Conference 7.286::space

    	 No doubt "we" have the money and the technology to build an
    improved breed of Saturn V rockets, but the way things are going
    these days at NASA, I doubt it will be any time soon.
    
    	And the U.S. better "watch out", because the Soviets ARE building
    their version of the Saturn V (possibly based on the old G-1, which
    blew up several times on the launch pad?), for lifting new space
    stations, and probably materials for lunar and Martian manned bases.
    
    	Larry
    

    Could the US build a Saturn V this decade? I would say not. Ten
    years from now? The answer is probably still no.
    
    The Hughes 'Jarvis' MLV proposal was originally based on using Saturn V
    engine technology and hoped to take advantage of the existing inventory
    of spare engines for initial flights. Even if they could get at
    these they have decided to base their proposal on SSME derivatives.
    
    Part of the attraction of continuing to use 'old technology' is
    that you presumably have an operational production line. No such
    thing exists for Saturn components any more.
    
    This is another ramification of the Soviet "if it ain't broke, don't
    fix it" attitude compared with the US approach of "we can rebuild
    it, make it better than it was". Neither approach is perfect.
    
    The heavy launcher that the Soviets appear to be getting ready to
    launch is a derivative of the carrier vehicle developed for their
    shuttle, similar in concept to some of the shuttle derived vehicles
    that have proposed in recent years. By designing an orbiter that
    does not contain any major propulsion systems (i.e. does not contribute
    anything major towards acheiving orbit) it becomes fairly
    straightforward to replace the orbiter with a non returnable cargo
    carrier. It has some drawbacks too, potentially in the cost area
    if the booster is not reusable.
    
    The strapons are used standalone as medium launchers and have already
    been flight tested.
    
    I don't think the current heavy launcher has any common heritage
    with the 'G-1'. I think they goofed bad with te G-1 by continuing
    to assume that current technology could be applied to bigger and
    bigger launchers and they crossed a threshold where new technology
    WAS required. A reasonable extrapolation of the technology they
    had at the time suggests that liftoff would have required the
    successful ignition and subsequent stabilisation of over 70 thrust
    chambers and their associated turbopumps, thrust vector control
    etc.
    
    gary

    An interesting footnote is that there are about 20 (or less)
    Saturn rocket engines in "controlled environment storage".
    I constantly forget the model number, but there were some of
    the types used in the first and second stages there.  Last I
    heard someone was trying to get permission to use them in a
    future booster (Jarvis, I think).
    

    Yup, there are several F-1s and J-2s in controlled storage along
    with spares but, as I mentioned in the earlier reply, Hughes have
    changed their proposal to use modified SSMEs. Apparently it is cheaper
    to build 'cut down' SSMEs with no reuse capability than it is to
    tool up for F-1s and J-2s.
    
    gary

    Note also that there are not facilities to launch a Saturn V.  Both
    pads 39A and B have been converted to launch the shuttle.  We all
    sadly remember the results of the first use of pad B.  Also, the
    VAB has been retooled for assembling shuttles, not Saturns.
    
    Burns
    

    	Perhaps my memory's just faulty, but what were the "sad results"
    of the first use of Cape Canaveral launch pad 39B?
    
    	Larry
    

    	Augh - I certainly remembered that unfortunate incident, but
    launch pads aren't my strong point :^)
    
    	The only launch pad in my mind which attained "memorable"
    proportions was the one which Apollo 11 was sent to the Moon on -
    Pad 39A.  I mean memorable in terms of being famous to the general
    public.
    
    	But I digress...
    
    	Larry
    

    I seem to recall something recently in AW&ST that the Challenger
    was the first launch from (converted) pad 39A or 39B.  Someone
    suggested that a "sharp" turn that the vehicle had to take from
    the VAB to the pad may have put unusual stresses on the SRB joints.
    Furthermore, they instrumented Atlantis on its recent rollout to
    measure those stresses.
    
    Which pad was the Challenger launched from?  Does anyone know if
    they found anything during the Atlantis rollout?

    
    Challenger was launched from Pad 39B. This was the first such launch
    of the shuttle from this pad. 
    
    Pat
    

    I was referring to Challenger's launch from 39B.  The Apollo 1 fire
    was not at pad 39 at all.  I believe it was pad 37 (?).  In any
    case, I believe it was not even on Merrit Island...it is more over
    in the Air Force area, wasn't it?
    
    Burns

    The Apollo 1 fire took place at LC 34. I think the only Saturn 1B's
    launched from LC 39 were the Skylab and ASTP launches, using the
    'milkstool' so the command module was at the same height as it
    would have been on a Saturn V.
    
    LC 37A/B were also used for Saturn 1 family launches. LC 34 and
    37 are in the Air Force part of the facility. Last time I was there
    the bus tour included a stop at the blockhouse for LC 37.
    
    gary

Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: decwrl!ucbvax!AMELIA.NAS.NASA.GOV!eugene
Subject: Added frequently asked questions (1 time)
Posted: 11 Oct 88 00:59:54 GMT
Organization: The Internet
   
    Why not resurrect the Saturn V to give us a heavy lift capability?
 
    Author's Qualification: 6 years of launch vehicle studies for Boeing.
 
    Background:
 
     Saturn V; Payload to Earth orbit = 260,000 lb.
     Cost to develop (in 1988 dollars): $5 billion each for first and
          second stages.
 
     The main reason for not resurrecting the Saturn V booster is that
the first and second stage engines have been out of production for
many years. In order to restart making those engines, one would have
to partly reverse engineer the components from the half-dozen or so
engines that have been kept in clean storage (i.e. not the ones on
display outdoors).  This is because some of the component maker have
gone out of business, and for others, the people who engineered and
built the parts have retired.  In other words, the knowhow has partly
evaporated. 
 
     The second reason for not resurrecting the Saturn V is that there
is no place to launch it.  The Vehicle Assembly Building, Mobile
Launch Platforms, and Launch Pads have all been converted to the Space
Shuttle. It would take a lot of time and money to convert them back,
and you could no longer launch Shuttles.  Building an addition to the
VAB for assembling Saturn V's and adding a third launch complex (39C)
is possible, in fact it was planned out to some extent under the
assumption we would go to Mars with Saturn V launchers, but would take
money (>1.5 billion in construction costs) and time. 
 
     The third reason for not resurrecting the Saturn V is that we
have an equivalent or better launch capability in the Space Shuttle,
should we wish to make use of it. 
 
     It is possible to make a variety of cargo launchers using the
propulsion elements of the Space Shuttle, but without carrying an
orbiter.  The elements available are the Solid Rocket Boosters and the
Space Shuttle Main Engines.  By varying the number of segments in the
SRBs and the number of SSMEs used, you can get different payloads. 
For reference, the Space Shuttle uses two 4-segment SRBs and 3 SSMEs. 
 
Examples:                        Payload          Estimated Cost to Develop
 
2 3-segment SRBs + 1 SSME:        75,000 lb          $1.2 billion
2 4-segment SRBs + 2 SSMEs:      140,000 lb          $1.6 billion
2 4-segment SRBs + 3 SSMEs:      191,000 lb          ?
2 5-segment SRBs + 4 SSMEs:      267,000 lb          ?
Add for Advanced SRBs:        about 12,000 lb        $1 billion
Add for Block II SSMEs:       about 10,000 lb per    ?
(Pratt & Whitney new              SSME
 turbopumps, 15% higher thrust)
so: best 2x5 SRBS + 4 SSMEs:  about 319,000 lb

    Q. Could the Saturn V be revived as a heavylift booster?
 
    A. In principle, yes.  In practice, there are many problems.  Most
of the specialized production tooling is gone.  Some of the plans are
gone. Some of the subcontractors are gone.  Nobody remembers how to
start an F-1 engine safely (!) (some of the details never got into the
documentation).  The launch facilities at the Cape have all been
altered for the shuttle.  It wouldn't be quite as hard as building a
heavylift booster from scratch, but much of the work would have to be
done over. 
 
    Q. Are there any leftover Saturn Vs still around?
 
    A. Yes, but they are no longer flyable.  The Saturn Vs lying on
their sides as tourist exhibits at Kennedy and Johnson Space Centers
were the ones built to fly Apollos 19 and 20.  (The one meant for
Apollo 18 was used to launch Skylab.)  There is also an engineering
test article (a pre-production Saturn V) in protected storage with
"national monument" status, and another on display at Huntsville. 
 
    Dani Eder, ZZ 

Dani Eder / Boeing / Space Station Program / uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder
(205)464-4150(w) (205)461-7801(h) 1075 Dockside Drive #905 Huntsville, 
AL 35824  34 40 N latitude 86 40 W longitude +100m altitude, Earth

    According to C-SPAN TV News, a former top Saturn development
    program manager or engineer may not be welcome to return
    to the USA. Apparently the Weisenthal Center and the FBI
    have it in for him. 
    
    Can anyone clarify Dr. (?) Rudolf's pioneering contributions
    to the Saturn launch vehicle development effort?
    

    Arthur Rudolph was the program manager for the Saturn V, essentially of
    of von Braun's right-hand men and close friend for many, many years.
    (They shared bachelor quarters together in the 1930's and worked on the
    early liquid fuel rockets).  He was a true pioneer of rocket
    development.
    
    The Justice Department, in 1983, told him to surrender his U.S.
    citizenship and leave the country or face charges of being involved
    with the forced labor camps where the V-2s were built.  The Justice
    Department apparently sat on this this information for 40 years.
    Rudolph denied the charges, but returned to Germany anyway (at age 76).

Date: 11 Mar 91 06:38:45 GMT
From: [email protected]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from Jan 28 AW&ST
 
[That's it for space news in this AW&ST.  They are rather preoccupied
with other current events...  However, here's a *very* interesting bit
from the 15 Feb issue of Science:]
 
Congress is very interested in the Augustine commission's recommendation
for a heavylift launcher, and there is starting to be specific interest
in one particularly heavylift launcher... the Saturn V!!  Truly, questioned
about the matter, says the plans still exist.  It's pretty obvious, though,
that NASA would really prefer a shuttle-derived launcher.  Congress may
pursue the matter, although there is the obvious problem that tooling is
gone and many subcontractors are gone, so resurrecting the Saturn V would
be costly.
-- 
"But this *is* the simplified version   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
for the general public."     -S. Harris |  [email protected]  utzoo!henry
 

  Every 15 or 20 years, the Navy drags out their battleships for another
go around, I wonder if the same will happen for the Saturn V?

  It was a wonderful bird, but it's time to move on.

  George

    	Just as a note, while all the plans for the Saturn V still exist
    (several thousand cubic feet of paper), half of its original
    subcontractors are out of business, most of the tooling and equipment
    needed to build it are destroyed, its launch facilities are have long
    since been modified for other uses, most of the original engineers and
    technicians who built it are retired and so on. I've been told that
    there isn't a single soul in the industry who even knows how to
    properly start up an F-1 engine without it tearing itself apart
    (starting it was a black art). All in all, it would be very expensive
    to rebuild a Saturn V.
    
    				Drew
    

    I think the story about "nobody knows how to start an F-1" is the space
    equivalent of an urban myth (like alligators in the NYC sewers and
    people giving stickers laced with LSD to little kids).  If someone had
    a reason to build or operate an F-1 (there are probably one or two in
    controlled storage somewhere), they'd figure out how.
    
    The point is that there there is no good reason to do so. The F-1 was
    designed around 1959 with one goal in mind. It didn't have to be cost
    effective. It didn't have to be efficient. It just had to produce 1.5
    million lb-wt of thrust. The Saturn program in general showed the same
    mentality after it mutated from a heavy lift vehicle to a moon race.
    
    And that is no way to obtain low cost, reliable access to space.
    
    gary
    
    p.s. trivia note: The F-1 was originally funded by USAF. On paper at
    least, it was being built to power ballistic troop carriers.

    Ballistic troop carriers?

    I wonder how far along the design process that got? It's hard to imagine
how that would have worked. Somehow I can't imagine an entire regiment of
soldiers in space suits making their 5th trip out to the launch pad in 7
days to climb up into the troop carrier for yet another attempt at a launch.

    George

    Re: F-1s (tangent)
    
    During the post-Challenger period, Boeing and Hughes proposed a
    Saturn-based unmanned launcher known as the Jarvis, with two F-1s
    powering the first stage and a single J-2 for the second.  There was a
    quote in AW&ST at the time from a Rocketdyne engineer that the company
    had 5 complete F-1s and 7 J-2s in storage.  Later analysis showed the
    costs of restarting the F-1 and J-2 production lines would have been
    prohibitive, so SSMEs were then proposed for Jarvis before the whole
    project ground to a halt.

According to an article in this week's AW&ST (4/22/91), the Synthesis Group,
chaired by Tom Stafford, will recommend development of a super booster for lunar
and Mars missions.  Core vehicle is an "enlarged" Shuttle ET with a thrust 
structure and five modernized F-1 engines.  Four or six ETs are strapped to the 
core, with four advanced hydrogen-oxygen engines (perhaps the ALS engine).  
Note that these "strap-ons" are similar to the proposed core vehicle for the 
ALDS medium-heavy lift booster now under development.  Finally, a hydrogen-
oxygen upper stage is attached.  Estimated payload to LEO with six strap-ons is
600K lbs.

Interesting also to note that the Synthesis Group will recommend that lunar/Mars
efforts use a *minimum* of on-orbit assembly, for reasons of safety, complexity,
and cost.  Wonder how that will go over down at the Space Station Freedom HQ.

.-1 did not say explicitly, but I thought it was interesting:

The F-1s use petrochemical/LOX, not LH2/LOX.  That means that the "upgraded"
ET will have to hold essentially kerosene in its fuel section.  That's a lot
more dense that LH2, though they might end up requiring similar mass.
Regardless, it probably plays havoc with the original design.

Burns

    Copied without permission from:
    Aviation Week and Space Technology/May 20,1991 pg 67
    
    Aviation Week Forum -
    
    REVIVING SATURN 5 MAY BE NASA'S BEST OPTION TO ATTAIN HEAVY-LIFT
    
    by Thomas J. Freiling
    
    [Thomas J. Freiling is researching a book on the Apollo Applications
    Program. He has published numerous articles on space history and space
    policy in magazines such as Technology Review and Astronomy, and has
    testified before the National Commission on Space on orbital transfer
    vehicles. Frieling, a member of the American Institute of Aeronautics
    and Astronautics, currently is library director at Bainbridge College
    in Bainbridge Ga.]
    
    	A heavy-lift launch vehicle is the linch-pin of NASA's longer-range
    manned spaceflight plans, especially the Lunar/Mars Space Exploration
    Initiative, and placing large payloads into low Earth orbit will be the
    first step.
    
    	The two main proposals currently being considered - the Advanced
    Launch System (ALS) and Shuttle C - pale in comparison with a third
    option, reviving the Saturn 5.
    
    	At first glance, such a proposal seems ludicrous. After all, the
    last Saturn 5 was launched more than 17 years ago, the tooling used to
    manufacture the engines and stages has been scrapped, many vendors are
    no longer in business, and the launch teams have long since disbanded.
    
    	So why not pursue the newer technologies embodied in ALS or
    Shuttle-C instead of reaching backward to revive 25-year-old launch
    vehicle technology?
    
    	Several factors make the Saturn 5 option not only feasible but
    desirable when compated with ALS or Shuttle-C:
    
    	The first is performance. The F-1 engines that powered the Saturn
    5's S-1C stage remain by far the most powerful rocket engines ever
    flown, each producing 1.5 million lb. of thrust. With 7.5 million lb. of
    thrust generated by the first stage a Saturn 5 can lift 280,000 lb.
    into low Earth orbit or send 100,000 lb. to the Moon.
    
    	In contrast, the ALS is projected to lift only 100,000-200,000 lb.
    into low Earth orbit and Shuttle-C only 100,000 lb.
    
    	Retrofitting the Saturn 5's S-2 and s-4B upper stages with space
    shuttle main engines (SSMEs) would wed the best of new and old
    propulsion technologies and improve the Saturn 5's performance. Using
    SSMEs to replace the Saturn's original J-2 engines also would require
    one fewer production line to be reopened.
    
    	With a thrust of 470,000 lb. at altitude, one SSME produces more
    than twice as much thrust as a single J-2. And because the SSMEs are
    more efficient than the J-2s only three SSMEs would be required to
    power the S-2 versus five j-2s on the original S-2 stage. The reengined
    S-2 would yield 260,000 lb. of additional thrust over a J-2 powered
    S-2.
    
    	One SSME also would replace the single J-2 of the S-4B third stage
    and yield 240,000 lb. of additional thrust. Since the SSME can be
    throttled, g forces could be controlled, providing a smoother ride for
    fragile payloads.
    
    	Weight and performance characteristics of the J-2 verses the SSME
    are as follows:
    o Weight - J-2, 3,492 lb.; SSME, 6,500 lb.
    o Thrust - J-2, 230,000 lb.; SSME, 470,000 lb.
    o Specific Impulse - J-2, 421 lb./sec.; SSME, 460 lb./sec.
    o Thrust-to-weight ratio - J-2, 65.8 lb.thrust/lb. SSME, 72.3 lb.thrust/lb
    
    	Retrofitting the Saturn 5 upper stages with SSMEs would impose a
    5050-lb. weight penalty on the upper stages. However, the higher
    performance of the SSMEs would more than offset the increased weight.
    Weight savings also could be gained in the upper stages by taking
    advantage of advances in computers and electronics for the instrument
    unit located atop the S-4B stage to provide guidance for the launch
    vehicle.
    
    	Today's faster, lighter computers would replace the slower, heavier
    electronics of the 1960s. State of the art manufacturing technologies
    also could be employed to achieve wight savings, particularly through
    the use of new lightweight composite materials and new aluminum-lithium
    alloys for lighter yet stronger tanks for all three stages.
    
    	The second reason for reviving Saturn 5 technology is
    infrastructure. Not all of the infrastructure that supported Saturn 5
    is gone, and none is irretrievable.
    
    	Several important support elements remain at the Kennedy Space
    Center, including the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB), the crawlerways
    leading to the launch pads and the transporters used to move the mobile
    launcher platforms (MLP).
    
    	One high bay of the VAB would require modifications to restore its
    capability to stack and check out Saturn 5 vehicles. An MLP and its
    attached launch umbilical tower (LUT) would have to be rebuilt to
    replace the ones reused for the shuttle. The third MLP and its LUT were
    disassembled several years ago.
    
    	This MLP has since been reused for the shuttle, but the LUT
    elements, held in storage at Kennedy, may be reusable.
    
    	The Mobile Service Structure, scrapped after the Apollo Soyuz Test
    Project in 1975, also would have to be replaced. Finally, a Saturn 5
    launch pad would be needed, since Launch Complex 39 pads A and B were
    modified for shuttle use.
    
    	The site originally planned for pad C to the north of pad B in the
    1960s is still available at the Kennedy Space Center.
    
    	While all of this ground-support equipment would be expensive to
    re-create, bear in mind that the Advanced Launch System has no extant
    support whatsoever and Shuttle-C's ground support likely would require
    the construction of its own launch pad and launch umbilical tower, as
    well as modifications to the current shuttle processing facilities.
    
    	The Augistine Committee on the Future of the U.S. Space Program has
    recommended that the shuttle fleet be used only for missions that
    require crews. Thus the expected lower shuttle launch rates may reduce
    shuttle processing flow requirements to a level where the Saturn 5 and
    shuttle could comfortably coexist within the confines of the Vehicle
    Assembly Building. Moreover, suitable launch sites for any future
    heavy-lift launch vehicle are now scarce in the continental U.S. In
    fact, a recent study by the office of technology assessment estimated
    that the remaining available land at Cape Canaveral and Bandenberg AFB
    is capable of supporting no more than four Titan 4 class launch sites.
    Additionally, contemporary environmental restrictions will complicate
    the construction of any new launch complexes.
    
    	This launch-complex real estate problem is exacerbated when one
    considers that Vandenberg is suitable only for launches into polar
    orbits. Selecting ALS launch sites outside the continental U.S., such
    as in Hawaii or on Johnston Island in the South Pacific will only
    increase launch costs to the point where it is doubtful the ALS program
    could meet the congressionally mandated goal of a 10-fold reduction in
    launch costs.
    
    	In addition to these ground support facilities, several other
    elements of Saturn 5 infrastructure exist that are of immense value to
    restarting production:
    	o Saturn 5 blueprints are still on file in NASA archives. These
    blueprints contain not only the information necesary for re-creating
    Saturn components but also much of the tooling that manufactured those
    components.
    	o Saturn 5 flight articles still exist; one is on display at the
    Johnson Space Center, another at Marshall Space Flight Center.
    	o The 500F vehicle, a full-scale Saturn 5 mockup used for lauch pad
    verification tests is on display at Kennedy Space Center.
    	o Several flight-ready F-1 engines are in storage.
    
    	Deputy NASA Administrator J.R. Thompson has stated that the first
    Saturn 5 firings could take place in 4-6 years, with several years of
    additional work needed to assure high reliability. In contrast the
    developement of Shuttle-C is expected to take six years and cost $1.2
    billion.
    
    	While it seems possible to meet this schedule - Rockwell
    Internationals shuttle production line remains open - proposals calling
    for the use of "depreciated" main engines on Shuttle-C raise serions
    reliability questions. NASA officials have stated -  and taxpayers will
    likely demand - that expensive unmanned payloads require the
    reliability of a man-rated vehicle. Depreciated engines are unlikely to
    provide such reliablility.
    
    	Development costs and reliability estimates for ALS are less firm,
    given the fact that there is still only a paper study. However, the
    Office of Technology Assessment estimates a minimum of $9.5 billion
    during the next 10-12 years.
    
    	Costs associated with Saturn 5 are similarly difficult to asses,
    although the technical risks would be far less than those associated
    with ALS development. Plus, the Saturn 5's potential performance
    ouststrips both ALS and Shuttle-C.
    
    	The nation needs a flexible heavy-lift launch vehicle capable of
    accomplishing a variety of missions if the Lunar/Mars initiative is to
    succeed. In the near term, consensus is growing that in-orbit assembly
    of Space Station Freedom - in whatever form it eventually assumes -
    will require a heavy lift launch vehicle to free it from total
    dependence on the shuttle fleet.
    
    	Indeed the recommendations of the Augustine committee include
    development of "an unmanned, but man-rateable heavy-lift launch vehicle
    that could be available in the fairly near future." NASA is requesting
    $175 million in its Fiscal 1992 budget for such a vehicle. One has to
    wonder whether we are reinventing the wheel.
    
    	Between 1967 and 1973 the Saturn 5 logged 13 successful flights in
    both manned and unmanned modes. It placed heavy payloads into low Earth
    orbit and sent nine payloads to the Moon. In its final mission it
    launched the 100-ton Skylab space station into orbit, demonstrating a
    two stage to orbit capability.
    
    	Saturn 5 was retired with a perfect launch record.
    
    	Reviving the Saturn 5 represents a major engineering effort, but
    when one weighs the benefits of a powerful proven vehicle against the
    ALS and Shuttle-C options the benefits to be gained with the Saturn 5
    more than outweigh the risks.
    
    =======================================================================
    
    BEST OF BOTH WORLDS: SATURN 5 UPPER STAGES WITH SSMES
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Original Saturn 5 - S-1C Stage . . 5 F-1 engines 7,500,000-lb thrust
                      - S-2 Stage  . . 5 J-2 engines 1,150,000-lb thrust
    		      - S-4B Stage . . 1 J-2 engine 230,000-lb thrust
    
    Saturn with SSME  - S-1C Stage . . 5 F-1 engines 7,500,000-lb thrust
    		      - S-2 Stage  . . 3 SSMEs 1,410,000-lb thrust
    		      - S-4B Stage . . 1 SSME 470,000-lb thrust

    Still another option would be to contract with the Soviet Union for
    Proton launches.
        John Sauter

    The Proton is not in the same class as the Saturn V. It is closer to
    the Saturn 1B or Titan III in payload.
    
    gary

Thanks for copying the article Gary - it was a good one.

I wish the author had made a cost comparison of the J-2 vs. the SSME.  While
the SSME packs a better wallop - they are expensive.   I wonder if restarting
a J-2 line would be (in the end) cheaper than using SSME's?   [Then again,
you only need 4 SSME's vs. 6 J-2's]

As far as the weight savings gained by electronics -- I think it is piddly
to start with, but the added complexity of the SSME controllers might offset
it.  Different alloys for fuel tanks should only be considered if they save
significant amounts of dollars - not that we would get an additional few
pounds into orbit.  The HLV should get lots of payload into space at a good
cost - not the most amount of payload at any cost.

The author also neglected the infrastructure at Marshall - test stands, etc.
that would have to be rebuilt or retrofitted.   I think the J-2 stand is
just sitting there rusting away, but the two F-1 stands have been rebuilt
to handle the SSME's.   Flight test stands at MSFC and possible Stennis
would also have to be built (for engineering and flight qualification testing).
He also omitted the rework needed for the LPS (Launch Processing System) in
the firing rooms - which was rather reworked for shuttle, and the MCC (Mission
Control Center) in Houston - also reworked for the shuttle.
These won't come cheap either.

It's "little" things like this which I'm sure the Shuttle-C proponents will
use to push their proposal. The infrastructure is large, and can't be easily
brushed to one side (not that the author did this).  A more thorough analysis
should be done - maybe by the Office of Technical Assessment or some other
non-NASA party which wouldn't be tied to the history and politics of their
current situation.


- dave

  I'm not at all sold by the F-1 argument. To me, it sounds like another
attempt to relive the good old days by a return to yesteryear. It's time for
the Navy to retire their battleships and it's time for the F-1 to be given it's
place in the history books. The power/weight ratio for carbon based fuels just
isn't there. 

  If they did, however, decide that it was cost justified to build something
shaped like the Saturn V, it would make lots more sense to forget the Saturn
1-C (the Saturn V 1st stage with the 5 F-1)'s and to build a stretched
S-2 instead. Put 3-5 simplified SSMEs on the bottom, strap 2-4 SRBs to the
side, and that would be quite a launcher. You could probably put an entire
loaded S-2/S-4B/payload into orbit.

  With that, we're talking space stations orbiting the Moon or Mars with
one launch.

  George

    re .28
    
>place in the history books. The power/weight ratio for carbon based fuels just
>isn't there. 
    
    The term 'power' is ambiguous to the point of being meaningless in this
    context.
    
    If you are talking specific impulse, the LOX/RP-1 do not compare at all
    well to LOX/LH2. However, if you interested in thrust, you can achieve
    a given thrust with lower pressures and markedly smaller turbopumps
    with RP-1 simply because it is much more dense than LH2. The higher
    density also means a significantly smaller first stage, lighter tanks
    and less aerodynamic drag.
    
    Since you typically need a lot more thrust during the first couple of
    minutes of ascent when you are expending propellant fighting gravity,
    hydrocarbon fuels or solid propellants become very attractive.
    
    None of this justifies rebuilding the F-1 of course, but I think we
    will see hydrocarbon fuels in use for liquid propellant first stages
    for quite a while.
    
    gary

  I don't think that just because there are two definitions of power that the
word is meaningless, especially when you consider the rest of the context that
I put into my argument. 

  But for those of you who found my discussion confusing, I'll try again.

  It appears that the low specific impulse of engines based on hydrocarbon
fuels is such that the F-1 engine is hardly cost justified. If it were
determined that it was cost justified to build a launch system with the same
shape and size of the Saturn V, it seems that it would make more sense to
forget the Saturn 1-C (the Saturn V 1st stage with the F-1 engines) and to
build a new 1st stage by stretching the S-2 (which holds LOX/LH2) and strapping
on 2 to 4 SSRBs. 

  The SSRBs don't require any turbo pumps and have a specific impulse that
is far better than the F-1, not to mention that you can fish them out of
the drink and reuse them. If the stretched S-2 were powered by 3 to 5 SSMEs,
it could assist with guidance during the 1st couple minutes of launch and
provide enough power to lift a rather large payload down range.

  I have no idea how to figure out the exact numbers, but it appears that such
a system could launch a good size payload by itself or work with a regular S-2
or S-4B as a 2nd stage to launch a large payload into low earth orbit. 

  I'm sure there are problems with such a design, but it's not at all clear
that going back to the F-1 would be superior to this type of system. There
may be many other reasons why this wouldn't be practical (i.e. retooling,
launch facilities, VAB, testing, etc) but most of those problems would
effect the F-1 as well.

  George

    George,
    
    It looks like your power figures would be good but what about cost? The
    SSRB would be gotten back but the rest is expendable. Can we throw away
    (read: mass produce) SSMEs in sufficient quantities to toss two stages
    worth in each launch? The F-1 technology is much simpler and should be
    cheaper for a throw away stage. The Shuttle SSMEs are brought back and
    refurbed each flight, no replaced.

    Re:.32
    
    	Redesigning the first stage of the Saturn V defeats the purpose of
    rebuilding it to begin with: The whole idea of rebuilding the Saturn V
    is that the thing is already designed, has been built in the past, and
    has proven to be reliable. Designing and building a new first stage
    would require much more time and money (both of which we're trying to
    save) and after that it would have to be flight proven (again more time
    and money).
    	There is also a lot more to maximizing the payload of a rocket than
    just using efficient fuels. While kerosene and LOX produces only three
    quarters the impulse that LH and LOX (pound for pound) it does produce
    more impulse when comparing volumes (something like five times more).
    Generally you want your first stage (which has to produce a lot of
    thrust to get the stack off the ground and moving) to use energy dense
    propellants while you want your upper stages to use high specific
    impulse propellants. The American Saturn family of launch vehicles, the
    Space Shuttle, the European Ariane, and the Soviet Energia are designed
    that way.
    	And finally, a back-of-the-envelope calculation indicates that your
    four SRB/stretched S-II first stage of the Saturn V would only be able
    to orbit about 150,000 to 200,000 pounds of payload. The SRBs are NOT
    as efficient as the F-1 (either pound for pound or by volume of fuel
    used) and you take a mighty big weight penalty with the stretched S-II.
    The original S-IC is much better for the job (which makes sense because
    it was designed to maximize the performance of the upper two stages;
    it's funny how it was designed that way :-) ).
    
    				Drew
    

  As for cost, the Saturn V already throws away it's 1st and 2nd stage engines.

  A stretched S-2 with 2-4 SRBs could recover the SRBs and if the stretched
stage made it to orbit, the SSME engines could be recovered as well. If a 2nd
stage was used and it's engines were recovered, you would only lose the LH
engines of the 1st stage.

  Also, there would be savings because only one type of large engine would
have to be produced. There would be no F-1 design/production/support facility.
Running more SSME's would give economy of scale. Even if a simple throw away
SSME type engine were produced, it could share some technology with the more
expensive SSMEs.

  I believe that design of the stretched S-2 would be minimal. Stretching an
existing design is nowhere near as costly or as complex as doing a new design
from scratch. Stretching airframes happens all the time in the aerospace
industry. 

  Another big plus would be that we would be moving forward and the launcher
could be the basis for future designs. For example, once the X-30 is developed,
a future S-2/200 launcher could be powered, in part, by a strap on hydrogen
ram-jet that would kick in after the SRB's were released. 

  There's no future in the F-1,
  George

    Re:.33
    
    	Essentially what you are advocating is similar to some of the
    designs I've seen for Shuttle-based HLVs. While the concepts have merit
    they still defeat the original purpose of reviving Saturn V production
    i.e. start building a proven rocket with a proven design and a proven
    reliability and performance record. What you are advocating is
    essentially a new design that borrows some of the airframe elements of
    the original Saturn V (which happens to be the cheapest part of any
    launch vehicale to design and build).
    
    					Drew
    

RE:                     <<< Note 231.33 by 25415::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  As for cost, the Saturn V already throws away it's 1st and 2nd stage engines.

Right. But does anyone know how much they cost? Even if they add up to 50
million bucks, that's a small part of the overall launch costs. A shuttle
launch is of the order of 400 million bucks per launch, and (theoretically) the
only thing expended is the simple external tank. This tells me that either:

     o	The fixed costs of ANY manned launch are just very high and must be
	accepted (in which case the incremental cost of expended hardware
	is relatively minor), or:

     o	Because the shuttle is such an experimental machine, a vast amount of
	manual labor must be spent in preparing it for launch (more likely to
	my way of thinking), even though almost everything is re-used and thus
	the cost of expended hardware is comparatively trivial.

>if the stretched
>stage made it to orbit, the SSME engines could be recovered as well. 

How could the SSMEs on the stage which makes it to orbit be recovered?

>  Also, there would be savings because only one type of large engine would
>have to be produced. 

This brings up an issue that I'd like to discuss: the cost of large numbers of
simple units vs. small number of re-usable/complex units.

The SSME is very complex and expensive, both the initial purchase cost and the
on-going maintenance/refurbishment cost. The F-1 is relatively simple; I don't
know what the relative purchase price is.

Any speculations on the total cost (1-time purchase, plus 30 or so re-launch
preparations per engine) for, say 20 SSMEs (enough to support a small fleet of
re-usable craft) vs. a couple of hundred (1-time purchase) F-1s?

>Running more SSME's would give economy of scale. 

But not as much as the economy-of-scale of a throw-away, because of the high
on-going cost of re-lanuch preparation.

>Even if a simple throw away SSME type engine were produced, it could share some
>technology with the more expensive SSMEs. 

Yes, this seems like a possibility.

>There's no future in the F-1,

But honestly, why not, ignoring emotional/industry reputation reasons that
should be relatively unimportant? 
						-- Tom

  As I recall, one of the reasons the Saturn V was abandoned was cost. If it is
potentially so cheap to fly, why was it so expensive to fly back in the 60s? 

  As to the proven design, yes all 13 or so flights were successful, but then
the 1st 13 shuttle flights were successful also. I have to believe that they
would have a hard time over the long run doing better than the 95% success rate
seen by other systems that use the same technology. 

  During the 60, the Saturn V was NASA's top priority at a time when they had
the money and prestige to build the best engineering organization in world
history. If it flew today, it would be the 2nd or 3rd priority after the
Shuttle and Space Plane and it would be run by the more modestly talented
group that NASA can afford today with their shoe string budgets. 

  When you start factoring in those other costs that the author several notes
back hand waved away, such as building launch pad C, restoring the mobile launch
platform and VAB to Saturn V specs, rebuilding test stands, hiring new people,
etc, etc, etc, the cost of reinventing this "proven" system would skyrocket. I
think you would find to restart the Saturn V project and train all the new
people to work the system would be almost as expensive as building a new
system from scratch.

  By contrast, a launcher based on shuttle hardware that could be built by
shuttle contractors, and assembled by shuttle personnel in the current VAB and
transported with today's mobile launchers to pad A or B for a LH/SRB powered
launch would require far less in the way of organization building.

  Realistically, there's no way that NASA is going to get funding for starting
massive new organizations and building massive facilities like they did in the
Apollo days just because the blue prints are lying around in a vault. With the
Shuttle heading for dinosaur status, it's pretty unlikely that NASA will get
funding to resurrect a dinosaur from an era gone by. 

  Their best bet, and probably their only chance at building a large launcher
before the space plane makes all vertical launch obsolete, is to base it on
existing shuttle hardware. 

  George

Here's a new thought. Forget the SSME. Just go with SRBs. What's to prevent
building some central structure that houses the payload, and attaching a number
(2-3-4) of SRBs to it, and calling it the HLV? The MLPs and LC39 would need
modification, if the flame cross section were increased substantially (as would
probably happen with 4 SRBs instead of two), so infrastructure changes would
still need to be made. But could the cost of either expendable or re-usable
liquid fuel engines be dispensed with altogether?

The SRBs are throttleable to some extent according to a book I have (though
they can't be shut down). What characteristics, if any, of a liquid fuel engine
make them indispensible?
						-- Tom

  In fact, AWST had a picture of a design being considered a few years ago that
consisted of 2 or 3 SRB's. The 1st 2 were to light at launch and after they
burned out, the 3rd, if present, would light. It was all to be held together
with some sort of frame. I believe some sort of liquid engine on top of the
3rd stage placed the payload in orbit.

  George

Ah, there's a good reason for a liquid fuel engine at least as the last stage:
shut down can be precisely timed. Real handy for orbital insertion.
						-- Tom

    re .37
    
    The SRBs are not throttleable. They have thrust profile that decreases
    thrust somewhat around the 1 minute mark but you cannot exert any
    control over it.
    
    But the clever way to build a LV is to put the smarts in the final
    stage for the reasons mentioned in .39 (e.g. Ariane).
    
    gary

  I believe the MX missile is a 4 stage missile with the 1st 3 being solid
and the 4th being liquid.

  Same reason, liquid is easier to control and the on board system can make
final adjustments before releasing the MRV's.

  George

    Clustering SRBs adds a complexity factor. You just have so long to get
    them all lit and you don't have a graceful shutdown procedure. A
    failure to ignite of 1 out of ?? would cause a "loss of vehicle" in
    most cases I would think. An air start sounds even worse. Granted these
    aren't to be man rated but you want some certainty that the billion
    dollar payload is going to make it to orbit intact.

RE:<<< Note 231.40 by STAR::HUGHES "You knew the job was dangerous when you took it Fred." >>>

>    The SRBs are not throttleable.

I didn't think so either, until I ran across a comment in some book (can't
recall which) that called them throttlable. Now I wish I could remember the
name of the source.
						-- Tm

    They DO vary their thrust, but only in accordance with a predetermined
    thrust/time profile that is a function of the grain geometry. The
    flight computers can't vary the thrust of the SRBs.
    
    I suppose a marketroid could call that 'throttleable', but I wouldn't.
    
    gary

  Of course, for the 1st stage, changing the thrust is not all that important.

  And to get back to this discussion, the J-1 only had two speeds, on and off.

  George

    Re:.45
    
    >...the J-1 only had two speeds, on and off.
    
    	I think you mean the F-1 had only two speeds, which is true. The
    J-2 is throttlable however. It was accomplished by varying the mixture
    ratio of the LH and LOX propellants (not the most elegant or efficient
    way of doing it but it worked).
    
    					Drew
    

    The S-1C (Saturn V first stage, powered by 5 F-1s) did vary it's
    overall thrust by shutting down the center F-1 late in the first stage
    burn to keep g-forces to an acceptable level. The S-2 similarly shut
    down one of it's J-2s early for the same reason.
    
    gary

  Yes, you've got me slipping up on a name again. The F-1 had two speeds, go
and stop. And yes, they did shut one down to limit G-forces. 

  You can accomplish all this with solids as well. For a launch, who's profile
is known in advance, solids can be built that will burn for the proper time and
place the spacecraft close enough to it's desired target vector so that smaller
liquid thrusters can make corrections. 

  Now I'm sure that I've used some word in the wrong context in one of the
above two paragraphs or perhaps I've spelled a word wrong, but the fact remains
that reusable solids are much better for lower stages than something like the
F-1. In fact, I read somewhere (this file I think) that NASA was considering
replacing the Saturn 1-C with a solid rocket engine in the late 60s but didn't
only because the design and manufacture was so far along at the time. 

  George

        "We are designing not only the nuclear rocket test vehicles so
    they can be put on SATURN, but we are designing the SATURN so that
    they can take these vehicles as alternates to hydrogen upper stages.
    We are developing the launch facilities and the transportaion complex
    and network by which we will have to move very rapidly into substi-
    tution of the nuclear stages at the earliest possible time, without 
    having to go back and do all over again a great deal of other work." 

        - Statement by NASA Administrator James E. Webb in testimony 
          before Congress, September 13-14, 1962, United States House 
          of Representatives.

Article: 54699
From: [email protected] (Dennis Newkirk)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Nova article in Quest (repost)
Date: 7 Jan 93 17:47:02 GMT
Sender: [email protected] (Net News)
Organization: Motorola
 
If you are interested in Nova booster studies you should
check out an article in the Quest magazine, Fall 1992 issue.
"They Might Be Giants: A History of Project NOVA 1959-1964 Part 1"
by Keith Scala and Glen Swanson, 15 pages, many illustrations.
 
The same issue also has articles on Ranger, Sputnik, the Houston
Space Center, and more.. 55 pages total.
 
Quest: The History of Spaceflight Magazine has only been published for 
about a year and used to be called Liftoff.

They will probably send you a free introductory issue if you write:
CSPACE Press, PO Box 9331, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 49509-0331 
 
Dennis Newkirk ([email protected])
Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL

    Re: last

    Has anyone seen this magazine on a Eastern Mass./Southern NH newsstand?

    Michigan Bell doesn't have a clue as to a number for CSPACE press, so I
    sent a letter to them (CSPACE) requesting the issue referenced.  I'll
    report back regarding content/quality.

    The later Nova designs were lots of fun, (one to four *million* pounds
    to LEO) so hopefully there'll be a few pretty pictures with the
    article.

Article: 74489
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: [email protected] ("Thomas J. Frieling")
Subject: Location of Saturn V Ground Test and Flight Articles
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: [via International Space University]
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1993 21:07:21 GMT
 
Does anyone have information on the location of the remaining Saturn V
ground test articles and flight hardware? I know that complete Satirn Vs
are on display at KSC, Alabama Space & Rocket Center, and JSC and that
since 15 Saturn Vs were built and 13 were flown that one of those
Saturns must consist of non-flight hardware.

 According to information that I have been able to glean from several
sources this is what is known and what is unaccounted for:

S-IC 514 is at JSC (Flight Hardware)
S-II 514 is at JSC (Flight Hardware)
S-IVB 514 at KSC (ditto)
 
S-IC 515 at Michoud (Flight Hardware)
S-II 515 at Michoud (Flight Hardware)
S-IVB 515 used for Skylab backup at NASM (Flight Hardware)
S-IVB 513 at JSC (Flight Hardware)
 
S-IC-S S-II-S S-IVB-S Location Unknown (Structural Test Stages)
S-IC-T at KSC (AllSystems Test Stage)
S-II-T Location Unknown (All Systems Test Stage)
 
S-IC-D Marshall Space Flight Center (Dynamic Test Vehicle)
S-IVB-D Location Unknown (Dynamic test Vehicle)
 
S-IC-F S-II-F S-IVB-F Location unknown (Facillities Checkout Vehicle 500-F)
 
Battleship S-IC & S-II Location unknown (Static Test Stages)
 
Michoud S-IC Mockup Location Unknown (A wood and fiberglass mockup
built at Michoud) 
 
Any information confirming the location of these items and information
on the m issing items is appreciated. I am assuming at this pont that
many of the missing ground test articles were scrapped, but I would
like confirmation from anyone with first-hand knowledge. 

Article: 74976
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: [email protected] ("Thomas J. Frieling")
Subject: F-1 and J-2 engine status
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: [via International Space University]
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1993 17:33:47 GMT
 
Henry Spencer states that after 25 years, nobody is going to trust
leftover F-1 engines. The reality is there are 5 F-1 engines in bonded
storage in pristine condition at the Michoud Assembly Facility. In
addition there are 4 J-2 engines also at Michoud. They would need to
have things like seals replaced that might have deterioated over the
years, but are capable of being fired. Rocketdyne has invested much
study on restarting F-1A and J-2S (the uprated versions of the Saturn
V engines) and has concluded that the F-1A lines could be restarted
for $550 million and a unit cost of $16 million (see AIAA paper
92-1547). Their Knowledge Retention Program for the F-1 and J-2
preserve in over 40 volumes the knowledge required to restart
production. Rocketdyne's experience in restarting production in
support of the Atlas and Delta indicated that out of production
hardware can be brought back into production with new tooling. Thus
1990s versions of these engines could take advantage of state of the
art manufacturing technologies (e.g., CAD/CAM databases). Don't count
these engines out. If the U.S. ever does return to the Moon, it is
likely that the ride will start with F-1A and J-2S. 

Article: 74983
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: [email protected] (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: F-1 and J-2 engine status
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1993 20:16:30 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
 
In article <[email protected]> [email protected] ("Thomas
J. Frieling") writes: 

>Henry Spencer states that after 25 years, nobody is going to trust
>leftover F-1 engines. The reality is there are 5 F-1 engines in bonded
>storage in pristine condition at the Michoud Assembly Facility. In
>addition there are 4 J-2 engines also at Michoud. They would need to
>have things like seals replaced that might have deterioated over the
>years, but are capable of being fired...
 
Yes, but how much do you trust them, bearing in mind that nobody ever
meant them for such long storage before use?  The gap between Apollo
Saturn IB operations and Skylab was only a few years, and the Saturn
IBs used for the Skylab crews required repairs -- not just replacement
of seals, but actual repairs to metal structural components -- before
use.  At the very least, you would need a substantial test program
before trusting the stored engines. 
 
My original comments were based on what I heard from a group that
wanted very badly to use those stored engines and had looked at the
problem in detail.  They concluded that it wasn't practical.
 
Re-starting production, preferably on the improved versions like the
F-1A, would be a different story.  You'd still need a test program to
establish that the new engines worked properly, but once you did that,
you'd have a practical engine supply.
-- 
One flight test is worth                | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
a thousand simulations.                 |  [email protected]  utzoo!henry

Article: 77493
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: What happened to:launch tower ?
Date: 10 Nov 93 04:50:25 GMT
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: [via International Space University]
 
Kurt Leucht ([email protected]) wrote:
 
>I heard a rumor last year that the people who run Spaceport USA >were going
to build a new Apollo building to take tourists through >and they were going
to build a launch tower with a Saturn V >somewhere north of the LC-39 area.
 
On April 30, 1993, Bob Crippen and Spaceport Florida Authority            
Director Edward O'Connor signed a formal agreement that will provide
for construction of a new $34 million Apollo/Saturn V visitor
facility.  This facility will be accessed via the KSC public bus
tours.  The new 9,197 square-meter facility will be located at the new
Bannana Creek Launch Viewing Site (used by VIP's since 1989 just
North-East of the VAB) and is scheduled to be completed in the fall of
1995. This new facility will enclose the horizontal Saturn V vehicle
currently on display at KSC, as well as the upper sections of LUT-1
(used  by Apollo's 11) which has been stored in the KSC industrial
area for many years, along with the vertical Apollo SLA/CSM/LES. 
Since September of 1990, $2 of every Spaceport USA bus tour has been
put aside for this new project. Spaceport Florida Authority will help
finance the project by issuing about $27 million in bonds which will
be repaid using the bus tour revenues. It is interesting to note that
the base of LUT-1 has now become MLP-3 for use in the shuttle program.
 
                                       | "Why don't you fellows solve your
 Jerry W. Smith                        |  problems and light this candle?"
([email protected])                   | Alan Shepard  May 5, 1961

Article: 77585
From: Dave Akin <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Whatever happened to: launch tower and MSS?
Date: 10 Nov 1993 23:44:13 GMT
Organization: Space Systems Lab, Univ. of Maryland
 
In article <[email protected]> Francis Vaughan, 
[email protected] writes:

>A short while ago someone posted that a third Saturn V launch tower
>still existed and was somewhere in safe storage (difficult concept
>considering its size!)
>Like I suspect many others, this came as a bit of a surprise.  I had
>long assumed that only two towers were constructed and that they had
>been recycled to make the Shuttle launch facilities. 

Originally, Launch Complex 39 was designed to launch a Saturn V every
week. (Yes, indeed, these were the good old days...) Rather than tie
up a valuable launch pad with the stacking of each vehicle, Georg von
Tiesenhausen (one of the original Peenemunde engineers) came up with
the idea of vertical integration - creating the Vertical Assembly
Building for stacking the vehicles in (relative) ease and comfort, 
then transporting it to the pad for final checkout and launch. Three
Mobile Launch Platforms were build, each with a Launch Umbilical
Tower. (Originally called the Saturn Launch Umbilical Tower, but the
acronym...) The LUT carried the nine "swing arms", which provided
umbilical fluids, power, and data access to the bird until launch.
When the Shuttle came along, the holes in the MLP were recut for the
new flame patterns, and the system redesigned to have the access arms
on a permanent tower at the launch pad. 

>I purchased a couple of the available books about the Apollo project
>and in one photo, clearly shown, is the VAB under construction and
>_three_ launch towers, one still only about half built.  Confirmation
>indeed.  
>The other relic of the era is the Mobile Service Structure.  A device
>that rarely seems to get a mention.  

This was used to get complete access to the bird during pad checkout.
It was moved around by the mobile transporters, and parked a couple of
miles away for launch. The equivalent modern structure is the Payload
Changeout Room, which swivels around the launch tower and covers the
entire top surface of the Orbiter. 

>So what has happened to these relics?  Has the MSS been cut up for scrap?
>Where is the other launch tower, and why does it still exist?  One
>would have imagined that in their rush to kill off any competition to
>the shuttle NASA would have quickly consigned it to the scrap heap.
>What about the tower needed to elevate a Saturn 1B.
>
>On a related note, something I have seen scant mention of, is this method
>of launching the Saturn 1B.  One assumes there were quite a few good
>reasons to perch the beast on a 100ft tall tower on the mobile
>launcher.  The white room would be at the right height, and it would have
>had less trouble clearing the launch tower.
>
>However the configuration of the swing arms would be at considerable
>odds.  Was this third tower designed for the Saturn 1B seperatly?  If so
>why not make a shorter one?  The other possibility is that the 1B had a
>compatible configuration of arm attachments to the top two stages of the
>Saturn V.  Not a problem for the command module and top stage, but
>an odd thought for the lower stage.  Same fuels I guess.

The Saturn IB was launched from Pad 34. This was the pad of the Apollo
1 fire, and was used (for manned flights) only to launch Apollo 7. 
All other Apollo lunar flights were on Saturn V's.  When Skylab and
Apollo/Soyuz Test Project came around, no one wanted to move from the
(then) modern facilities at LC39 back to the traditional blockhouse at
LC34, especially since they were only looking at four flights. Turned
out to be easier and cheaper to remodel one of the MLPs to accomodate
an SIB. Since the vehicles were identical from the SIVB stage upwards
(second stage for SIB, thrid stage for SV), the trick was to bring the
Apollo capsule up the the same height as in the SV, and move some of
the lower swing arms to accomodate the SIB stage. They came up with
the "ring stand" to do this, and it worked fine. (A personal aside -
the SIB from LC39 were some of my favorite launches, as the eight
engines up so high didn't tend to diffuse the sound the way the
engines right in the flame trench do. There was a great concussive
blast at ignition!) 
 
As I understand it, the modified SIB version of the MLP was the last
to be modified for the Shuttle. There was a movement afoot to keep it
as a monument, I think the structure was declared a National
Historical Landmark, but NASA needed the MLP, so the structure got
stored somewhere. I'm pretty sure the MSS went to scrap, along with
the other two LUTs. 

>A final thought, how was the hold-down achieved?  There is no trace of the
>immense hold-down arms of the Saturn-V; explosive bolts?

This is one of the great all-time designs. There were four hold-down
arms, which you can see in close-up films from the era. Turns out,
though, that suddenly releasing the bird under full thrust caused the
aft end to accelerate faster than the front, and caused some pretty
phenomenal buckling loads (calculated, of course) in the skin. So they
left the vehicle bolted down with four soft-iron 1" diameter bolts.
The 7.5 million pounds of thrust caused the bold heads to extrude
through the mounting flanges, and gave the stresses in the vehicle a
chance to equilibrate before launch. 

>Why do I worry?  Well I have this fond dream that someday NASA will decide
>to do justice to the display of one of the remaining Saturn Vs and stack
>it again.  The existance of a launch tower would mean that a real possibility
>exists of erecting very close to a real configuration.  It may not be
>viable at KSC because of the weather, maybe at the Smithsonains mooted new
>mega display.  Worlds biggest museum building anybody :-)

I doubt it seriously - as long as we're dreaming, let's dream big and 
think about flying one again - or maybe many more than one...

Article: 79548
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: [email protected] ("Thomas J. Frieling")
Subject: Laying to rest the Myth that Saturn v plans, etc. are Lost
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: [via International Space University]
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1993 15:58:51 GMT
 
Let's lay to rest once and for all(sure!) the myth that NASA has lost
the blueprints, plans, and/or other documentation necessary to bring the
Saturn V back into production. *NASA HAS NOT LOST THIS INFORMATION* Much
of the most important documents have been microfilmed and are stored at
Marshall. The Federal Archives in East Point, GA also has 2900 cubic
feet of Saturn documents stored there. I personally examined a good deal
of these documents last month and saw plenty of valuable engineering
documents that would be useful if any re-start order came through.
 
Rocketdyne also has in its archives dozens of volumes from its Knowledge
Retention Program. This effort was initiated in thelate '60s to document
every facet of F-1 and J-2 engine production to assist in any future
re-start.
 
Several AIAA papers delivered in recent years also discuss reviving the
Saturn V. See for example, AIAA paper 92-1546, "Launch Vehicles for the
Space Exploatation Initiative". This paper concluded that a revived
Saturn V was actually cheaper than the NLS vehicle.
 
Yes, it is true that the Saturn tooling is gone---scrapped. But,
paradoxically, this may be an advantage based on Rockwell's experience
re-starting the production lines for the Atlas and Delta programs. They
found that using 1960s era tooling was not cost effective and that new
tooling allowed for full production optimization.
 
An overview of the infrastructure still available to support production
of a 1990s Saturn V and how that vehicle might be used to support First
Lunar Outpost missions can be found in the December 1993 issue of
Spaceflight, published by the Britsih Interplanetary society and
available in many College and University libraries.
 
One final point--NASA is planning to destroy about ninety percent of the
Saturn documents stored at East Point (near Atlanta). They are
re-considering that plan in light of inquiries that I made. But it is no
sure thing. If any of you would like to examine these papers for
youselves, please do so. And if you agree that they should be retianed,
write to the NASA history Office at Marshall. The historian'sname is
Mike Wright.
 
It is best to call ahead to the Archives to let them know that you want
to look at the papers so they can pull them ahead of time. They are easy
to deal with--very cooperative. The only catch is some papers are still
classifed. But you can request de-classification. I did and it only took
writing one Freedom of Information Request letter and a couple of
months. If you fax me at 912-248-2589, i can furnish you with names of
the archivists to call and subject lists of available papers. It makes
for an interesting day's work for the historically minded.

Article: 79702
From: [email protected] (J. Porter Clark)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Laying to rest the Myth that Saturn v plans, etc. are Lost
Date: 13 Dec 1993 09:49:39 -0600
Organization: NASA/MSFC
 
[email protected] ("Thomas J. Frieling") writes:
 
>One final point--NASA is planning to destroy about ninety percent of the
>Saturn documents stored at East Point (near Atlanta). They are
>re-considering that plan in light of inquiries that I made. But it is no
>sure thing. If any of you would like to examine these papers for
>youselves, please do so. And if you agree that they should be retianed,
>write to the NASA history Office at Marshall. The historian'sname is
>Mike Wright.
 
Uhhh...just in case you try to contact Mike Wright, please be aware
that there are at least two Mike Wrights at MSFC.  The one you want is
the one in CN22, so be sure you specify CN22 when you write to Wright (ouch).
-- 
J. Porter Clark    [email protected] or [email protected]
NASA/MSFC Flight Data Systems Branch

Article: 82562
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: [email protected] (Tom Frieling)
Subject: Display Saturn Vs-- A Real Mixed bag of Flight & Ground Test Articles
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: [via International Space University]
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 14:27:03 GMT
 
Francis Breame <[email protected] writes:
 
>By the way, I'd be interested in knowing just what the SV now on display at
>KSC actually consists of. There was some mention recently that all the SV's
>on display are a mixture of 514 & 515 + the facilities test vehicle.
>Anyone have more definite information?
 
>Francis
 
I have it on good authority (your basic unmaned NASA source) that this is 
what the three Saturn Vs on display consist of:
 
At JSC--
 
S-IC Stage:  S-IC 514, the penultimate flight stage.
S-II Stage:  S-II 515, the last flight stage.
S-IVB Stage: S-IVB 514, from the penultimate Saturn V (i.e., matches the S-
IC stage on display at JSC).
 
JSC thus has all Flight Articles.
 
At KSC--
 
S-IC Stage:  S-IC-T, The "All Systems Test Stage" Ground Test Article (AKA 
affectionetly within NASA as the "T-Bird")  Manufactured and static fired 
at MSFC. How it ended up at the Cape I'm not sure.
 
S-II Stage:  S-II 514(?) Even my NASA source is not 100% sure that this is 
really the penultimate flight stage, but is pretty sure.
 
S-IVB Stage:  S-IVB 500F, part of the Facillities Test Vehicle , originally 
part of a Saturn IB ground test article.
 
Thus two-thirds of KSC's display is test articles, not flight hardware.
 
At US Space & Rocket Center (Huntsville, AL)--
 
S-IC Stage:  S-ICD, the Dynamic Test Vehicle (ground test article)
S-II Stage:  S-IIF/D, the Dynamic Test Vehicle (and, presumably the 
Facillities Test Vehicle as well) a ground test article.
S-IVB Stage:  S-IVB-D the Dynamic Test Vehicle ground test article.
 
Thus Huntsville's display is ALL test articles.
 
Not to disparage ground test articles--the extensive pre-
flight ground testing of the Saturn V contributed directly to its 
unequalled flight success.
 
Finally, S-IC 515, the last flight article manufacutered is at Michoud, LA 
where Shuttle External Tanks are made today. The S-IVB 515 stage was 
converted into the backup Skylab Workshop and is in the NASM in DC.
 
According to my notes this leaves the wherabouts of the following stages 
and test articles missing:
 
S-IVB 514, the penultimate flight stage.
S-IC-S
S-II-S
S-IVB-S The Structural test Stages (all ground test articles)
 
S-IC-F
S-II-T also ground test articles.  And finally, 
 
Battleship S-IC and S-II static firing stages built extra heavy hence
the name. 
 
Anybody know where these missing stages are?
 
P.S. Several Saturn 1Bs were also letover after Apollo. AS 209 is on
display at the Visitor's Center at KSC and one (flight hardware?)is on
display at a rest stop north of Huntsville on I-65. An ignominious if
there ever was one. Does anyone have any info on these? Or the several
CSMs leftover? 
 
Thanks.
 
Thomas J. Frieling
Bainbridge College
[email protected]
Fax:  912-248-2589

Article: 82563
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: [email protected] (Tom Frieling)
Subject: APUs on Saturn V
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: [via International Space University]
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 14:32:45 GMT
 
 Randy Porter ([email protected]) writes:
 
>Regarding the Saturn V at KSC, according to the Bly-Cox book the it is a
>technical article. Meaning it is a Saturn V but was never build to be 
>flight worthy. It was the first SV to arrive at Merrit Island and was used 
>to trainground crews and to check to launch hardware and facilties. It 
>could be fueled and the APU could be started (may be the engines too) but it 
>was since it was never to fly, weight tolerances were not followed. I think 
>they are about to start thenew museum at KSC for it.
>Randy Porter
 
Just for the record the Saturn V did not have any APUs. THe F-1 engine
had no separate hydraulic system (i.e, fluid). Instead, the RP-1 fuel
serverd as the hydraulic fluid to gimbal the engine. This was another
simplification that enhanced the F-1's reliability: 65 engines flown,
65 good burns. 
 
Thomas J. Frieling
Bainbridge College
[email protected]
Fax:  912-248-2589

Article: 82950
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: [email protected] (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Saturn V displays (was Re: Destruction of Saturn V Tooling )
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 1994 05:14:56 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
 
In article <[email protected]>
[email protected] writes: 

>|> Let's see ... there a SV at Marshall/Rocket and Space museum, which is a
>|> test vehicle I think. There's one on the lawn at Jonson, which was to be
>|> Apollo 18, There's one at Kennedy, which was to be Apollo 19 I think. Did
>|> A20 go to the Smithsonian?
>
>Close, the one on the lawn outside the VAB at KSC is the test article.
>The others are flight articles.  Congress pulled the plug on the Saturn
>production line before Apollo 20's hardware was built, thus these three
>are all that there is.
 
This is a bit confused.
 
The one on the lawn at Huntsville is a test article, and is labelled as
such if you bother to look.  (I've been there.)
 
The ones at Houston and the Cape are semi-random combinations of stages
from the last two Saturn Vs -- the ones for Apollos 19 and 20 -- plus
some test articles.  None of them is a single complete booster made up
of stages that would have flown together.
 
The bottom two stages of the Apollo 18 Saturn V were used to launch Skylab.
The third stage is still around somewhere (the S-IVB that was rebuilt to
produce Skylab itself was from one of the Saturn IBs; the backup Skylab
was originally the third stage of the Apollo 20 Saturn V).
 
All, repeat all, major hardware for Apollos 18, 19, and 20 was built and
qualified for flight.
 
>One question that occasionally bugs me, is the nature of the CSM on
>these diplays.  I can't belive, (and dearly hope) that the CSMs on
>display are not flight articles.  That would be just too horrid.
 
There were, I believe, several spare flight-ready CSMs, although I don't
know where they all ended up.
-- 
Belief is no substitute                 | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
for arithmetic.                         |  [email protected]  utzoo!henry

Article: 82952
From: [email protected] (danny burstein)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Saturn V displays (was Re: Destruction of Saturn V Tooling )
Date: 12 Feb 1994 01:08:14 -0500
Organization: state: confusion
 
There's also a mockup of the first stage at teh Hall of Science in
Flushing Meadow Park, in Queens, NYC.  It also has one of the early
Mercury capsules on display 
-- 
   ----------------------------------
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key!
  [email protected] (or [email protected])
           (10288) 0-700-864-3242

Article: 82976
From: [email protected] (Bill Walker)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Display Saturn Vs-- A Real Mixed bag of Parts
Date: 11 Feb 94 09:55:56 -0600
Organization: Arnold Engineering Development Center
 
From: [email protected] (Tom Frieling)
 
> I have it on good authority (your basic unmaned NASA source) that this is 
> what the three Saturn Vs on display consist of: 
 
According to your post, there should be seven Saturn V stacks:
 
SV 514 (penultimate flight article):
   S-IC  - JSC
   S-II  - KSC(?)
   S-IVB - JSC
 
SV 515 (last flight article):
   S-IC  - Michoud, LA
   S-II  - JSC
   S-IVB - NASM (backup Skylab)
 
SV-D (Dynamic Test Vehicle):
   S-IC  - Huntsville
   S-II  - Huntsville
   S-IVB - Huntsville
 
SV-F (Facilities Test Vehicle):
   S-IC  - missing
   S-II  - possibly the same article as S-II-D
   S-IVB - KSC
 
SV-S (Structural Test Vehicle):
   S-IC  - missing
   S-II  - missing
   S-IVB - missing
 
SV-T ("All Systems" Ground Test Article):
   S-IC  - KSC
   S-II  - missing
   S-IVB - not built?
 
"Battleship" SV:
   S-IC  - missing
   S-II  - missing
   S-IVB - not built?
 
Since your post does not mention S-IVB-T or Battleship S-IVB, I assume
that they were not built -- or was their omission an oversight? 
 
> According to my notes this leaves the wherabouts of the following stages 
> and test articles missing:
 
> S-IVB 514, the penultimate flight stage.
 
According to your notes, this is at JSC.
 
> S-IC-F
> S-IC-S
> Battleship S-IC
 
There are a number of F-1 engines on display at various locations around
the country, including the 1.25 engines in the "mirror" display at NASM.
Could these stages have been dismantled and the parts scattered?
 
> S-II-S
> S-II-T
> Battleship S-II
 
Were these dismantled as well?  I don't recall any displays of J-2 engines.
 
> S-IVB-S 
 
What was the flight version of Skylab built from?  The backup was built
from S-IVB 515, and the other S-IV stages are accounted for.  Was Skylab
actually SV 513?
 
Could it also be that the SV-S stages were tested to destruction?
 
Also, I know of a professor who has a Saturn flight computer.  It could
be that it is from one of the ground test articles if they were 
dismantled and the parts distributed (maybe even auctioned).
 
> P.S. Several Saturn 1Bs were also letover after Apollo. AS 209 is on 
> display at the Visitor's Center at KSC and one (flight hardware?)is on 
> display at a rest stop north of Huntsville on I-65. An ignominious if 
> there ever was one. Does anyone have any info on these? 
 
I had always thought that the one at the rest stop was a mockup.  It
seems to be missing some details that the flight articles had.  It
could be that it was a ground test article.  Some Saturn 1Bs were used
to launch the crews to Skylab and one was used for the Apollo-Soyuz
Test Project.  Or did your numbers already include these?  Also, what
is standing vertically at the Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville?  I
think it is another Saturn 1B. 
 
> Or the several CSMs leftover?
 
Speaking of Apollo-Soyuz, there is a display a the Pavillion in Russia
which includes a Soyuz craft and an Apollo CSM.  Is this CSM a mockup
built by the Russians for the display, or is it a real one leftover
from the Apollo days? 
 
Bill Walker ([email protected]) | "Simply do not ask me what this is
OAO Corporation                        |  all about, parce que je ne sais
Arnold Engineering Development Center  |  pas, mes chers."
1103 Avenue B                          |       -- Holly Golightly, 
Arnold Air Force Base, TN  37389-1200  |       "Breakfast at Tiffany's"

Article: 83015
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: [email protected] (Tom Frieling)
Subject: Saturn V Test Articles
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: [via International Space University]
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 17:47:50 GMT
 
Bill Walker ([email protected] writes:
 
:According to your post, there should be seven Saturn V stacks:
 
:SV 514 (penultimate flight article):
: S-IC  - JSC
: S-II  - KSC(?)
: S-IVB - JSC
 
Yes there should be seven stacks, except for "shared" stages (see below).
 
:Since your post does not mention S-IVB-T or Battleship S-IVB, I assume that
:they were not built -- or was their omission an oversight?
 
I'm not sure. The documentation I have on my desk (Saturn Illustrated 
Chronology) is not too clear on the subject. On page 165 there is a chart 
that lists the following:
 
Battleship Test Stages--It shows an S-II and S-IVB stage, but not an S-IC 
Stage even though the NASA publication Apollo Expeditions to the Moon 
shows an S-IC stage on p. 47 that is identified as the 'Battleship'stage.
 
Structural Test Stages--It shows an S-IC-S, S-II-S, S-IVB-S, and an S-IU-S 
which is an Instrument Unit test article. The S-IC stage is depicted as 
having no engines.
 
All System Test Stages--It shows an S-IC-T, S-II-T, and an S-IVB with no 
designation.
 
Dynamic Test Vehicle, designated SA-500-D--It shows an S-IC-D, S-II-F (yes-
F), S-IVB-D, and S-IU-500-D. Apparently SA-500-D and SA-500-F shared the S-
II-F stage.
 
Facilities Checkout Stage, designated SA-500-F--It shows an S-IC-F, S-II-
F, S-IVB-F, and S-IU-500-T. 
 
All Saturn V flight hardware was designated SA-501-515. Thus the first 
unmanned Saturn V flown in 1967 consisted of S-IC-501, S-II-501, and S-IVB-
501.
 
> According to my notes this leaves the wherabouts of the following stages 
>and test articles missing:
 
> S-IVB 514, the penultimate flight stage.
 
:According to your notes, this is at JSC.
 
No, S-IVB 513 is at JSC according to my NASA source.
 
:There are a number of F-1 engines on display at various locations around
:the country, including the 1.25 engines in the "mirror" display at NASM.
:Could these stages have been dismantled and the parts scattered?
 
There are 5 F-1 engines and 4 J-2 engines in bonded storage at Michoud. 
These are all flight hardware.
 
: S-II-S
: S-II-T
: Battleship S-II
 
:Were these dismantled as well?  I don't recall any displays of J-2 engines.
 
I don't know.
 
: S-IVB-S
 
:What was the flight version of Skylab built from?  The backup was built
:from S-IVB 515, and the other S-IV stages are accounted for.  Was Skylab
:actually SV 513?
 
Skylab was apparently built from the S-IVB stage of SA 212, the twelth 
Saturn 1B (see Stages to Saturn, p. 439).
 
:Could it also be that the SV-S 
:stages were tested to destruction?
 
I've never heard of this being done, don't think so.
 
:Also, what is standing vertically at the Space & Rocket Center in 
:Huntsville?  I thinkit is another Saturn 1B.
 
That is the rarest of all the Saturns-- A Saturn 1 with an S-IV stage 
(Block II configuration). I believe it is the only one of its kind on 
display anywhere. The S-IV stage flew only six times and was powered by a 
cluster of 6 RL-10 engines.
 
I have a query in to MSFC's Historian and will post an update on this 
scavanger hunt when I receive it.
 
There is apparently plenty of missing Saturn stages, but after all these 
years if they still exist is doubtful. Maybe they are rusting away on 
NASA's back lots somewhere.
 
Bill Walker ([email protected]) | "Simply do not ask me what this is
OAO Corporation                        |  all about, parce que je ne sais
Arnold Engineering Development Center  |  pas, mes chers."
1103 Avenue B                          |       -- Holly Golightly,
Arnold Air Force Base, TN  37389-1200  |       "Breakfast at Tiffany's"
 
------------------------------
 
Thomas J. Frieling
Bainbridge College
[email protected]
Fax:  912-248-2589

Article: 83046
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: [email protected] (Tom Frieling)
Subject: My Typo re Location of Saturn V flight and test articles
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: [via International Space University]
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 14:58:49 GMT
 
Bill Walker ([email protected] writes:
[lots of stuff deleted]
 
> According to my notes this leaves the wherabouts of the following stages
>and test articles missing:
 
> S-IVB 514, the penultimate flight stage.
 
:According to your notes, this is at JSC.
 
>No, S-IVB 513 is at JSC according to my NASA source.
 
Um, I meant to type: "No, S-IVB 513 is NOT at JSC according to my
source." Sorry. 
 
Thomas J. Frieling
Bainbridge College
[email protected]
Fax:  912-248-2589

Article: 824
From: [email protected] (Leslie A Tyrrell)
Newsgroups: sci.space.tech
Subject: Re: Q on Saturn V black exterior panels:functional?
Date: 18 Feb 1994 06:44:24 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa (USA)
  
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] 
    (Chris Roth) writes:
    
|> The outer layer of the Saturn V had big, broad white and black areas.
|> What was the purpose of the black areas? Decorative? Functional?
 
Chris, Saturn V was an extremely hefty rocket.  So much so, that it's
designers sought every means available to overcome its incredible weight-
perhaps one of the most outlandish techniques involved the use of vertical
stripes of strongly contrasting colors which were painted on the body of
the rocket to help give it the illusion of thinness.  While the _actual_
mass of the rocket remained unchanged, the far more important _virtual_
( or _imaginary_ ) mass was strongly affected by this very simple tactic.
Needless to say, it is much easier to loft a missile that _looks_ like
it only weighs 4 Million pounds, as opposed to lofting something that
actually weighs more like 6 or 7 Million pounds.
 
This principle was one of the few NASA borrowed from clothing fashion
designers- considering its importance in making the manned lunar landing
possible, I am surprised that you had not known of it.
 
Cheers !
 
Les Tyrrell, [email protected]
 
( OK, OK !!  ;^)  )
 
Chris, those markings were used by engineers to determine if the rocket's
guidance system was working properly- cameras were set up at various places
surrounding and on the pad.  Some tracked the rocket ( some of these cameras
could be quite large- some were big enough that the cameraman "rode" in it! )
while others had a fixed viewpoint.  Those markings provided large, readily
tracked reference positions on the rocket which could be traced frame by
frame on the film from the fixed cameras to obtain rocket acceleration
( from the horizontal bands ) and roll rate and acceleration ( from the
vertical bands ).  You will also notice in some shots that there are
conveniently placed towers with alternating color bands on them- these
provide much the same function as placing a ruler in a photograph to provide
a scale reference.
 
You will see various forms of these markings on many rockets- for instance,
manned boosters in the US program which had them include Redstone, Titan II,
and of course the mighty Saturn V.  
 
( actually, a form of illusion was in fact used by planners to make
  flying the Saturn V possible- once you've sat down and seriously
  considered lofting a 12 million pound thrust Nova, it is much easier
  to deal with the puny Saturn V... )
  

Article: 2184
From: [email protected] (Thomas J. Frieling)
Newsgroups: sci.space.tech
Subject: Re: Stages to Saturn
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 09:50:09
Organization: Bainbridge College
 
In article <[email protected]>
[email protected] (Ron McCoy) writes: 

>From: [email protected] (Ron McCoy)
>Subject: Stages to Saturn
>Date: 9 Jun 1994 21:49:39 -0400
 
>I've seen a book called _Stages to Saturn_ mentioned in this news group 
>several times. I can't find it in Books in Print. Do I have the title 
>wrong, or is it out of print?
 
>Could someone provide correct title, author and, if possible, ISBN 
>number? If I can't get it from a book store, I'll try the used book route.
 
>Thanks in advance,
 
>Ron
>[email protected]
 
Got it right here (it never leaves my side). 
 
Stages to Saturn is NASA's official history of the development of the
Saturns--1, 1B, and V. It's one of the better of the NASA Histories,
in my somewhat biased opinion. 
 
Stages to Saturn:  A Technological History of the Apollo/Saturn Launch 
Vehicles by Roger E. Bilstein Washington, DC:  Unites States Government 
Printing Office, 1980 NASA SP-4206. 
 
AS a US GPO publicastion it will not show up in BIP and at any rate it is 
out of print, I believe. Call the Us GPO and they can tell you for sure. 
 
Also NTIS can provide a photocopy edition of it. I can send you phone 
numbers and addresses if you wish.  

Article: 2214
From: [email protected] (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.space.tech
Subject: F1 information from Henry Hillbrath
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 94 19:30:44 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
 
        There was recently a question posted as to why the exhaust of
the F1 kerosene/LOX engine of the Saturn V looked black for a certain
distance from the nozzle.  Henry Hillbrath E-mailed me a response,
indicating that he had tried to post it without success.  I reproduce
Henry's comments below, and would like to thank him for the time
necessary to produce such an illuminating (smile) response. 
 
Henry writes:
 
Gee, I haven't been around here much, lately. So many problems, so
little time! 
 
However, I did notice that there has been some discussion about how
F-1 engines work, and even the "Legend of the InterNet, the other
Henry" didn't answer the questions, so I will give it a try. 
 
The F-1 is the very latest kerosene engine design done in the U. S.
(and design was over and done with in about 1962, shows how fast
things go in the engine field.) It has many features derived from the 
smaller Rocketdyne engines, Like the H-1, (but was obviously named
sooner), but, some things were done first on the F-1, like baffled
injectors, (and probably hypergolic slug ignition) and later were
moved down to the "little guys." Other F-1 innovations never got
incorporated into the rest of the line, but I am sure that Rocketdyne
would be eager, if anyone would pay for it. 
 
One of the F-1 innovations was the "Gas Cooled Skirt." There is a big,
tapered toroidial manifold around the engine part way down the nozzle
exit. That is where the turbine exhaust gas is put back in the nozzle.
Down stream of there, there is no regenerative liquid cooling, the
skirt is "cooled" by the turbine exhaust gas, which is only at a few
hundred degrees Fahrenheit. 
 
The turbine exhaust stream and the core stream are more or less kept
separate by layer of "shingles" on the inside of the nozzle (there is
some leakage, by design, at the joints.) The turbine exhaust gas is
cool, relatively speaking, and is it the dirtiest, greasiest,
sootiest, mess you can imagine. Being kerosene burned with only enough
oxygen to get it up only a thousand or so degrees F before going
through the turbine (I don't remember the number, and am too lazy to
look for it.) 
 
[note from B.D.; Huzel and Huang, Modern Engineering for Design of
Liquid-Propellant Rocket Engines, 1992 revised edition gives the inlet
temperature for a "typical" kerosene/LOX turbine as 1200 F, or 922 K
and the exit temperature as 938 F, equal to 776 K.; this is not
specifically the F1 turbine, but gives an idea of the temperatures
involved] 
 
So, right at the exit plane, and for a short distance down stream, the
plume looks darker than it does further down, because it is cooler.
Eventually, it mixes, both with the core flow, and with the ambient
air, and then it is quite warm. 
 
On some other Rocketdyne engines, the turbine exhaust is dumped
through a separate duct, and is quite black and sooty until it
impinges on the main plume, and then it ignites and there is a dark
region and a light region, until at some altitude, it "blows out," and
you can see the boundary transition right down the plume. (On one
particular Atlas flight, there must have been a strong wind, or
something, and one turbine exhaust never impinged, and never ignited!)
 
The turbine starts before the core flow does, so at start, all you see
coming out of the nozzle is a bunch of "cold" turbine exhaust, which
looks like a big puff of soot, which is just what it is. 
 
I am reminded of a story about the Canberra bomber (called the B-57 by
the USAF.) In the original version, the engine was started with a
solid propellant start cartridge. And, like a lot of solid start
cartridges, there was a lot of soot. A LOT of soot. According to this
one video I saw, (which showed a typical engine start sequence, which
enveloped a good part of the airplane in a nasty black cloud) when the
first one arrived in the U. S., the crew chief, who had been briefed,
in turn briefed the rest of the crew, and he told them that the start
cartridge made a lot of smoke. 
 
Then someone started the sequence, and the crew chief, himself, almost
immediately started hosing down the airplane with a the firex system,
causing a lot of damage to the brand new toy. I can understand, it was
really hard to believe that the normal start was "normal." The F-1
puts out a lot more soot than a B-57 ever though about, but it is
quickly masked by all the stuff that is burning. 
 
The turbine flow, and the core flow, both are ignited by a hypergol
lead. What does the hypergol lead flame look like? Is it sooty? What
is a "hypergol," anyway? 
 
Well, I know the answer to the last. Actually, a "hypergolic pair" are
two propellants that when mixed ignite all by themselves (a propellant
that ignites all by itself is a "monoprop," and a darn dangerous
one.). The most familiar hypergolic pairs are some variation of Nitric
Acid (including N2O4) with some amine or hydrazine derivative. In
fact, this is so true that a lot of people, like Titan weenies, talk
about "hypergols" as though that meant the "regular" kind. But, there
are a LOT of other hypergols. Fuels that are not hypergolic with
fluorine are hardly worth considering, for example. 
 
I don't know of too many things that are hypergolic with LOX. The
stuff that all Rocketdyne engines use is fairly exotic, "TEA," not
something you want with crumpets. ("Tri ethyl aluminum.) TEA is REALLY
nasty stuff. It makes the legendary hydrazine (actually not much of a
hazard) seem warm and fuzzy in comparison. For one thing, it is very
likely to ignite on contact with air. And it is not good for the
complexion, or human bodies in general, and when it burns, or is just
left lying about, it leaves a residue of aluminum oxide, which is not
nice stuff in valve seats, etc. 
 
I have never seen TEA burn, and I never was aware that you can see any
evidence of TEA ignition in an F-1 or other engine. However, I
certainly assume that, like any other aluminum containing fuel, it
burns with a brilliant white flame. TEA also has quite a bit of carbon
in it, as well as hydrogen, and when burned off mixture ratio, the
aluminum is going to get all the oxygen available, so it would be
sooty, too. However, there is only a few tens of cubic inches of TEA
total in the ignition slug, and there are great gobs of kerosene, so I
suspect that any effect from the  TEA is masked. 
 
[note from B.D.; Huzel and Huang indicate the volume of TEA used in
the F1 as being only 35 cubic inches, or about 600 ml.] 
 
Henry Hillbrath
Saturn V Propulsion Design Engineer (and I kid...)
 
--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   [email protected]

Article: 20248
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: [email protected] (thomas hancock)
Subject: Apollos Saturn 1B parts
Organization: NASA/MSFC
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 1994 14:52:43 GMT
 
This post may be redundant, to what others have said about where some
of the last Apollo Saturn stuff is located, but I found a few in the
following loucations:
 
A full Saturn 1B is located at one of the propulsion test areas at MSFC
A full Satrun 1B is located at a vistior center on I-65 in north Ala.
I don't know if any of these are flight/test etc.

What appers to be a scraped S-IVB is at the Space and Rocket Center in
Huntsville Ala.  It is attached to the old Skylab underwater training 
mock-up.  I look this one over and every box and cable on it appers to
have been certified for flight in the late 1960's a few tags indciaed early
1970's.  I could be wrong but I would think it was once a flight stage.
Last but not lest I was informed the the CMS attached to the Saturn V at JSC 
was the flight vehicle for Apollo 18.  I know the SM is real (flight?)
maybe the CM is (flight) to.
 
Cheers
 
Tom Hancock
[email protected]
***************************************************************************
I speek for my self and not very well
***************************************************************************

Article: 3740
From: [email protected] (Dwayne Day)
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: Re: The lost years after Apollo (and Apollo schedule)
Date: 23 Jul 1994 02:06:56 -0400
Organization: The George Washington University
 
Upon taking up his job as Deputy Associate Administrator for Manned Space
Flight at NASA, George Mueller issued a memorandum to the Center Directors
titled "Revised Manned Space Flight Schedule" and dated October 31, 1963. 
It established that a total of 15 Saturn V rockets would be built.  The
last one was to be SA-515.  This was the famous "all-up" decision document.
 
In June and July of 1968, Mueller sent three memoranda to James Webb, NASA
Administrator, asking for the authority to spend additional funds for the
procurement of long lead time items for the S-1C stages of vehicles 516
and 517.
 
On August 1, 1968, Webb issued a memorandum to Mueller disapproving the
request, stating "This decision, in effect, limits at this time the
production effort on Saturn through vehicle 515.  No further work should
be authorized for the development and fabrication of vehicles 516 and
517." (memorandum is titled, "Termination of the Contract for Procurement
of Long Lead Time Items for Vehicles 516 and 517," and is contained in the
NASA History Division, Reference Collection).
 
In 1970, the production line for Saturn was cancelled and the tooling was
scrapped.  The blueprints, however, were all saved and can currently be
found in the Federal Records Center in Atlanta, Georgia.  I have been
informed that some of them are scheduled for destruction in 1997.
 
On November 3, 1971, James E. Fletcher, NASA Administrator James Fletcher
wrote a letter to Caspar Weinberger, Deputy Director of the Office of
Management and Budget concerning a previous conversation where Weinberger
had stated that President Nixon was considering the cancellation of
Apollos 16 and 17.  Fletcher said "From a scientific standpoint these
final two missions are extremely important, especially Apollo 17 which
will be the only flight carrying some of the most advanced experiments
originally planned for Apollos 18 and 19, cancelled last year."
Fletcher stated that they were close to discovering what the entire moon
was like.  He also said that the potential saving ($133 million) was
relatively small compared to the investment already made ($24 billion).
Fletcher also defended the missions on other grounds.  He said that it
would destroy NASA credibility on Capitol Hill, where the agency had
fought hard for the appropriation of the money for the missions.  He also
said it would terminate the best known and most visible NASA project.  He
said that there would be negative scientific consequences as well since
the latter missions had the most scientific return.
 
Interestingly, Fletcher also proposed that if Apollos 16 and 17 were
cancelled, the President should offset this blow with a commitment to the
shuttle _and_ flying "surplus" Apollo hardware beyond Skylab, with the
view of leading up to a joint US-Soviet flight.
 
I also have information on the Skylab B (backup) which currently sits in
the Air & Space Museum.  I believe that although there were various
proposals within NASA to fly this vehicle after Skylab (including a
proposal of allowing the Soviets to dock with it), NASA leadership never
seriously considered these proposals and always intended to use the B only
if the first one failed.  Even then, support from the administration was
doubtful.
 
DDay
SPI
-- 
Dwayne A. Day					
Space Policy Institute
George Washington University 
Washington, DC 20052

Article: 3788
From: [email protected] (Thomas J. Frieling)
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: Re: The lost years after Apollo (and Apollo schedule)
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 1994 01:51:18
Organization: Bainbridge College
 
In article <[email protected]> [email protected] 
(Dwayne Day) writes:
 
>In 1970, the production line for Saturn was cancelled and the tooling was
>scrapped.  The blueprints, however, were all saved and can currently be
>found in the Federal Records Center in Atlanta, Georgia.  I have been
>informed that some of them are scheduled for destruction in 1997.
 
Current plans are to destroy about 90% of the Saturn papers now in the
East Point Archives in January 1997.  After I made inquiries into this
situation, I was told by MSFC's Historian Mike Wright that the
decision is being reviewed, but I have no update on the situation or
if the decision will be reversed. 

Article: 3945
From: [email protected] (Thomas J. Frieling)
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: Re: The lost years after Apollo (and Apollo schedule)
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 1994 02:10:58
Organization: Bainbridge College
 
In article <[email protected]> [email protected] 
(Dwayne Day) writes:
 
>Regarding all of this talk about the destruction of the Saturn blueprints
>and other engineering documents which is currently scheduled for 1997,
>since I started this thread, I'd like to add a little to clarify this
>issue.  Several people have voiced the opinion that these things should be
>turned over to the Smithsonian or to their local library or whatever.  But
>there are several points you should understand.  
 
>First of all, federal documents cannot be turned over
>to private organizations (libraries, etc.) very easily.  
 
NASA can turn over what it wants to. UAH has the Saturn papers Roger 
Bilstein used to write Stages to Saturn. Rice University has a large 
collection of JSC papers.  
 
>I am not sure of the disposition of Federal Records
>Center documents which are marked "permanent."  
 
Some of the East Point Saturn papers are 'permanent' records in the
care of the Federal Archives.  The rest are slated for destruction in
1997.  As I said in previous posts, this decision is under review. 
 
>Second, and more importantly, speaking as someone who regularly accesses
>government archives, I can tell you that from a practical or historical
>standpoint 99% of it is junk.  Does anybody really care about security
>reports at Cape Canaveral for 1950-1961?  All ninety-three thousand pages
>of them?  The key to these documents is finding what is important and
>getting rid of all the rest.  These Saturn document records undoubtedly
>contain a huge amount of stuff that no one will ever find interesting and
>could never be used for something like a revival of the Saturn design.
 
As you said, some of it *is* junk. Don't keep the junk. Some of the 
papers at East Point, GA are travel vouchers for NASA employees. While 
it might be interesting to know that a room at the Huntsville Sherton 
cost $12 in 1971, I agree that this information need not be preserved. 
 
But, literally, in the same box along with travel forms, I found reports 
that detailed the history of development problems and the fixes associated 
with J-2 engine Electrical Control Assemblies, information that would be 
important for future production. 
 
[stuff deleted]
 
>As I may have mentioned before, the important documents on the Saturn,
>particularly the engine blueprints and design and production notes, have been
>saved and are sitting at Rocketdyne.  Other engineering documents
>pertaining to the rocket exist, but are of lower importance.  We would not
>build the fuel tanks in the same way.  
 
So how would you build them?
 
>If we were going to rebuild the Saturn, there are
>very few engineers who would spend much time looking at the way it was
>done thirty years ago.  They would simply apply their current knowledge to
>the problem.
 
But to develop those CAD/CAM databases, you would need Saturn data now 
stored in the archives. If the SEI studies are any guide, the way back to 
the moon, when we do go again, will look a lot like the way we went in the '
60s:  On Saturn V derived HHLVs with more capable lunar spacecraft like the 
First Lunar Outpost Vehicles. 

Article: 4052
From: [email protected] (Dwayne Day)
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: Re: The lost years after Apollo (and Apollo schedule)
Date: 29 Jul 1994 19:56:06 -0400
Organization: The George Washington University
 
Anyone not interested in the obscure world of federal records protection
can hit the "n" key right now.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Thomas J. Frieling <[email protected]> wrote:

>NASA can turn over what it wants to. UAH has the Saturn papers Roger 
>Bilstein used to write Stages to Saturn. Rice University has a large 
>collection of JSC papers.  
 
Actually, it's not all that easy.  My impression (I may be wrong) is that
the documents in the UAH collection were never "officially" turned over to
them but were collected (apparently not by Bilstein--he came in later to
save the project) from individuals involved in the program.  This can get
dicey at times when prominent individuals in a government agency want to
turn over their "papers" to a private (say a university) library, and the
agency the person worked for screams "foul" and says that they still "own"
those documents.

The Rice deal is somewhat different.  Someone can correct me if I'm wrong,
but I believe that Rice is under contract to NASA to handle those
documents (including, I believe, Jim Webb's papers).
 
I will still maintain that it is not simple to do.  It may be difficult
because of the bureaucracy, but that bureaucracy still exists.
I'm not totally familiar with this issue (it enters into the rather arcane
world of library science and bureaucratic rules and other stuff like that
and I'm just a policy analyst), but there are turf battles between the
National Archives and government agencies over the disposition of federal
records.  Individual agencies often want to keep control of their own
records, but federal law gives that power to NARA.  The agencies have
claimed that NARA lacks the expertise and the personnel to treat the
historical records in the manner that they should be treated.
Both sides have a point.  Some of these documents have a real dollar value
on them.  For instance, signed correspondence with, say, Eisenhower's
signature on it can bring a hefty price.  NARA wants them in a controlled
facility.

Individual agencies have their own (usually overworked) historians who
recognize the value of the documents.
 
Over the past several years, NARA has increasingly come around to the
agencies' way of thinking and will strike deals on the protection of
records, allowing the agencies themselves to screen the records, determine
their value, and make copies for their own collections.
 
None of which deals with the issue of private libraries. 
 
>Some of the East Point Saturn papers are 'permanent' records in the care of 
>the Federal Archives.  THe rest are slated for destruction in 1997. As I 
>said in previous posts, this decision is under review. 
 
My question still remains, though.  Do these permanent records stay with
the FRC or do they get turned over to NARA?
 
>As you said, some of it *is* junk. Don't keep the junk. Some of the 
>papers at East Point, GA are travel vouchers for NASA employees. While 
>it might be interesting to know that a room at the Huntsville Sherton 
>cost $12 in 1971, I agree that this information need not be preserved. 
 
I've been to Huntsville.  No room in Huntsville is worth $12 TODAY.
 
>But, literally, in the same box along with travel forms, I found reports 
>that detailed the history of development problems and the fixes associated 
>with J-2 engine Electrical Control Assemblies, information that would be 
>important
 
Oh, agreed.  But there's the rub!  Who is going to go through all that
stuff and delete the junk?  I just read the faq on this for sci.space.tech
and it said that there are over 2,700 cubic feet of documents down there
in Georgia concerning this issue.  All of which have to be reviewed, which
you have pointed out is _supposed_ to happen.  I've met the NASA historian
down at Huntsville and he doesn't have the time to go through 2,700 cubic
feet of documents (and they aren't going to ship them to Alabama so he can
look at them either).
 
There is another problem which needs mentioning.  Some of these records
are classified.  If a classified paper sits in a folder, then the whole
folder and the whole box it sits in is classified until that paper has
been removed.  NARA occasionally solves this problem by pulling all the
classified stuff and having two sets of records.  The FRC's don't since
they are really only "holding" the records for the owning agency.  Unless
the reviewer has the requisite tickets (sorry, I'm degenerating into
DC-speak--"clearances"), then those papers have to be removed before the
reviewer can see the box and replaced when he's done.  No problem, right? 
See how much they like it when someone requests 100 boxes.

What will drive you even crazier is not only the fact that many of these
records no longer need to be classified, but that many of them were
inappropriately classified in the first place and some have been formally
declassified already, but require a special review process for someone to
stamp them unclassified.
 
Okay, I'll explain.  There is a large FRC up here in Suitland, Maryland. 
It has a lot of NASA files.  Some of the documents are marked
"confidential" or "secret."  The reason they were marked this way wasn't
because they could damage NASA security, but often because they were
internal policy planning documents.  For instance, suppose in 1974 that
the NASA administrator was planning on cutting funds to space science.  He
wrote a memo to his Deputy Administrator saying this.  But because he
didn't want the Associate Administrator for Space Science and Applications
to find out (because this person would immediately contact senators Huey,
Dewey, and Louie on the Hill) he marked it "confidential."  It has nothing
to do with national security.  It couldn't damage the US in the slightest
bit.  It wasn't even marked "confidential" for external purposes, but only
for internal ones.  Yet it still sits there in Suitland and the whole box
it sits in is confidential because of one small, inappropriately marked
document.

The other aspect is that recently (I'm not sure of the date) the NASA
administrator de-classified all documents pertaining to large boosters and
large booster technology.  All of them.  Blanket declassification.  Yet
there are still some J-2 diagrams that are marked "secret" sitting in a
locked safe in the basement of NASA HQ.  Why can't the NASA historian (who
has a clearance) simply take them out and show them to anyone who asks? 
Because they still have a stamp on them and the NASA historian does not
have declassification authority.  Only a few formally designated people in
the agency do.  Until they review the document and make sure it does not
contain anything else that might be classified, the document remains
classified.
 
Maddening.
 
>>As I may have mentioned before, the important documents on the Saturn,
>>particularly the engine blueprints and design and production notes, have been
>>saved and are sitting at Rocketdyne.  Other engineering documents
>>pertaining to the rocket exist, but are of lower importance.  We would not
>>build the fuel tanks in the same way.  
 
>So how would you build them?
 
For the most part I was being rhetorical, but I'll bite.  Since you cut it
off at that point (removing the stuff about the computers and the wiring,
etc.) I presume you want to know how we would build large fuel tanks
differently from the way they were done for Saturn.  First of all, the
welding techniques used (and developed) for some of the large spherical
pieces for the S-I and S-II stages no longer exist.  Some of the steel alloys 
used at the time are no longer produced.   This technology would come from
the storage tank construction industry (particularly those that specialize
in liquid gas and cryogenic gasses).  I doubt that there is any problem
too difficult here that it would be a show stopper. 

My impression is that some of this more mundane information (mind you, I'm
not advocating destroying it, I'm just saying that there are degrees of
importance here--the engines, in my opinion, are at the top of the list)
would not be terribly useful as a guide on _how to do it_ but might be
useful as a reference point when something goes wrong.
 
But let's get back on the subject here.  Resources.  How much money and
time are you willing to spend to review and save the important documents? 
It is a very expensive proposition.
 
>But to develop those CAD/CAM databases, you would need Saturn data now 
>stored in the archives. If the SEI studies are any guide, the way back to 
>the moon, when we do go again, will look a lot like the way we went in the '
>60s:  On Saturn V derived HHLVs with more capable lunar spacecraft like the 
>First Lunar Outpost Vehicles. 
 
Well. . .  okay.  But I doubt there are any show stoppers here.  Thirty
years of technological development should make it easier to build the
vehicle today even if the blueprints were not available (disregarding
bureaucratic and managerial screw ups).  But engineers as a whole would
rather work out the problems themselves rather than look at how someone
else did it.  I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it's there.  They
also have the benefit of all their knowledge to help them.   A fresh
engineer today should know more than one thirty years ago.
 
There are horror stories.  Marshall's history office was shut down for a
number of years and about seventy boxes of documents on the early years of
the center were mistakenly shipped to the FRC and marked "Destroy." 
They're gone, including a lot of original stuff on the development of the
Jupiter rocket and other ABMA documents.   Let's hope this doesn't happen
to the Saturn files and let's hope that someone will throw out the travel
receipts and keep the blueprints.
 
DDay
SPI
 
-- 
Dwayne A. Day
Space Policy Institute
George Washington University
Washington, DC 20052

Article: 2874
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.models.scale,sci.space.tech
Subject: Re: Revell's 1/96 scale Saturn V:mother of all rocket kits:-)
Date: 7 Aug 1994 02:43:33 GMT
Organization: U of Michigan Physics/Tarle Group
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
(Marcus Lindroos INF) writes: 

>What is the next best thing to seeing Apollo astronauts on the Moon?
>OWNING A SATURN V/APOLLO MODEL! I just paid an absolutely insame amount of
>money (495 Finnish marks/$92 US) for Revell's giant 1/96 scale kit of
>the Saturn V rocket. Looks great, when I was a kid I briefly owned a
>smaller 1/144 scale model - too small to have a detailed Apollo spacecraft
>though. The 1/96 scale kit is just right, my only complaint is that
>the Saturn V fuel tanks are made from soft vinyl instead of plastic.
>To assemble a
>fuel tank, you have to wrap the stuff around the engine section and interstage
>adapter (=the front & rear ends of the rocket stages).
>---
>Revell is going to release a huge number of space kits because of the Apollo
>11 anniversary. I have seen a 1/48 scale Apollo CSM/LM kit, and the 1/96
>CSM/LM is also being sold separately if you do not wish to pay for the
>Saturn V rocket as well.
>---
>Anyway, which Apollo mission (A8,A10-17) would be the easiest option
>as far as painting is concerned? I recall different Saturn boosters were
>painted slightly differently.  
 
I believe the only Apollo-Saturn V (as opposed to Skylab Saturn V)
that was pained significantly different from the rest was SA-500F the
integration test vehicle that was stacked at Kennedy Space Center and
never flown. Because so many photos were taken, it was used as the
model for paint patterns for several models. 
 
Other significant differences include the number of ullage rockets on
the interstage ring between the first and second stage.  One or two
unmanned Saturn V's had 8 spaced around the ring, while by Apollo 11,
there were just four. 
 
Finally, the "block 1" and "block 2" service modules had different patterns
of radiator tubes on the surface, and different color patterns.  All manned
flights had Block 2 spacecraft.
 
My "History-makers" edition Saturn V shows the SA-500F paint scheme, has
8 ullage rockets, and the Block I pattern of radiators onthe service
module.  While they may have fixed the painting recommendations, I'm
sure the molds have the same inaccuracies.  You can probably leave off
four ullage rockets without much filling work, but the surface engraving
on the service module is a real pain.
 
One other thing.  The Escape tower should not be attached directly to the
command module.  There should be a conical "boost protective cover" over
the command module, covering it entirely at launch.
 
Some sources that might be helpful:

The Apollo Expeditions to the Moon, NASA 
Rockets of the World, Peter Alway (Yes that's a shameless plug)
Saturn V photo and data set, Saturn Press (another shameless plug)
Saturn V and IB blueprints, Nat'l Assoc. of Rocketry tech service.
 
Please E-mail me if you'd like to follow up on my shapmeless plugs.
 
Peter Alway
 
>MARCU$
>
>                                   ////
>                                  (o o)
>------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo-----------------------------------
>
>                           Computer Science Department
>                       University of Abo Akademi, Finland
>
>Email: [email protected]
>       [email protected]
>MAIL:  Marcus Lindroos, PL 402 A, 07880 Liljendal, FINLAND
 
Peter Alway