Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!fluke!ssc-vax!eder
From: eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Heavy Lift Capacity Boosters
Summary: why not to resurrect Saturn V
Message-ID: <2240@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Date: 21 Sep 88 18:30:19 GMT
References: <677@eplrx7.UUCP>
Organization: Boeing Aerospace Corp., Seattle WA
Lines: 61



Note to Eugene Miya or whoever is collecting the frequently asked questions list: add this on to it.

Why not resurrect the Saturn V to give us a heavy lift capability?

Author's Qualification: 6 years of launch vehicle studies for Boeing.

Background:

     Saturn V; Payload to Earth orbit = 260,000 lb.
     Cost to develop (in 1988 dollars): $5 billion each for first and
          second stages.

     The main reason for not resurrecting the Saturn V booster is that
the first and second stage engines have been out of production for many years.
In order to restart making those engines, one would have to partly reverse
engineer the components from the half-dozen or so engines that have been
kept in clean storage (i.e. not the ones on display outdoors).  This is
because some of the component maker have gone out of business, and for
others, the people who engineered and built the parts have retired.  In
other words, the knowhow has partly evaporated.

     The second reason for not resurrecting the Saturn V is that there
is no place to launch it.  The Vehicle Assembly Building, ~rMobile Launch
Platforms, and Launch Pads have all been converted to the Space Shuttle.
It would take a lot of time and money to convert them back, and you
could no longer launch Shuttles.  Building an addition to the VAB for
assembling Saturn V's and adding a third launch complex (39C) is possible,
in fact it was planned out to some extent under the assumption we
would go to Mars with Saturn V launchers, but would take money
(>1.5 billion in construction costs) and time.

     The third reason for not resurrecting the Saturn V is that we
have an equivalent or better launch capability in the Space Shuttle,
should we wish to make use of it.

     It is possible to make a variety of cargo launchers using the propulsion
elements of the Space Shuttle, but without carrying an orbiter.  The
elements available are the Solid Rocket Boosters and the Space Shuttle
Main Engines.  By varying the number of segments in the SRBs and the
number of SSMEs used, you can get different payloads.  For reference,
the Space Shuttle uses two 4-segment SRBs and 3 SSMEs.

Examples:                        Payload          Estimated Cost to Develop

2 3-segment SRBs + 1 SSME:        75,000 lb          $1.2 billion
2 4-segment SRBs + 2 SSMEs:      140,000 lb          $1.6 billion
2 4-segment SRBs + 3 SSMEs:      191,000 lb          ?
2 5-segment SRBs + 4 SSMEs:      267,000 lb          ?
Add for Advanced SRBs:        about 12,000 lb        $1 billion
Add for Block II SSMEs:       about 10,000 lb per    ?
(Pratt & Whitney new              SSME
 turbopumps, 15% higher thrust)
so: best 2x5 SRBS + 4 SSMEs:  about 319,000 lb

Dani Eder, ZZ 
-- 
Dani Eder / Boeing / Space Station Program / uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder
(205)464-4150(w) (205)461-7801(h) 1075 Dockside Drive #905 Huntsville, 
AL 35824  34 40 N latitude 86 40 W longitude +100m altitude, Earth