What if we still had Saturn V

What if the Saturn V was still being built? Where would we be?
What number would we need to build each year to be financially
reasonable? What sort of missions might it have done in the past 34
yrs? How would its existence affect shuttle development? How might it
have been upgraded?

wrote in news:1105381754.354849.138800
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

What if the Saturn V was still being built? Where would we be?
What number would we need to build each year to be financially
reasonable? What sort of missions might it have done in the past 34
yrs? How would its existence affect shuttle development? How might it
have been upgraded?


Saturn went out of production because there were no payloads.
Therefore the logical production number was none.

If you'd said Saturn V produced instead of Shuttle, as in no
Shuttle ever built, then possibly there might have been a tiny
chance of a (very small) production run once every decade.

Might you want to identify Saturn V-class payloads launched during
the past 34 years?

--Damon

wrote:

What if the Saturn V was still being built? Where would we be?

The problems NASA has have more to do with its managment culture than
with any specific piece of hardware. So moon flights would have
continued, at least until the first in-flight-fatalaty, but the overall
progress would be as small as it is now.

What number would we need to build each year to be financially
reasonable?

6-8? I expect that the upkeep of the infrastructure would cost billions
just like for shuttle, and that the individual vehicles would cost a lot
less. However, I do not see the missions necessary for this.

What sort of missions might it have done in the past 34
yrs?

Moon ... and moon ... and moon ... and maybe some stations of the
Skylab class. A few big unmanned probes, one every five years or so.
Maybe two moon launches and one other launch per year, maybe even less
would be the usual launch rate.

How would its existence affect shuttle development?

Shuttle would not have happened. Saturn 1B and Apollo would have been
upgraded instead.

How might it have been upgraded?

Give the aerospace gigants a few billion dollars for an replacement
vehicle, let them ask for more money and then cancel the program. Just
like for shuttle the actual changes would have been small, although
viewgraphs would show high-tech variants en masse.

Robert Kitzmueller

On 10 Jan 2005 10:29:14 -0800, in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

What if the Saturn V was still being built? Where would we be?
What number would we need to build each year to be financially
reasonable?

Zero.

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On 10 Jan 2005 10:29:14 -0800, in a place far, far away,
: made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
: way as to indicate that:

: What if the Saturn V was still being built? Where would we be?
: What number would we need to build each year to be financially
: reasonable?

: Zero.

Don't mind Rand, he's a nihilist.

Nice article on the Saturn V in today's Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2005Jan9.html

Eric

In article .com,
wrote:
What if the Saturn V was still being built? Where would we be?

As others have commented, you need to add more background to that: there
has to be a *reason* the Saturn V is still in production. It has to have
something to do. Where we would be has much more to do with the reason
than with the rocket.

The version I've long favored is continuation of Apollo. If the Space
Task Group had been more politically savvy, and had proposed a low-key
continuation of existing activity with gradual evolution toward
reusability and lower costs, they just might have been able to pull it
off, especially if they'd had somebody who had Nixon's ear. (Agnew
didn't.) Contrary to his popular image, Nixon does *not* seem to have
been anti-space, in fact mildly the contrary... but the decisions about
the space budget were mostly made by his flunkies, not by him. He wasn't
even informed, much less consulted.

What number would we need to build each year to be financially
reasonable?

If memory serves, two per year was considered the lowest production rate
that would keep teams together and facilities open.

What sort of missions might it have done in the past 34 yrs?

Depends enormously on the political background. If that was reasonably
favorable... Heavy lunar landers and a lunar base, quite likely. Mars
or asteroid expeditions, maybe.

How would its existence affect shuttle development?

Any shuttle would be rather smaller and would be geared to be a station
supply ship rather than an all-purpose flying facility. That *was*, in
fact, the original plan for the shuttle, back when the station itself was
expected to be launched by Saturn V.

With my "gradual evolution" hypothesis, there wouldn't be a shuttle
designed from scratch, but rather moves toward reusability in the Saturn
hardware. One obvious option is to try to design a "shuttle" which is
a reusable combination of the Apollo spacecraft and the S-IVB upper stage
of the Saturn IB, followed by exploring modifications to the first stage
for recovery and re-use.

How might it have been upgraded?

Even a second production batch would probably have had upgraded engines
and tank stretches. In the longer term, a bigger third stage (the S-IVB
was really a bit small), perhaps a reusable first stage, perhaps a
stage-and-a-half first stage like Boeing's S-ID proposal (dropping the
outer four engines partway up). And definitely moves to "rationalize the
fleet", e.g. by replacing the Saturn IB with a reusable S-IC plus a small
upper stage. Beyond that, depends on the missions.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

In article ,
Robert Kitzmueller wrote:
How would its existence affect shuttle development?

Shuttle would not have happened. Saturn 1B and Apollo would have been
upgraded instead.

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the politics. NASA's own original plan
*did* have the Saturn V coexisting with a smaller shuttle, for heavy lift
and resupply respectively.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

Eric Chomko wrote:
Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On 10 Jan 2005 10:29:14 -0800, in a place far, far away,
: made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a
: way as to indicate that:

: What if the Saturn V was still being built? Where would we be?
: What number would we need to build each year to be financially
: reasonable?

: Zero.

Don't mind Rand, he's a nihilist.

Nice article on the Saturn V in today's Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2005Jan9.html

Eric

I suspect Rand is right though. We sometimes bemoan the lack of a
heavy lifter like the Saturns but there really was no mission for them.

wrote:

: Eric Chomko wrote:
: Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: : On 10 Jan 2005 10:29:14 -0800, in a place far, far away,
: : made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
: a
: : way as to indicate that:
:
: : What if the Saturn V was still being built? Where would we be?
: : What number would we need to build each year to be financially
: : reasonable?
:
: : Zero.
:
: Don't mind Rand, he's a nihilist.
:
: Nice article on the Saturn V in today's Washington Post:
: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2005Jan9.html
:

: I suspect Rand is right though. We sometimes bemoan the lack of a
: heavy lifter like the Saturns but there really was no mission for them.

The irony, of course, is that Rand supports the president's return to the
moon but says there is no place for the Saturn V. What, exactly, is
suppose to get us back to the moon?

Eric

wrote:

:What if the Saturn V was still being built? Where would we be?
:What number would we need to build each year to be financially
:reasonable? What sort of missions might it have done in the past 34
:yrs? How would its existence affect shuttle development? How might it
:have been upgraded?

There was in place a plan to put a permanent outpost on the Moon using
Saturn V. Instead missions got scrubbed to save money for Space
Shuttle development and the last two Saturn Vs were allowed to rot.

That might have been worth it if they'd built the Shuttle they
originally planned, but the program was overrunning budget quite
heavily and NASA was afraid the whole works would get cancelled if
they went back yet again for more money. So they compromised the
vehicle, deliberately accepting MUCH higher operating costs through
the life of the vehicle, in order to get the initial cost of the
vehicle in budget.

Penny wise, pound foolish.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney