Re: VonBraun and his crew

On Feb 5, 7:07 pm, Len <l...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 5, 3:23 pm, Pat Flannery <flan...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



Len wrote:
In Saturn/Apollo days, those of us at the Los Angeles
sister division of North American observed that 1 percent
of a dedicated core seemed to get things done in spite of
the other 99 percent.  We rejoiced, like others, when the
system actually worked well enough to put men on the
moon (Apollo I over-management debacle put aside).
However, I remember one specific comment that it
would really be an incredible disaster, if this management
model actually become accepted as a good management
model.

This sounds a lot like what happened in regards to the B-2 bomber if
descriptions of that program's convoluted inner workings are accurate.

Earth rendezvous using Saturn I's could have been
done by expanding existing manufacturing and operations
activities.  This approach not only would have been easier,
it would have been sustainable and logical.

Saturn 1 was a awfully large and complex rocket for the payload it could
carry into orbit. The von Braun team always looked at it (especially the
strange tankage design of the first stage and its eight engines) as a
pretty hasty lash-up to get something that could put a good-sized
payload into orbit in a hurry.
In their heart-of-hearts what they probably wanted for a Saturn 1 first
stage was something along the lines of a super-sized Jupiter with a
single F-1 engine on its base.
Although the "cluster's last stand" grouping of the eight
Jupiter-derived engines was not in itself a fundamentally flawed concept
- although it meant a lot of plumbing, the propellant tankage (nine
tanks total) was a lot more bulky and heavy than a conventional
cylindrical tankage layout would have been.
Also, Saturn1B couldn't even carry a fully fueled CSM into orbit, much
less a fully fueled CSM/LM combo.
So now, besides the launchings to refuel the S-IVB stage for TLI, you
are also moving hypergolic fuels around in orbit to tank up the SM and
LM... and there's going to be at least one orbital test of the CSM/LM
combo in orbit before a Moon mission, so that's two more launches
there...and a orbital flight of the CSM around the Moon ala' Apollo 8 -
two more launches minimum.
That's around four or five launchings total for a fully tanked up CSM/LM
combo heading for the Moon.
I'll be optimistic, and let them get the whole works put together in
orbit and fully tanked up with four Saturn-1B launches -one to get the
CSM up there, another with the LM, another to top up the hypergolics on
the two spacecraft, and another to tank up the S-IVB stage, although
that seems likely to take two launches in reality.
So our seven manned lunar landing missions take a total of
_twenty-eight_ Saturn 1B launches, plus another ten launches to
replicate the tests done on the Apollo 7-10 missions (7 takes one, 8
takes at least two, 9 takes three, 10 takes four)
So now you are up to at least thirty-eight launches total using LOR. And
if even one of the four launches fails for some reason on the lunar
landing missions that whole mission gets scrubbed unless you have other
Saturn 1Bs standing by to replace the payload the failed rocket was
carrying. in fairly short order. This launch rate and redundancy
requirement means several Saturn 1B pads with rockets on them being
stacked nearly simultaneously, requiring one hell of a lot of
infrastructure to accomplish. In fact, you may need eight Saturn 1B
pads, all with rockets on them at once, if you want to salvage a
particular mission which has had one component fail during launch.
Try the direct ascent route and land the CSM on the Moon atop a new
descent stage, and things get even worse. That's a lot heavier, and it's
going to be difficult to break the lunar spacecraft down into components
small enough to be taken into orbit by Saturn 1B's. Then you are
probably talking something along the lines of around sixty to seventy
launches total, and Cape Kennedy is covered with Saturn-1B pads to make
sure all the components can be in orbit with redundancy for assembling
the lunar spacecraft...as each mission is going to take at least eight
launches, so you end up with sixteen pads.
Besides, considering all the trouble we had getting the CSM and LM built
and operating on schedule, the big direct descent lander probably would
not have been ready to go by 1969.
The way we did it - building the Saturn V, was the simplest, fastest,
and cheapest way of getting to the Moon ahead of the Russians.

Pat

Interesting. Pat.

I guess I tend to skip over the Saturn I aspect, since,
truthfully, my main interest was in the side bet on the
space transport, which, in my mind tended to be HTOL
--without so much concern for number of pads or
launch rates.  In fact, the high launch rate is the key
to success for a space transport, rather than so much
a problem.

Even with ELVs, however, the learning curve
for manufacturing and operations could be
highly beneficial.  Moreover, extreme reliability
can be traded off with additional backup flights.
Direct ascent problems tend to compound
exponentially.

Len

I meant to add that all those engines and plumbing
did give the Saturn I a sort-of engine out capability.
It was a rather robust, modular vehicle. Separate
tanks do not necessarily have to be heavier than
a single tank (minimum gauge situations not
applying). Perhaps the design could have been
tweaked, rather than replaced.

Len
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: VonBraun and his crew
    ... Saturn 1 was a awfully large and complex rocket for the payload it could ... payload into orbit in a hurry. ... two more launches minimum. ... landing missions that whole mission gets scrubbed unless you have other ...
    (sci.space.history)
  • Re: VonBraun and his crew
    ... The von Braun team always looked at it as a pretty hasty lash-up to get something that could put a good-sized payload into orbit in a hurry. ... In their heart-of-hearts what they probably wanted for a Saturn 1 first stage was something along the lines of a super-sized Jupiter with a single F-1 engine on its base. ... and there's going to be at least one orbital test of the CSM/LM combo in orbit before a Moon mission, so that's two more launches there...and a orbital flight of the CSM around the Moon ala' Apollo 8 - two more launches minimum. ... And if even one of the four launches fails for some reason on the lunar landing missions that whole mission gets scrubbed unless you have other Saturn 1Bs standing by to replace the payload the failed rocket was carrying. ...
    (sci.space.history)
  • Re: No Saturn V, Using Smaller Rockets to Get to the Moon in the 1960s
    ... I have researched many Apollo era documents and have seen nothing on ... would be assembly in LEO, with LOR a way to reduce the number of launches ... that very web page observes that when the Saturn V ...
    (sci.space.history)
  • Re: Alll Saturn V launches in one picture
    ... > A fabulous series of images, especially the shots of the Saturn I, ... Now, as far as seeing all the Saturn launches together, what I'd really ... dubya dubya dubya dot sinkers dot org ...
    (sci.space.history)
  • Jonathans Space Report, No. 602
    ... Soyuz TMA-13 was launched at 0701 UTC on Oct 12 and reached orbit at ... The DFH Co. satellite is probably a CAST-968 300 ... Table of Recent Launches ...
    (sci.space.news)