Saturn 5 Blueprints Safely in Storage

space.com ^ | 13 March 2000 | By Michael Paine

[Dead Dog]

Saturn 5 Blueprints Safely in Storage

A NASA official has denied a claim made by a book author that blueprints for the mighty Saturn 5 rocket used to push Apollo astronauts to the moon were lost.

The denial came in response to a recent story in SPACE.com that reported on a claim John Lewis made in his 1996 book, Mining the Sky, that he went looking for the Saturn 5 blueprints a few years ago and concluded, incredibly, they had been "lost."

Paul Shawcross, from NASA's Office of Inspector General, came to the agency's defense in comments published on CCNet -- a scholarly electronic newsletter covering the threat of asteroids and comets. Shawcross said the Saturn 5 blueprints are held at the Marshall Space Flight Center on microfilm.

"There is no point in even contemplating trying to rebuild the Saturn 5 ... The real problem is the hundreds of thousands of parts that are simply not manufactured any more."

"The Federal Archives in East Point, Georgia, also has 2,900 cubic feet of Saturn documents," he said. "Rocketdyne has in its archives dozens of volumes from its Knowledge Retention Program. This effort was initiated in the late '60s to document every facet of F 1 and J 2 engine production to assist in any future restart."

Shawcross cautioned that rebuilding a Saturn 5 would require more than good blueprints.

"The problem in recreating the Saturn 5 is not finding the drawings, it is finding vendors who can supply mid-1960's vintage hardware," he wrote, "and the fact that the launch pads and vehicle assembly buildings have been converted to space shuttle use, so you have no place to launch from.

"By the time you redesign to accommodate available hardware and re-modify the launch pads, you may as well have started from scratch with a clean sheet design," he wrote.

In years past, rumors have abounded that in the 1970s the White House or Congress had the Saturn 5 plans destroyed "to prevent the technology from falling into the wrong hands".

That seems doubtful -- it would be a formidable terrorist group that decided to build a Saturn 5 to wreak havoc on the world, or build a lunar base. Also, by the1970s, the Soviets apparently had given up on the race to the moon.

Geoffrey Hughes from the Rotary Rocket Company supported Shawcross's view.

"There is no point in even contemplating trying to rebuild the Saturn 5," he said. "Having a complete set of Saturn 5 blueprints would do us no good whatsoever. True, we would still be able to bend the big pieces of metal fairly easily. But they are not the problem.

"The real problem is the hundreds of thousands of other parts, some as apparently insignificant as a bolt or a washer, that are simply not manufactured any more. Everything would have to be redone. So a simple rebuild would be impossible. The only real answer would be to start from scratch and build anew using modern parts and processes. Yet another immense challenge!"

It turns out that NASA is taking on that challenge, but not necessarily to chase asteroids.

Engineers at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center are working on designs for a new giant launch vehicle called Magnum. It would use a curious mix of Russian rocket engines -- derived from the abandoned Soviet Energia rocket program -- and newly developed strap-on, liquid-fueled boosters that would first be tested out on space shuttles.

The Magnum would use the space shuttle launch facilities at Cape Canaveral and could launch 80 tons (81,280 kilograms) of payload into low Earth orbit (LEO). This compares with around 20 tons (20,320 kilograms) for the piloted space shuttle, and for un-piloted vehicles like the U.S.' Titan 4-B and the European Space Agency's Ariane 5. Its lift capacity, however, would be less than the 100 tons (101,600 kilograms) that the Saturn 5 and Energia could manage.

[RightWhale]

I still have my little metal lathe, and the vacuum chamber. Sprinkle a little $$$ this way.

[XBob]

136 - "One big question I have is how much of these components were designed based off of a vendors inputs...or did they do it the usual expensive way, Joe Engineer at Prime/Sub Contractor designs widget #10,000,000 then lets the vendors bid."

Many were designed by Joe Engineer, and bid to small companies to be specially built. The production runs were so specialized and so small, major contractors couldn't afford o gear up to build them. However, what has happened over the years, is the EPA, all the rules, IRS, Social Security, etc, (particularly EPA) have driven these small people/companies/craftsmen/tradesmen out of business. Now, the same type people, who would have been doing that are managing an Ace Hardware store, or worse yet, a McDonalds. They can't afford the hassle to do something inventive. The EPA will make them collect and wrap up their metal filings and paint chips (or whatever) and fill out reams of paperwork, and send them by special escorted courier to a hazardous waste disposal site. (I know - I helped some do that, and helped them get specialized 55 gallon drums to be buried in a special place in Alabama).

[Frank_Discussion]

"In what?"

Who doesn't know what they're talking about?

Logistics and Maintenance is an engineering duty that deals with issues of obtaining replacement parts and delivering them to the on-orbit site. Frequently we have to get newly fabricated parts from companies who did not produce the original item. That's whay you have blueprints and frabrication/construction specifications.

"So, what you end up with is a part, which originally cost 3 cents, costing $25,000 and taking 2 years to produce."

Sorry to burst your bubble, but thse mythical numbers don't happen very often. Definitely the exception, not the rule.

[XBob]

139 - "That's right. Fiche walk off. What somebody without a fiche reader might do with a fiche card is another mystery."

Well, I can tell you several things, they make good book marks (accidental or on purpose) and they fit nicely in a pocket, forgotten to be returned until after you get home, and they slip/slide (when dropped) nicely and easily into paper slim spaces beneath giant book cases full of books, where they are impossible to retrieve without hours and hours of work.

But mostly they disappear because the fische was not legible, and the original is gone.

[XBob]

141 - "I still have my little metal lathe, and the vacuum chamber. Sprinkle a little $$$ this way."

You may get your wish. Bush just requested 8-900 million for the moon. Are you a woman or black?

PS, I got to thinking about your comments about Fairbanks, and it seems like if you planted a tree farm for good wood, you might have a business opportunity.

[RightWhale]

Most commonly they are misfiled. 'A fiche misfiled is a fiche lost.' We have harsh techniques to deal with this.

[XBob]

143 - I repeat ""In what?" "

The space procurement/logistics is very different animal than E&C or manufacturing. There often are only requirements for one or two of the items in the whole world.

"Sorry to burst your bubble, but thse mythical numbers don't happen very often. Definitely the exception, not the rule."

And the numbers are real. Sorry - the exception is the rule in the space business. I spent enough time in both to know.

Multi-billion$ petro-chem/construction projects are quite different than multi-billion$ space projects. I have worked both. Principles are the same, but reality is different.

How about getting me a new Model-T Ford. How much will it cost mr Logistics man? I only want one, but I want it to be brand new and meet Henry Ford's original specifictions. I believe the original price was about $500.

[XBob]

146 - "Most commonly they are misfiled."
'A fiche misfiled is a fiche lost.' - good point

"We have harsh techniques to deal with this." - ???? where is WE? I never ran across that in government work.

[RightWhale]

where is WE?

After spending 8 hours going through some drawers of cards, 'we' is those persons who have to find a misfiled card. Fiche cards have no owners until someone is forced to do this. Then a sense of responsibility is assumed, and it might not necessarily be someone in the records dept who becomes the 'owner.' Fierce owner.

[XBob]

I agree, but where? JSC, KSC, Marshall?

[RightWhale]

Nothing special. An obscure land office someplace.

[Frank_Discussion]

"The space procurement/logistics is very different animal than E&C or manufacturing. There often are only requirements for one or two of the items in the whole world."

I guess it's my word against yours, and I'm not going to have a p*ssing contest with you. I know what I've seen and done in this industry over the past eight or so years, and I can tell you that refurbishing parts from an existing design using well-defined specs is pretty much cheaper than designing something new, establishing the specs, and creating it. Most of the time.

I've been at it as a designer and manufacturer, and now in the logistics regime, and it's been pretty consistent.

"How much will it cost mr Logistics man? I only want one, but I want it to be brand new and meet Henry Ford's original specifictions. I believe the original price was about $500."

Get me a full set of prints/specs and a proper set of shops to do the work, and it could be done, though it would be more expensive than the production line model. And that's a big point you're seemingly blind to: at the production levels of the current space industry, the work is almost a matter of craftsmanship, and the costs per vehicle are approximately like building one at a time. A new design or not.

Peace, okay? Have a good evening.

[Frank_Discussion]

I meant "refurbishing or recreating" in my first paragraph.

[Robert A Cook PE]

yes, but it's those "washers, nuts, bolts, connectors, gaskets, rivets, ball bearings, and clamps that aren't being made to those spec's any more.

It IS a real problem, but not the THE real problem.

See, would you REALLY want to rebuild a 1950-1960's era rocket, when a new design can give you more power and less weight ... and can be made cheaper. The Apollo 10-function "computer" weighed over 50 lbs and has less functions that a modern cell phone or calculator.... repeat that era design 10,000 times ...)

(Cheaper, that is, IF (and it's a big IF) NASA could really get off it's bureacracy and designed it as engineers, not paper-pushers....)

[Robert A Cook PE]

Same thing with machine tools.

Lathes, shapers, jig borers, drill presses, mills ....

Even vises and clamps can't be found, spindles, arbors, or are extremely expensive for older US-made machines ... with ANSI threads!

[Robert A Cook PE]

A lot was extreme light-weight/vibration-resistent milspec fasteners that are cancelled/superceded/not made any more.

So a simple connectors that literlaly was only $0.75 to buy by the basketfull, (and 5.00 to inspect and certify to NASA standards!) now can't be found.

Or could be remade at a cost of 1500.00 ... For the first, plus 200.00 for each copy.

(Or more. figure 4-8 hours at $85.00 per hour for a machinist .... plus overhead. Or you could CNC make 'em, after spending days getting them re-designed .... making the inserts, contacts, glues, soldering, new molds, new dies, new beding machines, new test fixtures for pull-out resistance ....

[XBob]

152-"Get me a full set of prints/specs and a proper set of shops to do the work, and it could be done, though it would be more expensive than the production line model."

Sorry - you need to round those up, and that must be included in the costs.

There is no production line.

So, give me an estimate

Let's see, you need to find the plans for a hand cranked engine, and find a manufacturer of cranks. No crank manufacturer, well, you better figure out how to build a machine to build one.

Now let's see. Rubber tires, real rubber - well, I guess you need to find a source of real rubber (all we have today is synthetic rubber), and some machines to build the tires. Now the tires need some inner tubes. I guess you will have to figure out how to make inner tubes. And wooden wheels - are there any wood wheel manufacturers left in the US? Now gasoline - well, we do have gasoline, but not like they used to, it was like lighterfluid. I guess we could use lighter fluid or napha.

Now we need 1 engine, 4 tires, plus a spare, 1 hand crank. Oh, how are you going to cast the engine? I guess our new lathes would work to bore the cylinders.

And then all of these things must be assembled, made to work perfectly, and tested for safety.

So, how long do you think it would take? And how much would it cost - don't forget all those EPA and environmental impact statements. And you need to find some people who would be skilled enough, and willing enough to take the time to make one of these parts. And, most of all, NASA and Rockwell, Boeing must approve all parts and assembly and testing procedures too. Now, if you find the task impossible, you must go in for a redesign, and get NASA, Rockwell, Boeing to each review and approve a redesign, then redesign it so it can be manufactured today, and then the redesign must be submitted and approved at all the different levels necessary in each company/agency/office.


I know I left out a lot off stuff, but just a bit of an idea.

So you think you could do it for twice the price of a production model - let's see - say accounting for inflation, say 1000% - $500 = $5000 per production model, so you think you would bid $10,000 for such a project?

I know I left out a lot off stuff, but just a bit of an idea. I know what it took me, how many dozens of vendors/manufacturers/suppliers I went to, just to get someone (who was qualified) to agree to take some time out of their regular production schedule to produce a part. And who are they going to delay (they schedule production months/years in advance).

Just for reference purposes you might wish to know that a simple launch of the shuttle (already designed and built and when in service) takes an average of 1.2 million signatures to get it launched, on each and every launch. And that is an average launch. Every launch - a really simple one only takes 900,000 signatures/approvals, and average 1.2 million, and complicated one 1.8 million signatures.

Oh, I forgot, that doesn't take into account the necessity on the new rocket, to design and modify and train and build and approve all kinds of ground support facilities and equipment, plus a whole new lunar lander and telelemtry equipment.

I think $1 trillion to go to the moon today is dirt cheap, unless there are radical changes. Remember - just launching a single shuttle costs an average of $500 million - and it is built and working. (That doesn't include building new ones to replace those that get destroyed)

[XBob]

154 - you got it right - "yes, but it's those "washers, nuts, bolts, connectors, gaskets, rivets, ball bearings, and clamps that aren't being made to those spec's any more."

as a very simple portion of it. And each design has to be approved by all levels, and tested. We were paying $89 for simple 1 inch long sheet metal screws. That is $89 for each individual screw. A real 'screw' job.

"(and it's a big IF) NASA could really get off it's bureacracy and designed it as engineers, not paper-pushers....)"

They know no other way, and there really is no other way today. The institutional memory of the 'other' ways is gone. VonBraun and company are all dead. Now all we have left is the burro-ocracy.

[XBob]

156 - "A lot was extreme light-weight/vibration-resistent milspec fasteners that are cancelled/superceded/not made any more.

So a simple connectors that literlaly was only $0.75 to buy by the basketfull, (and 5.00 to inspect and certify to NASA standards!) now can't be found.

Or could be remade at a cost of 1500.00 ... For the first, plus 200.00 for each copy. "

===
Absolutely Correct, and those are only mass produced simple fasteners, in relatively large quantities. And that's what so many don't understand. In addition, the Space companies now know how to 'pry' jillions out of NASA, as they are the only game in town.

[bonesmccoy]

When and where did they burn the prints?