Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: ASTM, Saturn and MOL (Was Re: MOL)
From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov
Date: 23 Dec 1992 20:53 CST
 <phfrom.413@nyx.uni-konstanz.de> <1h2egpINNmk9@mirror.digex.com> <1992Dec23.192920.7268@nntpd.lkg.dec.com>
Distribution: world
Organization: University of Houston
NNTP-Posting-Host: judy.uh.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Dec23.192920.7268@nntpd.lkg.dec.com>, hughes@gary.enet.dec.com (Gary Hughes - VMS Development) writes...
> 
>In article <22DEC199214155306@judy.uh.edu>, wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes...

[stuff deleted]

>Uh, no. The original Saturn C config was three stage, using Von Braun's Saturn
>booster as the first stage. The second stage (S-IV) was to have had 4 LR-119
>(may have that number wrong, it was to be a growth version of the RL-10, aka
>LR-115) engines. The third stage (S-V) was to have been powered by 2 RL-10
>engines. The S-V was NOT Centaur. They both were designed around a pair of
>RL-10s, but had very different avionics and structure.
> 
>The S-IV evolved to use 6 RL-10s, thus avoiding the cost of developing a new
>engine.

I can buy the four engines and 6 engine bit, but according to document I
have found here and the Book "Rocket Scientist" and Medaris's " Cound down
to Decision" These were desginated the Centaur, although I will go back and
look and make sure of this just in case.

> 
>The 'C' designation was dropped somewhere along the way, with the Saturn C-1
>becoming simply Saturn 1. FWIW, the Saturn A and B proposals used conventional
>propellants in their second stages, and both had a third stage similar to the
>S-V.
> 
According to Dr. Sthulinger and Konrad Dannenburg the C-1 designation was
dropped when the CSM was put on the stack. This is confirmed by the models
that I saw yesterday and the Museum piece out at the Arsenal that is 
designated Saturn C-1. The Saturn 1 with an Apollo CSM is the one on vertical
display at the Alabama Space and Rocket Center. There is also an Saturn C-1
out at the Alabama State line at the vistor center.


>The first Saturn 1s flew with dummy second and third stages, and no fins. The
>first block 2 Saturn 1 flew with a live S-IV stage and a dummy S-V (and tail
>fins). Subsequent block 2 Saturns had dummy Apollo CSMs instead of the dummy
>S-V.
> 

I can buy this.

>The original intent was to fly the two stage Saturn 1 for LEO and the three
>stage variant for lunar/planetary missions (unmanned of course). Remember that
>the Saturn program predates Apollo. It was originally intended to produce a
>family of general purpose ELVs.
> 

This is of course before the Air Force crammed Titan and Atlas down everyones
throats.

>>Finally there is the famous Saturn 1B that carried the manned Apollo CSM/LM to
>>orbit. This configuration also carried the Saturn V, SIVB stage, which is the
>>third stage of full up Saturn V. This combination was able to boost the
>>full Saturn V payload to LEO altitude of 105 nautical miles. 
> 
>The Saturn 1B, aka Uprated Saturn 1, was developed to meet the increasing mass
>of the CSM. As you said, the CSM grew beyond the original Saturn 1 LEO
>capability. The Saturn 1B could lift the CSM or the LM, but not both (i.e. it
>could not carry the full Saturn V payload to LEO).
> 

From my information this was always the program intent of the Saturn 1B. This
helped to lower the costs for the test program of the full Saturn V by flying
most of the Saturn V hardware before the big bird was ready. According to 
folks here at MSFC the 1B could lift that weight. The models that are on display
at both the Alabama Space and Rocket Center and in the Headquarters building
at Marshall show the full Saturn V payload on the 1B stack.


>>This is the booster
>>that was used for the Apollo 7 mission. I forget whether it was used for 
>>Apollo 9 or whether that was a full up Saturn V. 
> 
>The only manned Saturn 1B flights were Apollo 7, Skylab 2,3,4 and ASTP.
> 
Remember that the ASTP payload was the full up CSM as well as the docking
adaptor and the launch was to a 51 degree inclination orbit. This easily
equals the weight of the Lunar Module in a 28.5 degree orbit.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary,comp.robotics,sci.geo.geology