~snip
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 !!!
~snip
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.
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 !!!
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?
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.
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 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 !!
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 !!
Ah, didn't realised about the throtteable F-1. It explains a lot of things. As for ARES - it was a little lame joke.
To me it also does boggle the mind that I cannot find any study mentioning a single F-1 replacing all 8 engines.
there was not study for that, because the Saturn IB had major problem: it tanks, they was build from from Redstone and Jupiter MRBM.To me it also does boggle the mind that I cannot find any study mentioning a single F-1 replacing all 8 engines.
That would be Eyes Turned Skywards. Their specs on the Saturn IC can be found here.