fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (02/09/89)
Why should we go through all the hassle of spec'ing, designing, and making a new HLV? Why muck about with a Shuttle-C? Buy a license to manufacture Energias in Florida! Hmmm. Make that a partial smiley. Do the Russians want something *really* badly that we could provide them? seh
kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kevin William Ryan) (02/10/89)
Steve Hix (fiddler%concertina@Sun.com) suggests with half a smiley that
we get a license to build Energias in Florida.
Now, it's been said (with questionable veracity) that the Soviets have
copied their Shuttle from us. What are the possibilities of copying some big
boosters from them? Not necessarily Energia, but perhaps Proton? I would
think that it's in the same class as redoing the Saturn V...
On a more serious note - numerous people have asked about redoing the
Saturn V, despite the fact that NASA pitched most of the plans and machinery
for same. It seems that the cost would be almost prohibitive.
I would like to know if anyone has information about the Saturn launcher
used for the early Apollo tests (the IIB?) - were the plans for that pitched
as well? Surely the capacity to orbit the mass of the LM/SM/CM combination
would be useful. Does anyone know if the plans for that are still around?
kwr
kr0u@andrew.cmu.edu (internet)
kevin%cmcfra@cmccvb.bitnet (bitnet)henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (02/11/89)
In article <4XwVpQy00Xc94aJ3IN@andrew.cmu.edu> kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kevin William Ryan) writes: >... What are the possibilities of copying some big >boosters from them? Not necessarily Energia, but perhaps Proton? I would >think that it's in the same class as redoing the Saturn V... Probably not quite, but it's not worth the bother either: I don't think Proton can do anything that the bigger Titans can't. *Buying* Protons is undoubtedly cheaper than buying Titans, if the Soviets were selling, but copying it would drive the cost right back up again. Energia might be worth copying. > I would like to know if anyone has information about the Saturn launcher >used for the early Apollo tests (the IIB?) - were the plans for that pitched >as well? Surely the capacity to orbit the mass of the LM/SM/CM combination >would be useful. Does anyone know if the plans for that are still around? The Saturn IB is in pretty much the same boat as the Saturn V, I think: tooling gone, launch sites gone, expertise gone, plans partly gone. Not quite as bad, and there was talk of reviving it at one point, but it doesn't seem to have happened. Also, if I'm not mistaken, the Saturn IB couldn't lift the LM and the CSM together -- the Earth-orbit CSM/LM test, Apollo 9, used a Saturn V. -- The Earth is our mother; | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology our nine months are up. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
dsmith@hplabsb.HP.COM (David Smith) (02/11/89)
In article <4XwVpQy00Xc94aJ3IN@andrew.cmu.edu> kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kevin William Ryan) writes: > Now, it's been said (with questionable veracity) that the Soviets have >copied their Shuttle from us. What are the possibilities of copying some big >boosters from them? Not necessarily Energia, but perhaps Proton? I would >think that it's in the same class as redoing the Saturn V... No reason to clone Proton when we have Titan III/IV. There has been debate in this forum over whether or to what degree the Soviets copied the US Shuttle. The idea was generally poo-poohed, more than I thought warranted. Main differences cited are that the SSMEs are gone, the OMS system moved into the main fuselage, the wings shifted forward, and the nosewheel moved back. Someone offered as evidence of non-copying that Buran's rudder was split into top and bottom halves. But the US Shuttle has that same split. It just looks more pronounced on Buran because the borders between black and white tiles are more blocky, with more surface ending up black. I'm not convinced that a clean sheet design would have come up with the same tail, complete with cutout to clear the center/upper SSME's blast. More similarities are noted in a recent AW&ST article (Jan 16, 1989, p.36): Soviet officials here [Baikonur Cosmodrome] acknowledged that their orbiter's basic design is patterned after that of the U.S. ... orbiter. A closer examination of the Soviet spacecraft's design shows that the similarities begin with the overall configuration, and continue to such details as the form and layout of the forward fuselage's flight deck, middeck and equipment bay; the payload bay configuration; the general philosophy used for the cockpit instrument panel layout, and the installation of the reaction control system. Drawings of the orbiter's crew compartment show that it is divided into three levels, which seem patterned directly after those of the U.S. space shuttle orbiter. As with the U.S. orbiter, modular lockers are located forward on the middeck, while the middeck's aft portion can be equipped with an airlock. The orbiter side hatch for crew entry and egress is located at the middeck level. The hatch is about the same size as the 40-in.-dia. side hatch on the U.S. orbiter--which also is positioned at the middeck. The Soviet orbiter's payload bay doors also are nearly identical to those used on the U.S. vehicle... [including radiator panels] -- David R. Smith, HP Labs dsmith@hplabs.hp.com (415) 857-7898
dsmith@hplabsb.HP.COM (David Smith) (02/11/89)
In article <4XwVpQy00Xc94aJ3IN@andrew.cmu.edu> kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kevin William Ryan) writes: > I would like to know if anyone has information about the Saturn launcher >used for the early Apollo tests (the IIB?) - were the plans for that pitched >as well? Surely the capacity to orbit the mass of the LM/SM/CM combination >would be useful. Does anyone know if the plans for that are still around? The Saturn IB launched the LM, and the CM/SM, but never all three together. To do that required the Saturn V, even into low earth orbit (Apollo 9). There is no need to redevelop the Saturn IB, given the Titan series. -- David R. Smith, HP Labs dsmith@hplabs.hp.com (415) 857-7898
sorgatz@ttidca.TTI.COM ( Avatar) (02/14/89)
<< sys:f "Lineeater full...system restart initiated...wait.." >> In article <4XwVpQy00Xc94aJ3IN@andrew.cmu.edu> kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kevin William Ryan) writes: > > On a more serious note - numerous people have asked about redoing the >Saturn V, despite the fact that NASA pitched most of the plans and machinery >for same. It seems that the cost would be almost prohibitive. Assuming that there were NO PLANS or tooling (which simply isn't the case.) the entire SATURN 5 system (airframe, tanks, plumbing, electrical and the mighty F1's) COULD BE duplicated using the existing display units as models. If NASA were involved, it would be. But if it were done by a small, private company (Sierra Space Corp??? ;-) ) using ex-Rockwell employees...being paid medium-good jobshopper's wages...it could cost as little as $800K. Yup. This figure was decided upon by several ex-Rockwell employees, one of whom is my father! His statements included such salty-quips as: "..Assuming we didn't have those assinine, know-nothing Government Inspector Kids breathing down our necks!...why those clowns wouldn't know a micrometer from a lathe if one jumped up their ass!" His friends had equally 'ripe' remarks about the remaining management infrastructure that hinders the NASA/Contractor environment. The more of this kind of stuff that I hear from these "Apollo Team" oldies, the more I am totally convinced that the high cost of the NASA-approach is a result of too many 'hangers-on'...i.e. excess layers of management-type personnel. Using the existing display models as inputs to a Gorton Duplicator, a part profile could be created for each of the 2 millon+ subcomponents. This info would be in the form of Cincimatic (or similar) NC tapes. There are several software packages that can convert this information to standard 3-view and detail prints in whatever size you'd like. Shop prints are usually 'D' size, for those of you who have never worked in a machine shop, roughly 36" x 56". Actually manufacturing these parts, combining them into a Saturn Clone, is a bit more work..but could still be done. Seperate small teams (3-5 people) would manage semi-skilled crews of 20-50 for each of the major subsystems: Airframe -- NC made struts, complex folded & welded/riveted sheetmetal. Tanks & Plumbing -- TIG & MIG welds on various alloys, complex sheetmetal. Engine & Turbopump -- exotic alloy machining, welding and finishing. Electrical & Hydraulics -- complex hi-reliability crimping/fastening/testing. hi-precision machining, and assembly. System/Subsystem Test -- complete checkout and static firing. This could be accomplished by a small-to-medium sized private company, with 250-300 employees, most of whom could be semi-skilled (in the assembly) or journeyman level (for the machining & welding). Look for the startup costs to be just over $1 million. With the cost of finished S5-clones to run $800K per copy for the first 20, cheaper from 20-50 (maybe a 10% cost roll-off), and cheaper yet from 50-100. > I would like to know if anyone has information about the Saturn launcher >used for the early Apollo tests (the IIB?) - were the plans for that pitched >as well? Surely the capacity to orbit the mass of the LM/SM/CM combination >would be useful. Does anyone know if the plans for that are still around? > > kwr You mean vehicle or launchpad (platform)? The vehicle, Saturn 2b is in the same mess as the Saturn 5...mostly "lost", some tooling, a few (3 I think) display models adorning AFB's etc...one at Huston's Space Museum. ..anybody interested in starting a company? Got a "few" bucks and a little vision? Rockwell just retired a bunch of Apollo-era M.E.s...and most of them are just sitting around bored with their retirements! -- -Avatar-> (aka: Erik K. Sorgatz) KB6LUY +-------------------------+ Citicorp(+)TTI *----------> panic trap; type = N+1 * 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 450-9111, ext. 2973 +-------------------------+ Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun,philabs,randvax,trwrb}!ttidca!ttidcb!sorgatz **