On the shoulders of Apollo
- Thread starter Archibald
- Start date
i like it too
the 4 Skylab are interesting Idea also 36 Apollo CSM Block "What ever" on Solid Saturn I
but that solid Saturn I will face failure in there UA1205 or 1207 booster. see the Titan III C's that blow up during launch
What about the production of Saturn V ? you need 4 of them
OART had proposed to end Apollo program on mission 15 and used last 4~5 Saturn V for this ISS program
either end Apollo with mission 15 or restart saturn V production line with 3/year, one for ISS, 2 for lunar mission.
the 4 Skylab are interesting Idea also 36 Apollo CSM Block "What ever" on Solid Saturn I
but that solid Saturn I will face failure in there UA1205 or 1207 booster. see the Titan III C's that blow up during launch
What about the production of Saturn V ? you need 4 of them
OART had proposed to end Apollo program on mission 15 and used last 4~5 Saturn V for this ISS program
either end Apollo with mission 15 or restart saturn V production line with 3/year, one for ISS, 2 for lunar mission.
Archibald
Banned
ITTL the Saturn V production line was saved just in time, summer 1967. In fact it was the exact moment when Apollo started to collapse: not only did Saturn V production line started to slowdown at the time, but it was also the moment when they should have started planning the post Apollo 11 future. They did it, in the worse kind of way - they tried to tie the massive Voyager mars lander (already in trouble thanks to the sheer cost of its own Saturn V launcher) with a manned flyby. All this in the wake of the Apollo fire that turned Mondale from a supporter into a bitter ennemy.
As for the solid Saturn, I should have erased that part (I will probably reboot it).
Let's say that, since I try to say as close as reality as possible, Saturn IB keep launching Apollos.
That, and the usual issue - there was no ideal first stage to be placed below the S-IVB. Solids are dangerous, S-IC is too big, S-IB is clunky, S-II doesn't work well at sea level.
Happy new year to all !!!
As for the solid Saturn, I should have erased that part (I will probably reboot it).
Let's say that, since I try to say as close as reality as possible, Saturn IB keep launching Apollos.
That, and the usual issue - there was no ideal first stage to be placed below the S-IVB. Solids are dangerous, S-IC is too big, S-IB is clunky, S-II doesn't work well at sea level.
Happy new year to all !!!
someone on here has got around that by useing a new first stage powered by a single F-1, let me go through my notes and see if i can find the contact info, but you might want to search for Sautrn 1C on this ste.
How many Titan III C's blew up during launch because of failure of the SRB's? I show 36 launches and 5 failures and I am having a hard time finding failures relating to the SRB. The Titan III D which used the same type of SRB setup as the C I show 22 launches and 22 success. I would like to see where you are getting you information from on the failure's on the SRB's for the Titan launcher. Are you referring to the Titan 34D SRB failure in 1986?
If you have a chance you might want to look at the NASA Report Select Methods for Up-rating Saturn Vehicles from June 1966. I can provide if for you if you don't have access, just PM me. I am having the same problem as you in my ATL in regards to a LEO launcher to replace the Saturn 1B that will be simpler. One of the concepts in the report was to replace the S-1B stage with 256 inch solid rocket booster or clusters of 120 or 156 SRM. For my part of my research part of where I do inspiration was the design of the ARES-1 and I don't think you should so easily throw away the idea of using SRB's as a replacement for the 1st stage.
i check the data from here
36 Titan IIIC, 5 had malefunction in Transstage or with payload
22 Titan IIID zero malfunction
7 Titan IIIE one malfunction in centaur turbopump
15 Titan 34D, 3 malfunction, one serious SRM burnthrough
4 Commercial Titan, 1 malfunction with payload separation
22 Titan IV, 2 malfunction one guidance system short-circuited due to frayed wire, other serious SRM burn through do damage on launch pad.
106 launch with 212 SRM, were 2 burn through destroying the rocket
36 launch with 108 SRM, you could have theoretical one launch with problem with SRM, but the Apollo got very launch escape system, so no problem
keep this Solid cluster Saturn I, Archibald
and look into the possibility to put more UA1205 under the S-IVB like 4 or even 8, with centaur upper stage, like for Viking or Voyager flight.
Archibald
Banned
I know most of the Saturn IB alternatives for a very long time and, truth be told, never found any truly satisfying. The 120 inch cluster of solids and the downrated three F-1 Saturn INT-20 are the most logical but still somewhat flawed. Quite paradoxically, as much sense as it makes (see ETS) I still haven't found a document mentionning a 1*F1 stage. It boggles the mind.
I'll probably go for the solid cluster if only because of the Ares 1 irony. At some point or another, and even with space enthusiast Reagan at the controls, cost will bite NASA programs. Perhaps both Titan and Saturn could be replaced by that rocket. Oh, and incidentally, what does ARES mean ? it means... Advanced REcoverable Solid ! By recovering the solid casings in the ocean to drive cost down, as planned for the shuttle. Oh, the sweet irony !!
int-20 is madness, using a Saturn I-C stage with S-IVB , except you put wings on first stage then it make sense
on Solid booster what about big Aerojet booster AJ-260-1/3 for Saturn Int-05A ?
that 260 inch diameter solid it could be reusable and you got 43,034 kg (94,873 lb) into a 185 km orbit at 28.00 degrees.
From the cost not so bad, Flyaway Unit Cost $: 111.650 million in 1985 dollars.
To me it also does boggle the mind that I cannot find any study mentioning a single F-1 replacing all 8 engines. The key is the F-1 will have to be made throttle-able. I was trying to find something that would allow production of the standard Saturn V line without having to have another line open for the stages of a LEO rocket. The INT-20 came closest to me with a per launch cost of 185 Million in 1985 dollars which isn't bad.
From my understanding ARES was named after the Greek God Ares and no fancy NASA acronym. I was looking at trying to use two 156" SRB for the 1st stage. It looks like this would get my launch costs down to 137 Million in 1985 dollars. This would also dovetail nicely if I was using a Boost assist Saturn V since the 156" SRB's could be used on booth. The issue I come up with is trying to calculate what these changes would do for payload because in my study I can only find mention of a 260" SRB for the Saturn I replacing it's first stage.
Ah, didn't realised about the throtteable F-1. It explains a lot of things. As for ARES - it was a little lame joke.
It was early in the morning for me.
Anyway yes adding a throttle was key to limit acceleration late in the 1st stage burn as the vehicle gets lighter and lighter. What is interesting is the development of a possible new F1 engine the F-1B would add throttle capability to this engine.
It certainly is curious.
But I tend to think that e of pi and WG are right to conclude that, had NASA opted to stick with heritage Apollo/Saturn hardware in 1970-72, their minds would have been focused enough to zero in on the concept fairly quickly as a way to replace the Saturn IB as their workhorse for the 70's.
there was not study for that, because the Saturn IB had major problem: it tanks, they was build from from Redstone and Jupiter MRBM.
the INT study went for replacement of Saturn IB with new better rocket like putting S-IVB on Saturn I-C stage
or replace Saturn IB with large Solid booster or large pressure feed engine as first stage.
the Titan IIIM/F was also consider as low-cost replacement for Saturn IB
while original Space shuttle had also to replace the Saturn IB and Apollo CSM.
Archibald
Banned
Folks,
That discussion over the solid / S-IVB reminded me that I have that rocket payload to orbit numbers somewhere on my hard disk. There's a document, think it is Bellcomm, that details all kind of solid clusters, including some air-started, up to seven 5-seg SRMs glued together. Bad for a crew, good for dumb propellant on the way to Mars.
I also have some launch cost numbers and they are amazing low, to the level of the shuttle initial cost estimations that were so wild.
That discussion over the solid / S-IVB reminded me that I have that rocket payload to orbit numbers somewhere on my hard disk. There's a document, think it is Bellcomm, that details all kind of solid clusters, including some air-started, up to seven 5-seg SRMs glued together. Bad for a crew, good for dumb propellant on the way to Mars.
I also have some launch cost numbers and they are amazing low, to the level of the shuttle initial cost estimations that were so wild.
Archibald
Banned
thank you all. I have to say that I had doubts at some point - interest for this TL was slow to lift off (pun intended).
I can understand that I lost some of you with the second entry, the one with Hendrix. As you saw in my columbia TL I like to integrate pop music into my space TLs, a bit like a film soundtrack. That the reason why the Monterey pop festival had a cameo in this TL.
My head is fool of coloured visions of spaceships floating into space with pop songs as background.
It's all fault of series like Cold Case where every single episode ends with three minutes of pop music (and no dialogue whatsoever).
I can understand that I lost some of you with the second entry, the one with Hendrix. As you saw in my columbia TL I like to integrate pop music into my space TLs, a bit like a film soundtrack. That the reason why the Monterey pop festival had a cameo in this TL.
My head is fool of coloured visions of spaceships floating into space with pop songs as background.
It's all fault of series like Cold Case where every single episode ends with three minutes of pop music (and no dialogue whatsoever).