Ok, I wasn't the first to come up with the "reusable" Saturn-1B and S-IVB idea Searching the internet for an illustration for the recoverable S-IVB Douglas proposed I found this yarchive thread titled, "Shuttle Alternatives"http://yarchive.net/space/shuttle/shuttle_alternatives.html Henry Spence came up with it first it seems
Quote from: Lobo on 11/03/2014 04:53 pmQuote from: mike robel on 11/01/2014 08:59 pmWell, except in our little world, the Shuttle didn't get built.Yup.Which means we'd likely be looking at a 10m booster derived from the S-1C (like the S-1D), or a 6.6m booster, the S-1B or derivative thereof....if talking Saturn legacy hardware.If Saturn 1B was kept, I always kind of thought a monocore 6.6m booster could be made from the S-IVB tooling. If the S-IVB production had been brought to MAF, and then and "S-1B/2" monocore booster made, perhaps with an "H-1C" upgraded engine.All of this would be over time of course, not right away. There'd be no rush to replace the clustered S-1B, but the S-IVB tooling is already monocore 6.6m, so there's really no reason (other than political) that the two stages couldn't be made in the same facility on the same line. MAF would be the likely choice, as even a monocore S-1B stage is probably too long/heavy for the Superguppy to fly from West Coast to KSC. If at MAF then the stages could be tested at Stennis and barged up to KSC.Hmmm hadn't thought of that per-se, I was expecting "new" S-1B tooling to be installed at Michoud while S-IVB remained in California. Guess it would depend on how pulled what strings Question on "Apollo" upgrading; I'm thinking intially the stack would evolve to something like the F9R/Dragon V2 in that the first stage is ocean recovered down-range, the second stage is ballistically landed after a few orbits and the modified CM/SM is then ballisticaly landed on-land at the end of mission. Then as the second stage is modifed towards full-recovery (VTVL) would the Apollo CM remain or become something more like a simple "capsule" module for emegency use only? I don't think it would have evolved into a unitary vehicle totally given the need to launch outsized cargo during some missions. (Something less than the SASSTO but more like the figure 2 here: http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/single_stage_to_orbit_vertical_takeoff_and_landing_concept_technology_challenges.shtml ) a more flexible configuration would be prefered but I'm suspecting this is me projecting 20/20 hindsight. However I don't see much of anyway to have abort capability as I don't think the J-2 (even the S version) had the capability to lift the upper-stack away without some sort of solid rockets.Randy
Quote from: mike robel on 11/01/2014 08:59 pmWell, except in our little world, the Shuttle didn't get built.Yup.Which means we'd likely be looking at a 10m booster derived from the S-1C (like the S-1D), or a 6.6m booster, the S-1B or derivative thereof....if talking Saturn legacy hardware.If Saturn 1B was kept, I always kind of thought a monocore 6.6m booster could be made from the S-IVB tooling. If the S-IVB production had been brought to MAF, and then and "S-1B/2" monocore booster made, perhaps with an "H-1C" upgraded engine.All of this would be over time of course, not right away. There'd be no rush to replace the clustered S-1B, but the S-IVB tooling is already monocore 6.6m, so there's really no reason (other than political) that the two stages couldn't be made in the same facility on the same line. MAF would be the likely choice, as even a monocore S-1B stage is probably too long/heavy for the Superguppy to fly from West Coast to KSC. If at MAF then the stages could be tested at Stennis and barged up to KSC.
Well, except in our little world, the Shuttle didn't get built.
That, and the elephant in the room, that is, Nixon's OMB - if the shuttle get canned somewhere around 1971, the OMB would have imposed the Titan III to NASA just because it was cheaper than any Saturn. Period.
Yea, I think that may have been a little too ambitious back in the 70's Not less ambitious than the Shuttle itself, but we see how costly it was to push the state of the art that much at that time. Same with Saturn V.I think a better and far more cost effective approach would be for NASA to have stepped back and went less high-tech. To have actually seen some returns on all of the money spent on Apollo. Sort of the SpaceX approach. Take current and well understood tech and designs, and make it as affordable and standard as possible.
When it comes to reusability, I think an upper stage that orbited and then returned autonomously to Earth in some sort of soft, non-destructive landing would be leaning in the direction of advancing the state of the air a lot, like the Shuttle, and thus utilizing existing hardware less and needing to develop more. In that case, mainly computers and avionics. Remote propulsive Earth EDS in any sort of precise fashion would be a big leap forward I think.
However, I think making the spacecraft reusable wouldn't be too hard. A few ways forward.1) Replace Apollo with something like HL-20.
2) Upgrade Apollo to something like CST-100 that would land on airbags in the desert.
3) Upgrade Apollo to something like Dragon that would land propulsively with a pilot at the controls. They pulled it off for the LEM so it would certainly be doable, but it would requrie adequiate downward visibility, which could be problematic with Apollo. It would probably need a whole new capsule of some sort.
4) Upgrade Apollo to something that could survive a dunk in the ocean and be easily refurbished and reused.
5) Integrate the SM into the CM for one big reusable ship, for more reusability and fewer separate components. Not unlike a Dragon capsule does, with a trunk rather than a service module. I think this would be a pretty obvious upgrade for LEO operations.
Then continue to expend the S-IVB, and perhaps use one of tanks and barrel as the hull of new space station hab modules. So it would be beneficial to continue that production line making new stages.
For the S-1B, perhaps rather than have the whole stage make a ballute recovery like the S-1C concept, upgrade it so it's MPS detatches and lands in the water under parachute and air bag. The H-1 obviously can stand the dunkings ok. The tanks themselves are fairly cheap/simple, and their equivalent was expended on STS in the ET. Down the road a decade or more after the state of the art increased, maybe a 9th engine could be added to the center of the cluster and they could experiment with it doing a propuslive RTLS landing ala F9. By pure chance, they'd be pretty close to a configuration that would actually work for that. A propulsive landing in the ocean is another thought, as the engines would ok. Not sure if the core would be ok or breakup like the F9 cores were doing. They are wider and not as tall as F9 so perhaps they'd be stronger?
I think those would be feasible avenues of partial reuse that could be pursued without needing to advance the state of the art too much, and able to take advantage of the legacy hardware mostly as it was.
Pare of the reason for the Titan's low cost was it was mass produced on an ICBM assembly line whereas the Saturns were more of a hand-made affair.If the Saturn had been tweaked for mass production, the economics could have changed.
You have some valid points, Lobo, but...As in the Titan-Apollo thread, Apollo hardware could have been expended (and perhaps had limited construction) so there would have been a more orderly transition to the program.This could have allowed the modification of a one VAB Bay (they never finished all of them) Mobile Launch Platform to support Titan and the conversion of one of the Pads to support Titan. Then when the Saturn Hardware was consumed, they could already support Titan from 39 and begin conversion of the remaining mobile launchers, high bays, and pads.
They also could have converted pads 34 and 37 (I think those were the ones) to support Titan operations and perhaps had a complex similar to the USAF Titan facilities there.
Quote from: Archibald on 10/31/2014 01:06 pmThat, and the elephant in the room, that is, Nixon's OMB - if the shuttle get canned somewhere around 1971, the OMB would have imposed the Titan III to NASA just because it was cheaper than any Saturn. Period. I don't tthink it's that simple. Even if Titan was cheaper, the costs of adapting Apollo to fly on it would have been substantial. Unless flight rates were going to be very high, I'd be surprised if there was really much money to be saved. Secondly, while it certainly seems plausible that Titan may have been cheaper, even after accounting for it lesser low-orbit capability, do we have any hard numbers on this? Real, apples-to-apples comparisons at similar pounds-to-orbit rates in the 1970s, when Titan SLV costs are shared with Titan II ICBMs and large-scale Minuteman production?
I have to agree that the Saturn IB is being way under-sold relative to the Titan III.
Here we have a large launcher capable of putting an unmodified Apollo CSM (albeit lightly fueled) into LEO. Not only does it have a perfect safety record, but unlike the Titan it can sustain first-stage engine failures and does not use toxic propellants. It also would be a far better space station builder thanks to its wide diameter and greater capacity. Oh sure, the Titan III family is capable and comes with a Centaur stage, but let's not forget that the Titan family eventually grew horrendously expensive as USAF demands led to more and more upgrades. The Saturn IB in contrast could have upgraded to a J-2S engine on its upper stage on the cheap, which would have added still more capacity. It's true adding a Centaur stage would have entailed some serious expense, but let's not forget that a Saturn IB-CE would have enabled more capable missions to the outer planets than any Titan III.
I think what's being missed here is that Nixon gave NASA a choice between the Shuttle and a space station. I'm not so certain NASA really needed to have this be an either-or choice.
With the Saturn IB upgraded with the J-2S and the Centaur stage, there would have been no need to make the shuttle into a USAF payload carrier. Anything too heavy to fit on a Titan IIIM could then simply have been flung up by NASA's "little monster". You could then concentrate on making the "shuttle" a reusable people hauler with minimal cargo capacity (a la Dream Chaser). Given the upgraded Saturn IB probably could have flung up 22,000 kg of "mini" Shuttle into orbit, you could have simply super-sized that basic design. Instead of flinging up a "mere" 8 crew at a time, such a design could reasonably have flung up up to 10-12 crew at a time while still offering an LAS capability all the way to orbit.
Later on you could have upgraded the Saturn to enable full reusability by putting in a 9-engine core stage (featuring upgraded engines) and modified the S-IVB for reuse. This could have been done in stages, which to me seems a better approach than attempting to do it all at once as with the Shuttle. To cut down on the payload penalty I would suggest Dmitry's barge approach however. Simply put a relatively stable SWAT-style ocean barge out in the Atlantic, use upgraded electronics and the center engine to guide it in, and attempt a landing. I'm pretty sure they'd have mastered it eventually.
In any case, no matter what, we can be pretty sure of one thing: a Saturn IB would have been vastly superior when it came to building a space station. Part of the reason why ISS has cost so much to build has been the relatively narrow dimensions & masses allowed for each of its portions. Many of those problems would have been heavily curtailed by the Saturn IB being the primary space station segment LV.
QuoteI think what's being missed here is that Nixon gave NASA a choice between the Shuttle and a space station. I'm not so certain NASA really needed to have this be an either-or choice.Is there any evidence for this? Nixon was given a broad range of programs that COULD be carried out with continued effort and some funding but I was under the impression that it was HIS "choice" to offer NASA the "either/or" choice between the Station and the Shuttle. Whichever one NASA 'chose' was going to be the PROGRAM for the 1970s and they could ONLY choose one from what I understand. Anyone?
QuoteWith the Saturn IB upgraded with the J-2S and the Centaur stage, there would have been no need to make the shuttle into a USAF payload carrier. Anything too heavy to fit on a Titan IIIM could then simply have been flung up by NASA's "little monster". You could then concentrate on making the "shuttle" a reusable people hauler with minimal cargo capacity (a la Dream Chaser). Given the upgraded Saturn IB probably could have flung up 22,000 kg of "mini" Shuttle into orbit, you could have simply super-sized that basic design. Instead of flinging up a "mere" 8 crew at a time, such a design could reasonably have flung up up to 10-12 crew at a time while still offering an LAS capability all the way to orbit.This runs into the problem of still 'forcing' the Air Force to use a NASA launch vehicle instead of thier own and dealing with the "bad-blood" that generates. The main issue is getting people in NASA to see a continuation of the Saturn-1B as supplemental to the Shuttle and not in competition with it. (Along with getting people to drop the idea that everything had to fly in the Shuttle in the first place )
QuoteLater on you could have upgraded the Saturn to enable full reusability by putting in a 9-engine core stage (featuring upgraded engines) and modified the S-IVB for reuse. This could have been done in stages, which to me seems a better approach than attempting to do it all at once as with the Shuttle. To cut down on the payload penalty I would suggest Dmitry's barge approach however. Simply put a relatively stable SWAT-style ocean barge out in the Atlantic, use upgraded electronics and the center engine to guide it in, and attempt a landing. I'm pretty sure they'd have mastered it eventually.That's one point I keep trying to get everyone to wrap their heads around. An ocean landing and recovery was NO BIG DEAL to reusabilty and NASA had TESTED this! Full recovery and refurbishment of the H1 engines amounted to a little over 5% of the cost of a new engine and this was proven! No barge needed until much later. The "recovery" package for the S-IVB stage was estimated by Douglas as massing about 6,000lbs for a fully land recoverable model. That gives you both stages back to both gather recovery and reusabilty data and to use again.
Then again, USAF may have just opted for the EELV program they had there in the mid 90's anyway, which had the goal to replace their Atlas, Delta, and Titan fleets with just one single common launch system which had various configurations. They kept two systems, which kinda defeated the whole purpose of having just one common system, but the point being is by the mid 90's, USAF would have been operating Titan, Atlas, and Delta. And had we not had the Boeing issue and the formation of ULA, we may have just had Atlas V or Delta IV for USAF, and NASA using Saturn 1B. And USAF never using Saturn 1B. Additionally, USAF required on-pad payload changout which is why pad 39A and 39B had RSS's added. The Titan III's had MSS's with payload changeout rooms I believe already. NASA didn't need that, so it may not have been feasible for USAF to put their occasional heavy payload on Saturn 1B launching from KSC unless payload changout hardware was added to the Saturn 1B MLP's. Without a big investment from USAF as there was for STS, NASA may not have had much interest in adding that to thier MLP's, and related modificaitons to the VAB high pays to accomodate the MLP's with that added to them. Remember, without STS, there'd have been no reason to put a FSS or any type of MSS or RSS on pads at KSC. They'd be using the Saturn era MLP's as there'd be no need to change them. Maybe after the last Saturn V flew they'd chop the UT's down so the Saturn 1B's sat on the surface of the MLP rather than the milkstool, but other than that, they'd be the same. So either some sort of MSS would need to be added to the pad for USAF payloads, or to the MLP itself. Would NASA want to invest in that for an occasional heavy USAF/DoD load? Would USAF? I tend to think they'd just opt to invest that into a new common EELV type program rather than add a 4th LV they are supporting on top of Atlas II, Delta II and Titan.
As an interesting aside, in this alternate history where NASA kept Saturn 1B, in the mid 90's, there'd be a modern version of the H-1 engine in production and available for use some some sort of USAF EELV. And it would have a 30 year track record by then so any issues with it would have been ironed out long ago. So there may have been an EELV competator using H-1's on the booster and Centaur or DCSS for the upper stage.RS-27A -might- have existed as a sustainer or upper stage version of H-1, if Delta II existed in this history, so an EELV could have been a TSTO LV with an optional Centaur 3rd stage, essentially like Titan II or Titan IIIB were. Using two versions of the same engine for those stage.Optional outboard CCB cores for a heavy version.So might have been an interesting different EELV option that would have had some commonality with NASA's LV, and might have actually achieved the goal of the EELV program to have a lower cost LV that could cover all the ranges the USAF needed covered. Say, 4XH-1X (whatever version of it would be in used in the 90's) per 4m core, with a 4m 2nd stage with a single RS-27 and common tanking/barrel. And an optional Centaur-T (or Centaur-3) 3rd stage. With two optional outboard CCB's.
As a companion to the report on SA-217, showing modest updgrades to the Saturn IB that likely would have been introduced had production been extended, attached is a similar report on a putative SA-520, an improved Saturn V. As in the case of SA-217, payload capability is boosted a few thousand pounds by replacing the J-2 engine with the J-2S and effecting miscellaneous weight savings. Please be forewarned that the reproduction is of low quality.
But I'm not expert here, so someone correct this if in error. But I think if NASA was of a mind to want to have got some return on the zillions of dollars invested into Apollo/Saturn by retaining the Saturn 1B and Apollo CSM, with some modificaitons and upgrades over time, and used that along with the last 3 Saturn V's that were slated for the cancelled Apollo 18-20, I think Nixon would have went for it and not forced them into STS.NASA really -wanted- STS, so Nixon said 'ok'.
