Refurbish the Saturn V Rocket

There are a few lying around. Was NASA should do is get one of its Saturn Vs
ready for launch, whatever it takes. But instead of putting people on it, you
put alot of money in the form of cash onboard. Say $20 billion in $100 bills.
You build a Moon lander that takes up the space and the mass of the command
module, Service module and LEM combined and you land the huge bail on money on
the surface of the Moon. A robotic arm dumps it out on to the surface and an
onboad camera records it for all the world to see. Now that the world knows
that there is $20 billion waiting on the surface of the Moon, they try to build
launch vehicles to retreive it. Now NASA will have suceeded in getting rid of a
Saturn V and the $20 billion will only get spent if someone manages to retreive
it, otherwise its just paper and costs the government virtually nothing to
print. This will spur private efforts to build launch vehicles to get to the
Moon. Whoever succeeds in building it, NASA will order another copy, and
perhaps several others for further Moon missions.

Tom

On 07 Sep 2003 15:46:05 GMT, (TKalbfus) wrote:

There are a few lying around. Was NASA should do is get one of its Saturn Vs
ready for launch, whatever it takes. But instead of putting people on it, you
put alot of money in the form of cash onboard. Say $20 billion in $100 bills.
You build a Moon lander that takes up the space and the mass of the command
module, Service module and LEM combined and you land the huge bail on money on
the surface of the Moon. A robotic arm dumps it out on to the surface and an
onboad camera records it for all the world to see. Now that the world knows
that there is $20 billion waiting on the surface of the Moon, they try to build
launch vehicles to retreive it. Now NASA will have suceeded in getting rid of a
Saturn V and the $20 billion will only get spent if someone manages to retreive
it, otherwise its just paper and costs the government virtually nothing to
print. This will spur private efforts to build launch vehicles to get to the
Moon. Whoever succeeds in building it, NASA will order another copy, and
perhaps several others for further Moon missions.

Ingenious.




Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill

(TKalbfus) wrote in message ...
There are a few lying around. Was NASA should do is get one of its Saturn Vs
ready for launch, whatever it takes. ...

NASA doesn't have a Saturn V left to fly.

There is only one complete Saturn V flight article left,
where it has sat outside for nearly 30 years in Houston's
corrosive, ultra-humid atmosphere. It, like the other
mostly ground-test Saturn Vs in Huntsville and Florida,
are owned by the Smithsonian. I saw the Houston Saturn V
a few months ago. There were holes rusted through parts of
its stage structures. I doubt that the out-of-production
engine turbopumps could ever turn, the electrical control
equipment was obviously shot, etc.

Go see this rocket if you can. You'll realize that the
remaining Saturn Vs were permanently destroyed decades
ago.

- Ed Kyle

(TKalbfus) writes:

That is why you restore the Saturn V, replace all the corroded parts with newly
manufactured ones, then test and launch it. If the Saturn is destroyed then you
replace all the damaged parts and start again, repeat the process until you get
a Saturn V that works.

Restore isn't the righ concept here. Build a new copy of a Saturn V
is the correct concept. I doubt there is much you could slavage from
the displayed articles that would be flightworthy after all these
years sitting out in the open. Note that it wasn't too many years ago
that the one at KSC was moved inside and it was only restored to
display quality.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

TKalbfus wrote:

There is only one complete Saturn V flight article left,
where it has sat outside for nearly 30 years in Houston's
corrosive, ultra-humid atmosphere. It, like the other
mostly ground-test Saturn Vs in Huntsville and Florida,
are owned by the Smithsonian. I saw the Houston Saturn V
a few months ago. There were holes rusted through parts of
its stage structures. I doubt that the out-of-production
engine turbopumps could ever turn, the electrical control
equipment was obviously shot, etc.


That is why you restore the Saturn V, replace all the corroded parts with newly
manufactured ones, then test and launch it. If the Saturn is destroyed then you
replace all the damaged parts and start again, repeat the process until you get
a Saturn V that works.

Tom

The point is, so much would have to be done, you'd be far better off
starting fresh. (I walked around the Saturn at JSC on 1-1-2000 myself.)

And you might as well use as much existing* post-Saturn technology
(espically lighter structures, and avionics) in this new launcher as
well.

Not to mention that there's a distinct lack of Saturn-class launch
facilites, since they were modified for the Shuttle. (which is one
reason many people like Shuttle-C)


*I emphasize 'existing,' since most NASA plans for a new heavy-lift
(back when that term really meant something in the Saturn/Energia
payload class) launcher start with the same idea of off-the-shelf
simplicity, but end up being gold-plated to death with new, undeveloped
technologies. Such things should be seperate programs.

I agree a genius idea, if anything better than a prize. I'd suggest
though sending a check or goverment bond rather than a stack of cash,
so a smaller, existing LV can be used (Delta 2 perhaps?)

Andy

(TKalbfus) wrote in message ...
I agree a genius idea, if anything better than a prize. I'd suggest
though sending a check or goverment bond rather than a stack of cash,
so a smaller, existing LV can be used (Delta 2 perhaps?)

Actually million dollar bills were printed in the 1930s. All thats required is
for the Federal Reserve to print more of them and you could have 150,000 of
those bills stacked up and put into a single box that an ordinary rocket could
send to Mars.

Tom

Better idea that doesn't cost the federal government a penny, and is
sure to entice lots of risk-takers, who would rapidly set up an
industry that would result in ever-increasing market for products made
in space:

Have the fed declare that all narcotics manfactured off-planet are
legal.

This would probably also have the strange effect of catapulting
Columbia to the front of the technology market... it is a viable
industry that does billions in trade worldwide, though.


Tom Merkle

"gmw" writes:

After Challenger someone suggested, (I can look it up later if anyone is
interested) in AWST a Saturn/Shuttle vehicle. Recreate the first stage of
the Saturn and then use de-rated SSME for a new second stage. This was to
be a cargo only version. No third stage. anyone need 220,000 lbs to LEO?
and later a third stage. Build pad 39c and reconvert part of the VAB to
support a low rate of Saturn/shuttle flights. It was a very well thought
out proposal that lacked only one thing. A compelling reason to spend the
money to create/recreate a Saturn class vehicle.

We don't need no stinking SSME powered launch vehicle. Seriously,
what you describe is a HLV that's a bit large for today's needs.

I always liked this concept:

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/jarvis.htm

You use ET derived tanks (to significantly reduce tooling costs) and
build an ET diameter launch vehicle with two F-1 engines on the first
stage and one J-2 engine on the second stage. The third stage used
R-4D engines (originally developed for attitude control of the CM and
LM, and used later on the third stage of the Atlas II). Payload to
LEO over 80,000 lbs.

I'd imagine that the third stage (with appropriately sized fuel tanks
and enough power) ought to be functionally equivalent to the
propulsion module on a Progress or Soyuz, enabling payloads to be
docked to ISS or grappled by the SSRMS.

Since this is much smaller than a launch vehicle directly based on the
Saturn V, building or adapting a launch pad for this thing ought to be
cheaper.

Upgrades ought to be possible by tank stretching and replacing
engines. For example, the F-1A for the first stage and the J-2S for
the second stage.

If you really need more payload than this, run the numbers for a
"heavy" version with two strap-ons that are virtually identical to the
first stage and remove one engine from what used to be the first
stage, or stretch its tanks. You could keep the center first stage
the same if you can throttle the F-1 or F-1A, but I'm not sure you
can.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

On 7 Sep 2003 16:41:22 GMT, in a place far, far away, Jim Davis
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

Tom, could you confirm that the preceeding was posted tongue-in-
cheek? I have this uncomfortable feeling that you were posting in all
seriousness.

It's actually the most interesting idea I've ever seen him come up
with (not to imply that it has a lot of competition in that regard).

The biggest problem with government prizes over long periods of time
is the credibility that they won't be revoked, or the deal reneged on
(e.g., Harrison's prize for the shipboard clock). This is one way of
making sure that Congress can't play games with the money, and that
the prize will be there with a known value for whoever gets it first.
Of course, the bit about it not costing anything is silly, but it
would be a way of guaranteeing an award, should someone meet the
criteria.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 07:07:36 -0400, in a place far, far away, Herm
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

very good idea, but it should it be several bundles.. the treasury can
probably print special denominations for this, with a nice lunar motif.

No, they have to be unmarked, indistinguishable bills, or Congress
could declare them illegal tender if there were any danger of the
prize being won.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers: