Author Topic: Saturn as Lego Rocket(s)  (Read 7349 times)

Offline RyanC

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 469
  • SA-506 Launch
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 18
Saturn as Lego Rocket(s)
« on: 04/15/2018 09:14 pm »
From NASM, Udvar Hazy.

Add or subtract F-1s as needed for performance.
« Last Edit: 04/15/2018 09:14 pm by RyanC »

Offline RyanC

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 469
  • SA-506 Launch
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: Saturn as Lego Rocket(s)
« Reply #1 on: 04/15/2018 09:16 pm »
Some more studies...

Offline RyanC

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 469
  • SA-506 Launch
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: Saturn as Lego Rocket(s)
« Reply #2 on: 04/15/2018 09:18 pm »
Lets start smoking some good stuff.

Offline Michel Van

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 310
  • Liege, Belgium
  • Liked: 148
  • Likes Given: 170
Re: Saturn as Lego Rocket(s)
« Reply #3 on: 04/16/2018 07:24 am »
Boeing proposed several time a Modular approach to Saturn V

like in study called "Saturn Mission Payload Versatility" from October 11, 1967
the Saturn V-A B C version

Next the Int-20 (S-IC & S-IVB ) as Saturn V-A, they go in detail about S-ID concept aka Saturn V-B
Boeing proposed to use S-ID for payloads to 51160 Lbs.
and Saturn V-C with S-ID first stage and S-IVB, also use of S-ID  for Saturn V first stage.

Recovery systems of thrust structure with four F-1, would only take for 1/2% of total mass.
sadly the Document give not Launch cost for S-ID version

it could have be great system to use, just pull  Saturn Stage out storage put them together and launch them.
sadly two killers waiting just around the corner to make a hit, one was the Space Shuttle, the other was cheap quick dirty Titan III-C
Against both Modular aka Lego Saturn had no chance...

Offline DaveJ576

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 192
  • Norfolk, VA
    • Pigboats.com
  • Liked: 115
  • Likes Given: 640
Re: Saturn as Lego Rocket(s)
« Reply #4 on: 04/16/2018 05:16 pm »
I have always liked the INT-20 alternative. Simple, elegant, relatively low cost (when production quantities are thrown in), yet retaining a good lift capacity. By changing the number of engines you nearly get a dial-a-rocket setup. Shut down the S-1B line to save costs, and build enough S-II's to continue to fly Saturn V as necessary. Shorten one or two LUT's to accommodate the INT-20 and save the others for Saturn V's. Lots of possibilities here that were never realized.
"We have a pitch and a roll program and man this baby is really going!"

Offline Michel Van

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 310
  • Liege, Belgium
  • Liked: 148
  • Likes Given: 170
Re: Saturn as Lego Rocket(s)
« Reply #5 on: 04/17/2018 02:17 pm »
Had Shuttle program canceled and Titan IIIC explode in front of Member of Congress in 1966

We could have today a Modular Saturn V with Payload range of 51000 lbs. to 862,000 lbs.

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Saturn as Lego Rocket(s)
« Reply #6 on: 04/18/2018 12:32 am »
Michel Van wrote:
Quote
(snip) it could have be great system to use, just pull Saturn Stage out storage put them together and launch them.
sadly two killers waiting just around the corner to make a hit, one was the Space Shuttle, the other was cheap quick dirty Titan III-C
Against both Modular aka Lego Saturn had no chance...

Erm, that's actually NOT the way it could have or would have worked I'm afraid :)

There were a BUNCH of "assumptions" made in the studies of using the Saturn as a 'modular' unit and while the Saturn-1 was actually pretty close when they tried to shoe-horn in the S-1C/Saturn-V things got more difficult very quickly.

DAveJ576 wrote:
Quote
I have always liked the INT-20 alternative. Simple, elegant, relatively low cost (when production quantities are thrown in), yet retaining a good lift capacity. By changing the number of engines you nearly get a dial-a-rocket setup. Shut down the S-1B line to save costs, and build enough S-II's to continue to fly Saturn V as necessary. Shorten one or two LUT's to accommodate the INT-20 and save the others for Saturn V's. Lots of possibilities here that were never realized.

Let's start with the number of (F1) engines; Raise your hand if you remembered that the "original" Saturn heavy-lift design was the C4 and was called that because it only had four (4) F1 engines. Good. Why did they add the fifth engine? More Thrust! (Who let Tim Taylor in here?) Well yes, but the reason they considered it was because they were facing some significant base-heating issues with only four engines. They were considering going as far as re-routing all the GG-exhausts into a central dump duct which showed some promise when it was decided that they would just add a fifth engine instead. Neatly sidestepped the base-heating issue which was therefor never actually resolved. A two engine configuration is actually worse and the two, three, and four engine designs had some significant engine-out issues.

An idea considered was a stretched S-1B stage with a single F1 in place of the inner H1s and retaining the gimbling outer H1s with the F1 shutting down about three minutes into the burn. (Everyone seems to have 'heard' of this proposal but the only 'documentation' I can find is a mention in passing in "Stages To Saturn" which annoyingly I can't find ATM)

Second major issue was that there were severe payload drops as you subtracted engines unless you built the stage specifically for each engine configuration. Keep in mind the four-engine configuration was chosen as the best use of the F1 if you had to have more than one F1. Flight and trajectory handling was questionable as the 'basis' for the data used to calculate the possible utility was by extrapolating from Atlas two-and-three engine flight data. (Without admitting that the data from a vastly different flight vehicle was marginal at best)

Short and long 'tanking' was actually a viable consideration but there was a lack of admission that this was in effect suggesting and planning on building each stage one at a time as a specialized unit with all the costs that implies. (This was another situation where the "kludge" of the Saturn-1 was actually better than the mono-tank Saturn-V in that the spider-beam and thrust structure were the main 'structural' components rather than the tankage itself)

And the LUT's were an issue due the way the pads were set up you had to move the 'vehicle' rather than adjust the LUTs which is why they used the 'milkstool' and added LUT's for the Saturn-1B launches.

Granted IF you are going to keep "an" LV from the Lunar program the desire and 'logic' would tend towards keeping the most capable vehicle which would be the Saturn-V but in fact that wasn't really clear from the studies done. We've noted the INT-20 issues but we should keep in mind the INT-17-19 or "Saturn-II" studies ran into the same and further problems. Dropping the S-1C immediately ran into the issue that LH2 engines even if designed to be booster, (the HG-3-SL comes to mind as does the SSME/R61 etc) is they are very inefficient for getting an LV off the ground. Despite the various concepts which use such they tend to 'waste' a lot of propellant before they get moving unless they have a VERY high T/W. In most cases high-T/W but lower ISP 'boosters' (solid or liquid) are needed. Oddly enough this was about as close to a 'lego-rocket' as you could get using "legacy" or "near-legacy" Saturn-V hardware but you needed a lot of additional 'modules' (mostly various solid boosters and modifications to the S-II to enable their use) to make it work. Still payloads ranged from 12Klbs to almost 100Klbs to LEO IF the other issues could be resolved.

Oddly enough what NASA would have ended up with is in essence the Air Force "Space Launching System" of the 1960s:
http://www.astronautix.com/s/sls.html

Albeit with some variations but in general using a set of 'solid boosters' to loft a set of LH2 powered, (J2 no less, but SLS had 12 on a 25ft core whereas the S-II had 5 on a 33ft core) upper stages into orbit and beyond. According to the studies cited here IIRC the S-IVB was actually more expensive than the S-II but a lot had to do with the way it was built and the multiple restart capability and other factors which Douglas were confident they could reduce given the time and incentive

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: Saturn as Lego Rocket(s)
« Reply #7 on: 04/18/2018 12:36 am »
Had Shuttle program canceled and Titan IIIC explode in front of Member of Congress in 1966

We could have today a Modular Saturn V with Payload range of 51000 lbs. to 862,000 lbs.

Actually that's probably not at all what would come about. We'd more likely have a 'conventional' (kerolox) Titan-III variant and have spent a lot of money 'fixing' the SRBs so it wouldn't (maybe) happen again. Congress wasn't 'happy' with NASA over Apollo 1 and were determined at that point to kill Apollo one way or another. Keep in mind STS was mostly sold as a "jobs" program not so much as an actual manned flight system.

(Note that SLS doesn't even bother to pretend it has a manned mission)

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 Michel Van

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 310
  • Liege, Belgium
  • Liked: 148
  • Likes Given: 170
Re: Saturn as Lego Rocket(s)
« Reply #8 on: 04/18/2018 07:39 pm »
yes, there some good point in RanulfC argumentations

i have some issue to see How a Apollo CSM is launch on top of Saturn S-ID (modified Saturn V first stage).
next high construction and launch cost of this Saturn version, feature also high G-forces special at end reaching orbit.
here a TitanIIIM would make better job

Another issue was with Int-20 (S-IC & S-IVB ) What payload to launch ?
it could brought 293,000 lbs. to 72,000 lbs. payload into lo orbit, but a Apollo CSM is 32,390 lbs.
so the Int-20 bringing CSM and Cargo container to Space station or full loaded Big Gemini make sense
or its a waste on hardware (Boeing went so far to propose to use Propellant in tanks as Ballast !)

again a TitanIIIM and TitanIIIF(unmanned with various upper stage) are better suited for the job in cost.
with option of Int-20 as medium to heavy payload in low earth orbit like a Space station.

Offline DaveJ576

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 192
  • Norfolk, VA
    • Pigboats.com
  • Liked: 115
  • Likes Given: 640
Re: Saturn as Lego Rocket(s)
« Reply #9 on: 04/20/2018 03:51 pm »
I am admittedly an amateur at all this, being a submarine sailor by trade, so I appreciate the education! The base heating issue makes sense with the big F-1's and I had never considered it before. So are you saying that the INT-20 would not have worked at all? Seems strange that some high powered intelligent people would even propose it if that was the case.
"We have a pitch and a roll program and man this baby is really going!"

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: Saturn as Lego Rocket(s)
« Reply #10 on: 04/21/2018 11:47 pm »
Of course they could have worked it out. There is no reason why 4 engines have to be spaced as far apart, so if you were willing to forego some Saturn V compatability, it certainly could be solved.

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Saturn as Lego Rocket(s)
« Reply #11 on: 04/22/2018 05:42 am »
Quote
the reason they considered it was because they were facing some significant base-heating issues with only four engines.
They were considering going as far as re-routing all the GG-exhausts into a central dump duct which showed some promise when it was decided that they would just add a fifth engine instead. Neatly sidestepped the base-heating issue which was therefor never actually resolved. A two engine configuration is actually worse and the two, three, and four engine designs had some significant engine-out issues.

Quote
The base heating issue --- I had never considered it before.

Me too !

How on Earth FOUR engines have base heating issues when FIVE never had and worked well ?  Did the fifth, central engine carried all the heat away ? or was it related to the four F-1s firing longer, hence burning / melting the S-IC ? (surely enough, the tracking cameras show a very darkened Saturn V at stage 1 sep... )
« Last Edit: 04/22/2018 05:44 am by Archibald »
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Saturn as Lego Rocket(s)
« Reply #12 on: 04/22/2018 07:46 pm »
I believe the base-heating problem arises principally from recirculation of the hot exhaust gases around the base of the rocket.  It was less of a problem for the 5-engine S-IC because the central engine inhibited the accumulation of exhaust gas at the center of the base, AIUI.

There are lots of papers on the subject on NTRS (which I've never read).

I'm sure Boeing was well aware of the problem and had a good idea of how to solve it for the de-engined versions of the INT-20 and -21.

Offline Michel Van

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 310
  • Liege, Belgium
  • Liked: 148
  • Likes Given: 170
Re: Saturn as Lego Rocket(s)
« Reply #13 on: 04/25/2018 03:38 pm »
So Far i know the problem
it was about hot air turbulence during ascent either by Atmosphere or Engine exhaust
one solution on problem was that F-1 engine were covert in blankes of ASBESTOS fibers, yeah you read right asbestos.




Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Saturn as Lego Rocket(s)
« Reply #14 on: 04/26/2018 04:44 pm »
abestos ain't dangerous on a rocket exhaust. You have a better chance of being fried by hot gases than having a cancer...
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Saturn as Lego Rocket(s)
« Reply #15 on: 04/26/2018 05:38 pm »
Using asbestos like that today would no doubt increase manufacturing costs.

I must confess I initially ignored this interesting thread, because I thought it was about some Lego kit!
« Last Edit: 04/26/2018 05:43 pm by Proponent »

Offline whitelancer64

Re: Saturn as Lego Rocket(s)
« Reply #16 on: 04/26/2018 05:59 pm »
Using asbestos like that today would no doubt increase manufacturing costs.

I must confess I initially ignored this interesting thread, because I thought it was about some Lego kit!

It would indeed. One of the big changes made to the SRBs for the SLS was the removal of asbestos insulation from the segment's design.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Saturn as Lego Rocket(s)
« Reply #17 on: 04/28/2018 08:52 pm »
Lars-J wrote:
Quote
Of course they could have worked it out. There is no reason why 4 engines have to be spaced as far apart, so if you were willing to forego some Saturn V compatibility, it certainly could be solved.

Archibald wrote:
Quote
Me too !
How on Earth FOUR engines have base heating issues when FIVE never had and worked well ? Did the fifth, central engine carried all the heat away ? or was it related to the four F-1s firing longer, hence burning / melting the S-IC ? (surely enough, the tracking cameras show a very darkened Saturn V at stage 1 sep... )

Actually they DID have to spaced that far apart to keep the engines from heating each other up to much :) The fifth engine 'helped' by pushing the exhaust(s) out and away whereas the turbopump exhausts weren't powerful enough. Re-circulation of some of the exhaust was the big issue. With four engines you had a low pressure zone in the center, (even with the turbopump exhaust effluent) that rapidly built up into a system where a good part of the outboard engines exhaust was in contact with the base of the Saturn-V thrust structure AND the engine support systems themselves. Engine failure early on of the center engine was a VERY critical issue. The recirculation issue was specifically at takeoff due to the higher back-pressure at sea-level.

Proponent wrote:
Quote
I believe the base-heating problem arises principally from recirculation of the hot exhaust gases around the base of the rocket. It was less of a problem for the 5-engine S-IC because the central engine inhibited the accumulation of exhaust gas at the center of the base, AIUI.

There are lots of papers on the subject on NTRS (which I've never read).

I'm sure Boeing was well aware of the problem and had a good idea of how to solve it for the de-engined versions of the INT-20 and -21.

Exactly and I've skimmed quite a few and read summarized reviews so the number of 'fixes' was quite large but many required moving the four engines to new locations to fully address the issue. Which of course, (again) removed most of the 'compatibility' for the vehicle from the standard Saturn-V. Probably the simplest concept was to use a fuel-cooled 'cone' or 'aerospike' or even just a beefed up 'turbopump exhaust' segment in place of the fifth engine and brute-force being able to take the heating and move on. The last one took the most changes, (both to the engines and the stage) so the others were preferred of course.

There were two versions of the INT-20, one with four engines and one with three. The INT-21 was an S1 and SII as far as I understood and the "Skylab" launch configuration.

Randy
« Last Edit: 04/28/2018 08:53 pm by RanulfC »
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 mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 369
  • Likes Given: 260
Re: Saturn as Lego Rocket(s)
« Reply #18 on: 04/29/2018 12:58 pm »
The Saturn C-4, 33 foot wide first stage with 4 F-1s, had base heating issues and apparently led to the Saturn C-5 (which became the Saturn V) S1C stage which helped with the base heating issue.  The C-4 otherwise is fairly identical to the C-5 with much of the same capability.

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Saturn as Lego Rocket(s)
« Reply #19 on: 04/29/2018 01:56 pm »
Using asbestos like that today would no doubt increase manufacturing costs.

I must confess I initially ignored this interesting thread, because I thought it was about some Lego kit!

It would have been in the "space entertaining" section ;)
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

 

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