then I would think it could be more easily adapted for the IB, which was more conventional in form than the Shuttle and lighter than either the Shuttle or the III-C.

IIIC wasn't a LEO vehicle, It was a GSO vehicle.  IB would have required a Centaur for GSO missions.  Both the Centaur addition and the high manpower costs of MSFC made the IB expensive

Atlas-Centaur wouldn't have worked on the west coast for those missions.  Agena was an integral part of the mission

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7276
  • Liked: 2781
  • Likes Given: 1461
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #61 on: 12/04/2008 05:21 pm »
IIIC wasn't a LEO vehicle, It was a GSO vehicle.

True, but drop the Transtage and you get the IIID, an LEO vehicle.

Quote
IB would have required a Centaur for GSO missions.  Both the Centaur addition and the high manpower costs of MSFC made the IB expensive

To perform the missions demanded of it in the 70s and beyond, the Centaur had to be adapted to the T-III anyway.  In Kaputnik's Saturn-as-universal-launch-vehicle scenario, the Centaur is adapted to the Saturn instead of the Titan.

Quote
Atlas-Centaur wouldn't have worked on the west coast for those missions.  Agena was an integral part of the mission

Hmmm, hadn't thought of that.  I suppose the stategy would be to accelerate the transition to a post-Agena platform.  In the meantime, one could launch unfueled Agena's on the Atlas Centaur in order to have the Agena as a platform.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #62 on: 12/05/2008 12:56 am »

1.  True, but drop the Transtage and you get the IIID, an LEO vehicle.

2.  To perform the missions demanded of it in the 70s and beyond, the Centaur had to be adapted to the T-III anyway. 

3.  Hmmm, hadn't thought of that.  I suppose the stategy would be to accelerate the transition to a post-Agena platform.

1.  The cost comparison is T-IIIC to S-IB.  The T-IIID was cheaper.  There were no T-IIID missions on the east coast

2.  T-IIIE only flew 6 operational missions.   T-IV is not part of the comparison.  That is a different class vehicle

3.  A transition to a post - Agena platform was not required until shuttle and 15 or more years later

Saturn IB was never a viable replacement for the T-III

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 369
  • Likes Given: 260
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #63 on: 12/05/2008 02:38 pm »
I believe the Titan IIIC was considered as a replacement for the Saturn IB.  And, as it turned out, with the halting of the Saturn IB/V lines, the Titan IIIC became the heavy lifter anyway

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15377
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8531
  • Likes Given: 1351
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #64 on: 12/05/2008 02:47 pm »
I believe the Titan IIIC was considered as a replacement for the Saturn IB.  And, as it turned out, with the halting of the Saturn IB/V lines, the Titan IIIC became the heavy lifter anyway

I don't remember it this way.  Saturn I (and then IB) arrived on the scene first, with the Army (ABMA, who had been shut out of the ICBM business in 1956 or so) initially proposing that Saturn serve as a universal, do-everything booster for the government.  The Air Force, with prodding from Martin (the contractor then developing Titan I), argued that Saturn was too much booster and too costly for its needs.  It proposed a Titan derivative (initially a fat all-liquid Titan).  Eventually, NASA used Saturn and the Air Force moved toward a Titan augmented by big-throat solids.  The matter was revisited a few years later when NASA sought funding to develop Saturn IB/Centaur.  NASA lost that battle and was forced to fall back on Titan III(E) for Viking/Voyager, etc. 

Titan III couldn't have launched Apollo.  Only Saturn could do that job.  But without a Saturn IB/Centaur, Saturn was left with no work once Apollo ended.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 12/05/2008 02:50 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #65 on: 12/05/2008 03:01 pm »
Dynasoar drove the T-III development

Offline Art LeBrun

  • Photo freak
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2128
  • Orange, California
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #66 on: 12/05/2008 03:35 pm »
Another rejected Saturn 1 option was to employ an Agena stage to replace Atlas-Centaur (proposed about 1962............)
1958 launch vehicle highlights: Vanguard TV-4 and Atlas 12B

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15377
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8531
  • Likes Given: 1351
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #67 on: 12/05/2008 04:52 pm »
Another rejected Saturn 1 option was to employ an Agena stage to replace Atlas-Centaur (proposed about 1962............)
Yes.  That was an MSFC proposal, back when MSFC was in charge of what was, at the time, a Centaur development program that was in disarray.  Von Braun suggested canceling Centaur (think of it!) in favor of sticking an already developed Agena on top of a two-stage Saturn I.  The net result of the proposal (among other reasons) was that NASA transferred Centaur program management from MSFC to Lewis (today's Glenn Center). 

 - Ed Kyle 

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 369
  • Likes Given: 260
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #68 on: 12/06/2008 03:05 am »
Here is the source for my somewhat mistaken statement about Saturn IB and Titan IIIC

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/ch5.htm

In particular:

As early as February 1961, an agreement between NASA's James Webb and the Pentagon's Roswell Gilpatric stipulated that neither agency would initiate the development of a new launch vehicle without first seeking the consent of the other. Then in 1962, a joint NASA-DoD Large Launch Vehicle Planning Group issued a report that contained a recommendation: "The 120-inch diameter solid motor and the Titan III launch vehicle should be developed by the Department of Defense to meet DOD and NASA needs, as appropriate in the payload range of 5000 to 30,000 pounds, low earth orbit equivalent." 16

The Titan III brought the prospect of wasteful duplication, for it competed directly with NASA's Saturn I-B. This Saturn carried over 36,000 pounds to low orbit. The Titan III-C, the first operational version, had a rated payload of 23,000 pounds; its immediate successor, the Titan III-D, raised this to 30,000. In addition to this, the projected Titan III-M promised to carry as much as 38,000. Nevertheless, as early as 1967, the President's Science Advisory Committee noted that "the launch costs of the [Saturn I-B] are about double those of the Titan III-M." 17

Because NASA was accustomed to receiving launch vehicles that the Air Force had developed, it yielded gracefully when the Saturn I-B came under pressure. NASA had conducted the initial flight test of a Saturn-class first stage as early as October 1961, at a time when the Titan III was still at the level of preliminary study. In view of this early start, and because the Saturn I-B was essential for Apollo, NASA went on to build 14 of them, though George Mueller hoped for more as he pursued Apollo Applications. When budget cuts hit home, however, NASA abandoned the Saturn I-B and turned to the Titan III-E Centaur. It had the energy to launch large payloads on missions to Mars and the outer planets, and did so repeatedly. 18

In addition to launch vehicles, NASA turned to the Air Force for facilities used for launch and tracking. When NASA's rockets flew from Cape [201] Canaveral, they proceeded down the Eastern Test Range-which the Air Force operated. That service provided tracking stations, and when NASA built stations of its own on the islands of Antigua and Ascension, they were co-located near those of the Defense Department.


Offline Kaputnik

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3078
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 819
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #69 on: 12/06/2008 09:04 am »
Why was Saturn so much more expensive than Titan?
"I don't care what anything was DESIGNED to do, I care about what it CAN do"- Gene Kranz

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 499
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #70 on: 12/06/2008 11:35 am »
(I suppose) because it was much "wider" and used a complex cluster of eight*Jupiter engines/tanks as first stage.

Titan looks more straightforward, two engines plus two large solids...

Aren't solids cheaper than liquid-fuelled engines ?

Btw thank you for the info on Saturn I/ Agena. Very useful.

Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #71 on: 12/06/2008 12:11 pm »
Why was Saturn so much more expensive than Titan?

MSFC processes were manpower intensive

Offline glanmor05

  • BWFC Fan
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 442
  • It's not all tea and medals!
  • Blackpool, England
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #72 on: 12/06/2008 12:12 pm »
OMG, just saw a picture on Wiki of a Saturn 1B on the mikstool (searching prompted by this thread).

Despite having been to KSC and seeing both Saturn V and 1B and reading the dimentions of both, its taken 'til now (seeing that picture) for me to fully understand the size difference!!  In my defence, I wasn't born 'til 72.

Amazing!!  I'd have loved to have seen one of those babies launch.
"Through struggles, to the stars."

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15377
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8531
  • Likes Given: 1351
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #73 on: 12/06/2008 04:31 pm »
Why was Saturn so much more expensive than Titan?

Titan IIIC was part of a larger system.  Martin produced and maintained Titan II ICBMs, which were on alert into the 1980s.  Some of those were converted for space launch use, with the final launch in 2003.  Martin built Titan IIIB boosters for space missions (with Agena upper stages),  with the last of those occurring in 1987.  Titan IIIC/D/E and 34D ran from 1965 to 1992.  Titan IV flew from 1989 to 2005.  There were 368 Titan launches (all types), with many more Titans than that manufactured over the years.  During two peak years, 27 Titan launches took place.  The Waterton Titan factory had reasonably steady business (for a U.S. missile plant) from 1956 until about 2003.   

In contrast, there were only 19 Saturn I/IB launches, and only 21 complete Saturn I/IB vehicles completed (along with two more S-IB boosters) between 1961 to 1975.  No more than three Saturn I/IB launches occurred in any one year.  The Saturn program hardly left the development stage, so it is difficult to know what its true operational cost might have been long-term had it eventually been adapted for unmanned missions.  We are left watching Russia launch Proton after Proton, Europe launch Ariane 5 after Ariane 5, and so on.  They're all Saturn I class launch vehicles (though with proper upper stages for GTO work). 

Also worth keeping in mind is that Saturn was built for manned launches.  Every Saturn variant was modeled full-scale for testing in the MSFC vibration stand.  Every single Saturn stage performed qualification testing on a test stand.  Titan stages did not go through the expense of such levels of testing, at least not during the later years.

Still, Saturn would never have competed with Titan's larger manufacturing base leverage.  Russia appears to have adapted this lesson with its Angara development effort.  The heaviest Angara is Proton/Saturn/Ariane class, but it is composed of smaller modules that can also be used for small and mid-sized launchers.  China's Long March series follows a similar path.  The U.S. EELVs use a bit of this type of leverage as well, though far less effectively to date.

Finally, keep in mind that Titan IIIC was smaller than Saturn IB, able to lift less to LEO and so on.  Smaller vehicles tend to cost less.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 12/06/2008 04:46 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline yinzer

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1509
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Skylab Reuse study- 1978
« Reply #74 on: 12/08/2008 05:00 am »
The bread and butter of the Titan launch vehicle program during the sixties was the KH-8, which weighed about 7000 pounds, had to go to sun-synch orbit from VAFB, and flew regularly.  The late sixties and early seventies saw Titan 3C used for geosync flights out of CCAFS, and only from the early seventies did you see the Titan 3D carrying the bigger KH-9 satellites to LEO.

Saturn was way too big for the smaller spysats, and would require a third stage for anything beyond LEO.  It wasn't until the nineties that LEO payloads grew to the point that they would fill a Saturn IB.  Too much rocket, too much money.
California 2008 - taking rights from people and giving rights to chickens.

Tags:
 

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