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.

[skyhntr]

I wonder why we aren't building for the concept of the possible heaviest payload that will be required (granted this number would fluctuate as technology and the needs of the mission change), instead of building for the immediate issues. Why is it that we no longer look for long term answers and settle for Band-aids or (short term) answers. wouldn't it eventually cost more to have to redesign the "Magnum" all over once larger payloads are needed?

IMHO

[XBob]

170 - "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."

=== Agreed. I was a parts 'trouble shooter', and many of the things went through, like you talk about, but I and a couple of other guys got to 'handle/tackle' those that didn't. And believe me, there were more than a few.

[XBob]

172 - "1. Did you personally see them do this? " No, not personally. I worked with two guys who both worked for rockwell and who each told me on separate occasions about the incident - and it turned out they had worked together doing it.

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."

===
Now that you mention it, it could be that they only burned the drawings of Rockwell portions. It was a long time ago. I am pretty sure that the engine drawings are still around, though long ago obsolete.

[XBob]

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

Sorry, I should have said 'orbiter', rather than 'shuttle'.

"Why are you on a beef about the guys at Rockwell?"

I'm not, really. But it is an interesting fact that is not well known, about who owns the design. I on occasion ran into problems on parts modifications/substitutions, which turned up this interesting info.

Remember just lately, the 'Boeing' deal, where Boeing is going to 'lease' those tankers to the USAF for more money than buying them. It is not without precident, but far more 'public'.

[XBob]

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

I was overseas for this and missed it, but do remember some hub-bub, now that you mention it. Didn't they start, then abandon and tear down what was started?

Perhaps you could bring me/us up to date on that story.

[XBob]

177 - I was going to bring this up, that commercial development is going on in these areas, already, but the post was already getting pretty long.

"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. "

[XBob]

177 - "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."

If Rutan allows that to happen, then Goodbuy Rutan, and goodby to cheap American space travel. Boeing and all of our current commercial space corps are not into cheap. Anymore than the electric utilities are into solar cells on your roofs.

[XBob]

178 - "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."

There was a NASA program for doing that, back in the 80's. And they were even giving some individual research/development grants, it seems to me from somewhere around 50k-200k. I submitted one on barcoding for logistics on the space station. Spent a lot of work on it, but after 18 months, it was turned down. I forget the name of the program, but it may still be around. (govt programs never die).

[XBob]

178- " 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. "

good point

[bonesmccoy]

I don't think Rockwell burned anything. I visited the room in Downey where the file cabinets were located with Apollo era drawings in the cabinets. The room was packed with file cabinets and that was in the late 1980's and early 1990s.

[bonesmccoy]

Regarding KSC and the LC39 mods...

I'm going off memory which may be faulty... Snopercod and other KSC vets would know better than I...

I recall going to the cape around 1977. Apollo hardware was still in existance and located on the crawlerway between the VAB and the pad. It gave a good indication of the size of the Saturn V vehicle when standing at the pad.

Those mobile launch platforms were still in existance in 1979 but began being torn down in 1980.

If I recall, Carter could have reversed the Nixon Admin decision to halt Apollo missions. Boeing was stalling on disassembly of their facility and Rockwell Downey was in production on STS. So, both lines could have been reactivated with less cost than building an entirely new booster.

Instead, Carter chose to scrap Saturn in favor of rapid flight rates on one reusable vehicle, STS/orbiter. When Carter made that decision around 78-79, it lead to the disassembly of the MLPs and mods at 39A/B in prep for a 1979 first STS flight.

STS wasn't ready to fly in 1979 due to the TPS problems, but the cape was ready. So, by 1980, I think I recall that the MLP for Saturn was lying behind the ONC area as a giant scrap heap of rusting metal in the Floridian sea air.

It was a bummer to see the heap in the late 80's still lying there rusting.

[bonesmccoy]

Commercialization of spaceflight is actually pretty straightforward if the gov't permits us to use a LEO station in the appropriate orbit. Unfortunately, Clinton-Gore royally f'd us all over by sticking the orbit of OUR STATION in a RUSSIAN inclination instead of at the 28 deg orbit that should have been used!

Now, we got less payload lift capability and that significantly limits scientific return!

[snopercod]

There is no commercial 'interest' in space

There are two that I can think of:

• The tourist industry

• The salvage industry

Didn't Hilton express an interest in building (or operating) a hotel in space?

[snopercod]

...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.

Just the EPA requirements would kill this project before it got started. It's still hard for me to believe that at KSC, rainwater is handled as "hazardous waste" and hauled off to a disposal site at a cost of over one dollar per gallon. (Exceeds the EPA requirement for Zinc after it has come in contact with the galvanized drain piping.)

And then, of course, you have the entrenched NASA bureaucracy that lost the Challenger and then the Columbia. They would be in charge of any new project.

This is nothing more than wishful thinking by George W. Bush.

[snopercod]

Chrysler built the electronic boxes for the Saturn, IIRC.

[snopercod]

I worked closely with a lot of NASA people at KSC. They meant well, but their motivation was mostly to keep their butts covered so they could move up the food chain.

There were a few of them who had the "can-do" attitude, but they moved away from KSC to other centers when they realized that they had no future there. Not politically oriented enough.

New tagline alert:

[snopercod]

Re your #185:

All three Apollo Mobile Launchers were reused. They needed extensive mechanical modifications, of course, to change them from "one-holers" to "three-holers".

I was involved in the final 6 months of the refurbishment on the last of the three. We did all the electrical/HVAC/tubing/cryo lines/pneumatics/cameras, etc. My particular responsibility was installing the TSMs [Tail Service Masts] on either side of the orbiter hole, and connecting all the "stuff" inside. Those TSMs were 30' tall, weighed 67 tons apiece, and were set within +/- .01" in all three dimensions at the opening up top.

That "junk" out behind the HQ building that you saw was probably the LETF (Launch Equipment Test Facility), where they tested the Tail Service Masts for the Shuttles.

Just getting those to work right - safely retracting the T-0 umbilicals - took a crew of hundreds several years to accomplish. There are huge dropweights in there, pyro thrusters, snubbers, etc. Getting the umbilical plugs pulled out of the shuttle, retracted (without damaging them or the shuttle), and the clamshell doors closed in the few seconds before they get burned up by the plume was an engineering achievement in itself. Keep in mind that the stack is in mid-"twang" from the main engines firing while this retraction is going on. Lots of shaking and wobbling...

These people who think going back to the moon will be easy if we can only find "the blueprints" don't have a clue. No offence to any FReepers, but it just isn't that simple.

[Mr170IQ]

Here is a posting from Henry Spencer from about 16 months ago basicly describing how best to use current production aerospace hardware to improve the Saturn V for a 21st century lunar mission.
----
Newsgroups: sci.space.history
From: henry@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: What "low hanging fruit" would improve Apollo today?
Organization: SP Systems, Toronto, Canada
Message-ID: H24zKo.H3M@spsystems.net
References: 050920021612122367%aacaroll@coastside.net
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2002 20:29:12 GMT
Lines: 179


In article 050920021612122367%aacaroll@coastside.net,
Andrew Carol aacaroll@coastside.net wrote:
>I've often wondered what changes we could do to the basics of the
>Saturn V stack or the CSM and LM using technology available today, but
>without massive rocket hardware development costs.

Let's see. I assume we are (for some reason) specifically constrained to
build something resembling the Apollo/Saturn stack. If we were merely
going back to the Moon, we would almost certainly approach things rather
differently.

>In essence, I'd bet the basic mechanics were pretty good and while we
>could invent better engines the improvement would only be slight
>compared to the development costs. Not worth it.

Nope, not so. There was stuff available very nearly off the shelf in 1970
that would have produced sizable improvements, and even more so today.

For the first stage...

Even a second production batch of S-ICs then certainly would have had F-1A
engines (25% more thrust) and tank stretches. F-1 variants with roughly
50% more thrust were sketched. The main advantage of this is to permit
tank stretches, in the first and subsequent stages.

An interesting alternative would be the RD-172, which not only has about
as much thrust as the F-1A, and is currently in production, but has rather
higher Isp. (The RD-172 is used in Sea Launch; it's a slightly uprated
RD-170.)

We probably would not bother reworking the structure to carbon composites,
unless we had other ambitions for the first stage (see next paragraph),
because weight savings in the first stage of a three-stage rocket don't
increase payload all that much. We would probably do a general structural
scrub, reducing the conservatism of the design and eliminating useless
odds and ends like the fins, just on general principles.

If we were being more ambitious, we might consider Boeing's old S-ID
proposal, doing an Atlas stage-and-a-half trick on the S-IC: jettison an
outer structural ring, with the outer four engines, midway up. Not only
does that generally improve performance, but it makes the stage a useful
launcher in its own right: all by itself, no upper stage, it has about
the same payload to LEO as the shuttle. Here some carbon structure might
be useful.

Alternatively, we might go in a different direction, and revive the
Flyback F-1 proposed as a shuttle booster: add wings, jet engines, and
pilots, making the S-IC reusable. The extra mass would hurt payload, but
we could probably get most or all of that back with engine upgrades, tank
stretches, and lighter structure.

Oh, one thing we would do in any case is structural provisions for
strap-ons. The Apollo-era ideas in that direction were *big* solids, but
we'd probably want to use liquids, perhaps with the same engines. (The
Energia strap-ons might be interesting, especially if we were using
RD-172s in the S-IC. They're modified Zenit first stages, and I'm sure
the Ukrainians would be happy to get a production order...)

For S-II engines, the first option would be the J-2S, which was about
finished its development; it was mostly intended as a simplification
(that's what the S is for) but it did have slightly higher performance.
Also of interest, politics permitting, would be the Vulcain, which is the
same size, has noticeably higher performance, and is in production. Maybe
add an extension skirt to it to boost performance further, since we have
no need for sea-level operation. (The SSME probably would not be worth
the trouble, it's too expensive and the wrong size.)

Certainly we'd stretch the tanks, and get heavily into composites for the
structure. We might want to increase the outer ring of engines from four
to six -- there is room, although it would complicate gimbaling -- to add
some more thrust.

The third stage is where we'd really sweat engine performance and
structure mass. Maybe an SSME would be worth the trouble here. But an
interesting alternative, harking back to the long-forgotten S-IV, would be
to use a cluster of RL10s. They have SSME-class performance, they are
cheap and reliable, and that would give us engine-out capability on that
stage as well as the lower ones.

Carbon fiber everywhere, of course. And a tank stretch.

More ambitiously, we might consider a full-diameter third stage. With no
Saturn IB equivalent to worry about, there is no reason to make the third
stage slimmer than the first two, and that taper is both aerodynamically
and structurally inconvenient. Build a relatively short squat third stage
with the full 33ft diameter instead. Maybe it could be a shortened second
stage with fewer engines; maybe it would need a custom design.

Still more ambitiously, take that full-diameter design and stretch its LH2
tank upward. Put the RL10s in an outer ring, perhaps attached to the
interstage ring; they take the stage into a rather high parking orbit,
800km or so, burning some of the LH2 and all the LOX. The high parking
orbit is inefficient... but there's a payoff. When it's time to leave
parking orbit, drop the RL10 ring and light the center engine: a Phoebus.
(For those who don't know the name, Phoebus was the NERVA program's
original goal, essentially a nuclear J-2.) That's why the high parking
orbit: it's a "nuclear-safe" orbit, with a decay time exceeding 10kyr in
the event of a failure, making the whole thing politically passable. The
Phoebus 2B, I think it was, was considered nearly ready for flight.

The Instrument Unit, guidance and telemetry electronics, essentially
disappears into a corner of the third stage. Strap-down gyros, full
triple redundancy, etc. are essentially free now. For a bonus, revise the
guidance to use body lift on the way up. (We tip over faster, reducing
gravity losses, and then when aerodynamic loads start to drop off after
max Q, we pitch up and use body lift to recover the lost altitude. It
was investigated at the time; it would increase payload a bit.)

On top, of course, what we build is not much like the original Apollo.
Even assuming we keep the LOR mission profile -- which is not a good way
to do long surface stays -- we overhaul things quite a bit. We've got a
lot more mass to play with, and even if we didn't go for a full-diameter
third stage, considerably more room -- there's no reason not to make the
spacecraft as wide as the third stage. (Apollo's diameter was fixed very
early, by incorrect preliminary ideas about top-stage diameter.)

The LM is all carbon fiber, and the descent stage probably uses LOX/LH2
propulsion with a modified RL10. (RL10 deep throttling, for use as a
lunar landing engine, was proven in the 60s.) The ascent stage might want
to still use hypergolics, for maximum reliability. The cabin would be
rather larger -- indeed, we might put the main cabin on the descent stage
and have only a minimum flight deck on the ascent stage -- with room for
another couple of astronauts. It would have manually-deployed solar
arrays for surface power (a small one was *almost* part of the J-series
LM upgrade), and generally would be designed for a longer stay.

The SM is all carbon fiber, and it too might use LOX/LH2 main propulsion
with an RL10, perhaps with large RCS tanks as an emergency get-you-home
backup. Very probably it would be solar-powered. Both LM and SM would
be rather larger.

The CM too would be larger; not necessarily *heavier*, but *larger*,
partly just for more comfortable accommodations and partly because almost
everything about a reentry vehicle gets easier if we can reduce its
density. Empty space inside costs little. It would be designed for land
touchdown, possibly with a big parafoil rather than conventional
non-maneuvering parachutes.

CM and LM electronics would be drastically better and lighter, of course.

>4 - The CSM and LM could get better guidence (4 gyros to avoid gimble
>lock) ...

What was significant was not the number of *gyros* but the number of
*gimbals* on the gyro platform. Gemini had a four-gimbal platform, but
the Apollo design was fixed earlier and its designers were more willing to
accept operational restrictions to save mass. Nowadays we would use a
strap-down system with no platform at all (and probably no moving parts).

>5 - Some of the CSM and LM could probably benefit from composite
>materials for stronger/lighter solutions in places. Nothing exotic
>like composite fuel tanks, but for structural members, landing legs,
>walls, etc.

Lots of composite structure, including composite tanks. Even composite
LH2 tanks are flight proven (on DC-XA). The one area where we might
hesitate is composite LOX tanks; aluminum-lithium might be used instead
(as on DC-XA and the current shuttle ET).

>6 - Using industrial serial busses could eliminate miles of wiring in
>the LM and CSM.

And distributed intelligence would improve functionality at the same time.

>7 - Radio and telemetry would be much smaller packages using much less
>power.

Also, we'd certainly use X band, perhaps even higher, for higher data
rates with smaller dishes and lower power.

>8 - I know batteries have improved, but have fuel cells? Are there
>lighter more efficent version today?

Generally, although the improvements have not been vast. Solar cells,
which barely existed in useful form when Apollo was conceived, would
probably be preferable.
--
Socialists always tell us they're going to | Henry Spencer
do better next time. -- Ed Wright | henry@spsystems.net

[bonesmccoy]

There was a Commercial Space Access study done at Boeing and offered to NASA in 1992. NASA didn't know what the heck the Boeing Seattle guys were trying to say, but the study basically identified several areas of interest for commercial development in zero g.

If the traveller did not have to experience significant g loads getting off the planet, you could start all kinds of cool tourist facilities. The one big problem is that people underestimate the number of individuals who get ill on orbit. Weightlessness screws up your body significantly.

This is the main reason that the WH is correct that we MUST return to the moon prior to going to Mars. We need the 1/6 g physiological data to get to Mars safely.

[bonesmccoy]

That's partly it. The O&C and KSC HQ area had that stuff to the East up the causeway for years. It's been a long long time since I've been to the Cape. Wish I could go back.