From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov
Subject: Saturn Class Dreams (was RE:  ... and other space development)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 22:05:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.060846.21511@u.washington.edu>, brettvs@u.washington.edu writes...
>>Subject: SPS feasibility and other space development
>>I heard some interesting news today.  The NASA Marshall Space Flight Center,
>>the birthplace of our Saturn Class dreams has awoken the giant.  The only
>>test stand in the West that was ever used to hold down a Saturn Class rocket
>>for a full up test firing of the Saturn V first stage is about to rumble again!
>>*************************************************************************
>>Revive the Saturn V!
>>*************************************************************************
> 
>This, along with the comment (I have forgotten the attribution here) "Everyone
>knows what the ALS should eventually look like, a Saturn V clone" has me
>wondering if this is somehow tied to ALS activities (like someone has actually
>moved from paper chases to hardware).  Some of the questions I have here may
>not be answerable if this is the early stage of some project, but in hopes of
>starting a thread, here goes:
> 
>1.  Has anyone identified the most likely engine configurations possible with
>a Saturn V clone ("ALS") launcher?  Do we intend to build the same giant, or
>a smaller version with, say, a 3-engine configuration?  Is the design of an
>F-1 so specific that it will only tolerate a 5-engine cluster (resonances and
>the like).

The Buzz word today is NLS.  Our studies here have two different configurations
One is a one or two F1A engine design for + Titan IV class payloads and then
a three-five engine bird for the +150,000-300,000 pound stuff.

>2.  Are these the 1.5M lb generic F-1's or are they the 1.8M lb ones developed
>not long before the development was halted?

No these will be the F1A's. In a recent article in the Brevard County Florida
(Cocoa Beach and KSC county) paper, Rockwell talks about a cost of 12 to 14 
million per engine out the door after start up costs.

>3.  Is adapting tooling for building engines an easier job (more standard
>parts?) than generating tooling for the rest of the launch vehicle?

It is easier to build the engine tooling. And for the skeptical out there. The
engines for the Delta, Atlas and Titan lines had been discontinued due to the
theoretical reliance on the Shuttle for all launches.  The production lines for
those were restarted and the Rockewll folks say that the F1A restart would be
the same.  Yes Virgina some of the suppliers for F1 and F1A parts are gone but
the Rockwell people said the same thing about the other engines and they were
able to get other suppliers for componets of the engines.


>4.  Will the costs of a Saturn V like vehicle actually come down if there were
>a production line?  It seems true for various other rockets, but will there
>be factors that will always require special care?

Using modern construction techniques and materials along with already existing
Saturn V facilities that have not been used in 20 years the cost comes down,
I do not know how much. The one or two engine design would certainly be cheaper
than Titan IV or Arianne 5 AND would put up more payload.

>5.  Using an F-1 will imply a design philosophy that is variant with what has
>prevailed in recent years.  It would seem that the vehicle has a whole booster
>stage, and does not really depend on strap-ons.  Or---could you develop a
>strap on booster with an F-1?

This design philosphy comes from trying to get as much as possible out of 
the infrastucture of basically small payload vehicles.  The cost for 
manufacturing tooling for longer tanks with strap ons is small. Building new
jigs for larger diameter tanks is hellishly expensive.  That is the primary
reason for using the solid strap ons in recent years.  Usually the cheapest
part of the existing launchers upgrade in capability is from the strap ons.
With the big bird and little bird Saturn you build two jigs and stretch the
tanks to fit the desired payload class.

>6.  How easy is it to refurbish a used F-1 considering hat it burns RP-1?
>If I remember right the high temperatures will crack the fuel into a gunk
>that is tough to remove from the tubing.

At a cost of 12 to 14 million a piece you do not refurb you throw away. This
was proven in some of the ALS tests where an Atlas was launched at a low angle
in order to recover the boosters. Did not work too well from what I have heard
and it imposes quite a payload to orbit penalty.

>7.  It sounds as if the intent right now is to be able to build the engine
>now as it was built back then.  Is this a good idea?


No that is not the intention.  The intention of bringing out some of the 
existing F1's and refurbing and firing is to gain experience with a big LOX
RP1 engine and to refurb the test stands to support such a beast.  We would not
fly the standard F1's for a production program.  It is also far cheaper to 
use existing engines that have been in storage than it would be to wait for the
new ones (which are not funded YET) to come on line.  Also the politics of
seeing an F1 Class engine firing would be by far the most effective lobbyist
for the revival of the program.

>		--Brett Van Steenwyk


Dennis Wingo, University of Alabama in Huntsville