|
Author
|
Topic: Saturn I-B S1-B Stage: Are There Any Left?
|
Charles Boyer
New Member Posts: 4
From: Raleigh, NC USA
Registered: May 2009
|
posted 08-28-2009 08:36 AM
   
I was asked this question by a rather sharp student: he was wondering if Ares-I is canceled and new options considered for US manned space flight, why don't we un-mothball the Saturn I-B and use it? Engineering considerations aside, it's an insightful query from a 16 year old kid. Anyway, from there, the discussion evolved into the displays of Saturn V hardware in Huntsville, the Cape and in Houston, and why there are no equivalent Saturn I-B displays; and even then if there are any S1-B restorables left in the world. I have no idea. |
webhamster
Member Posts: 106
From: Ottawa, Canada
Registered: Jul 2008
|
posted 08-28-2009 10:41 AM
According to A Field Guide To American Spacecraft there are three... - Alabama Welcome Center
- KSC Visitors Complex
- Space & Rocket Center (Huntsville)
|
Mr Meek
Member Posts: 353
From: Chattanooga, TN
Registered: Dec 2007
|
posted 08-28-2009 11:10 AM
Of those, only the KSC rocket and the first stage of the Alabama welcome center rocket are flight hardware. The S-IVB (211) for the welcome center rocket is currently a stand-in for Skylab in the rocket garden at the USSRC. Neither of the stages of the Saturn I on display at the USSRC were ever flight hardware.However, there is no way any of the formerly flight-qualified stages could be re-certified for flight. Decades of exposure to the elements in the steamy southern climate have ensured that what life these items have left will be spent on the ground. Furthermore, the tooling for building Saturn stages has long been destroyed. We could argue all day about the short-sightedness of it, but that hardware is gone. Were NASA to decide to go the liquid route for the first stage of a new rocket, I'm not sure that the complex 8-engine cluster design of the S-IB would be at the top of their list. Incidentally, the second stage of the Ares I is, in many ways, a sort of uprated S-IVB. It is (currently designed to be) fueled by a LH/LOX mix separated by a common bulkhead, and propelled by a J-2X engine. Certainly, there are major differences, but the Ares I second stage will owe much to its Apollo-era predecessor. |
Charles Boyer
New Member Posts: 4
From: Raleigh, NC USA
Registered: May 2009
|
posted 08-28-2009 11:55 AM
Thanks fellows. I think that the young man's point was that there was a proven design for orbital access and that despite being discarded, it is indeed proven -- and thus a better starting point. It's hard to argue against that rather sound engineering principle.Obviously, old flight hardware sitting outside for decades would not be usable. Equally obviously, once the manufacturing lines were taken apart, the parts were re-cycled in one manner or another. As were the careers of the experts that built it. I do remember the outdoor displays, however, perhaps I wasn't clear in the original post -- I meant the indoor displays that each of the three sites have for the Saturn V's. It would be quite awesome to give the I-B the same treatment as well. |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1624
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 08-28-2009 12:47 PM
Your student made a profound point--the U.S. spent biilions to make a proven and reliable launch vehicle and then threw it away. History will record this stupidity. Only the government could get away with this, a private business would fail. |
John Charles
Member Posts: 342
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 08-28-2009 03:07 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Fra Mauro:
History will record this stupidity. Only the government could get away with this, a private business would fail.
Apples and tubas. A private business would never have embarked on such an uneconomical (and yet history-making) venture as a manned lunar program in the first place.------------------
John Charles
Houston, Texas |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 08-28-2009 10:38 PM
It is a valid arguement concerning a proven design not being used. Indeed you might want to make mention to your student that when the plans were drawn up for us to go back to the moon, studies were done into the best method to do it. I don't know if it was on NASA's side or the corporate side, but they did look into ractivating the Saturn booster production line as a cost feasability study. A good friend of mine on a commercial flight happened to be seated next to one of the people doing the study and he was headed to Houston I believe to give a briefing on their preliminary findings. So somebody at least looked into it. Cost-wise though, it would have been too expensive versus the methods currently being used. The main reason of course involved destruction of the tooling jigs used to make the machines the first time. And project Apollo required a LOT of specialized equipment to make these rockets. |
tfrielin
Member Posts: 162
From: Athens, GA
Registered: Feb 2007
|
posted 08-29-2009 03:51 PM
Reviving the S-1B first stage for the Orion CSM would be a great idea and a welcome alternative to the inelegant "Stick". You could re-produce the eight H-1 engine cluster and its thrust structure and bolt it on to a mono-tank version of the S-1B replacing the multi-tank arrangement of the original, thus simplifying the design and greatly improving its performance. Then use the currently planned upper stage and its J-2X engine and you'd have a launch vehicle capable of placing 50,000 pounds into low earth orbit -- just what the Orion CSM requires. |
tfrielin
Member Posts: 162
From: Athens, GA
Registered: Feb 2007
|
posted 09-01-2009 01:25 PM
More on reviving the S-1b stage as a launch vehicle for the Orion CSM:My bona fides as the Retro-Bring-Back-The-Saturns-Guy are well established, so here is a thought experiment for the armchair rocket scientists out there who know how to crunch the numbers on this modest proposal. I suggest we switch to the Saturn S-IB stage for Orion, only making the new version a mono-tank instead of the nine separate tanks of the original. A common bulkhead fuel and LOX tank would save literally tons off the original first stage weight. Then use the Ares second stage as currently planned. So, how much payload would a mono-tank Saturn 1B with the Ares upper stage be able to place in LEO? I believe the largest payload a Saturn 1B lofted was ASTP -- 37,000 pounds into orbit (CSM + docking module). The Orion CSM weight is currently slated for 45,000 pounds -- that's only 8,000 pounds more than the ASTP payload. So, how much could a mono-tank Saturn 1B place in orbit? Would the tank streamlining increase the payload capacity by that much? If not, how much of a stretch of the first stage tanks be required to raise the payload capacty to, say, 50,000 pounds (I'll spot Orion 5,000 pounds for growth weight over the current design)? This solution would bring back the 8 H-1 engine cluster and thrust structure that would be bolted on to the tankage and there you'd have it -- a first stage for Ares that did not rely on the inelegant use of that hideous SRB. |
LCDR Scott Schneeweis
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 09-01-2009 01:48 PM
The Delta IVH can already loft 50K to LEO and with further enhancement payload capability can be increased using engines, tooling already in the pipeline... as much as I am enamored with Saturn can see no advantage to resurrecting a retired launch system. ------------------
Scott Schneeweis
http://www.SPACEAHOLIC.com/ |
tfrielin
Member Posts: 162
From: Athens, GA
Registered: Feb 2007
|
posted 09-02-2009 11:08 AM
Fair enough. Let's man-rate the Delta IV. It seems to me it shouldn't take that long for an operational vehicle to do so. How long did it take to man-rate the Atlas? Or the Titan? Three years, tops? Two things I just don't get about how NASA is handling the Constellation program: - Why use the Stick for the Ares I first stage? Solids and manned spacecraft are best not combined (see Challenger disaster)? Why not use the already proven Delta IV instead?
- Why are they even considering water landings for Orion? We should be long past thinking in terms of splashdowns. Land that thing in the open expanses of Edwards AFB. Or the grasslands of Kansas. Or in an emergency, in Russia (see Soyuz) or the Australian outback. I believe the landing footprints of all the Apollo splashdowns fit into a space about the size of Dulles airport. If we could achieve that kind of accuracy forty years ago, why even consider dumping Orion in the drink?
|
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 43576
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 09-02-2009 11:30 AM
In the space shuttle system only the 51-L event (a non-catastrophic failure of the SRB) has marred a perfect record in 226 SRBs, with 176 consecutive successful uses of the redesigned SRBs. This 1 in 226 history, or 0.996 launch success rate is perhaps the best of the best in launcher history.Source: Reliability and Crew Safety Assessment for Solid Rocket Booster / J-2S Based Launch Vehicle, SAIC, April 2005 The solid rocket boosters were not at fault for the STS-51L accident in so much that the failure was in the management decision to fly outside their documented parameters. Fly any rocket outside its flight criteria and you risk loss of vehicle.As for landing Orion on the ground, it is a weight issue: flotation devices weigh less than braking motors and impact protection for the crew. Incidentally, both of these topics have been discussed previously under separate threads in the Constellation forum. |
Proponent
Member Posts: 59
From: London
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 09-03-2009 06:48 AM
quote:
Originally posted by tfrielin:
So, how much could a mono-tank Saturn 1B place in orbit? Would the tank streamlining increase the payload capacity by that much?
If you do an advanced search for "SA-217" on the USSRC website including the UAH collection, you'll find a document from January 1968 laying out the specs of the second batch of Saturn IBs. With minimal improvements over the first batch--replacing the J-2 engine with the J-2S and trimming some weight here and there--the payload capability to a 100-nautical-mile orbit would have been boosted to 44,965 lb. If this vehicle were still flying today, surely the instrument unit, which weighed in at about 4000 lb in 1968, would weigh just about nothing now. With a little more weight reduction through the use of modern materials, its capability today could easily be over 50,000 lb with very little development expense.EDIT: Fixed a few typos. |
tfrielin
Member Posts: 162
From: Athens, GA
Registered: Feb 2007
|
posted 09-03-2009 11:56 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Proponent:
If this vehicle were still flying today, surely the instrument unit, which weighed in at about 4000 lb in 1968, would weigh just about nothing now. With a little more weight reduction through the use of modern materials, its capability today could easily be over 50,000 lb with very little development expense.
We should never have ditched the Saturns. |
Mr Meek
Member Posts: 353
From: Chattanooga, TN
Registered: Dec 2007
|
posted 09-03-2009 01:10 PM
Keep in mind that the first (S-IB) stage was powered by 8 H-1 engines running on LOX/RP-1, and not J-2's fueled by LOX/LH2. If, however, you're thinking of the second stage, then the Ares I's second stage is essentially what you're describing for an uprated S-IVB stage.But, for the sake of conversation, let's start a little armchair engineering thought exercise: Redesigning the S-IB. If you were then wanting to convert the S-IB stage into an inline tank or mono-tank design, you'd be designing something similar to the S-IC or S-II. For an inline tank, this means solving the issues caused by 5-8 feed lines running through your RP-1 tank. For 5 lines, the center one would need to be big enough to feed the 4 inboard engines. Either way, this changes the stresses on both dome ends of your RP-1 tank, requires the creation of a new slosh baffle system, and a redesign of the complex plumbing in the S-IB thrust structure. Furthermore, if you're set on a mono-tank design similar to an S-II, you need to find out if a common bulkhead could withstand the weight of whichever fuel you put on top. If the LOX goes on top as in the S-IC, how much insulation do you need to keep the RP-1 from getting too cold? What are the thermal characteristics and restrictions of RP-1? If the RP-1 goes on top, what does that mean for your LOX tank and the feed lines in the above paragraph? Now, I don't pretend to know the answers to these questions, and I'm not intentionally trying to kick metaphorical sand in your eye. These are just a handful of questions that I, as a totally amateur space enthusiast, could see needing answers if the S-IB were going to be reintroduced and "upgraded". These don't begin to get into the issues of cost, feasibility, net weight savings, or total mass-to-orbit when paired with the proposed Ares I second stage. In the classic wisdom of my father, "Nothing difficult was ever easy."  |
Rick Mulheirn
Member Posts: 4208
From: England
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 09-03-2009 04:23 PM
I recall at least on Saturn 1B first stage and one Saturn V first stage were offered for sale... as scrap... by The General Services Administration (GSA) back in the mid 70's.I was sent a flyer inviting me to bid but the buyer had to make his/her own arrangements for the collection of the items and for the cleaning of the storage site upon removal; I doubt the baggage allowance to the UK would have been much use.  |
tfrielin
Member Posts: 162
From: Athens, GA
Registered: Feb 2007
|
posted 09-04-2009 09:51 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Meek:
For an inline tank, this means solving the issues caused by 5-8 feed lines running through your RP-1 tank.
I would submit that if you could run five rather large lox lines through the fuel tank in the much larger S-IC stage, doing the same would not be too much of a challenge for the smaller S-1B. |
tfrielin
Member Posts: 162
From: Athens, GA
Registered: Feb 2007
|
posted 09-11-2009 11:53 AM
In the space shuttle system only the 51-L event (a non-catastrophic failure of the SRB) has marred a perfect record in 226 SRBs, with 176 consecutive successful uses of the redesigned SRBs. This 1 in 226 history, or 0.996 launch success rate is perhaps the best of the best in launcher history. Yes, still this is rather like the old saw, "Except for that, how did you enjoy the play, Mrs. Lincoln." |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 43576
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 09-11-2009 12:26 PM
quote:
Originally posted by tfrielin:
Yes, still this is rather like the old saw, "Except for that, how did you enjoy the play, Mrs. Lincoln."
I disagree, it is nothing like that. The STS-51L solid rocket boosters did not fail as designed; the failure was in a management decision. For your comparison to ring true, Lincoln's death would need to have been attributable to his decision to go see the play, not the assassin waiting to meet him there. |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 09-11-2009 12:44 PM
Also to back up what Robert said, the SRB field joints are also now much better then they were before 51L as the design is much more robust. I spent last weekend reading Allan McDonald's book "Truth Lies and O-Rings" from cover to cover. It gave a very comprehensive explaination of what exactly failed on 51L, the weakness of the old design and the results of testing on the new design. As well as the new boosters are made, I would find it highly unlikely there would be a similar failure, assuming management again doesn't try to fly them outside the design parameters established. |
advertisement