Space WI: Saturn V Longevity

This is something that has fascinated me. Media for a very long time cannibalized the Saturn V rocket long after production ended and it would never return, stopping maybe only by 1990. In the film "Capricorn One" from 1978, they set off for Mars in a Saturn V. The "Major Tom" music video had a Saturn V as the rocket via stock footage. MTV had the Moon landing bumper. And there's ones I can't recall at the moment.

That raises the interest in my head of, if the Saturn V had continued production and say there were two Saturn V launches a year, how long could that class of rocket last? At what point would they change to something else? Would they even need to change to something else? I'm certainly only of limited knowledge on this topic, so for all I know they could just refine and update the technology as time went by.
 

Thande

Donor
The issue is the cost, which is why NASA would want to move to something else even if the political will for a continued lunar programme was there.

A common proposal for expanding the Saturn V was to add solid rocket boosters (which is where the idea for their use on the shuttle came from) so perhaps they might cut down to a Saturn II like smaller rocket with SRBs to replace the Saturn V, or lose one of the stages and replace with SRBs. See the article here.
 
The issue is the cost and a Mission

As Johnson stop the Saturn production in 1967
they mothball the production-line who was scraped in begin in 1970
So restart Saturn V production in that period is easy, but what to launch ?
Johnson killed Apollo program with stop of Saturn V production.
will the next president, go on with more Apollo program and Skylab or even take Manned Mars mission in consideration ?
or take the the Space Task Group Unrealistic proposal "Integrated Program Plan": a Huge "2001 Space Odyssey" like program with hundreds of Astronauts in orbit and Manned Mars landing in 1980s.
here we have need of allot Saturn V

Boeing made studies for next generation Saturn V with F-1A and J-2S engine
what gave more Payload and simplified Hardware with lower cost from model SA-518
Saturn V Total Production cost was $113.1 Million pro unit. SA-501 to SA-515 (SA-516 & Sa-517 scrapped before completion)
Boeing conclusion was with a 30 unit production run over 10 years (3 units a year)
they could drop the Production cost $113.1 Million for SA-518 in 1968 to $92.5 Million on SA-548 in 1978...

what to do with 30 Saturn V ?
that's 3 Apollo mission to Moon a year, alternate launching big Space station module or heavy Geo Satellite
but let face it that cost billions of USdollars, what the US Goverment don't had after Vietnam war...
 
Last edited:

JRScott

Banned
If you kept the Saturn V program then your probably either delaying or scrapping the later Shuttle Program

It basically would be a decision by Nixon to restart the Saturn and Apollo missions over the Shuttle missions (See Nixon did give us something nice in the Shuttle).

At the time of his administration it would be relatively easy.

Skylab could still be launched but you'd use a smaller rocket than Saturn V, that or by saving money not developing the Shuttle program Skylab is a larger project.

You would miss out on several innovations that came from the Shuttle development though that will probably aid us.

To fund both you'd need NASA's budget to be near 1% of the US GDP (its averaged around .5% of GDP over its history, though in recent years its taken a much bigger hit). Where to get that money would be a problem, the easiest way might be to divert some funds from the Defense budget to the NASA budget, but you'd have to sell it on the military benefits of developing space technology.

To do that you need to be sure the United States does not sign the Outer Space Treaty or the Moon Treaty or their later treaties. That or you need to black book any development and that's going to be hard to sell the public, but then again we don't really spend 500 dollars on a hammer....
 

Archibald

Banned
This is something that has fascinated me. Media for a very long time cannibalized the Saturn V rocket long after production ended and it would never return, stopping maybe only by 1990.
In the film "Capricorn One" from 1978, they set off for Mars in a Saturn V. The "Major Tom" music video had a Saturn V as the rocket via stock footage. MTV had the Moon landing bumper. And there's ones I can't recall at the moment.

That raises the interest in my head of, if the Saturn V had continued production and say there were two Saturn V launches a year, how long could that class of rocket last?
At what point would they change to something else?
Would they even need to change to something else?
I'm certainly only of limited knowledge on this topic, so for all I know they could just refine and update the technology as time went by.
It could last for a very, very long time, with realistic upgrades - improve the J-2 and F1, add big solid rocket motors (from the Titan) to boost payload.
You could have twice the payload - up to 250 tons.

Why would it last an eternity ? because we can't do better than the very basic concept.

Kerosene is the best for stage 1 - less energy, but dense and easy to store.
Hydrogen is the best for the upper stages - harder to store, but full of energy.
The fact is, there's no better propellant combo than these two, and no better engine than the chemical (and no, nuclear is not an option, and even then, it still uses hydrogen).

As an illustration at how long a rocket can last, see the Soyuz and (more revelant) the Delta II.
The Thor-Delta, Atlas and Titan were all designed as nuclear missiles in the mid-50's. They saw the 2000 !

Clearly, there's no technical reasons to scrap the Saturn V anywhere from 1972 to today and beyond. NASA future SLS is not that different from the old Saturn... the reasons were totally political and a matter of budget. The Saturn V was absolutely not obsolete when it was scrapped !

and yes, there would be no shuttle in this case. From a pure rocketry point of view, the shuttle didn't brought any innovation an uprated Saturn V could have had (beside reusability, admittedly - but is reusability worth the cost ?)
Large solids ? the Saturn could have them. Advanced SSME hydrogen engines ? put them instead of the J-2 on the upper stages. See what I mean ?
 
Last edited:

Archibald

Banned
As for Saturn V in the 80's - here's the NASA document from 1972 discussing the feasibility of that.

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
GEORGE C. MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER
MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER, ALABAMA 35812
REPLY TO
ATTN OF: DEP-T May 24, 1972
TO: NASA Headquarters
Attn: Mr. Philip E. Culbertson
FROM: DEP-T/W. R. Lucas
SUBJECT: Long Term Storage and Launch of a Saturn V Vehicle in the Mid-1980’s


This is in response to your request of May 9 for information concerning the cost of maintaining present reliability of the Saturn V vehicle as a function of long time storage and the cost of storing and maintaining a capability to launch a Saturn V in the mid-1980’s.
First, it is extremely difficult to estimate the cost of maintaining the current reliability of the Saturn V launch vehicle for approximately 13 additional years since this time is so far beyond our experience. For example, a June 1985 launch of one of our available Saturn V’s would mean that the age of some of the critical components from start of stage assembly would exceed 18 years. We are prepared to state, based upon tests and other experience, that there is no significant degradation of some of the more sensitive components, for example engine soft goods, up to ten years, provided the storage environment is closely controlled. However, we do not understand quantitatively the effects of aging on our systems beyond the ten year period.
To gain confidence in components between ten and twenty years old, we would have to establish the requirement to do single engine static firings three years prior to launch, utilizing spare J-2 engines. The J-2 engine would be selected because it contains most of the commonly used softgoods (most likely to deteriorate) on the vehicle. In addition, selected electrical, electronic and mechanical critical components that were stored with the vehicle would be subjected to functional tests and teardown inspection. There would be no remove-and-replace activity on the vehicles unless determined necessary by this test program.
[2] In addition to the vehicle hardware reliability concern, there is another vital element to consider. The present Apollo and Skylab Programs depend on the full-time, dedicated involvement of carefully selected, highly skilled individuals within both contractor and Civil Service ranks. Many of the key individuals can trace their experience back to the beginning of the Apollo Program. Every Saturn V launch to date, particularly the Apollo 16, has required their real time decisions to convert a potential launch scrub or mission loss situation into a mission success. By the 1980’s, this present capability will be practically nonexistent. It must be rebuilt with individuals possessing possibly more advanced technical knowledge of new vehicles but who would lack specific knowledge of the Saturn V systems. Therefore, these individuals must be provided the means and the time to become technically proficient with the Saturn V system. All records pertaining to design, qualification, manufacturing and assembly processes, handling, checkout, and launch preparation and launch must be preserved.
In addition to the above, there are other potential problem areas which deserve a brief comment:
Advanced computer processing systems may not be compatible with the developed Saturn software programs.
It is not feasible to environmentally control all critical components of the system. For example, the [Launch Umbilical Tower] and the stage transporters will be exposed to atmospheric conditions requiring possible major refurbishment.
Certain critical spare parts would be impossible to replace if an unforeseen problem required an unusual demand for replacement parts.


In summary, we have very little basis for extrapolating reliability of Saturn vehicles beyond the proposed six to fifteen year period of inactivity. Undoubtedly some degradation would occur. If it is intended to use a Saturn V in the mid-1980’s, the earlier the requirement is identified, the better will be our confidence in maintaining a reasonable reliability at a tolerable cost.
[3] In conjunction with [Kennedy Space Center], we examined the major factors influencing the cost of a program to maintain the capability to launch one of the two unassigned Saturn V launch vehicles (SA-514 and SA-515) with confidence in the mid-1980’s.
Comments and cost estimates from [Kennedy] are included. The examination was conducted in accordance with the guidelines and assumptions presented in enclosure 1. The approach taken would require the present contractors to prepare the stages, spares and documentation for long term storage before their present contracts expire; store the stages and spares at [Kennedy]; maintain the documentation at [Marshall Space Flight Center]; and then identify the required post storage activities to be performed.
A summary of the cost and manpower phasing is presented in enclosures 2 and 3. You will note that the Post Storage and Launch Phase contains two options: the first option utilizes only Civil Service and support contractors; the other option utilizes a single prime contractor for this phase. This choice is left open because it is not possible to predict at this time the density of workload within the Civil Service ranks during the mid-1980’s. Depending on which option is chosen, the estimated total program cost for a Saturn V launch in mid-1985 will range from 206.0 M to 298.7 M.
 
in Begin 1980s and again under SEI in 1990s
They study possibility to build new Saturn V from the Blueprints

There conclusion
Next to point 2 of "Long Term Storage and Launch of a Saturn V Vehicle in the Mid-1980’s."
They found out that the Saturn V was technological obsolete
Like used Aluminum alloy, the hopeless obsolete flghtcomputer and it's software or the use of Asbestos, consider today as toxic!

it was consider cheaper to R&D a new heavy lift Rocket from Shuttle component.
 
Michel Van said:
They found out that the Saturn V was technological obsolete
Like used Aluminum alloy, the hopeless obsolete flghtcomputer and it's software or the use of Asbestos, consider today as toxic!
That was because there had been no new ones built since 1972...:rolleyes: Compare a '72 Buick to a '95. Even allowing for size difference, the '95 is worlds better built, more durable, & smarter. So would Saturn V be, if it had continued to be made, used, & improved.
 
That was because there had been no new ones built since 1972...:rolleyes: Compare a '72 Buick to a '95. Even allowing for size difference, the '95 is worlds better built, more durable, & smarter. So would Saturn V be, if it had continued to be made, used, & improved.

The '95 Buick doesn't really share anything in common with the '72 model, though. So, too, it would have to be for an upgraded Saturn V (if nothing else, changes to structural components would require extensive reengineering to accommodate changes in material performance). It wouldn't really be a "Saturn V" per se, anymore than some of the ideas floated in the last decade for supergiant kerolox/hydrolox rockets would have been. The Saturn V as such would probably be obsolete and replaced in the late 1980s or early 1990s, although assuming continued use of the type something rather similar would certainly replace it (especially if the US figures out giant oxidizer-rich kerolox engines; they didn't OTL, but there wasn't a big incentive...)

In any case, the Saturn V was oversized and overexpensive for the environment in which it found itself after 1967. It's hard to come up with a non-ASB environment in which Saturn V production would have continued. Shuttle only really looks like a bad idea in retrospect or with an unusual degree of foresight, everyone convinced themselves it was workable, reasonable, and economic. Which doomed Saturn V, since, although obviously workable and reasonable, it was certainly not very economic.
 
Top