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