What if we still had Saturn V

Alex Terrell wrote:

As for the Saturn V, I'm sure if it had been continued, payloads would
have been found. Given such an effective solution, a problem would have
materialised.


I would second that, I think it would be possible to launch a whole
constellation of Teledesic class polar orbit satellites along with a
'service' vehicle using a just a few Saturn V's the delta V to change
orbits to deploy a set would not be prohibitive. And if someone ever
does put a 200 or more satellite constellation up there having a service
vehicle that could go and collect say a dozen at a time that needed
service (having waited until enough needed it to make the trip
worthwhile, or refuel the station keeping systems on a whole bunch would
make a lot of sense.

Fred J. McCall wrote in
:

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.

And this is a chicken and egg sort of thing. No one proposes any
missions that could use that much lift because there's no existing
vehicle to perform it.


Heavy lift development is straightforward and not that expensive. But
it won't happen without a mission.

The missions have been proposed, repeatedly, over the years. But the
funding for the mission is never forthcoming--it's way too expensive.
So there is no demand for heavy lift capability. No one's going to
put up an entire fleet of satellites on one launch either; too risky
and it promptly eliminates the need for a dedicated heavy lift vehicle
after the first launch or two.

A modular launch system that can be kit-bashed into a heavy lift
vehicle as needed neatly solves the launch problem.

The realistic answer is NOT Saturn V; it's further development of EELV.


--Damon

"Eric Chomko" wrote in message
...
wrote:
: 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?

The only reason the Saturn V route was chosen to the moon was the "before
the decade is out" deadline. Considering the first moon landing was in the
summer of 1969, the US was cutting it close as it was.

A more reasonable program with a more relaxed schedule could have been
pursued that used smaller, cheaper launch vehicles in combination with low
earth orbit docking instead of lunar orbit docking (as was done with the
CSM/LM. Note that such a strategy would have been far easier to pursue if
automated rendezvous and docking technology were developed in parallel with
or after the Gemini program.

You eventually want to do orbital assembly in LEO as your programs
repeatedly outgrow your launch vehicle. Developing bigger and bigger launch
vehicles for each new program is hideously expensive in the long run.

In the long run, I think you want to shift launch vehicle development money
to programs aimed at reducing launch costs rather than spending the same
development money on ever bigger launch vehicles.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

Henry Spencer wrote:

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.

Well, if wishes were wings... NASA did ask for a lot of things for which
president and congress would not give the money. NASA could have rescued
Apollo/Saturn in the political climate of the 70s only if they had
sacrificed nearly everything else. IMHO.

Robert Kitzmueller

Volker Hetzer wrote:

Damon Hill wrote:
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?
Basically every payload could have been made heavier and therefore
cheaper. Also, one could have sent up satellites in bunches.

Saturn V would have been more expensive to launch than Titan. So the
payloads would have become bigger, since SV were available, but also
would have to have more scientific return for the higher launch costs,
and would have become even more expensive because of it,

Robert Kitzmueller

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

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.

A few missions would be found, I'd think. But there would have to be
a high number of missions using heavy lift to justify the high fixed
costs. A moon base with resupply every two or three months might just
justify a heavy launcher, but not much else.

Robert Kitzmueller

Damon Hill wrote:
Fred J. McCall wrote in
:


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.

And this is a chicken and egg sort of thing. No one proposes any
missions that could use that much lift because there's no existing
vehicle to perform it.



Heavy lift development is straightforward and not that expensive. But
it won't happen without a mission.

The missions have been proposed, repeatedly, over the years. But the
funding for the mission is never forthcoming--it's way too expensive.
So there is no demand for heavy lift capability. No one's going to
put up an entire fleet of satellites on one launch either; too risky
and it promptly eliminates the need for a dedicated heavy lift vehicle
after the first launch or two.

A modular launch system that can be kit-bashed into a heavy lift
vehicle as needed neatly solves the launch problem.

The realistic answer is NOT Saturn V; it's further development of EELV.


--Damon

The problem is that the larger stack still need a larger launch pad.
That is, if we need a HLLV capacity, we should invest to build, and
maintain, a pad just for these, rare, launches. See the Boeing chart for
the evolution path of the Delta IV heavy!

Géza

Alex Terrell wrote:
As for the Saturn V, I'm sure if it had been continued, payloads would
have been found. Given such an effective solution, a problem would have
materialised.

How many payloads of the Titan IV class where there?
One or two per year averaged?

Robert Kitzmueller wrote:

:Saturn V would have been more expensive to launch than Titan. So the
ayloads would have become bigger, since SV were available, but also
:would have to have more scientific return for the higher launch costs,
:and would have become even more expensive because of it,

Has anyone got any good 'what if' numbers for cost per pound to orbit
for Saturn V if we assume they went to 'regular industrial production'
rather than virtually hand-building every single one?

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

Robert Kitzmueller wrote:

:Henry Spencer wrote:
:
: 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.
:
:Well, if wishes were wings... NASA did ask for a lot of things for which
resident and congress would not give the money. NASA could have rescued
:Apollo/Saturn in the political climate of the 70s only if they had
:sacrificed nearly everything else. IMHO.

So instead they sacrificed EVERYTHING (no exceptions) and then barely
squeezed out the STS after injection of a bunch of USAF money (and
USAF requirements).

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