Saturn 5 Blueprints Safely in Storage

space.com ^ | 13 March 2000 | By Michael Paine

[XBob]

hardware is not 'hardware'. Milspec is good, if it works. It doesn't always work. And in space, only very few were ever produced - only 15ea Saturn 5's and the last one was produced over 40 years ago. MILSPEC means 'specified'. It doesn't mean has been tested and it works.

Sure, let's just stop down at the old Ace Hardware store and pickup a moon rocket. LOL.

[snopercod]

I have a VIC-20 here at the house. Wanna' buy it?

[RightWhale]

I have a VIC-20 here at the house. Wanna' buy it?

Last one I bought was $20 and included the famous Commodore floppy drive. Keeping it just in case these IBM clones don't work out after all.

[snopercod]

I have two (count them TWO) Osborne I's in the basement as well. With monitors. Daisywheel printer, too.

Somebody shoot me.

[An Old Man]

"Yes, we would have to build all-new jigs and fixtures for restarting a Saturn V production line..."

I built some of those jigs and fixtures when I worked for North American. I also machined the nozzles used to inject the liquid fuel into the engines. When you guys get ready to build some more, give me a call.

Semper Fi

[skyhntr]

But since we're fighting a budget deficit too, wouldn't it be more prudent to wait for a Blue light Special, or see if we can find something in the $1 Bargain Bins??
Better yet if all the freepers saved their ovaltine proof of purchase codes, we could send them in and get a Booster rocket or two. *lol*;)

[XBob]

215 - "No, did Clinton do that? Was he trying to help, or hinder?"

I knew a guy at the time, a cobol programmer, who had an offer, and turned it down. He was to be on one of 3 teams being sent to help save their banks. He turned the job down.

[XBob]

219 - "Thx for the link!!"

Sure. Now, at least we can build Saturn 5 models.

[skyhntr]

We Could use some of the old Erector sets and Lego plans!!We'd be sure to get the contract as the lowest bidder!! heh

[Frank_Discussion]

"My biggest beef with NASA is that the gov't lead research program grant process is too political and not medical/scientific enough."

This is true, but there is also the problem of "real estate" in the modules that is used for experiment placement. The program's lethargy is only enhanced by trying to decide which experiments can fill the limited spots. Actually, quite a lot is coming, but it has taken a long time to schedule and place the projects. That whole process has a politics all its own.

A new program with an expanded mandate and more habitation/experimentation sites involved will remove some of the logjams.

[Frank_Discussion]

Very good! Hope you're having a great morning.

[Frank_Discussion]

Sounds like a good thing to me!

[holdmuhbeer]

who cares whether we can rebuild saturn 5. If we can't build something better than we could 40 years ago, we've got more problems than not being able to find blueprints.
I'm sure we can rebuild the P51 Mustang for use a a fighter again but I'd place my bets on the F22 Raptor.

[bonesmccoy]

The high hurdle created by NASA is an impediment to space access for all but the chosen researchers of NASA. These researchers almost all have certain political affiliations to the science community through particular universities.

Opening up space to the masses means that NASA loses it's monopoly on choosing who flies and who doesn't.

JSC can't tolerate that idea.

On the other hand, the entire country saw how lousy the decision making was surrounding the event 1 year ago.

Heck, even the retired jocks like Chris Kraft are on TV pointing this out.

There has been no transfer of technical know-how from generation to generation.

So, the system dies despite the best efforts of the younger, less experienced people.

Apparently, NASA thinks that it is appropriate to wait 10 years to fly a single experiment. That is NOT the way to innovate!

[Dead Dog]

yes, but it's those "washers, nuts, bolts, connectors, gaskets, rivets, ball bearings, and clamps that aren't being made to those spec's any more.

1) Standard Hardware ain't going to be a problem. NAS is NAS, AN is still AN. Substitutions are done all the time, There probably isn't much on the Shuttle that hasn't been phased out and substituted.

2) Were not talking about a replica, were talking about a updated booster. The Ruskies are doing quite well with their 1950's BDMs. In fact, those 1950s technology are now our only ride into space.

We've done a ton of work on H2 LOX motors, but the old F-1 is still a bench mark for heavy lift. The Saturn V just needs to be evolved to the point where it would have been if we hadn't waisted time on the shuttle. But at least we have the SSME's...jewels of efficiency they are. I've read that the Saturn V was one iteration from 120 ton LEO. I would guess with improved materials the same basic system would push 150 ton.

[XBob]

233-"I'm sure we can rebuild the P51 Mustang for use a a fighter again but I'd place my bets on the F22 Raptor."

Good analogy - we need a 'jet', not another 'prop' plane. In short, we need a paradigm shift.

[XBob]

235 - "The Saturn V just needs to be evolved to the point where it would have been if we hadn't waisted time on the shuttle."

Good point. However, what has happened is that the greedy space contractors, and the burro-crats have also evolved to the point where 'stuff' is no longer affordable, literally.

I know a only few exact prices, but do you realize that the cost of the crawlers cost 7.5 million new, when originally built? And that was for 2 of them.

But the time the shuttle was flying in the late 80's, the cost for building an orbiter, just the orbiter, had gone to $2 billion, and the cost for 'repairing' just one of the crawlers had gone up to $50 million. I wasn't involed, but just 'refurbishing' the Colombia in 1990-1991, cost, either $792 million or 1.7 billion (the price was so exhorbitant I can no longer remember which is correct as both prices are believable). Essentially, by the time I left (1992), costs had gotten so out of hand that I was paying $89 for one simple sheet metal screw. A simple piece of butcher block paper to protect the RCS engines from the weather (old cost $17 for a roll, which would do 500 motors) went to $100, to do cover 1ea RCS motors. So, it cost $2400 for each launch, just for the paper to cover the RCS exhausts. I held one valve in the palm of my hand, cost $4.3 million,.

In other words, the greedy contractors and the lazy burro-crats, technology or no technology, have made it prohibitively expensive to do even the most simple things, such as nuts & bolts.

[Dead Dog]

Man, that is amazing. I agree, the only thing that will keep this from happening is Red Tape.

When I worked at JSC, I attended an Artemus Society meeting. They wanted to colonize the moon using a very utilitarian approach. They planned to fund it by filming a documentary (and selling the rights), selling research data, and do some merchandising.

Anyway, they figured a private company could do anything that Nasa did, at 1/10 the price. I don't doubt it.

BTW, They had a neat idea for a LEO-LEM transfer vehicle that was essentially a EMU for two...with it's own GNC and = a big motor. Unconventional, uncomfortable...but cheap!