Saturn 5 Blueprints Safely in Storage

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

[bonesmccoy]

The crawlers?

You won't build a rocket to return us to the moon because you can't assemble the rocket on the pad or use the VAB and crawler the assembly?

Build a NEW PAD!

[bonesmccoy]

If you're arguing that lunar exploration is not possible due to missing fiche, I'd say that explains why our generation has NEVER EVER had the same opportunity to explore that prior generations of Americans have had.

Because instead of building those systems economically and flying on a continuing commercial base, the Boomers failed to launch any project (other than the ones handed to them by their parents).

[RightWhale]

the Boomers failed to launch any project (other than the ones handed to them by their parents).

Sounds nearly French. Like the ISS.

[Frank_Discussion]

Okay, this is officially a truce offering, please accept. I only know what I've done and where I been, and my experience is different than yours. That's all I know.

And for what it's worth, truly, if we build an entirely new vehicle that's great. As long as it works, and as long as gets us where the mission specifies.

Good enough?

[XBob]

160 - "When and where did they burn the prints?"

Back in the mid-late 70's, about 1 1/2- 2 years after the last moon flight. It took several weeks to burn them all.

Rockwell did it, in California.

They did it so that there could be no more rockets built from the prints and so that the government would have to make new contracts for new rockets, newly designed, from scratch. They had a new initial concept/design for a new reusable 'shuttle' (very very expensive). They had the clout, because they took the 'heat' and saved NASA's butts for burning up the 3 astronauts, when it was NASA's fault, and NASA 'owed' them. Congress balked at the expense, and said, shoot some more Saturns, no way on the new Shuttle - too much money. NASA said, sorry, no more prints. Congress said, sorry, no more NASA space program, unless you come up with a cheaper shuttle concept. NASA/Rockwell came up with the current design, which had been discarded, as consting too much in 'long term' operational costs. So, we got the current shuttle, and it costs $500 million per launch, instead of $25 billion to build.

[XBob]

160 - You do know that the Shuttle design doesn't belong to NASA, don't you? It belongs to Rockwell. Rockwell didn't make the same mistake twice. NASA doesn't make changes to the shuttle design. Rockwell does. NASA can instigate, pay for, approve, changes; but Rockwell 'owns' the design and any design changes.

[XBob]

161 - "Build a NEW PAD!"

That would work - would cost Billions and take about 10 years. Current foundations for current facilities go down 168 feet into the Florida swamp and cocquina.

[XBob]

162 - "If you're arguing that lunar exploration is not possible due to missing fiche, I'd say that explains why our generation has NEVER EVER had the same opportunity to explore that prior generations of Americans have had.
Because instead of building those systems economically and flying on a continuing commercial base, the Boomers failed to launch any project (other than the ones handed to them by their parents)."

Sort of, but not exactly. I have been very consistent in my arguments.

1. - We have no place to go .... for any commercial reason. There are no 'spice islands', no 'cities of gold', just cold, barren, rock. We have proved that.

There was no delicious 'cinnamon', 'tea', or 'pepper' (to cover the flavor of spoiled meats due to lack of refrigeration), and little gold in Europe in the middle ages, but it was 'coming in' and Marco Polo brought back wonderous stories from his trip.

What have we 'brought back'? A few pounds of worthless rocks (except for their origin and collectability), and some pictures foot prints in the dust.

There is no 'commercial' interest/need/return. No potential 'spices', no potential 'gold'. There is no commercial 'interest' in space, only scientific interest. Newton, Galileo, and copernicus didn't launch those ships to the new world - gold diggers, rogues, merchants, adventurers, and those wanting free land did. Hoping to get rich.

The above, guarantees that there is no 'commercial' interest in space (coupled with the Colombia, which was so short on 'space' work that one of the paying experiements was to put some roses in space to make a 'space' perfume !!!

So, now what is the next reason for space travel - protection/war.

The Chinese invented rockets, for 'fun', fireworks, and the west turned them into 'war' rockets. Robert Goddard got nowhere, fast, until Hitler saw his efforts. Computers got no where fast, until the US Navy Department need a better way to 'sight' it huge guns on the battle ships. So, war is good for space development.

Now, comes the cold war, and need to win, against Russia. WAR - and their German scientists against our German scientists.

So, we both decide to go to the moon, and we win against the Russians, and we win the cold war. And we grow complacent.

What comes next - sit back and take it easy and rest on our laurels, proclaiming how great we are.

And so, there everyone sits - with no 'spices' and no 'war', for years, in complacent mediocrity, gradually decaying. Until, the Chinese say - 'Let's go to the moon'.

And guess what, in response - George Bush says - 'Let's go back to the moon too'.

However, we know that there is nothing there, and it is going to take a hell of a lot of money and resources to get there again, reinventing the wheel. Resources and money we could better spend on other things.

However, in my opinion, if we were to take our money and expertice and try to skip to the next means of propulsion (anti-gravity, plasma, what ever), we could spend our energies and fortunes much more productively. So you really want to build another Egyptian pyramid?

I am arguing that we should not expend our resources on new horse and buggies, we have reached the practical limit of rocket travel, and we should move beyond it, so we can potentially reach the stars, as rockets are not the way to go, heavier throw weight rockets are not the way to go. They cost too damn much for too little return. We need to shift from sailing ships to steam ships.

[XBob]

164 - "Okay, this is officially a truce offering, please accept. I only know what I've done and where I been, and my experience is different than yours. That's all I know. "

Good. I accept. I just want you to realize that what you so blithely propose, is in actuality, totally impossible in the current situation in real life, the way things are.

Really, I used to pull my hair out, trying to replace things made with technology, people, manufacturers that no longer existed. It is/was tough, and the colombia stupidity will make it tougher still.

You never have told me what industry you work in, or if you have ever worked for the government. It's a whole different bag (doing the same job) than it is in civilian work, particularly in procurement/logistics.

I know, I have done both, and would never work for the government again.

[Frank_Discussion]

"...I just want you to realize that what you so blithely propose, is in actuality, totally impossible in the current situation in real life, the way things are."

Truce means stop firing. LOL in frustration.

I work on ISS. Just totally refurbished and reworked a piece of hardware from early in the program, cheaper that it would have been as fresh material. And it wasn't the first time I've done such a thing. Dang it's hard to accept your "facts" when I've been doing the "impossible" off and on for a while, and recently to boot.

I think this what folks call an impasse. Let's just get the job done.

[bonesmccoy]

Not sure I understand your view, but if you mean to imply that you agree... I appreciate it.

ISS is less French and more Russian. However, if current leaks continue, it will end up more ESA and Russian.

[bonesmccoy]

"Back in the mid-late 70's, about 1 1/2- 2 years after the last moon flight. It took several weeks to burn them all.
Rockwell did it, in California."

Two comments/questions.

1. Did you personally see them do this?

2. I thought Rockwell was NOT the prime contractor on the Saturn V project. I thought Rockwell built the crew module and the second stage. I thought the other stages were Boeing's responsibility.

[bonesmccoy]

Uhm, you're talking to someone implicitly familiar with the conduct of Rockwell International. Your characterization of the conduct of Rockwell is totally opposite to my personal experience in the program.

While you are correct that Rockwell engineers had the authority to approve/reject engineering/design changes to the orbiter, you are totally incorrect regarding the role of Rockwell International in the shuttle program.

Michoud had responsibility for ET and SRM mods, not Rockwell.

In fact, this is partly why the Rockwell engineering team was not familiar with what occurred at Thiokol (Boijoly/Mulloy's group) on the evening prior to the STS-51-L launch.

You know that already. Why are you on a beef about the guys at Rockwell?

[RightWhale]

What part did Chrysler play in this? You know, the company that gave us the '57 Plymouth. Looked like a spaceship. Seen one lately?

[bonesmccoy]

RE: LC39C

Our nation has needed to upgrade the VAB and Launch Complex 39 for 30 years.

Snopercod's right. The KSC contractors working on the LC39 mods basically made the STS mods and scrapped the rest of the hardware.

We need a taller vehicle to get to deep space and Carter approved the destruction of the pads.

There's no way to go to the moon without the pads to support the vehicles.

They need to either use STS derived Heavy-Lift Launch Vehicles (which is what I hope they do), or they'll need to build a whole new pad (which is also what I hope they'll do).

We need a 39C. They have the land north of Pad B for two more pads.

[RightWhale]

Along the line that we can't do what our ancestors did and made look easy, can we still pour concrete?

[bonesmccoy]

Your analysis regarding the lack of commercial commitment to spaceflight is irrefutable with the exception of the following notable exceptions:

1. Communication satellites - broadcast news use satellite time every day.
2. Recon photography - military and civilian organizations use these photos to plan.
3. Earth observation platforms - weather satellites are commercialized in the sense that their information can be sold.

The lack of development in space is not related to the approach of Apollo. It is related to the lack of national funding for science R&D and the lack of a space laboratory with routine and low-cost access.

ISS will be completed in the next few years.

If Rutan's team can privately develop a reliable, low-cost methodology to reach 250 miles up, the shuttle will end up replaced by a privately financed firm.

Boeing will then have a choice. Either buy the firm that Rutan develops, or Boeing can focus on building the big dumb boosters required to inject payload to the moon or Mars.

[bonesmccoy]

If it's any consolation, I agree with your view that it is possible to retool and rebuild a Saturn Five like vehicle.

My biggest beef with NASA is that the gov't lead research program grant process is too political and not medical/scientific enough.

Leadership in the White House needs to blow-out the controlling authorities from the Clinton years. After four years of Bush, many of those same people are still in place.

I have had many ideas of how to use ISS to run medical and biological sciences payloads. However, I have not one lick of a method to reach or submit concepts for flight.

This is the real tragedy.

While XBob implies a lack of commercial investment and risk in LEO, the reality is that many commercial entities are risking on unmanned projects. The manned space program has had a real problem with commercial entities interfacing with the program. So, there is little question why ISS is having trouble developing commercial partners in the research program. If the program is government financed, you can't quietly research something novel without the entire planet watching over your shoulder.

[bonesmccoy]

We can pour the cement, but can we calculate the mass required to reach Mars and engineer the launch pad right?

XBob is correct regarding the absence of experience in the existing NASA engineering team. They had bring back the older STS engineers to have a shot at getting the US back into space with the orbiter.

[skyhntr]

Exactly my thoughts.. Early NASA was the Epitome of the definition "redundancy checks". Their personal pride and professionalism can still be seen in old playbacks of the Saturn missions. "Failure is NOT an option." People like Gene Kranz were the life blood of NASA. I just don't see this image being projected from them any more. To me "Failure is NOT an option". Has given way to "Close enough for Government work".


IMHO