Community > Forum > Technology & Science > Will the Saturn 5 ever be used again?

Will the Saturn 5 ever be used again?

Posted by: roygrif - Tue Aug 10, 2004 6:48 pm
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 31 posts ] 
Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Will the Saturn 5 ever be used again? 
Author Message
Spaceflight Trainee
Spaceflight Trainee
avatar
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2004 4:19 pm
Posts: 42
Location: Indianapolis
Post Will the Saturn 5 ever be used again?   Posted on: Tue Aug 10, 2004 6:48 pm
If Nasa wants to go to the moon soon, would they use the Saturn 5 rocket or derivative of?

_________________
www.theshiversmusic.com


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 8:21 pm
Posts: 297
Location: LI/NY - currently
Post    Posted on: Tue Aug 10, 2004 6:59 pm
It's extremely unlikely. They can't simply whip out the plans and start building them again, I'm pretty sure all the plans were destroyed. I think the only part of the Saturn 5 that could be built within 5 years may be the F-1 engines. Everything else would have to be re-designed from scratch as if it were a brand new rocket. Throw in the added work of adjusting for all the new materials and electronics and it becomes more sensible to simply build an entirely new rocket.


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Trainee
Spaceflight Trainee
avatar
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2004 4:19 pm
Posts: 42
Location: Indianapolis
Post    Posted on: Tue Aug 10, 2004 7:20 pm
I agree with you but I don't see why the prints would be destroyed.

_________________
www.theshiversmusic.com


Back to top
Profile
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2004 3:17 pm
Posts: 243
Location: So Cal, baby!
Post    Posted on: Tue Aug 10, 2004 8:51 pm
The plans for Saturn 5 were destroyed. Deliberately, with the specific intent of preventing folks from trying to research, build or propose a disposable heavy-lift option to the STS.

This is what happens when bureaucrats and polititians are placed in charge of scientists and engineers.


Last edited by SawSS1Jun21 on Tue Aug 10, 2004 8:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
avatar
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 9:33 pm
Posts: 69
Post    Posted on: Tue Aug 10, 2004 8:51 pm
The plans are still around. The assembly lines are not. Same reason we aren't going to build anymore A-10s, B-52s, B-1s, etc.

_________________
Catholic Cadet: Apologetics and Evangelization.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
avatar
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 9:33 pm
Posts: 69
Post    Posted on: Tue Aug 10, 2004 8:55 pm
SawSS1Jun21 wrote:
The plans for Saturn 5 were destroyed. Deliberately and with the specific intent of preventing folks from trying to research, build or propose a disposable heavy-lift option to the STS.


False.

Quote:
This is what happens when bureaucrats and polititians are placed in charge of scientists and engineers.


How about you drop the "NASA is the Great Satan" attitude?

_________________
Catholic Cadet: Apologetics and Evangelization.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 8:21 pm
Posts: 297
Location: LI/NY - currently
Post    Posted on: Tue Aug 10, 2004 8:57 pm
I did hear that one of the engineers, upset over the 'destroy the plans' order, kept a full set and had them squirreled away in his garage. That has an Urban Legend feel to it though and I've no idea if it's true. Cadet brings up a good point to. Although much of the machist work could probably be restarted there's a ridiculous amount of missing infrastructure to go about building a new Saturn 5.


Back to top
Profile
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2004 3:17 pm
Posts: 243
Location: So Cal, baby!
Post    Posted on: Tue Aug 10, 2004 9:04 pm
I am a big fan of NASA. I am not a big fan of the Federal Government. I think that NASA employs many of the brightest minds on the planet and I am sure that many great things are still to come from that organization.

I know about the Saturn 5 plans because I was told about it by a very reliable source whom has been involved with NASA ever since project Gemini. I hope that TJ is right and someone objected enough to bury a copy of blueprints somewhere.


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
avatar
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 9:33 pm
Posts: 69
Post    Posted on: Tue Aug 10, 2004 9:05 pm
TJ wrote:
I did hear that one of the engineers, upset over the 'destroy the plans' order, kept a full set and had them squirreled away in his garage. That has an Urban Legend feel to it though and I've no idea if it's true. Cadet brings up a good point to. Although much of the machist work could probably be restarted there's a ridiculous amount of missing infrastructure to go about building a new Saturn 5.


Not only are the assembly lines not available, but neither are the launch pads, they've all been converted. Plus, there's the biggest question of all: Why in the world would you want to launch with 40 year old technology?

Finally, there's the price. According to Astronautix, launch price of a Saturn V was $431 million in 1967 dollars. That's $2.3 billion in 2003 dollars.

_________________
Catholic Cadet: Apologetics and Evangelization.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
avatar
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 9:33 pm
Posts: 69
Post    Posted on: Tue Aug 10, 2004 9:07 pm
SawSS1Jun21 wrote:
I know about the Saturn 5 plans because I was told about it by a very reliable source whom has been involved with NASA ever since project Gemini. I hope that TJ is right and someone objected enough to bury a copy of blueprints somewhere.


So file an FOIA with the Federal government to see the blue prints, since they acknowledge that they have them, with sets stored in two different locations.

_________________
Catholic Cadet: Apologetics and Evangelization.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 8:21 pm
Posts: 297
Location: LI/NY - currently
Post    Posted on: Tue Aug 10, 2004 9:13 pm
Cadet wrote:
Plus, there's the biggest question of all: Why in the world would you want to launch with 40 year old technology?



To many people that 40 year old technology is better than the 25 year old technology that replaced it.

I've heard enough conflicting versions of the missing plans though that I really couldn't guess which is true.

Personally if it were up to me I'd be pushing to have something along the lines of Robert Zubrins 'Ares' heavy lift booster if a big booster was needed. Although I also think that building an Orion should be investigated. This website http://www.nuclearspace.com/ used to have an interesting article up about that idea that made me think it should be investigated.


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
avatar
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 9:33 pm
Posts: 69
Post    Posted on: Tue Aug 10, 2004 9:22 pm
TJ wrote:
Cadet wrote:
Plus, there's the biggest question of all: Why in the world would you want to launch with 40 year old technology?



To many people that 40 year old technology is better than the 25 year old technology that replaced it.


Perhaps, but if we are going to start building a new line of vehicles I don't want the original blue prints, I want it updated to reflect what we've learned in the past 40 years. It's more efficient, cheaper, and safer.

Quote:
I've heard enough conflicting versions of the missing plans though that I really couldn't guess which is true.


They've given specifics as to the form of media it is stored in and the locations. The only conflicting reports are some guy who said "I can't find it, NASA MUST HAVE DESTROYED IT!!" and some unknown source.

Quote:
Personally if it were up to me I'd be pushing to have something along the lines of Robert Zubrins 'Ares' heavy lift booster if a big booster was needed. Although I also think that building an Orion should be investigated. This website http://www.nuclearspace.com/ used to have an interesting article up about that idea that made me think it should be investigated.


1. I personally prefer the SeaDragon. 500 tons of LEO goodness.
2. A multimillion ton vessel powered by detonating nuclear bombs is insane in the extreme.

_________________
Catholic Cadet: Apologetics and Evangelization.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 8:21 pm
Posts: 297
Location: LI/NY - currently
Post    Posted on: Tue Aug 10, 2004 9:52 pm
Cadet wrote:
2. A multimillion ton vessel powered by detonating nuclear bombs is insane in the extreme.


You know that's probably one of the real reasons why I like it. Also a design that has 1,000 ton payloads for trips to Mars with a 4,000 ton ship as a smaller design just might be worth a second look. Although short of a world wide emergency it's not likely to ever be built. At least not on earth.


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Trainee
Spaceflight Trainee
User avatar
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 3:16 am
Posts: 49
Post    Posted on: Tue Aug 10, 2004 11:20 pm
http://www.space.com/news/spacehistory/saturn_five_000313.html
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/space/controversy/
http://yarchive.net/space/launchers/saturn_v.html

I tend to be of the school that there's no point in trying to revive the Saturn V. You could call it a Saturn V and it might even look like a Saturn V and would probably even use roughly similar engines. Remember the J-2 engine design has been dusted off even recently for the X-33's never-flown linear aerospike engine and the some of the Shuttle designs origionally had a J-2S rocket on them -- it's just that they needed more thrust.

The really interesting "what if" is the Saturn Shuttle.

The interesting future movement is what happens after the shuttle retirement. I have a sneaking suspicion that there will be attempts to revisit Shuttle-C.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
avatar
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 9:33 pm
Posts: 69
Post    Posted on: Tue Aug 10, 2004 11:49 pm
TJ wrote:
Cadet wrote:
2. A multimillion ton vessel powered by detonating nuclear bombs is insane in the extreme.


You know that's probably one of the real reasons why I like it. Also a design that has 1,000 ton payloads for trips to Mars with a 4,000 ton ship as a smaller design just might be worth a second look. Although short of a world wide emergency it's not likely to ever be built. At least not on earth.


Or in space. It's pointless. Why spend trillions when you can spend a few billion for the same capacity and without violating nuclear weapons treaties or devising new weapons (I don't think that current weapons can be used due to the way that they are built).

_________________
Catholic Cadet: Apologetics and Evangelization.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ] 
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests


© 2014 The International Space Fellowship, developed by Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy | Terms of Use