Conference 7.286::space

Re:< Note 473.0 by EXIT26::KANDRA >

People have suggested using the old apollo fleet.  Its probably a fair 
to medium short term fix.  

We really need a different technology, one that will reduce launch costs 
by a factor of 100-1000.  This will enable the commercialization of 
space and this cost reduction cannot be done by any old rocket 
technology.

Tony

    See other discussions on Saturn in this conference.  The plans,
    molds, fixtures, manufacturing capacity, whatever were deleted,
    purged, removed, destroyed.  We would have to start from scratch.
    The only thing I've seen from NASA for a heavy launch vehicle recently
    is the shuttle-derived vehicle.
    
    						Mike

    I know we need newer launch technology, I just thought we could
    use older technology untill we get newer technology.  One thing
    that has bugged me about NASA (or whoever makes these decisions)
    is the tendency to start from scratch over and over.  The Russians
    are ahead because they build upon old successes or failures, it's
    called learning from the past, something done less and less in the
    US.
    
    Joe K.
    

    
    One could quickly convert the Shuttle into a Heavy Launch Vehical.
    The shuttle could be replaced with a cargo pod that was design for 
    a one way trip into LEO. A larger payload could be launched (from 
    the deletion of the man support area and extra weight for reentry 
    tiles, wings  etc).
    
    The Shuttle's 3 main eng. could be the same, the computer system
    could be the same, you just have to build a big cargo carrier. 
    I can not see why we could not have this Heavy Launch Vehical 
    in less then 5 years.  Actualy I can, this would be a NASA 
    launch unit not an Air Force one.  Logic 0, Politics 1.
    
    jb
    

    I know we discussed this earlier.  Doing to the US shuttle system
    what the Soviets have done for theirs, (the dual mode vehicle) is
    not:
    -	cost effective.  Modification and test costs are => scratch
    costs of the BDB concept already on the boards.
    -	Retrofittable.  Building a cargo container to mate with the
    SRB tank package puts the expensive parts in the non recoverable
    section.
    
    $/pound in LEO is the issue to address.  $/pound to the moon is
    the issue to address.  $/pound to the solar system is the issue
    to address.  The Soviets went for two on the three, and took the
    interim step to put up their life siences study called MIR.  They
    look as hero's now because they kept their proven launch capability
    in production, and designed their interim steps to be compatible
    with this capability.  They never addressed the $/pound issue for
    their interim capability, but have realized some cost breaks due
    to repeated use.
    
    We lost all this when we killed the apollo/saturn system and invested
    in the shuttle to focus on LEO and the space station.

    [re: 473.5  "when we killed the saturn launch vehicle.."]
    
    Now I've heard that before, somewhere.
    
    But does "kill" mean that we simply discontinued building
    Saturn launch vehicles? Or, does it mean that we (NASA
    or someone) also smashed/destroyed the tooling, the
    production jigs to build Saturn? Or does it mean we ALSO
    "burned the blueprints" for the Saturn launch vehicle, too ?
               
    No, I'm not asking for a gvt-paid trip to "Hanger 18" or
    whatever. I don't know the answer, I've just heard some
    odd rumors.
    
    Is it good career insurance for some, that there's "no
    going back" to the Saturn launch vehicle?
    
    

    re:-.1
    
    Ref to note 231 for a discussion on our current Saturn_v capability
    Also a dir/key="Apollo" or Jarvis may prove beneficial.  I also believe
    a review of the fall issues of Aw+st for 1986 may produce some
    editorial commentary on the sad state of the US HLV capability.
    
    The other point is that in 1974, or so (running on memory whose
    performance is clouded by reduced caffine levels :^)  ), Nixon directed
    the hault to further moon launches and favored the return to space
    via the shuttle.  (Actually it is said he did not favor any space
    effort, but had to support some space effort in order to keep the
    high tech states off his back.) The ironic thing is that the hardware
    was for the most part built and the money spent.  
    
    

    Not only was the tooling destroyed and the blueprints burned (or
    otherwise lost) but the art of firing up a Saturn has been lost,
    those were apparently non-trivial to start.  Besides, where are
    you going to launch it from, where are you going to get a crawler
    to carry it out to the pad (the last functional crawler is one that
    was converted to shuttle), and other minor details.
    
    Willie

Re: .8
>				where are you going to get a crawler
>    to carry it out to the pad (the last functional crawler is one that
>    was converted to shuttle), and other minor details.
 
This does not tally with the following extracted from note 458.18 which gives
shuttle processing status.  There must be at least two converted crawlers, and
very possible three (unless the same one is scheduled to be used for STS-27
and STS-28).
   
>               The mobile launch platform used for Discovery's STS-26
>          launch, MLP 2, has been returned to Bay 1 in the Vehicle Assembly
>          Building.  Having sustained only light damage during launch, the
>          same platform will be readied to support Discovery's STS-29
>          launch in February.

jb

    	He was referring to a crawler strong enough to carry a SATURN V
    type rocket.  The ones which carry the Space Shuttle could not support
    a SATURN V.
    
    	Larry
    

    What about the S4B or other launch vehicles of the era?  We shouldn't
    limit our talk the the Saturn 5 monster.
    

    If I am not mistaken, the crawlers used for the shuttle ARE the
    Saturn crawlers. The launchpads are the same ones used, though the
    towers have been cut down and heavily modified. The crawlers have
    been modified as well. All of these modifications preclude stacking
    a Saturn V. Or even a Saturn 1b (which used to sit on a high chair).
    And the 1b really couldn't loft the weight.
    
     The fact that you couldn't recover the engines and plumbing of
    a cargo shuttle makes it expensive, as has been pointed out. But
    how much more expensive than a fully expendable launch vehicle?
    
     Besides, who said you had to use gold plated shuttle engines? Design
    cheap, one use, engines that use the same fuel. Or, maybe "downgrade"
    the shuttle engines from reusable to one use, for cargo work.
    
     All this is rather moot, in my opinion, because no one in authority
    has said what we are going to put in space, or why. If we needed
    the capacity, the government ( or someone) would only be too happy to 
    provide it.
    
     Let's do it right, for once. Let's decide on a space policy that
    is real and acceptable and has vision. THEN we can worry about getting
    the hardware up. We have the shuttle now.
    
    			Gregg

    re various...
    
    The crawler/transporters used by STS are the original ones built for
    the Saturn V, now modified for STS use. Three were built, two are
    operational. The third seized up during the Apollo program, for reasons
    unknown (maybe they figured it out by now... anyone know?). The Saturn
    1 and the 1B flights related to Apollo were launched from LC-34 (I
    think). Only the Skylab and ASTP Saturn 1Bs were launched from LC-39 on
    the milkstool; LC-34 had been deactivated by then. 
    
    It is a requirement of most NASA contracts that the tooling developed
    be turned over to NASA or destroyed at contract end. NASA clearly had
    no interest in retaining it and the contracters were not allowed to
    keep it. This and missing information are the reasons why reactivating
    the Saturn vehicles is not too attractive.
    
    As for the story about not knowing how to start the engines used in the
    Saturn, I have read that elsewhere and I think it is totally bogus. The
    current Delta used an RS-27 as it's first stage and that engine is
    essentially the same as the H-1 on the S-I stage. The Centaur uses
    RL-10s that are similar to (but smaller than) J-2s. Hell, Atlas-E's and
    F's are still flying and their MA-3 and MA-5 engines are the
    predecessors of the H-1s and F-1s and are much, much more complex to
    start. Rocketdyne did most of the H-1 work at their own expense because
    they wanted a simpler, more reliable design to work with. 
    
    I'm not sure of the STS avionics, but the flight computers have
    to be reloaded after launch with their orbital and reentry programs.
    Is it possible to do this remotely?
    
    gary

    I have been thinking the issue of the HLV over - namely, that the
    most expensive part (engines and plumbing) would be non-recoverable.
    
     What about this:
    
     You design the heavy lift structure such that each engine is in
    a self contained module. You boost the cargo into space,and the
    shuttle brings back the modules one at a time....
    
    
    			OR.....
    
    
     The boost section becomes the platform for Space Station-to-Lunar
    orbit transfer vehicles which transport cargo and finished goods
    back and forth. They are not lunar landers - you would build cheap
    tenders to load/unload the stuff, then blast the thing back to the
    space station. If you didn't eject the large fuel tank upon launch
    from earth, you would merely gas it up and go again. You could return
    engines back to earth for refurbishment, or (which is more likely)
    set up a 'garage' at the space station. 
    
     You would need a lot of these platforms to keep the lunar colony
    supplied for quite a few years, since they would be initially dependent
    upon outside supply until they became self sufficient - if that
    ever happened.
    
    		Gregg

    re .14
    
    The idea of bringing back propulsion modules back in the shuttle
    payload bay strikes me as a good one. It is one of the things the
    shuttle can do but other launch systems can't.
    
    As for using the engines for other purposes once they are in orbit
    (I've read various ideas along that theme), unfortunately the SSMEs
    are not restartable and were not designed for that capability. Their
    ignition sequence is quite complex and probably isn't readily adaptable
    to multiple restarts after coasting.
    
    gary

    re .13 and .14
    
    Hmmm.  Assuming the engines can fit into the cargo bay, it would
    seem to be a good use for the shuttle.  They would have to purge
    the plumbing of any propellant residues.
    
    Using the engines for other purposes once they are already in space
    seems to me to be an even better idea.  In fact, we should probably
    create a salvage yard in orbit and use the leftovers from launches
    for assembling other "things" in orbit.  Given the cost to get the
    stuff up there in the first place, why not make use of it???
    
    						Mike

    We can get around the restart problem by using engines other than
    the SSME's. Just build engines with enough power, that use the same
    fuels, and that are restartable.
    
     You could even build huge space barges that use 4 or more HLV clusters
    - spaced equidistantly around the perimeter of the barge. With that
    kind of thrust, you can haul a LOT of beer.
    
    	Gregg

    re firing the Saturn's F1 engine
    
    According to Konrad Dannenburg, one of the original engineers, they
    no longer have the manuals on how to start the engine, and the people
    who knew how are dead or have moved on...
    
    Willie

    I still do not believe that igniting an F-1 is some black art, lost
    for all time. It may not be simple, but if there were a need it
    could be done.
    
    I did read recently a comment from someone involved with Saturn
    development (maybe the same person) that restarting F-1 PRODUCTION
    would be impossible, because of all the reasons we have discussed here
    (i.e. th production facilities no longer exist... new ones would have
    to be designed and built). I would readily believe that the press
    turned that into "we don't know how to start a Saturn V". 
    
    gary

    Well, it's kind of a rathole (who cares if we can start them, there
    are only a few engines in clean storage, we can't build new ones,
    we have no launch pads, we have no crawlers, etc, etc) but starting
    an engine of this size is non-trivial.  I don't have the details
    off hand, but it's really easy to explode one if you don't get it
    right....
    
    Willie

    	See Topic 231, specifically Note 231.13.
    
    	Larry
    

    
    	Wht not buy the technology from the RUSSIANs.  They now
    	have a Space Shuttle with a heavy duty space launcher.
    	Saves time, developement, just costs hardware and shipping....
    
    

    	Because US space technology is still ten years ahead of Soviet
    technology.  They may know how to use it better, but we are still
    advanced compared to them.  Now if NASA and our government got their
    acts together, we'd leave the Soviets in the dust space-wise; though
    I personally prefer international cooperation.
    
    	Larry
    

    re:22
    here's a better idea, why not have the japanese buy the plans.
    they could build it cheaper and faster with jit. and we buy the
    boosters from them...the only way to stablize the balance of trade then
    would mean we'd have to buy our own cars...hmmm
                
    

    re: 473.23
    
    It may be 10 years ahead, but , given the choice, would you go for
    a truck which had a small payload, or an older model with a larger
    payload?
    
    By the bye - if, as has been said, a "Cargo - only" version of the
    space shuttle is possible, surely the most expensive parts are the
    guidance system, and the Rocket motors.
    
    If they were detachable, you could bring them back in a Normal Shuttle,
    and keep the shell of the "Truck" as storage/raw Materials etc...
    at the "target" space station.
    You'd probably wish to keep some of the "expensive" bits up there,
    eg manoevering jets - for cannibalisation into some sort of "TUG"
    to rendezvous the "truck" with the station.
    
    Any feedback from this?
    D
    

    Re: .25
    
    The problem of canabilizing anything, keeping stuff etc ... In the
    space usage is that unless it was designed that way, its very difficult
    to do.   In most cases even then its easier and cheaper to use a made
    for the purpose device.