Slashdot Mirror
Saturn V Fallen on Hard Times
n9fzx writes "The best remaining artifact of the Apollo Program, Huntsville's Saturn V, is 'pocked with pits and cracks, and patches of mold and mildew', having survived for forty years outdoors. Alabama's U.S. Space and Rocket Center is trying to raise a measly $5 million in order to preserve the beast, with $1.5 million in the kitty so far. Paypal, anyone?"
Yes there were three more missions planned, and enough hardware to fly them. The three rockets are at Cape Canaveral (fully restored and inside a building made to house and display it), Mission Control Houston (outside), and the one at Huntsville, which is also outside. I've heard the one in Huntsville was raised to stand upright a couple of years ago. I've made a few trips to Cape Canaveral and Mission Control Houston, but I've never seen the Saturn V at Huntsville.
If I remember correctly, two complete Saturn V's were available when the program was cancelled. One of them was turned into Skylab and another into this showpiece. Apollo 20 was never assembled.
The owls are not what they seem
Apollo 20 was indeed assembled and serves as a memorial to the workers at the Michoud Assembly Plant near New Orleans. The first and second stages on display in Houston were originally slated for Apollo 19. The booster used for Skylab was that of the Apollo 18.
The owls are not what they seem
One thing I hate about most main stream space museums is that they tend to just spraypaint over everything so it all looks freshly painted. Much of the stuff at the A&S in Washington DC has been so "restored" that the pipes have been removed and everything repainted. It looks as bad as paint job from one of thouse places that repaint cars for $200.
The good places will carefully restore what is needed and replace pipes when needed and put them back to where they had been and they leave all the serail number plates on parts so they can be read.
I beg to differ. The most important geological findings on the moon were done precisely because of human intuition and the capability to make observations and on-the-spot changes in the original mission plan.
For further reference, read Andrew Chaikin's "A Man on the Moon".
It's a sad state of affairs when people actually start to believe that robots could ever replace human explorers.
The owls are not what they seem
There is a complete Saturn V indoors in a facility at the Kennedy Space center. Its in great shape (at least from the outside) and totally protected from the weather. Its in a museum facility that anybody can see.
Each shuttle flight costs about $450 million. The Columbia Accident Investigation Board has also set special requirements for flights that don't allow an ISS "lifeboat" option-- so a special one-time-use tile repair kit would have to be built and certified to comply with the CAIB. And of course, there's the other $40 million in instrumentation development/certification for the servicing mission.
With the focus on retiring the shuttle to permit construction of the Crew Exploration Vehicle, this really doesn't make sense. The James Webb telescope will be up soon enough, and it is ilkely that the life of Hubble can be extended with special 2-gyro + reference star stabilization software (albeit, with slightly degraded image quality / pointing ability).
Here is a picture, with some people next to it for comparison.
It's big, indeed.
You mean it went to lunar orbit and back, but yeah that must be pretty cool to see.
I live in Huntsville
A few years ago, the Space and Rocket Center, paid way too much money for a BEAUTIFUL fiberglass replica shell to be built and stod up. It is life size and is accurate. It's a wonderufl sight to see coming in 565 or landing at the airport in the afternoon. This thing is I believe the second tallest structure in the state of Alabama, and it stands out like a giant sundial when you are at 1-2000 ft.
Regardless, the original post was about the real hardware which was laid on it's side 40 years ago, and is viewable to this day. Ignoring the 'left to rot' aspect, the hardware was Unusable within a very short time, and it was understood when it was first laid down that it would never be considered flight worthy again. The $5 Mill. is merely to restore and preserve it so it looks nice. (and I do support the project to preserve it, even if I may sound like I don't)
Yeah that Saturn V replica makes the sky line look nice over here at UAH.
The following data is based on the technology available at the time of the design of the Saturn V and technology developed in the following years. Folks we had the means to colonize the moon and mars and we threw it away. It can be redeveloped with the proper political attitude and money. But will it? Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda.
Part one: Capability of original Saturn V.
Part two: With improved efficiency F1 main engines.
Part 3: Improved F1 engines burning high efficiency kerosene/nanoaluminum powder fuels.
Saturn V basic specs:
Empty weight: 250 tons.
Empty weight of first stage: 100 tons.
Fueled weight 3000 tons.
Takeoff thrust: 3750 tons.
Takeoff weight / thrust ratio: 80/100.
Thrust of each main first F1 engine: 750 tons.
Efficiency of each F1 engine: 250:1
Fuel consumption of each F1 engine: 3 tons/second.
Ratio of LO2/Kerosene: 2 tons/1 ton/ second.
Total mass of fuel consumed at and of first stage cutoff: 2250 tons
Mass of all upper stages at seperation:650 tons.
Thrust of second stage:600 tons.
Net weight of two stage orbit capability, based on skylab data: 90 tons.
Net weight of 2.5 stage orbit capability, based on moon launches: 150 tons.
Net capacity escape to moon: 45-50 tons.
Part two: Improved F1 engines:
The russians designed during the Moon landing era LO2/kerosene engines with efficiencies of 333, sea level, which is 33% greater than the existing F1.
That means the redesigned F1 engines could have produced 2 million pounds of thrust ( 1000 tons) at the same 3 tons per second consumption. That means that take off thrust of 5000 tons versus 3750 tons, an increased thow upper stage total weight jumping from 650 tons to 1650 tons and a probable doubling of mass to orbit:
2 stage mass: 180-200 tons.
2.5 stage mass: 300 tons
3 stage escape mass to moon: 90-100 tons.
So a conventional but improved F1 engine could hav e allowed supporting an early small manned colony on the moon.
Part three: Use of NanoAlumimum powder in Kerosene fuels: Link: http://www.argonide.com/gun_propellants.html
Based on the article, efficiency could increase at least 50%. If so then the 333 ISP of the 1970's technology could have been raised to 450.
Thus, a possible F3 engine, designed for high efficiency and high energy fuels could have an efficiency rating of 450-500. That means that the Saturn V could have evolved into a rocket that could have placed:
2 stage orbit: 300 tons
2.5 stage orbit: 450 tons.
3 stage escape: 150 tons.
All this without resorting to adding side boosters to the Saturn vehicle. If side boosters of equal or better design than that used by the current space shuttle could have been added to the Saturn V then that vehicle could have evolved to place in orbit perhaps 600 to 1000 tons and have capacity to put into escape 300 tons.
The mass of the current space station is now 200 tons and if core completed will weight 300 tons. It is estimated that the requried mass of a mars expedition space ship will be 300 tons.
The world could have been colonizing the moon right now and be on the verge this year of making the jump to mars.
Hundreds of years ago the Chinese sent a huge fleet to colonize the world. It went entirely around the world leaving historical evidence everywhere and bring home innformation. The Mandarins then dismantled the entire fleet, forbid exploration and became a closed society until Admiral Perry forcibly opened them up to the world.
Why does the high sounding Bush administration's new space vision really feel like a mandarins sleight of hand maneuver to gut the space program like they are gutting everything else.
Folks, the technology exists NOW. The means is there. But will the politicos actually allow the opportunity?
doh, that isnt the huntsville one, thats the one from Johnson Space Flight Center. Here in Huntsville, its the Marshall Space Flight Center, and the rocket itself is on the arsenal (at space camp)
A friend of mine worked at the Space & Rocket Center for several years. The center went through big budget cuts about 4 or 5 years ago, and was really on the ropes due to the investment it made in the construction of the free standing Saturn V replica for the 30th anniversary of the moon landing. They simply don't have the money to keep things nice and 'fresh' at the moment.
Trivia: Did you know that about 10 years ago, NASA swiped the SRB nozzles and nose cones from the shuttle exhibit because it needed working equipment to actually use on a shuttle launch?
You know you've reduced the NASA budget too much when they're hocking parts off of museum exhibits. Remind me to thank Bill Clinton for being so helpful to NASA during his presidency.
The US Space and Rocket Center actually has two Saturn V's; one is a the flight atricle in not terrible state (not more than KSC's was before they build the enclosure) and a test article that has been fully assembled and towers a hundred and some feet high, high enough that I can see it from my dorm window...
= ar ticle&id=museumindex&view=ind
;)
http://www.spacecamp.com/spacecamp/request?type
Simon
from http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/special/landmk1.html
"The Saturn V on display at the United States Space and Rocket Center is the actual test rocket that was used in dynamic testing of the Saturn facilities at Marshall. The stages of the rocket were used to check out all the Saturn facilities at Huntsville. Although the rocket was not intended to be flown, it was a working vehicle that prepared the way for the Apollo expeditions to the moon."
"Officials from the Department of the Interior referred to the vehicle as "a unique engineering masterpiece that formed the key link in the chain that enabled Americans to travel to the moon. The success of the Saturn V made possible the success of the American space program."
"The Saturn V at the United States Space and Rocket Center was delivered by Marshall in 1969 after all three stages were taken from the Center's Dynamic Test Stand. "
"The purpose of National Historic Landmark designation is to identify and recognize nationally significant sites. ''Landmarks are chosen after careful study by the National Park Service,'' according to officials from the Department of Interior. ''They are evaluated by the National Park System Advisory Board and designated by the Secretary of the Interior in accordance with the Historic Sites Act of 1935 and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.''"
"Designation as a National Historic Landmark automatically places a property in the National Register of Historic Places and extends to it special safeguards and benefits provided by Federal law. "
For that matter, what do you think its chances are of ever getting launched at all?
In the current economy, it's not too clever to quit your IT job unless you've got a firm, unreversable commitment for a new one to switch to with an absolutely definite start date that can't be postponed by the new employer. Similarly I don't think it's clever to abandon the Hubble til the Webb is launched and operational.
As a piece of porcelain in any antique shop will show you, China was never an entirely closed country, it continued to trade with the West through to the modern era.
Admiral Perry opened up Japan, another country entirely.
Best wishes,
Mike.
The Saturn V could be rebuilt today, but would cost a lot due to reengineering. It's not that the plans were lost, but that technology has changed. Many things available in the 1960's are not available any more, because they've been replaced by improved technologies. For example, Saturn V had sequencers, not computers. The whole rocket could be run with the equivalent of a mini-itx board saving a lot of weight and complexity over the old sequencer circuitry, but the reengineering would cost millions.
The engines themselves were relatively unremarkable (except for their amazing size) scale-ups of typical kerosine-LOX engines of the 1960's. Easy to make new ones if we wanted to.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
This is a nifty table that explains why Russian engines are so desireable.
This is a fluffier piece on the RD-180, now being built in the US under license.
Finally, this is a crowded table of all the Energomash engines. NOTE: this table's hard to read, and you'll find some WILD variants...
But you got the stories of the great chinese fleet and Perry expedition wrong.
Commodore Perry's mission opened up Japan, not China. Japan != China.
Archeological evidence that the great Chinese fleet circumnavigated the world? Here is an article with a map, showing they got as far as the Horn of Africa. A great accomplishment, but not world-girdling.
so, the facts you gave about the improved Saturn V? They are more accurate than those you offered on the history of maritime explorations?
So I mixed my historical contexts a bit. Both japanese and chinese had great exploratory/military sailing fleets and chose to eliminate them and become closed societies. As for the the rocket information, I have followed closely the space program since the days of the mercury flights, have attended shuttle landings at edwards afb and all of my tech data is verifiable.
"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?
...
That's not my department," said Wernher von Braun.
von Braun started working on rockets in the 1930s and went on to build the A-4, later renamed the V-2, which was the first successful ballistic missile and later served to launch scientific instruments and cameras to the edge of space (it could not reach orbit.) One of the X-Prize entrants, the Canadian Arrow, uses the V-2 design with a second stage added so that it can launch three people on a suborbital trajectory. von Braun himself wanted to build something similar in the 1940s, but it never happened.
He went on to design the Redstone rocket used to launch the first two Mercury flights, the Jupiter rocket which launched Explorer 1, and famously the Saturn family of rockets, obviously including the Saturn 5.
He died in 1973 or 1974, I forget which. He always saw his funding during his years in Germany as a way to build rockets that would send people to the stars. Lehrer had that part right.
"Don't say that he's hypocritical
Say rather that he's apolitical."
i am a soviet space shuttle
Sorry, somehow my link didn't come through.e _000313.html
http://www.space.com/news/spacehistory/saturn_fiv
Jon Acheson
All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.