Posted on 01/08/2004 2:20:33 PM PST by 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.
Should be, but many of the document originals are 'poor quality,' which means some of the lettering is so bad you need 30 years experience as a surveyor or land title examiner to guess right. Even these docs scan well. The hardware is great, and the software is more than satisfactory. Couldn't say that 20 years ago, maybe not 10 years ago.
Assemble "That Pile, again"--with 2004 technology--until we "Do It Better."
The "Pile" WORKED--RELIABLY.
I'm SURE our 2004 Engineers can "Do It Better."
But Until we see evidence that a "Better Way" has been Developed--WHY NOT "Re-Boot" the "WAY That Worked??"
Doc
Welcome to FRee Republic. (lol, just plain 'blam')
The former IBM federal systems is not part of IBM any longer, LTV is all over the place, but a good chunk is part of Northrop Grumman. That part of Chrysler was sold long ago, but I don't know who to, all the Chrysler aerospace stuff was parcelled out to various compainies at various times, parts may have just died on the vine. Texas Instruments may not make transistors any longer, but they do make all sorts of integrated circuits. They sold most of the high tech "government" equipment buisiness to Raytheon, which spun off parts to other companies because they already owned the only or one of the only competitiors, or in the case of Hughes aerospace, got shortly after they bought TI's "defense" group (which included what little space stuff they were doing) (I'm thinking of the parts that made IR detectors and the part that made RF amplifier (high power and low noise types) modules.)
Who said anything about "one" Saturn V? I said that the proposed "Magnum" lifter after 40 years still can't approach the Saturn V in payload capacity. I also said nothing about a manned mission to Mars.
When these babies fired up you could see the shock wave moving toward you, across the swamp and saw grass between you and the pad. Cars oscillated up and down on their shocks. Apollo 17 lifted off at 12:30 at night into a perfectly clear sky. Magnificent. You "felt" the sound deep inside. It was, and remains, the most awesome thing I have ever seen.
Shouldn't we send men to Mars?
& we Just Need a "Little Political Push" to make It Happen.
"From Your Mouth to "God's Ear!!"
We will Gradually Lose the "Will & Capability" to "Go Back,--" as our resources get-More & More-Drained by "Social Priorities.
Our Culture has a RAPIDLY NARROWING "Window" to "Make the Leap" to a "Spacefaring Culture!"
We are at a VERY Important "Cusp" in Human History.
We "Go Out,"--or we "Involute."
The Human Species has NO FUTURE confined to Earth; we are Designed to "Move Out!"
If we "Involute,"--we "Fester, self-Destruct, & Die."
If we embrace the "Great Adventure" of exploring our Environment--as we are "Programmed to Do"--we MAY Survive.
IMHO
Doc
But you don't get full credit for your answer since you didn't talk about the contractor "Chicago Rawhide".
Actually, thanks for further proving my point. You aren't going to be able to call up contractors from the mid-1960s and say "send us some more of those parts you made for the Apollo program".
Only if we go there on a colonization mission with all one-way tickets. I'll even volunteer. That's the way we came to America. That's the way we should go to Mars. "We" are the life we will find on Mars. Ever read "The Martian Chronicles"?
WE "Humanity" are the "Home Team."
Either we support the "Home Team," or we expect to LOSE.
LOSING is a HORRIFIC TRAGEDY for our Species; we become a "Planet-Bound" Biological "Culture" BOUND TO "Out-Reproduce" it's Resouces--& DOOMED to Die in It's own "Effluvium!"
The "Impulse" to go "Out There is not only Spiritual," but a "Biological Imperative."
As I have Previously Stated--Either we go "Out There,"--or we CHOKE on our own "Effluvium."
It JUST MAY BE that "SOMEONE" in the "Bush Administration" understands Mankind's Immediate Dilemma; we CANNOT survive--regardless of our "Best Intentions"--if we do Not offer SOME FORM of HOPE to "Humanity!" "Without 'Hope,' Humans RAPIDLY 'Self-Destruct!'"
The SUCCESS of "America" attests to the "Basic Nature" of the Human Species!!
Give Us a "GOAL",--a "VISION",--& we will "Endure" ANY adversities.
"Tell Us that we are Bereft of ANY 'Goals,'" & we "EAT OUR YOUNG!!"
So YES,--we go Back to the Moon--& ON to MARS; we are "Genetically Programmed" to "Do THIS."
Project Requirements --> Project Engineering --> System Studies --> System Specification --> Solicit RFQ's from vendors for boxes/system components ...
To be completed by each vendor/contractor:
Creation of a project engineering team, a QA/QRA engineering group and a manufacturing group.
Engineering does (sometimes iterative) product development an development utilizing on-site model shops to crank out the first prototypes, engineering also produces at this time prints/drawings via CAD/CAM, writes test procedures, performs/cooperates with QRA to perform testing against spec on any systems built/proposed.
Part of this process includes any and all and even more of the following: Drawings, test fixtures, training of assembly personnel, training of QA inspectors, construction of test sets to verify the electronics, buyers solict components from lower level vendors of commodity items as well as those special space qualified/space qulaifiable 'parts' and on and on ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.