Fair enough. Saturn V was not murdered brutally, it kind of died of a very slow agony. By 1972 the shift toward Shuttle was the definite nail in the coffin.
The (cancelled) second production run of Saturn Vs
- Thread starter Michel Van
- Start date
Fair enough. Saturn V was not murdered brutally, it kind of died of a very slow agony. By 1972 the shift toward Shuttle was the definite nail in the coffin.
Well, actually I'm not sure. It was a long time ago that I read the novel, and I no longer have a copy. Scott Carpenter does not appear at all?
- Joined
- 5 May 2007
- Messages
- 1,272
- Reaction score
- 2,363
I've been trying to catalogue the Saturn modified launch vehicles which were being studied at the height of the Apollo program. It shouldn't be too much of a surprise that they all fit into a single sequence.
Reassuringly, I've been able to find descriptions in official documents of all the vehicles referred to on Astronautix (and referenced to Scott's defunct Saturn: Development, Details, Derivatives and Descendants book project. The two caveats are that whilst I've found references to the Saturn IB equivalents using clustered 120-inch and 156-inch SRMs, I've not actually found the names Saturn IB-16 or Saturn IB-27 anywhere.
Incidentally, the Saturn INT-17 was to be the upper two stages of the Saturn V-3B - this is confirmed by NASA TM X-53723, which discusses the need to optimise the stages for both applications. The INT-17 would have been a very 'rockety' looking rocket indeed, with both stages stretched and reasonably large fins.
What's interesting is that I've not found any evidence of MLV 6 through 10, or for MLV 26. If, as it appears, there was a single series of Modified Launch Vehicle design studies, it stands to reason that these must have existed. If so, it's odd that they haven't surfaced - we can but hope that they're in some dusty box somewhere waiting to be called up from the archives.
There's some helpful clues in TM X-53723: the extensively referenced Boeing Studies of Improved Saturn V Vehicles and Intermediate Payload Vehicles (D5-13183) was the result of one of the study contracts (NAS8-20266) under this program. Since it's a Boeing report, it's no surprise that it doesn't feature the vehicles not having the S-IC stage. But contracts were also issued to North American (Contract NAS8-20265, report SID 66-1326) and Douglas (NAS8-20264, integrated into the Boeing and North American reports) for their stages, and to Martin (NAS10-3547, report CR-66-41) for facilities impact. Those reports, if available, might add material - particularly around the 'Saturn II' family.
Reassuringly, I've been able to find descriptions in official documents of all the vehicles referred to on Astronautix (and referenced to Scott's defunct Saturn: Development, Details, Derivatives and Descendants book project. The two caveats are that whilst I've found references to the Saturn IB equivalents using clustered 120-inch and 156-inch SRMs, I've not actually found the names Saturn IB-16 or Saturn IB-27 anywhere.
Incidentally, the Saturn INT-17 was to be the upper two stages of the Saturn V-3B - this is confirmed by NASA TM X-53723, which discusses the need to optimise the stages for both applications. The INT-17 would have been a very 'rockety' looking rocket indeed, with both stages stretched and reasonably large fins.
What's interesting is that I've not found any evidence of MLV 6 through 10, or for MLV 26. If, as it appears, there was a single series of Modified Launch Vehicle design studies, it stands to reason that these must have existed. If so, it's odd that they haven't surfaced - we can but hope that they're in some dusty box somewhere waiting to be called up from the archives.
There's some helpful clues in TM X-53723: the extensively referenced Boeing Studies of Improved Saturn V Vehicles and Intermediate Payload Vehicles (D5-13183) was the result of one of the study contracts (NAS8-20266) under this program. Since it's a Boeing report, it's no surprise that it doesn't feature the vehicles not having the S-IC stage. But contracts were also issued to North American (Contract NAS8-20265, report SID 66-1326) and Douglas (NAS8-20264, integrated into the Boeing and North American reports) for their stages, and to Martin (NAS10-3547, report CR-66-41) for facilities impact. Those reports, if available, might add material - particularly around the 'Saturn II' family.
Per lack of a better thread... a little comparison between "going to Mars, the NASA / Voyage way" and "going to Mars, SpaceX way"
The Ares stack is made of
-156-inch SRBs
-S-IC
-S-II (= a two-stage Saturn V with big boosters)
PLUS
-Apollo CSM
-Mars Excursion Module
-Habitation module
-S-II booster stage (Earth to Mars)
- large drop tanks (Earth to Mars)
-S-IVB booster stage (Mars to Earth)
A total of nine different rockets and ships and vehicles. Or even more if the Apollo CM / SM and drop tanks are counted separately.
Now, BFR+Starship...
BFR = 156-inch SRBs + S-IC (the lower stages to ascent from Earth surface to suborbital)
And Starship is... everything else !
- the S-II stage for the final push in Earth orbit
- the other S-II used as a boost stage to escape Earth
- the big tanks, also to escape Earth
- the habitat between Earth and Mars,
- CSM,
- and MEM altogether (!)
- the S-IVB boost stage to return Earth
Only TWO vehicles instead of NINE. The price to pay of course is massive refuelings at both ends of the trip: Earth orbit and Mars surface (via Zubrin methalox ISRU Sabatier trick).
The Ares stack is made of
-156-inch SRBs
-S-IC
-S-II (= a two-stage Saturn V with big boosters)
PLUS
-Apollo CSM
-Mars Excursion Module
-Habitation module
-S-II booster stage (Earth to Mars)
- large drop tanks (Earth to Mars)
-S-IVB booster stage (Mars to Earth)
A total of nine different rockets and ships and vehicles. Or even more if the Apollo CM / SM and drop tanks are counted separately.
Now, BFR+Starship...
BFR = 156-inch SRBs + S-IC (the lower stages to ascent from Earth surface to suborbital)
And Starship is... everything else !
- the S-II stage for the final push in Earth orbit
- the other S-II used as a boost stage to escape Earth
- the big tanks, also to escape Earth
- the habitat between Earth and Mars,
- CSM,
- and MEM altogether (!)
- the S-IVB boost stage to return Earth
Only TWO vehicles instead of NINE. The price to pay of course is massive refuelings at both ends of the trip: Earth orbit and Mars surface (via Zubrin methalox ISRU Sabatier trick).
No, there was only one type of in space propulsion stage, not S-II booster stage (Earth to Mars) and S-IVB booster stage (Mars to Earth). It used 4 or 5 of these same stages
Also, there will be more than one type of Starship. There will be a tanker Starship and many of them. There will be a Crew Mars Lander Starship, which will be on orbit refueled by the tankers. There will be a Cargo Mars Lander Starship, which will be on orbit refueled by the tankers. There likely will be a Crew Starship, which will deliver the crew, once the lander is completely refueled.
Last edited:
NASA Press Release
FOR RELEASE: IMMEDIATE August 2, 1968
RELEASE NO: 68-139
SATURN LAUNCH VEHICLE CURTAILMENT
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration stated today that it is in the process of stopping work on Saturn I vehicles numbered 215 and 216, "to the extent possible without involving uneconomical terminations." This means that no vehicles will be produced beyond No. 214.
With respect to the Saturn V launch vehicle, NASA has instructed contractors to take steps to terminate work on long lead time items that were being procured for vehicles numbered 516 and 517. This means there will be a time gap in the production of Saturn V launch vehicles when and if a decision is reached to resume production. Production of these boosters had been requested in NASA's FY 1969 Budget for follow-on utilization of the Apollo capacity beyond the manned lunar landing. The steps taken today are in anticipation of final decision related to future production.
-end- 8/2/68
FOR RELEASE: IMMEDIATE August 2, 1968
RELEASE NO: 68-139
SATURN LAUNCH VEHICLE CURTAILMENT
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration stated today that it is in the process of stopping work on Saturn I vehicles numbered 215 and 216, "to the extent possible without involving uneconomical terminations." This means that no vehicles will be produced beyond No. 214.
With respect to the Saturn V launch vehicle, NASA has instructed contractors to take steps to terminate work on long lead time items that were being procured for vehicles numbered 516 and 517. This means there will be a time gap in the production of Saturn V launch vehicles when and if a decision is reached to resume production. Production of these boosters had been requested in NASA's FY 1969 Budget for follow-on utilization of the Apollo capacity beyond the manned lunar landing. The steps taken today are in anticipation of final decision related to future production.
-end- 8/2/68
- Joined
- 5 May 2007
- Messages
- 1,272
- Reaction score
- 2,363
Stephen Baxter's sci-fi novel VOYAGE uses one S-II and one S-IVB, but as far as I know that mission model is entirely unique to him and not directly based on any historical proposal.
- Joined
- 3 June 2006
- Messages
- 2,964
- Reaction score
- 3,235
Hi folks, I found these Saturn proposals at Ed Dempsey's Flickr site.
If these two posts are in the false topic, please let me know, so I can delete them or move them to a more suitable topic.
View: https://flic.kr/p/2m2HkEr
View: https://flic.kr/p/2m2N4HY
View: https://flic.kr/p/2m2QVVi
If these two posts are in the false topic, please let me know, so I can delete them or move them to a more suitable topic.
Pictures:
View: https://flic.kr/p/2m2HkEr
View: https://flic.kr/p/2m2N4HY
View: https://flic.kr/p/2m2QVVi
- Joined
- 3 June 2006
- Messages
- 2,964
- Reaction score
- 3,235
Last edited:
Is there a pdf of that somewhere ? or only scattered bits on flicker ?
Thanks for sharing !
(PS. screw fluncker... fuc... flicker, damn it - that don't want me to download the picture. Listen to me you idiot thing: print screen is my friend, and you can't do anything about it. SCREW YOU)
Thanks for sharing !
(PS. screw fluncker... fuc... flicker, damn it - that don't want me to download the picture. Listen to me you idiot thing: print screen is my friend, and you can't do anything about it. SCREW YOU)
Attachments
Last edited:
- Joined
- 3 June 2006
- Messages
- 2,964
- Reaction score
- 3,235
Hi Archibald, I found only those pictures at Ed Dempsey's Flickr site. I had no problem downloading these pictures in original size from Flickr.
Maybe some member with more skills might find both papers as pdfs at nasa.gov.
Maybe some member with more skills might find both papers as pdfs at nasa.gov.
dannydale
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 13 May 2007
- Messages
- 545
- Reaction score
- 407
Preach it brother!
Is that the "Eyes Looking Skyward" fit? If so you should post a link to it.
On another note in regards to Rocketdyne the wikipedia article on it said that major components of the F-1 and J-2 were manufactured in Noesho, Missouri but it didn't elaborate as to what those components were does anyone know?
In regards to the F-1A IIRC before testing had ended they had modified one the turbo pump assemblies so that the thrust could be throttled.
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,147
- Reaction score
- 12,249
Rockets Falling from Orbit: The Saturn V That Launched NASA’s Skylab
In recent years, the uncontrolled reentries of the spent 22-metric ton core stages of China’s new Long March 5B heavy lift launch vehicle, used to orbit space station components, have made the news…
- Joined
- 13 August 2007
- Messages
- 7,880
- Reaction score
- 9,007
one were the Voyager Mars mission
a Saturn V would launch two large orbiter and lander to Mars
flow cheaper and better as Viking with Titan IIIE
Well in 1970 when they canned a few J-class missions, Charles Townes at the National Academies suggested to fly a few of them AFTER Skylab. Tom Paine refused for workforce and safety reasons, also Shuttle early expenses.
At the time Skylab was to fly in November 1972. By February 1971 when Apollo 14 returned, Paine was gone and Skylab was pushed to its final slot of May 1973.
Meanwhile the last three J-class missions were flown in July 1971 (Apollo 15) April 1972 (Apollo 16) and December 1972 (Apollo 17).
They could have however brought back Apollo 18 and crammed it before Skylab: with five months between the four missions.
At the time Skylab was to fly in November 1972. By February 1971 when Apollo 14 returned, Paine was gone and Skylab was pushed to its final slot of May 1973.
Meanwhile the last three J-class missions were flown in July 1971 (Apollo 15) April 1972 (Apollo 16) and December 1972 (Apollo 17).
They could have however brought back Apollo 18 and crammed it before Skylab: with five months between the four missions.
Last edited:
