Revive The Saturn V For Mars Direct - Saturn Five

Dayton3 · 2002-06-06 19:42:22

I'm somewhat uncomfortable with a shuttle derived HLLV for Mars Direct. I've never cared for using solid rocket boosters for manned travel.

And the U.S. would never seriously consider buying Energyia boosters for a mission the U.S. was funding.

I think the Saturn Five should be revived. All the engineering has been worked out. And uprated F-1 engines capable of producing 1.8 million pounds of thrust each were ground tested though not flown.

With an upgraded upper stage and advanced F-1s in the first stage, the mass available to throw to Mars in the Mars Direct architecture might increase by up to 10%.

The Saturn V was in many ways NASAs crowning achievement and would bring back alot of good publicity.

If you think this is odd, to revived a 35 year old booster, the Syntheses Group in their report for NASA "America At The Threshhold" in 1991, actually proposed reviving the F-1 engines as a proven way of getting the needed heavy lift for the manned Mars and return to the moon programs.

Its worth considering.

Mark S · 2002-06-07 08:13:10

Reviving the Saturn V is possible, but it isn't very practical because the tooling was destroyed in the early 1970's. With today's technology we can build a better booster. Of course, it would be nice if we could revive production on the ENGINES for the Saturn V, because we have fallen woefully behind the Russians in terms of engine development since the end of Apollo.

I share your feelings about solid rocket boosters, but I disagree about the use of Energia boosters on a Mars rocket. The Energia boosters were the basis for the first stage of the Zenit. As you know, Boeing now markets the Zenit for commercial space launches. I don't think that NASA, Congress, or the taxpayers would have a problem with using Zenit first stages, bought from Boeing, on the Mars rocket.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-06-07 18:43:13

I've always thought it odd that the tooling for the Saturn Vs was destroyed so early in the piece. Almost as though someone was saying: "There! That's the end of that. Even if you do come up with plans for manned missions beyond LEO, you won't be able to do them because we've taken away your heavy-lift capability!"
I seem to remember reading somewhere that even the blueprints for the Saturn V were destroyed at about the same time. Is this true?
If so, why?
:0

Phobos · 2002-06-07 23:18:04

Yeah, unfortunately, all plans of the Saturn V have been scrapped. There's supposedly a museum somewhere that has a set but said museum is unable to find them, and I heard that one set was donated to a paper drive to be recycled back into pulp. I can't believe the absolute stupidity of it all, anybody who would just trash those drawings deserves to be slapped around, I mean sheesh, I think even my half-retarded dog could understand the historical and technical significance of those things. Not to mention the expense that was incurred in just designing them only to have them thrown out!
If there was a spacecraft that I wish would have all of its plans ground into pulp, it'd have to be the space shuttle. Yeah, have plans ground into pulp, then have roof cave in on space shuttles. and voila, perhaps we'd have something more efficient to fly to space with. Anyways, very tragic what happened to those Russian workers on the Buran building's roof.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-06-09 00:05:48

In another forum, MarsHotel mentioned that Louis Friedman and Carl Sagan of the Planetary Society both came out against the shuttle back in the seventies. Their reasons related to concerns about the high costs taking money away from robotic missions.
Although at the time I probably would have disagreed with them, I would now vote with them, but for different reasons!
The Saturn V was a wonder of technology. All the more so when you consider that it was based on early 60s know-how. Dayton3's revelation (news to me) that uprated 1.8 million- pound-thrust F1 engines had been groundtested, just adds to the awe in which I hold these monsters!
As the Apollo missions unfolded, there were plans for quite elaborate lunar expeditions, some involving small rocket-powered craft to give the astronauts enhanced individual mobility on the surface. The contractors were becoming better and better at providing cheaper but more efficient Saturn Vs, and that progress would undoubtedly have led to further economies of scale as time went by.
It costs $400 million dollars to launch a shuttle and each shuttle costs $2 billion to build!! I believe each shuttle is designed to last a hundred launches, which means each launch actually costs $420 million by the time you factor in replacement costs. And what do you get for your money? You get 20 tons into LEO. (Ring-a-ding-ding! )
Now let me speculate for a moment (and I invite those in the know to correct me if they have better data). I bet that by now we would have uprated Saturn Vs coming off the production line and ready-to-launch for no more than $200 million. And what would we get for our money? 200 TONS INTO LEO FOR LESS THAN HALF THE PRICE OF A SHUTTLE LAUNCH!!
That's 10 times the payload for half the money ... which represents an improvement in efficiency of 20 TIMES! Even if I'm wrong ... even if each Saturn V launch were equal in cost to a shuttle launch, you're still getting 10 times the bang for your buck in terms of payload-to-orbit.
I've hazarded the opinion elsewhere in Forums that it's hard to imagine NASA (or the people behind the scenes) making so many bad decisions through simple stupidity. Sometimes I just can't shake the nagging feeling that you could only make this many glaring screw-ups by deliberate design!
And not only do they abandon the biggest, best, most reliable HLV in the world, they then proceed to scrap the tooling and pulp the blueprints!!
Can somebody out there please help me get this conspiracy hat off my head ... it's a lovely fit and starting to feel really comfortable!
:angry:

Mark S · 2002-06-09 11:21:43

NASA should not be blamed for the destruction of the Saturn V tooling. The decision actually came straight from Congress, and people like Senator William Proxmire, who continually claimed that space exploration was a waste of money. I still believe that NASA has the Saturn V plans safely locked up. At least that's what NASA officials say when people claim the plans were destroyed.

Phobos · 2002-06-09 11:38:26

That's 10 times the payload for half the money ... which represents an improvement in efficiency of 20 TIMES! Even if I'm wrong ... even if each Saturn V launch were equal in cost to a shuttle launch, you're still getting 10 times the bang for your buck in terms of payload-to-orbit.

Sometimes I think this high emphasis we put on the reusability of a vehicle goes a bit far. I agree and would bet my life that we could probably get more for our money using Saturn Vs as opposed to the space shuttle. If you don't want to waste any material just reclaim the parts, smelt them down, remold 'em and go at it again. The Saturn V is a glorious, proven vehicle it didn't deserve to die such an untimely death! Of course, we could use smaller vehicles if we don't need to put anything heavy into orbit, like re-crewing the space station or whatever.

nirgal · 2002-06-09 16:40:26

The plans for the Saturn V were not destroyed, that's an urban legend. They're savely stored at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center (on microfilm! ). Although I agree that shutting down the Saturn assembly lines was a very bad idea, whoever was responsible (it were no just the politicians but NASA managers as well since they wanted to use the Saturn launchpads for the Shuttle), I don't like it how the Shuttle is criticized by so many people. It's a technological marvel and an engineering masterpiece. People always say NASA should have chosen a fully reusable design but they forget that the money simply wasn't there and designing a fully reusable launch vehicle in the 70s with the same payload capacity as the current Shuttle might well have proven impossible. Even building an expendable design was one hell of a task. Going from Apollo CSMs to the Space Shuttle was a giant leap.
And there are reasons why NASA went for SRBs instead of liquids: They give you more bang for the buck, meaning they are much more simple and lighter.
Also I think using an external tank was a brilliant idea. It enomously simplified the design and literally cut the engineering work to be done in half (the Shuttle would never have made its first flight in 1981 had NASA chosen a fully reusable design). And ETs can be converted into space stations! Unfortunately NASA has never seriously studied this concept since it was proposed in the early 80s.
To sum up: While the current Shuttle is nowhere near an economically viable, reliable, save launch vehicle it is still a great machine and has unique advantages.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-06-09 18:24:34

Nirgal, I agree with you whole-heartedly that the shuttle is a wonder of the modern world. I remember its first manned launch (Moon-walker John Young was one of the crew) and I remember being beside myself with excitement at this apparent giant leap forward. Incidentally, I still can't get over the fact that they actually put humans into the first shuttle into space! This was essentially an unproven craft with no escape tower or hatch. Those astronauts were laying everything on the line. But, as history records, the flight was a total success .... including the perfect touch-down of what the astronauts described as pretty much a flying brick! I thought at the time that this was the start of cheap, frequent, routine access to LEO.
But, Nirgal, nothing could have been further from the truth.
The shuttle design was a major compromise because of technological and financial constraints. It was much too expensive and never achieved the 25 flights per year it was supposed to do .... now we're lucky to get 6 or 7 flights each year.
How much better it would have been to build on previous achievements by gradually improving the Saturn V to make it lighter, cheaper, and more powerful. Just think, with an uprated Saturn V available, we could have put the ENTIRE ISS in orbit with just 2 launches!! We'd probably have those orbiting hotels for space tourists by now, too! And a thriving research base on the Moon.
We don't seem to be able to come up with a viable replacement/improvement for the shuttle even today. And you can bet your last cent that when we do, it won't be capable of putting any more than 20 tons into LEO again. So it will still take 10 launches to match the grunt of just 1 Saturn V launch!
No ... it seems to me to be inescapable good logic to build Saturn Vs again ... half a dozen a year ... and keep 'em coming! And ONLY change things in the design that lend themselves cheaply and easily to improvements based on materials science or rocket design. The K.I.S.S. principle ... KEEP IT SIMPLE, STUPID!!!

Dayton3 · 2002-06-09 19:56:45

The information about the uprated F-1s capable of 1.8 million pounds of thrust comes straight from "America At The Threshold" by the Synthesis Group. A group of space experts who produced the intergovernmental publication after President Bush #41s ill fated Space Exploration Initiative was launched.

The booklet is available from used book sources online such as ABE Books.

nirgal · 2002-06-10 10:20:28

Where are the payloads for six Saturn V launches a year going to come from? It would only make sense if NASA had firm plans to send humans to Mars or back to the moon. And the launch cost of a Saturn V are high: about $1.4 billion in today's money!
"[C]heap, frequent, routine access to LEO" would be even farther away today had NASA sticked with the Apollo/Saturn system.
If often wonder just how different things would have turned out had Challenger never happened. In 1985, the year before the desaster, the Shuttle was launched 9 times; the highest Shuttle launch rate ever. The Shuttle could probably have been flying up to 20 times a year by 1990. This would have lowered the launch costs by a factor of three compared with today's costs.
We could do it even today but the sad thing is that the military and comercial industry have turned their backs on the Shuttle.

Bill White · 2002-06-10 12:12:56

Where are the payloads for six Saturn V launches a year going to come from? It would only make sense if NASA had firm plans to send humans to Mars or back to the moon. And the launch cost of a Saturn V are high: about $1.4 billion in today's money!

Where would the payloads for 20-25 Shuttle launches per year come from? Today, commercial launcher companies are dying for lack of demand - there is more LEO lift capability than commercial demand can use.

I also recall that part of the justification for building the ISS was to keep the Shuttle busy -and- to employ Russian rocket scientists so they would be less tempted to become "free agents"

Also, wasn't part of Nixon's decision to build the Shuttle a desire to keep the US aerospace industry afloat.

We could do it even today but the sad thing is that the military and comercial industry have turned their backs on the Shuttle.

These guys do not need the Shuttle. Ariane, SeaLaunch, Titan IV and others are far cheaper (and easier to keep secret) for light and mid weight launch missions. And still supply exceeds demand.

But still, as much as we may criticize the Shuttle and the ISS - the alternative may have been a total withdrawl from LEO in the 1970s and 1980s. These projects have kept the dream alive - if only as a flickering candle's flame.

nirgal · 2002-06-10 12:34:28

Where would the payloads for 20-25 Shuttle launches per year come from?

The Shuttle transports payloads in the 10-20 ton range while the Saturn V would need really heavy payloads (100 tons+) to be cost-efficient (cost per pound). The thing is that there are far more small payloads (satellites! ) suitable for the Shuttle than payloads which fit the Saturn's launch capacity.

These guys do not need the Shuttle. Ariane, SeaLaunch, Titan IV and others are far cheaper (and easier to keep secret) for light and mid weight launch missions. And still supply exceeds demand.

The US military would hardly use the (european) Ariane and the Titan IV is the most expensive expendable launch vehicle in the world. It will be phased out soon and be replaced by the new Delta IV/Atlas V rockets. Sealaunch is certainly an option but it has a very limited payload capacity.
What do you mean by "easier to keep secret"? No launch can be kept secret, only the payload!

But still, as much as we may criticize the Shuttle and the ISS - the alternative may have been a total withdrawl from LEO in the 1970s and 1980s. These projects have kept the dream alive - if only as a flickering candle's flame.

I think building the Shuttle was the right decision but the ISS is a pile of crap. NASA should have build an ET station.

nirgal · 2002-06-10 12:40:50

Can someone give me a link to some pictures of the Vandenberg launch facilities the Air Force planned to use for the Shuttle?

Phobos · 2002-06-10 16:27:15

The Shuttle transports payloads in the 10-20 ton range while the Saturn V would need really heavy payloads (100 tons+) to be cost-efficient (cost per pound). The thing is that there are far more small payloads (satellites! ) suitable for the Shuttle than payloads which fit the Saturn's launch capacity.

That's why we would also have a fleet of smaller rockets in addition to the Saturn V. Those same payloads that we launch on the Shuttle would likely be a lot cheaper to launch on smaller, unmanned rockets. At least if we did have Saturn V's still readily available we'd still be that much closer to having more massive space projects a reality. And considering how many launches it took to build the ISS, the Saturn V could have done it in way fewer launches. So I think there would still be reasons to have Saturn V's available.

nirgal · 2002-06-10 16:59:05

Well, NASA could have launched the station in one piece with Shuttle C. This was one of the proposed station designs (Option C) back in 1993. Or they might have build an ET station (the most reasonable approach). No need for Saturn Vs. We can do a lot better today. NASA already has plans for a new HLV; it's called Magnum. It would use either the Shuttle's SRBs or liquid flyback boosters and russian main engines. Its payload capacity would be 80 tons. I know it would be less powerful than the Saturn but also much cheaper (target lauch costs: $200 million). Link.

robcwillis · 2002-06-10 18:22:14

Saturn V was a masterpiece of 1960's technology, but the idea of bringing it back into production is absurd. An Energia derived HLV is by far the best coice. Even Ares, Magnum, or Sea Dragon are superior options. Please see the "Launch Vehicles" stream, where this topic should have been posted in the first place.

Here we go again. Use of Energia to facilitate sending humans to Mars does not mean NASA would have to "buy Energia launches from the Russians", nor would the RSA have to spend a lot of money they don't have to buy complete Energias and provide free launches to NASA. Russia can afford to contribute billions of dollars worth of existing technology and hardware now sitting in storage, such as almost 90 RD-0120 core motors. They can also afford to buy a few new RD-170s from Energomash. The best Energia configuration for Humans to Mars would mount four RD-0120 on the core, with eight Zenit strap-on boosters; four with RD-170 and four with RD-180. Single surplus SSMEs would be ideal to power the upper (TMI) stage. Such a configuration could deliver twice the payload of Magnum, and eliminate the need for on orbit rendevous and assembly. RD-170(171) powered Zenits are currently in commercial procuction, mostly for Boeing Sea Launch. Pratt and Whitney supply RD-180s(RD-170 cut in half) to Lockheed Martin for use on all current versions of Atlas.

The ESA can afford to buy new Energia cores from EADS. The JSA can afford to buy TMI stages from Mitsubishi. The international partners could combine with the Ukrainian government to buy Zenits from Yuznoyhe. Energia facilities at Baikonur can be rebuilt/repaired or Kourou can be expanded. There are many, many possible options for the international production of an Energia derived ultra-heavy launcher.

Spending an absolute minimum of between 5 and 10 billion American tax dollars to recreate all the Saturn V tooling out of thin air and restart production of a totally non reuseable rocket whose components have no commercial application aint "Keeping It Simple". It's just STUPID.

Dayton3 · 2002-06-10 19:12:22

While the Energia is probably the best option cost wise. I still can't see Congress funding a U.S. Mars program boosted on Russian built rockets.

The U.S. Navy would be in better shape today if the U.S. bought navalized SU-27 Flankers for their carriers than F/A-18 Hornets but it will never happen.

I see a Saturn V derived vehicle being used for.......

1) Two launches a every other year for Mars Direct.
2) Two launches a year for a long duration manned lunar program.

3) An indeterminate number of launches (probably two to four) for missions to Near Earth Asteroids using Mars Direct Habs and ERVs.

If Saturn Vs were available, there would be plenty of ways to use them

Shaun Barrett · 2002-06-10 19:53:58

I've been waiting for someone like robcwillis to come along and shoot down the Saturn V argument. But "It's just STUPID" .... Ouch!! That hurts. But then I did invite people to correct me, I suppose.
Note that I did say how much better it WOULD have been to build on previous achievements by gradually improving the Saturn V. I concede that it's a different world now and, from a practical viewpoint, reviving the original Saturn V is a pipedream.
The thrust of the argument, born of frustration, is that taking a different path than the the one NASA took, could have saved so much money and achieved more. Robcwillis speaks authoritatively of how Russian expendable boosters can be used to achieve everything we desire. This is really the point; nobody's waxing lyrical about America's production line of versatile, reliable, cheap, heavy-lift rocket motors. No. America has spent a fortune on a technological marvel, the shuttle, and the ISS; each being the raison-d'etre of the other! So now, to achieve anything worthwhile beyond LEO, our best bet is to use technologically pedestrian, but much more practical, Russian hardware. Makes you wonder about the decision-making process at NASA (or behind the scenes), doesn't it?
My heavy-lift vehicle doesn't have to have Saturn V painted on it! I don't care if it's Russian. But I think there is a case for mass production of expendable HLVs which will make manned Mars missions feasible, sure, but also whet the appetites of other organisations who want to put hotels in orbit and maybe on the Moon. Some posts have argued that there's not enough demand for the LEO capacity we already have today. But this a different thing. I think you can create your own market by opening up possibilities to private enterprise companies.
I look forward to the days when technology makes Single-Stage-To-Orbit vehicles possible and when it's $100 per pound to LEO. But for now, please ... while we're still young ... let's use the technology we know will work!!

Bill White · 2002-06-10 22:54:13

If Saturn Vs were available, there would be plenty of ways to use them

With all due respect - I believe your comment is written the wrong way 'round. . .

*If* the powers that be were truly interested in doing things with heavy lift, *then* there would be plenty of heavy lift available.

Saturn V? Energia? Shuttle C? Magnum?

Personally, I don't know - but I am confident robcwillis does!

Palomar · 2002-06-11 16:44:13

Phobos wrote: "The Saturn V is a glorious, proven vehicle it didn't deserve to die such an untimely death!"

*Hear, hear! Aesthetically speaking, glorious in that regard as well. I was in awe of the images of those towering, gleaming Saturn V's as a kid...and I still get "that feeling" when viewing video clips of them.

--Cindy

MS member since 6/01

Dayton3 · 2002-06-11 18:46:41

I'd like to interject a further note as to why reviving the Saturn V IS NOT inconceivable.

The Saturn V is man rated. Ares, Shuttle-C, Magnum and Energyia ARE NOT. I have serious doubts that the U.S. would ever willingly launch a manned crew on a launch vehicle that wasn't man rated.

Of course, you say, just launch a shuttle with a crew and rendevous in orbit. Really, a one hundred million dollar shuttle flight for each Manned Mars mission just for taxi duty?

A hundred million here and there adds up quickly.

Finally, NASA shuttle managers might well say, "if we're launching a shuttle anyway, why not just launch the Mars mission with four or five shuttle launches and not bother with an HLLV?

So you see the appeal of a revived Saturn V.

robcwillis · 2002-06-13 12:58:45

Hello Dayton 3,

You are mistaken. The Energia HLV System is fully "man rated". Quality control and reliability verification efforts expended on the Energia/Buran development and production programme were in fact far more thorough and extensive than that of Saturn V or STS. This costly and time consuming Soviet policy was largely the result of the disasterous N-1 experience. Although Korolev's N-1 was a perfectly sound design, the project was a "crash programme" in the worst sense of the term, starved of adequate funding, and forced ahead at a frantic pace. Chelomei's intrigues against Korolev, and the massive funding wasted on his monstrous UR-700 project doomed N1-L3 to failure.

Saturn V and STS design/production quality control was exellent. Saturn was probably safer that STS, and Energia is definitely safer and more reliable than Saturn. Other than than an incredibly expensive sense of nostalgia, I see no appeal in a revived Saturn V.

I'm glad you agree that Energia is "probably the best option cost wise". Please note, there is no prerequisite U.S. Congressional funding of "Russian built rockets" hampering Energia utilization. Again, each international partner can direct their expenditures in such a way that they are mostly spent "at home". As shown earlier, an Energia derived ultra-heavy launch system is well suited to such multinational production and deployment. I may be wrong, but I hope the U.S. Congress is not so foolhardy as to reject major material contributions from international partners. If they are, I doubt we will see humans on Mars in our lifetimes.

Phobos · 2002-06-13 15:38:56

*Hear, hear! Aesthetically speaking, glorious in that regard as well. I was in awe of the images of those towering, gleaming Saturn V's as a kid...and I still get "that feeling" when viewing video clips of them.
--Cindy

It going to be a long time I think before another space vehicle can capture the human spirit the way the Saturn V did. The space shuttle and other assorted modern rockets might be fabulous machines, but they just lack that "can do" feel that the Saturn V seemed to possess. Maybe it's because the Saturn V is the only vehicle to start us on a human journey toward other worlds. I wish I could have been around to see it take off for real. Anyways, I've been looking at NASA websites to see if I could find a clip of that video where it shows the stages detaching from each other in space. You wouldn't happen to know by any chance where I could download that?

Dayton3 · 2002-06-16 13:24:51

While Energia might have been certified for manned spaceflight by the Russians, it hasn't by NASA and has never launched a manned flight even to LEO.

Therefore, I think NASA would be more than a little reluctant to launch a manned Mars mission on it.

Given the utter mess the ISS has been, I doubt NASA will be overly interested in ANY future manned space mission that utilizes international cooperation.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-06-06 19:42:22

Re: Revive The Saturn V For Mars Direct - Saturn Five

#2 2002-06-07 08:13:10

Re: Revive The Saturn V For Mars Direct - Saturn Five

#3 2002-06-07 18:43:13

Re: Revive The Saturn V For Mars Direct - Saturn Five

#4 2002-06-07 23:18:04

Re: Revive The Saturn V For Mars Direct - Saturn Five

#5 2002-06-09 00:05:48

Re: Revive The Saturn V For Mars Direct - Saturn Five

#6 2002-06-09 11:21:43

Re: Revive The Saturn V For Mars Direct - Saturn Five

#7 2002-06-09 11:38:26

Re: Revive The Saturn V For Mars Direct - Saturn Five

#8 2002-06-09 16:40:26

Re: Revive The Saturn V For Mars Direct - Saturn Five

#9 2002-06-09 18:24:34

Re: Revive The Saturn V For Mars Direct - Saturn Five

#10 2002-06-09 19:56:45

Re: Revive The Saturn V For Mars Direct - Saturn Five

#11 2002-06-10 10:20:28

Re: Revive The Saturn V For Mars Direct - Saturn Five

#12 2002-06-10 12:12:56

Re: Revive The Saturn V For Mars Direct - Saturn Five

#13 2002-06-10 12:34:28

Re: Revive The Saturn V For Mars Direct - Saturn Five

#14 2002-06-10 12:40:50

Re: Revive The Saturn V For Mars Direct - Saturn Five

#15 2002-06-10 16:27:15

Re: Revive The Saturn V For Mars Direct - Saturn Five

#16 2002-06-10 16:59:05

Re: Revive The Saturn V For Mars Direct - Saturn Five

#17 2002-06-10 18:22:14

Re: Revive The Saturn V For Mars Direct - Saturn Five

#18 2002-06-10 19:12:22

Re: Revive The Saturn V For Mars Direct - Saturn Five

#19 2002-06-10 19:53:58

Re: Revive The Saturn V For Mars Direct - Saturn Five

#20 2002-06-10 22:54:13

Re: Revive The Saturn V For Mars Direct - Saturn Five

#21 2002-06-11 16:44:13

Re: Revive The Saturn V For Mars Direct - Saturn Five

#22 2002-06-11 18:46:41

Re: Revive The Saturn V For Mars Direct - Saturn Five

#23 2002-06-13 12:58:45

Re: Revive The Saturn V For Mars Direct - Saturn Five

#24 2002-06-13 15:38:56

Re: Revive The Saturn V For Mars Direct - Saturn Five

#25 2002-06-16 13:24:51

Re: Revive The Saturn V For Mars Direct - Saturn Five

Board footer