|
Author
|
Topic: Saturn V today?
|
scout706
Member Posts: 166
From: Phoenix, AZ USA
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 08-08-2003 02:31 PM
   
I have been thinking about this for a while now, what the capabilities of the Saturn V would be if it was built using today's technology, i.e. electronics and manufacturing processes? Would it be worth it? Could it even be built today?Tom |
Scott
Member Posts: 3307
From: Houston, TX
Registered: May 2001
|
posted 08-08-2003 02:45 PM
Ken Mattingly thinks that even if we wanted to, we could not go to the Moon today. He said the infrastructure required to build the needed spacecraft does not exist anymore.[This message has been edited by Scott (edited August 08, 2003).] |
scout706
Member Posts: 166
From: Phoenix, AZ USA
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 08-08-2003 03:29 PM
ok, but since this is supposed to be pure speculation, what improvements do you think could be made using todays technology? As an example, I think that by using modern electronics and wiring. That you could probably save about 10,000 lbs in the first stage alone. Not counting what could be saved by using modern materials and manufacturing processes. For example Laser polishing and the ability to machine parts consistently to tolerances in the micron range.Tom |
Scott
Member Posts: 3307
From: Houston, TX
Registered: May 2001
|
posted 08-08-2003 06:11 PM
I think you are right in that a lot of weight could be saved. And of course the computers would be much more powerful and a lot smaller/lighter compared to the ones on the old Saturn V. As far as the fuel and body design however, I think it is a tribute to the visionary genius of Wernher von Braun (an unforgivable Nazi in his early days, I know) that those would probably remain relatively unchanged. I mean c'mon, is the Saturn V still not the coolest looking and best functioning rocket ever built??  Everyone thinks it was Kennedy, pure will and luck that got us to the Moon, and while those were all important, we couldn't have done it way back then if there hadn't been a Goddard and a von Braun. Sometimes, like Einstein, people are just way ahead of their time. Those 2 are great examples of that. [This message has been edited by Scott (edited August 08, 2003).] |
Gordon Reade
Member Posts: 334
From: USA
Registered: Nov 2002
|
posted 08-13-2003 01:17 PM
How about replacing the shuttle orbiter with an areodynamic shroud that would sit atop an unit with three SSME and strap the thing to an external tank and solid rocket boostors. That should give you the same lift capablity as a Saturn V.Put it another way, could a Saturn V orbit a Shuttle? |
astronut
Member Posts: 969
From: South Fork, CO
Registered: Mar 2000
|
posted 08-13-2003 08:28 PM
Friends,
I've always thought it a crime the way we threw away the best heavy lift rocket ever made. I think a Saturn 5 could have lofted the components for ISS Alpha quicker & cheaper than STS...WITHOUT risking astronauts to lift the pieces on orbit. The STS would have made more since as a smaller craft just made to lift astronauts & their mission equipment. It would have cost less and could have been completely reusable. The current orbiters were asked to do too many things for too many agencies at way too high a cost per flight. ------------------
Happy trails,
Wayno
"...you are go for TLI."
www.TransLunarInjection.com |
Gordon Reade
Member Posts: 334
From: USA
Registered: Nov 2002
|
posted 08-14-2003 01:31 AM
I’ll agree that the Saturn V should have been kept for unmanned launches. This next part will get me in trouble but here goes. It’s true that every launch of the Saturn V was successful but we only have 13 launches to go by. The beast always scared me. Just look at how much time it took to clear the tower. It seemed that it only just barely had the thrust to lift its own weight. My gut feeling is the Saturn V was never very safe.
|
advertisement