WI: A better Saturn IB

[fasquardon]

One of the failures of the US Apollo program was it's failure to produce much hardware or infrastructure that would be used in America's future space endeavors. In part, this was due to NASA wanting to move on to bigger and better things, and usually WIs focusing on the post-Apollo period look at how things like the Saturn V or the Apollo capsule could have continued to be used. But how about we look at the less romantic end of things? As it turns out, launchers in the c. 18-25 tonnes to LEO bracket are darn useful. Unfortunately, the Saturn IB, the first American launcher to fill that slot, was too expensive, pushing NASA and the USAF to adopt instead the Titan III (also very expensive, but at least cheaper than the Saturn IB).

So WI the Saturn IB is designed differently (for example, if it used the configuration suggested for the Saturn II-INT 19, with effectively the 2nd and 3rd stages of a Saturn V mated to minuteman-derived SRBs) so that it is cheap enough to survive the end of the Apollo program and to displace the heavy variants of the Titan III and IV for launching USAF payloads. What potential effects would this have? Might the rocket take so long to develop it delays the Apollo program? Might it allow NASA to launch more interesting things during the 70s? Would it survive in the era of the Space Shuttle?

Would having a "Saturn II" make it more attractive to NASA to build the Saturn-Shuttle (with a shuttle launched on a Saturn IC first stage, meaning that between Saturn Shuttle and Saturn II, America was making and launching all the parts for a full Saturn V up to the close of the Shuttle program? (My guess is that it would.) In the event that the Saturn-Shuttle didn't get adopted, would a "Saturn II" being used into the 21st Century mean that attempts to revive the Saturn V saw more success?

What do people think?

fasquardon

 

[Bureaucromancer]

It's a pretty big chicken/egg issue. A Saturn II is undoubtedly a better platform and could conceivably help matters when post Apollo options come on the table, but if initial flights for Apollo get tied to the Saturn V in such a direct way there is no real possibility of making it to the moon by 1970. At the same time, there is really no feasible way to credibly make the case without hindsight that it would be so much cheaper in the long run to continue with expendable than to develop something like the shuttle.

I'd suggest the most realistic way to get a better Saturn I like vehicle is for NASA to go EOR, which opens up the possibility of the primary vehicle being small enough that Saturn I flies as OTL, but IB falls by the wayside with a Saturn III or IV being the only man rated Saturn. It's still going to be a tough sell for Nixon to continue on to something other than the shuttle, but holding onto the existing rocket, which by decision time will be flying in fairly large numbers might be easier, which in turn makes a Saturn Shuttle demonstrator more of a possibility.

 

[Usili]

The Saturn IB wasn't that expensive in comparison to a Saturn II. The biggest cost of the entire launch vehicle was the S-IVB, and even then there were serious plans to make a 'Chinese copy' in order to drastically reduce the cost.

Arguably, it would be cheaper for a Saturn IB depending on the production rate, since the H-1 would be shared with the Atlas and Extended Long Tank Thors/Deltas, while the J-1 or F-1 wouldn't be shared with either.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The Saturn IB wasn't that expensive in comparison to a Saturn II. The biggest cost of the entire launch vehicle was the S-IVB, and even then there were serious plans to make a 'Chinese copy' in order to drastically reduce the cost.

Arguably, it would be cheaper for a Saturn IB depending on the production rate, since the H-1 would be shared with the Atlas and Extended Long Tank Thors/Deltas, while the J-1 or F-1 wouldn't be shared with either.

If the most expensive component of the Saturn IB was the S-IVB stage then in the short term would it have been better for NASA to have used a worse version, i.e. the Saturn I? The S-IV used the same RL-10 engines as Centaur. When it was required to launch payloads that were too heavy for the standard Saturn I the S-V (Centaur) third stage could be added.

Other than that the only way that I can see to keep Saturn I and IB going is to stop the USAF from developing the Titan ICBM so they can't develop it into Titan III. Then the USAF would have to use Saturn I or develop a new launcher. But then there are no Titan II ICBMs serving into the 1980s and no Gemini or at least not in the form that we know it.

 

[Usili]

If the most expensive component of the Saturn IB was the S-IVB stage then in the short term would it have been better for NASA to have used a worse version, i.e. the Saturn I? The S-IV used the same RL-10 engines as Centaur. When it was required to launch payloads that were too heavy for the standard Saturn I the S-V (Centaur) third stage could be added.

Other than that the only way that I can see to keep Saturn I and IB going is to stop the USAF from developing the Titan ICBM so they can't develop it into Titan III. Then the USAF would have to use Saturn I or develop a new launcher. But then there are no Titan II ICBMs serving into the 1980s and no Gemini or at least not in the form that we know it.

I'd argue, that the primary way of keeping the Saturn IB going (I wouldn't really see the Saturn I going imo) is to keep Apollo running. The Saturn IB made sense to keep being used as it was, since it really didn't require any new developmental costs, the fixed price was already intact for the production facilities, and so on. For example, these were the prices of the Saturn IB for each component per Stages of Saturn:

S-IB: $9.4 Million
S-IVB: $16.0 Million
IU: $9.7 Million
GSE: $6.7 Million
Engines: $4.6 Million
Total: $46.4 Million

Now, the S-IVB+IU costs $23.7 Million, or just slightly more than half of the launch vehicle cost. Considering the rate of technology, the IU probably would have dropped in terms of the actual cost, and reduced mission requirements would have likely reduced the S-IVB/S-IVC price further along with general simplification of it.

 

[Archibald]

This thread is a 11 pages discussion on the subject of a better Saturn IB
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36040.0

 

[Michel Van]

There were allot study for improved Saturn IB
Oddly this one was never study in detail, only Bellcom make a note on it
Two UA 1205 solid booster on side of S-IVB like Ariane 5 rocket
it would bring same Payload as Standart Saturn IB but much lower cost !

Usili comment on production cost are right
but ere another factor - transport, check and assembly on launch pad, integration of payload, fueling and launching this
That need workers and engineers who want to be payed.
So the complete cost from production to launch is in total US$311,000,000 today
A S-IVB + two UA 1205 would totally cost is US$250,000,000 today

The Titan IIIC was cheaper US$132,700,000 today, (but at lower payload!)
Why ?
first core stage Titan III was mass produce for USAF, first, as Titan II ICBM, then Gemini LV and Satellite launcher Titan III
so that core production cost lies by US$70,000,000 the rest for Two UA 1205 solid Booster

Space X - Falcon 9 FT cost US$62,000,000 for similar payload of Saturn IB (no reuse of first stage)
what difference make if Management and Production is made by people who beliefe in there work

 

[fasquardon]

Space X - Falcon 9 FT cost US$62,000,000 for similar payload of Saturn IB (no reuse of first stage)
what difference make if Management and Production is made by people who beliefe in there work

To be fair, the $62 mil price tag is for a lesser payload - launching a Saturn IB class payload means they can't re-use the rocket, meaning the launch costs more.

So the complete cost from production to launch is in total US$311,000,000 today
A S-IVB + two UA 1205 would totally cost is US$250,000,000 today

Hm, very interesting. The Titan IV, which managed a few kg more than the LEO payloads a Saturn IB could handle, cost c. $620.41 million (2016 dollars) to launch. So a Saturn IB or a Saturn II INT 18 like you propose, would cost substantially less than than the Titan IV!

Sheesh... Titan really was a dog.

When did the UA 1205 start in production though? Would it have been available as a booster when NASA needed the Saturn IBs?

This thread is a 11 pages discussion on the subject of a better Saturn IB
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36040.0

Thanks for the link! I'll have a read through when I have the time...

fasquardon

 

[Usili]

When did the UA 1205 start in production though? Would it have been available as a booster when NASA needed the Saturn IBs?

UA-1205 was in production at the same time as the Saturn IB, being used for all the Titan variants with SRMs from what I recall correctly.

 

[e of pi]

There were allot study for improved Saturn IB
Oddly this one was never study in detail, only Bellcom make a note on it
Two UA 1205 solid booster on side of S-IVB like Ariane 5 rocket
it would bring same Payload as Standart Saturn IB but much lower cost !

It actually saw a lot of study, though I'm having trouble turning up any of the three or four studies I've seen of it. It's worth noting that several varieties were considered, and almost all the ones I've seen put the Titan SRMs ganged together as a clustered first stage like this--that being a lot easier than redesigning the S-IVB to hang from a thrust beam at the top. I've been re-running numbers manually in Silverbird since I can't dig up the studies I know I've seen, and a two-SRM first stage lofting a S-IVB upper stage works out to about 12,755 kg. That means that the $250m 2SRM+SIVB you call for would actually have the same performance as the 132m Titan IIIC you propose it to replace--but almost double the cost. I think the reason it didn't see more study was that if you were going to use Titan solids anyway, you might as well save the cost of new development and use the existing, lower-cost complete Titan system. Titan in the era was very cheap, but became less so as environmental regulations jacked up the cost of hypergolic propellant manufacturing and the Titan fell out of active ICBM service, cutting cost sharing and driving up production costs.

 

[RanulfC]

I saw the internet "Saturn-1B discussion!" signal and got here as fast as I could! (Read the link provided by Archibald, those 'in-the-know' will get that immediately )

There was some studies in the mid-to-late 60s that 'proved' that a solid first stage was always going to be 'cheaper-and-easier' an extended space program. Up to and including a huge direct replacement monolithic SRB instead of the Saturn-1B first stage... Funny thing is if you carefully read those studies there are a awful lot of assumptions made and 'details' not addressed to come to those conclusions. And in 'real-life' those assumptions and conclusions don't seem to have come about. (The monolithic Saturn stage for example had prices showing massive cost savings over the 'regular' S-1B stage but didn't include the requirements for the almost completely new transportation, erection and pad system required to support it. I have my doubts THAT would have been a 'negligible' cost)

Something to keep in mind on the cost of the Saturn-1B was that it was actually designed to be rather cheap, originally being the designated 'workhorse' LV for Apollo but it didn't actually fly that often and therefor ended up being more expensive than it was supposed to be. Add on the fact parts of it (specifically the engines) were tested and found to be significantly more robust and 'reusable' than anyone had thought. The S-1/1B was always a 'kludge' design but that actually would have worked in its favor since it could handle rougher treatment and was easier to 'modify' for things like SRB attachments and recovery systems. (An always popular, now anyway, option discussed at NASAspaceflight.com is adding a ninth engine. Wonder where THAT idea came from ) And on the gripping hand the majority of the tooling to build it were in fact already 'paid' for and expanding production would have reduced costs even more.

All that leaves a couple of obvious paths open; First you can move towards making the entire LV as cheap as possible which Bellcom suggested with a "Chinese-knock-off" S-IVB and S-1B stage and continue to try and reduce the cost of every single component to its lowest level while increasing the flight rate. (ELV path) Or you can try introducing reusability, (pardon the pun) in stages to the LV design since there were studies and proposals for reuse of about every part of the Saturn/Apollo stack at various times. In either case, (and this is the part most Apollo fans hate but...) the one thing you probably want to put on a shelf is the Saturn V first stage and engines and only trot them out when you absolutely HAVE to have an HLV launch. Once you start adding SRBs to the basic Saturn-1B and start stretching the tanks it just makes less and less sense to try and keep the Saturn-V as anything but an occasional HLV system.

NASA should probably have never gotten involved with the Titan in the first place, (I know, I know, required for Gemini pretty much but Gemini was never actually meant to be anything but an interim design vehicle anyway and despite the fans of Big Gemini going that direct would have required a major redesign to do what Apollo was already designed to do and most of the 'advantages' you gained you could do the same with Apollo for the same amount of effort) because the Titan and it's operations were geared towards Air Force and not NASA needs while the Saturn-1B which WAS geared towards those needs now became in 'competition' with the Titan which wasn't every going to come as a 'fair' fight. NASA lost out on a LOT of opportunities because of the way Apollo turned into the Lunar program it became and there was no realistic way of going back and starting over either with the way the Apollo Program ended up fundamentally changing the way NASA operated and ran itself.

My copy of "After Apollo" by John Logsdon, (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2715/1) officially now has more sticky-notes, and page markers in it than pages with possible post-Apollo PODs but the main point of fact is by the time Apollo 11 landed both governmental and public support for the space program was on a down-hill slide that pretty much couldn't be stopped and NASA couldn't seem to figure that out until it was far to late. The Saturn-1B and Saturn-V were officially 'dead' by that point anyway with little hope of getting them resurrected and frankly those in charge of NASA didn't care and weren't interested in trying to do so. The "Moon-and-back-in-10-years" paradigm had by that point morphed into a 'single-main-program-and-everything-else-is-always-second' mentality that still hasn't gone away.

::::Sigh::: Dang, I'm going to need a seriously heavy heat shield to get down off this soap box. I'll catch you folks later if I happen to make it back down in one piece

Randy

 

[Usili]

Something to keep in mind on the cost of the Saturn-1B was that it was actually designed to be rather cheap, originally being the designated 'workhorse' LV for Apollo but it didn't actually fly that often and therefor ended up being more expensive than it was supposed to be. Add on the fact parts of it (specifically the engines) were tested and found to be significantly more robust and 'reusable' than anyone had thought. The S-1/1B was always a 'kludge' design but that actually would have worked in its favor since it could handle rougher treatment and was easier to 'modify' for things like SRB attachments and recovery systems. (An always popular, now anyway, option discussed at NASAspaceflight.com is adding a ninth engine. Wonder where THAT idea came from ) And on the gripping hand the majority of the tooling to build it were in fact already 'paid' for and expanding production would have reduced costs even more.

I've always wondered how they would deal with the base-heating environment if with a ninth H-1 engine on the bottom, since from what I recall, they had to deal with the worries of base heating when they were first designing it.

My copy of "After Apollo" by John Logsdon, (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2715/1) officially now has more sticky-notes, and page markers in it than pages with possible post-Apollo PODs but the main point of fact is by the time Apollo 11 landed both governmental and public support for the space program was on a down-hill slide that pretty much couldn't be stopped and NASA couldn't seem to figure that out until it was far to late. The Saturn-1B and Saturn-V were officially 'dead' by that point anyway with little hope of getting them resurrected and frankly those in charge of NASA didn't care and weren't interested in trying to do so. The "Moon-and-back-in-10-years" paradigm had by that point morphed into a 'single-main-program-and-everything-else-is-always-second' mentality that still hasn't gone away.

How is After Apollo if I might inquire? Been looking at it a wee bit for the future.

 

[RanulfC]

I've always wondered how they would deal with the base-heating environment if with a ninth H-1 engine on the bottom, since from what I recall, they had to deal with the worries of base heating when they were first designing it.

They didn't actually look into adding one, but since the Falcon-9 is now considered the "uber" rocket everyone SHOULD of thought of building... The original worries about base heating were not actually as sever as they had thought and they'd always planned on doing 'upgrades' to the Saturn-1 LV over time so I'd be surprised if it couldn't have been possible to add another engine if they wanted. On the other hand the OTL upgrades to the H1 seem to have topped out around 250,000lbs thrust before you had to do significant changes to the engine itself. At which point you end up with the suggested 'new' hybrid rocket suggested by Rocketdyne which combined both the H1 and Atlas booster engine. (Can't recall off hand the designation)

How is After Apollo if I might inquire? Been looking at it a wee bit for the future.

VERY good, I recommend it highly. It's a fascinating read and really gets the facts about the whole process and why things turned out the way they did.

Randy

 

[fasquardon]

There was some studies in the mid-to-late 60s that 'proved' that a solid first stage was always going to be 'cheaper-and-easier' an extended space program. Up to and including a huge direct replacement monolithic SRB instead of the Saturn-1B first stage... Funny thing is if you carefully read those studies there are a awful lot of assumptions made and 'details' not addressed to come to those conclusions. And in 'real-life' those assumptions and conclusions don't seem to have come about. (The monolithic Saturn stage for example had prices showing massive cost savings over the 'regular' S-1B stage but didn't include the requirements for the almost completely new transportation, erection and pad system required to support it. I have my doubts THAT would have been a 'negligible' cost)

Something to keep in mind on the cost of the Saturn-1B was that it was actually designed to be rather cheap, originally being the designated 'workhorse' LV for Apollo but it didn't actually fly that often and therefor ended up being more expensive than it was supposed to be. Add on the fact parts of it (specifically the engines) were tested and found to be significantly more robust and 'reusable' than anyone had thought. The S-1/1B was always a 'kludge' design but that actually would have worked in its favor since it could handle rougher treatment and was easier to 'modify' for things like SRB attachments and recovery systems. (An always popular, now anyway, option discussed at NASAspaceflight.com is adding a ninth engine. Wonder where THAT idea came from ) And on the gripping hand the majority of the tooling to build it were in fact already 'paid' for and expanding production would have reduced costs even more.

Now that is all very interesting. Particularly the bits about the S-IB looking poor due to poorly enumerated costs for its competitors and the bits about the S-IB being easier to upgrade.

This thread is a 11 pages discussion on the subject of a better Saturn IB
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36040.0

Well, I am half way through so far. Some very interesting discussion. Particularly some of the upgrades/modifications and outright replacements that might fill the medium-heavy lift requirement for NASA.

S-1D single stage to orbit is an intriguing replacement for the Saturn 1B - particularly since the S-1D being the medium lift option for the Saturn family would make the Saturn-Shuttle almost sure to win out over the SRB-Shuttle we got OTL.

The Saturn INT-11 and Saturn INT-13 are also quite intriguing, the INT-13 promises extremely low costs per kilo to LEO too - $2960 2016 USD per kilo to LEO, which is lower cost than any booster available today. However, given that the Saturn IB-D is very similar to the INT-13 (featuring less capable SRBs and no stretching of the first stage) and costs more than 2 times what the INT-13 does, I wonder if the authors of the INT-13 study weren't a little over-generous with their cost calculations.

Still... NASA being able to launch c. 30 tonne payloads for less than $50 mil in 1970 prices would sure open up some amazing options in the post-Apollo period!

Speaking of upgrading the Saturn 1B, did anyone ever consider replacing the 8 H-1 engines with a single F-1A? Would that have provided any improvements?

fasquardon

 

[Usili]

They didn't actually look into adding one, but since the Falcon-9 is now considered the "uber" rocket everyone SHOULD of thought of building... The original worries about base heating were not actually as sever as they had thought and they'd always planned on doing 'upgrades' to the Saturn-1 LV over time so I'd be surprised if it couldn't have been possible to add another engine if they wanted. On the other hand the OTL upgrades to the H1 seem to have topped out around 250,000lbs thrust before you had to do significant changes to the engine itself. At which point you end up with the suggested 'new' hybrid rocket suggested by Rocketdyne which combined both the H1 and Atlas booster engine. (Can't recall off hand the designation)

VERY good, I recommend it highly. It's a fascinating read and really gets the facts about the whole process and why things turned out the way they did.

Randy

I realized the upgrades to the 250,000lb thrust level, but fair enough on the base heating matter. I think that was the... RS-76 engine or something like that? Can't recall.

Speaking of upgrading the Saturn 1B, did anyone ever consider replacing the 8 H-1 engines with a single F-1A? Would that have provided any improvements?

It would've been negligible from what I am aware, and not really worth the cost of doing it. It would be more economical to maintain the H-1s (which would share the production line with the Atlas and Delta rockets) and likely better in the long run (I imagine).

In any case, it's nice seeing some love for the Saturn-IB.

 

[fasquardon]

It would've been negligible from what I am aware, and not really worth the cost of doing it. It would be more economical to maintain the H-1s (which would share the production line with the Atlas and Delta rockets) and likely better in the long run (I imagine).

That would be my instinct as well, but I've not managed to find any prices for the F-1 engine. Apparently the 8 H-1s were $2.5 mil at (I think) then-current prices - though I am not sure about the exact year.

Still, the H-1s would probably give the LV more flexibility.

In any case, it's nice seeing some love for the Saturn-IB.

It does seem to me that the sweet spot in getting interesting things done and doing things with economy is to have the heaviest rockets somewhere in the 20-60 tonne to LEO range. For the Americans and the Soviets, the big rockets, the Saturn V, N-1, Energia and STS seem to have hurt their programs more than they helped them. (Though it might have been different had there been more political backing for the space programs.)

One of the fun things about the Saturn 1B (or an equivalent rocket) lasting into the 70s is that, had it been used for the outer planets missions, there would be a chance to launch some really capable probes.

fasquardon

 

[RanulfC]

Now that is all very interesting. Particularly the bits about the S-IB looking poor due to poorly enumerated costs for its competitors and the bits about the S-IB being easier to upgrade.

The more you fly the more costs are spread over the entire flight series, it's one of the main reasons why the Titan 'looks' so good up to the point where it's no longer sharing costs with being an in-production ICBM.

Well, I am half way through so far. Some very interesting discussion. Particularly some of the upgrades/modifications and outright replacements that might fill the medium-heavy lift requirement for NASA.

There's actually about three (or four I forget) thread related to the Saturn-1B and modifications or discussions actually but that one should answer a lot of your questions.

S-1D single stage to orbit is an intriguing replacement for the Saturn 1B - particularly since the S-1D being the medium lift option for the Saturn family would make the Saturn-Shuttle almost sure to win out over the SRB-Shuttle we got OTL.

It was an interesting design to be sure but the general consensus was it wasn't going to be cost-effective overall. Having said that it would have been a way of keeping the first stage in production and use.

The Saturn INT-11 and Saturn INT-13 are also quite intriguing, the INT-13 promises extremely low costs per kilo to LEO too - $2960 2016 USD per kilo to LEO, which is lower cost than any booster available today. However, given that the Saturn IB-D is very similar to the INT-13 (featuring less capable SRBs and no stretching of the first stage) and costs more than 2 times what the INT-13 does, I wonder if the authors of the INT-13 study weren't a little over-generous with their cost calculations.

I've a suspicion, (I'll have to look at my Saturn-1B reports folder to be sure which unfortunately is no my laptop I left at work) that the reason the Saturn-1B-D cost so much more is something Astronautics missed; Unlike the INT-11/13 the Saturn-1B-D is actually a THREE (3) stage vehicle with an additional Centaur stage and fairing that isn't included in the write-up but rather obvious with the illustration. It was meant to be a probe not a manned launch vehicle.

Still... NASA being able to launch c. 30 tonne payloads for less than $50 mil in 1970 prices would sure open up some amazing options in the post-Apollo period!

Yup

Speaking of upgrading the Saturn 1B, did anyone ever consider replacing the 8 H-1 engines with a single F-1A? Would that have provided any improvements?

"Maybe?" That was suggested in "Eyes Turned Skyward" E of Pi, and some of the other NSF posters here will probably recall the discussion a bit better but I believe the main flaws were the lack of throttling in the F1, (IIRC the F1A could go down to 70% but it wasn't clear that would be enough towards the end of the burn) and the need for additional roll-control either with separate engines or a seriously beefed up RCS since a single F1 would not provide any. I suspect that it wouldn't be as cost effective as the eight H1 though because there would be no cost sharing on the F1 while the H1s would be used with some other launch vehicles and later the RS27 and RS27A being used on the Delta would also be usable on later versions of the Saturn-1B. Somewhere on the NSF discussions someone quoted a probably price for a single F1 versus the H1s and the price wasn't significantly lower using the single F1 (IIRC could be very wrong) and the fact that one F1 massed as much as 13 H1s and ate more propellant than eight H1s would have meant a significant stage re-design and re-build. It wasn't obvious that there would be a great deal of benefit for the cost as I recall.

I realized the upgrades to the 250,000lb thrust level, but fair enough on the base heating matter. I think that was the... RS-76 engine or something like that? Can't recall.

Annoyingly I can't find it either and I KNOW I posted it several times on NSF which makes it even more frustrating. IIRC it was designed to use both RS27A and Atlas sustainer parts in a new engine design with higher thrust but not overly larger than the RS27A itself.

Randy

 

[RanulfC]

It does seem to me that the sweet spot in getting interesting things done and doing things with economy is to have the heaviest rockets somewhere in the 20-60 tonne to LEO range. For the Americans and the Soviets, the big rockets, the Saturn V, N-1, Energia and STS seem to have hurt their programs more than they helped them. (Though it might have been different had there been more political backing for the space programs.)

One of the fun things about the Saturn 1B (or an equivalent rocket) lasting into the 70s is that, had it been used for the outer planets missions, there would be a chance to launch some really capable probes.

I just managed to survive getting DOWN from that particular soap-box thank you very much!

A slower, more sustainably planned and executed 'space program' wouldn't have actually required the huge launch vehicles but at the same time it's not clear there would have been political or public support for a more drawn out program either. The Soviet government really didn't see their program as offering much more than stunts allowing them to claim various 'firsts' and make the US look bad while on the US side Eisenhower specifically wasn't seeming to understand how much the Soviet 'stunts' were scaring the average American until it was too late. "Panic mode" political and public support was obviously only going to go so far but under the circumstances it was inevitable.

A closer space-race with less panic induced requirements is one of the time-lines I'd like to explore, but I keep finding that it seems to require more than one POD/change along the way to make it plausible. Which in general makes it not-so-plausible...

Having said that though I'm pretty sure that having a more capable Atlas booster, (the original 5 engine version) and the Saturn-1/1B and going with EOR operations would end up having a much deeper effect than simply getting to the Moon and back in less than a decade did. In the former we might not have made it to the Moon before the early 80s or 90s but we'd have had a much more extensive on-orbit infrastructure and experience than in OTL mostly due to the latter sucking up all the money and effort without building any depth to the overall program.

Randy

 

[fasquardon]

I just managed to survive getting DOWN from that particular soap-box thank you very much!

I'm sorry, if you are not a re-useable soap-box ascent/descent vehicle, we can't justify you to Congress.

It was an interesting design to be sure but the general consensus was it wasn't going to be cost-effective overall. Having said that it would have been a way of keeping the first stage in production and use.

Yeah. The mass fractions are pretty awful. Probably not a goer unless the costs/launch are appreciably brought down by economies of scale. Even then, I suspect that it would need a political justification - like "we must keep the powerful first stage in production for other projects".

I've a suspicion, (I'll have to look at my Saturn-1B reports folder to be sure which unfortunately is no my laptop I left at work) that the reason the Saturn-1B-D cost so much more is something Astronautics missed; Unlike the INT-11/13 the Saturn-1B-D is actually a THREE (3) stage vehicle with an additional Centaur stage and fairing that isn't included in the write-up but rather obvious with the illustration. It was meant to be a probe not a manned launch vehicle.

Huh. Was the Centaur really that expensive? If your suspicion is correct, it would mean that the Centaur stage is close to half the cost of the whole rocket.

lack of throttling in the F1, (IIRC the F1A could go down to 70% but it wasn't clear that would be enough towards the end of the burn) and the need for additional roll-control either with separate engines or a seriously beefed up RCS since a single F1 would not provide any

Ahhh, yes, very good points there.

I suspect that it wouldn't be as cost effective as the eight H1 though because there would be no cost sharing on the F1 while the H1s would be used with some other launch vehicles and later the RS27 and RS27A being used on the Delta would also be usable on later versions of the Saturn-1B.

I wonder if this would mean the H-1/RS27/RS27A/RS56 would continue to be used and developed past the early 90s...

F1 massed as much as 13 H1s and ate more propellant than eight H1s

Hmm. How does the F-1 use more propellant? The base F-1 had less thrust than 8 H-1s together and a higher ISP, while the F-1A had slightly more thrust than 8 H-1s together and still had higher ISP - shouldn't that mean that both the F-1 and F-1A should use less propellant over the same burn time? And even with the F-1A's higher thrust, in the case that more thrust is detrimental to the LV, isn't it possible to shorten the engine's burn time or reduce its thrust?

A closer space-race with less panic induced requirements is one of the time-lines I'd like to explore, but I keep finding that it seems to require more than one POD/change along the way to make it plausible. Which in general makes it not-so-plausible...

Kolyma's Shadow comes the closest to doing that of any TL I've read so far.

Stalin dying at some point after March 1946 might also do it with one PoD. If we assume that the VR-190 comes to fruition during the struggle for power between Stalin's lieutenants, putting (Soviet) men in (sub-orbital) space in 1950, instead of 1961 and triggering the space race almost a decade early. If we further assume a less panic in America and an Eisenhower presidency (I think both are fairly likely), then we have a situation where both powers feel they need to commit to the race, but where the Americans are held back by their practical President and the Soviets are held back by not having Korolev's over engineered rocket to help them snatch all the low-hanging fruit quickly. It could lead to both programs evolving into much more practical beasts in the long run.

(Not to mention how much the whole cold war changes with less Stalin in the early years and the intriguing chance of getting Zhukov into power in the USSR in the 50s, meaning the bulk of the 50s could see both superpowers being led by men who, as far as I can tell from their biographies, had a genuine rapport and like for each-other. My muse may force me to write a TL based on a 1946 death for Stalin soon...)

fasquardon

 

[Archibald]

Didn't knew about the VR-190, that's a great forgotten project. In my own space TL, explorers, I squeezed every single existing Saturn IB left - 209, 211, 212, 213 and -214 - and put an Agena space tug on top of them, and some Delta solid strapons (Graphite Epoxy Motors) to augment payload to orbit and launch 22ft diameter space station modules.