A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Saturn V - inherently expensive or simply no economy of scale?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 2nd 10, 12:18 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Rick Jones[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 587
Default Saturn V - inherently expensive or simply no economy of scale?

Was the Saturn V an "inherently expensive" launch vehicle or were it's
$/lb to orbit more a function of lack of scale - ie frequency of
launch? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V#Cost gives a figure of
$2.4 to $3.5 billion per launch in 2007 dollars but does not state how
much of that was the fixed costs and how much was marginal.

rick jones
--
I don't interest myself in "why". I think more often in terms of
"when", sometimes "where"; always "how much." - Joubert
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...
  #2  
Old February 2nd 10, 12:40 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default Saturn V - inherently expensive or simply no economy of scale?


"Rick Jones" wrote in message
...
Was the Saturn V an "inherently expensive" launch vehicle or were it's
$/lb to orbit more a function of lack of scale - ie frequency of
launch? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V#Cost gives a figure of
$2.4 to $3.5 billion per launch in 2007 dollars but does not state how
much of that was the fixed costs and how much was marginal.


I'm sure some of it was caused by the low flight rate (fixed costs
dominate), but I'm also sure that quite a bit was caused by the fact that in
the 1960's, the Saturn V was full of bleeding edge technology built by
expensive fabrication techniques to reduce weight. If there had been
funding to continue the program (no chance of that given the politics of the
time), cost reduction programs could have lowered some of the costs.
Eventually things like the IU would have gotten much smaller and much
cheaper to build due to advances in electronics.

One line of thought says that it should be possible to lower launch costs by
focusing on minimizing the cost per pound of payload to orbit rather than
the more traditional focusing on maximizing the payload to orbit for a given
launch vehicle size (which is essentially what traditional aerospace
engineers do). The logical conclusion to such a philosophical change is a
launch vehicle more like Sea Dragon than Saturn V. Such a vehicle makes
traditional aerospace engineers laugh as they can't imagine a vehicle made
of steel in a shipyard being successful, despite its utter simplicity in
design and construction.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon


  #3  
Old February 2nd 10, 01:02 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Brian Thorn[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,266
Default Saturn V - inherently expensive or simply no economy of scale?

On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 18:40:24 -0500, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:


Eventually things like the IU would have gotten much smaller and much
cheaper to build due to advances in electronics.


Very eventually. Delta's is still ancient by today's standards.

Brian
  #4  
Old February 2nd 10, 01:15 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Rick Jones[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 587
Default Saturn V - inherently expensive or simply no economy of scale?

Jeff Findley wrote:
One line of thought says that it should be possible to lower launch
costs by focusing on minimizing the cost per pound of payload to
orbit rather than the more traditional focusing on maximizing the
payload to orbit for a given launch vehicle size (which is
essentially what traditional aerospace engineers do). The logical
conclusion to such a philosophical change is a launch vehicle more
like Sea Dragon than Saturn V. Such a vehicle makes traditional
aerospace engineers laugh as they can't imagine a vehicle made of
steel in a shipyard being successful, despite its utter simplicity
in design and construction.


Indeed, not a very glamourous vehicle and unlikely to excite the
passions of an aerospace engineer - that one massive engine in Sea
Dragon - would the issues encounted in F-1 have only been magnified in
it? (I'm thinking of the combustion instability issue even as I
ponder the paper rocket variant of rickover's paper reactors... :-)

Weren't there "issues" with igniting the engine of an SLBM while it
was still in the water? Or was that more a question of lighting the
candle while it was still in the tube?

rick jones
--
a wide gulf separates "what if" from "if only"
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...
  #5  
Old February 2nd 10, 07:23 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Sylvia Else
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,063
Default Saturn V - inherently expensive or simply no economy of scale?

On 2/02/2010 10:40 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:

One line of thought says that it should be possible to lower launch costs by
focusing on minimizing the cost per pound of payload to orbit rather than
the more traditional focusing on maximizing the payload to orbit for a given
launch vehicle size (which is essentially what traditional aerospace
engineers do).


If that's really what launch vehicle designers are doing, then they need
to be given some lessons in basic finance. Can the various launch
vehicle manufacturers really have overlooked the fact that it's the cost
of launch vehicles that matters (cost being appropriately calculated),
not the mass?

Sylvia.
  #6  
Old February 2nd 10, 10:32 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default Saturn V - inherently expensive or simply no economy of scale?

Brian Thorn wrote:
Eventually things like the IU would have gotten much smaller and much
cheaper to build due to advances in electronics.


Very eventually. Delta's is still ancient by today's standards.


(cut to scene at Baikonur as a Soyuz gets ready to launch)
"Spin up the gyros."
(engineer begins pulling on a hundred foot long piece of string that
comes out of the gyro housing's side)
"Align guidance platform"
(engineer starts hammering on lead support frame for gyros with rubber
mallet while looking at compass)
"Prepare the sequence timer clock."
(engineer winds it and sets the alarm for orbital entry time)
"Stand by for ignition."
(engineer, fleeing pad, uses cigarette to light a huge fuze.)

Pat




Pat
  #7  
Old February 2nd 10, 10:37 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default Saturn V - inherently expensive or simply no economy of scale?

Rick Jones wrote:
Weren't there "issues" with igniting the engine of an SLBM while it
was still in the water? Or was that more a question of lighting the
candle while it was still in the tube?


The engine didn't ignite till the missile was clear of the water.
They did have problems keeping the rocket booster on the Subroc
submarine-to-submarine missile firing while it was heading for the
surface though.

Pat

  #8  
Old February 2nd 10, 04:02 PM posted to sci.space.policy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,516
Default Saturn V - inherently expensive or simply no economy of scale?

On Feb 1, 6:18�pm, Rick Jones wrote:
Was the Saturn V an "inherently expensive" launch vehicle or were it's
$/lb to orbit more a function of lack of scale - ie frequency of
launch? �http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V#Costgives a figure of
$2.4 to $3.5 billion per launch in 2007 dollars but does not state how
much of that was the fixed costs and how much was marginal.

rick jones


Fixed costs must of been much lower than shuttle. The public was told
its flight rate was too low, and there werent many needs for such a
large booster.

Von Braun wanted to make it partially reusable but nasa wanted new
pork to pass out to its friends$$$$

We would of been far better off to have kept the saturn family of
launchers, there was even a proposal for a saturn to send a shuttle
like vehicle into orbit.

Really there is no single RIGHT vehicle. You driving across town all
by yourself? take a compact

You moving your household? You need a moving van.........
  #9  
Old February 2nd 10, 04:28 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default Saturn V - inherently expensive or simply no economy of scale?


"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
...
On 2/02/2010 10:40 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:

One line of thought says that it should be possible to lower launch costs
by
focusing on minimizing the cost per pound of payload to orbit rather than
the more traditional focusing on maximizing the payload to orbit for a
given
launch vehicle size (which is essentially what traditional aerospace
engineers do).


If that's really what launch vehicle designers are doing, then they need
to be given some lessons in basic finance. Can the various launch vehicle
manufacturers really have overlooked the fact that it's the cost of launch
vehicles that matters (cost being appropriately calculated), not the mass?


Remember that launch vehicles were, at least initially, designed by the very
same people who designed missiles. As Henry Spencer liked to say, they were
locked into the "performance uber alles" mindset from their missile design
days. In missile design, you really are constrained by the size of a
missile which will fit under the wing of a fighter, on a mobile launcher, or
in a missile silo. Therefore, maximizing payload for a given launch vehicle
size makes a lot of sense. Also, the costs of the ground support for a
missile will always be much more than the cost of the missile itself, so
using the most exotic materials, construction techniques, and fuels for the
actual missile doesn't push up the overall program's cost by much.

There are exceptions. Falcon 1 (and hopefully Falcon 9) have shaved some
costs by what traditional aerospace engineers would consider to be rather
unorthodox design choices. These choices no doubt negatively impacted
performance compared to an "optimized" design, but helped keep overall
program costs low. For example, many aerospace engineers make fun of Falcon
9's *nine* first stage engines. It would have been more efficient, and
resulted in better payload, to develop a much bigger first stage engine and
dispense with the complexity and added weight of nine separate engines. But
engine development is very expensive. Having as much commonality as
possible between the engines of Falcon 1 and Falcon 9's stages means lower
costs for the company overall. These savings can be passed on to customers.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon


  #10  
Old February 2nd 10, 10:42 PM posted to sci.space.policy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 687
Default Saturn V - inherently expensive or simply no economy of scale?

On Feb 2, 1:37*am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Rick Jones wrote:
Weren't there "issues" with igniting the engine of an SLBM while it
was still in the water? *Or was that more a question of lighting the
candle while it was still in the tube?


The engine didn't ignite till the missile was clear of the water.
They did have problems keeping the rocket booster on the Subroc
submarine-to-submarine missile firing while it was heading for the
surface though.

Pat


Doesn't the solid-rocket fuel contain it's own oxidizer? Once it
lights
off, it should keep burning, even under water.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
1/10 scale model of Saturn V scheduled fly [email protected] Misc 6 April 26th 09 03:18 PM
Need to Sell 1:48th Scale Saturn V Dale History 15 December 14th 06 05:57 PM
Saturn V 1:48th Scale on Ebay! surfduke Amateur Astronomy 6 December 11th 06 05:30 AM
Saturn V 1:48th Scale on Ebay! surfduke Space Station 0 December 10th 06 08:34 PM
Need to Sell 1:48th Scale Saturn V Dale History 0 December 4th 06 03:01 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.