Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Space

Journal perfessor multigeek's Journal: So ya wanna be a rocket scientist? 8

Journal by perfessor multigeek
So, I think the recent discussion here on reworking the Saturn 5 was interesting enough to deserve a second round. Especially with the S5 thread on the /. front page a few days later.

I'm warning you up front, this is my longest JE in quite a while, but it's got buttloads of hard data and concrete analysis, so pelase be patient. I've spent over three hours writing this and I've tried to cut wherever I could.

Now, first of all, kudos yet again to Richie 2000 for his late-in-the-week post on my earlier JE starting the ball on actually doing this. Secondly, I was delighted to see how much good data showed up after a few days in the /. thread. The signal to noise ratio was better then I've seen in ages.[1] I'm gonna quote from it extensively, starting with yes, the S5 blueprints are safe and sound, thank you very much. The whole set was microfilmed *way* before the dead tree copies were "de-accessioned".
And yes, NASA officials say that building an S5 would be undoably complex but then, I have very little faith in their ability to judge. "Oh, no", they say, "even such little things as bolts and washers would be unobtainable".
Whatever. First of all, I know some little bit about obtaining vintage parts and it has been my experience that big organization folks not only don't know shit, they have no intention of risking learning.

Secondly, we're going for kit car standards, not museum piece. Many modern fastener technologies[2] were invented for aerospace and work like superhightech rivets which can be obtained in many sizes and specs and could fill in just fine for many of the custom jobbies the NASA folks allow to get their panties in a twist.

Next, let us keep in mind but not abase ourselves before the Magnum project. Yes, NASA is contemplating a new heavy booster but, I'm gonna say it one more time, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT ANOTHER F*CKING NASA BOONDOGGLE IN THIS HERE JE. So let's please all forget the economies of government contracting and assume that the project is being done in Guyana or equivalent by a horde of free-market space geeks.

Thirdly, as I wrote initially, I suspect that an S5 may be a realistic goal and an appropriate one for a non-governmental group. It wouldn't cost any more then has been spent by plenty of New Right evangelical groups or even, for that matter, the Ragneeshis. The Bhagwan's Rolls-Royces cost as much as the development phase on this would.
So let's keep in mind that we may actually be able to do this.

For real and soon.

So, without further ado, I'm going to include just about all of Richie 2000 's final post from the previous S5 JE with my responses in italics below:

----start quote----
If we know what things go in the rocket, we'll know what we need to put them there.

Location
As close to the equator as possible but still with some infrastructure available. Rent space at Kourou or Baikonur, perhaps? Finding good people will be a difficulty. We don't want NASA consultants, we want real engineers.
Certainly close to the equator is great. I'ld say go with somewhere a bit closer to the States, with Guyana as the leading candidate, since it's small, off the beaten track, and a well-orchestrated ten million dollar rocket program would shift their entire economy into "be nice to the funky geek people" mode, let alone a hundred million dollar program.
I have other reasons, not least of which being that they speak English (pretty much). But basically, I'ld say that this is a negotiable one. Obviously there are many wonderful things that would be gained by putting more dollars into keeping the existing systems within the former Soviet Union functioning, not to mention the vast piles of expertise there.

Structure
Metal. I'm thinking plain old steel for the hull, girders and whatnots needed for holding the other bits together. Cheap, with well known properties. Easy to find designers/welders and easy to source all the parts semi-locally.
Hell, yeah, steel. We've got much better stuff then they did for less money besides. I would say go with composites for small complicated stuff where there will need to be complex jigging anyway but yeah, for the big ol' main tube, yes, let's assume steel done pretty much to original spec.

Propulsion/Fuel
Tricky. Something that won't have Greenpeace forming human chains around the compund but still gives a lot of bang for the buck and at the same time isn't near-impossible to store and handle. Liquid Oxygen/Hydrogen? Pressurized fuel tanks to avoid the whole turbo pump madness.
No opinion on this beyond a concern that since the entire rocket is basically a framework for the propulsion system, I'ld say go with the stuff luckylindy mentions. Keep it simple indeed.

Guidance/Telemetry
While 802.11 sounds like fun, what's wrong with good, old wires for all internal comms? KISS. Go digital for the comm buses, maybe even use TCP/IP to minimize development time and cost.
Sure, shielded cat 100 for everything with all data running on IP. My big concern was to avoid those vast wire bundles (known as "harnesses" for some reason) that made the insides of the original S5 such a beast to work with.

Payload
We should be able to exceed the payloads of the old S5s, which considering the size of the carrier, still isn't very much. Going with more exotic materials for the hull would directly translate into heavier lift capacity, but also dramatically increase the costs. We could plan the design for a shift, but should stay with cheaper/heavier materials for starters. Aim for the moon first, Mars comes later. ;-) Actually, this launch vehicle could be perfect for lifting stuff to ISS - making the Station into a spacecraft assembly factory.
Again, I'll follow in luckylindy 's trail here.

Summary
As long as we won't have to launch people, this can be kept pretty cheap. That 162 million lottery win would do nicely with a few bucks to spare. My best wild guesstimate would be a hair under 100 mil from start to first launch with somewhere around or over 200 people involved in the design and building with a bunch more sub-contractors building parts. TTL can be kept under five years from recruitment date of the key personnel. If we accept a much longer TTL, it can actually be done cheaper since we then can do more with a smaller core of enthusiasts working on it as a hobby.
I'ld have guessed about the same, with maybe two more years to initial launch.

----end quote----

Now. let's get started on data by quoting most of the post by luckylindy .
----start quote here----

The following data is based on the technology available at the time of the design of the Saturn V and technology developed in the following years. Folks, we had the means to colonize the moon and mars and we threw it away. It can be redeveloped with the proper political attitude and money. But will it? Woulda, coulda, shoulda.

Part one: Capability of original Saturn V.
Part two: With improved efficiency F1 main engines.
Part three: Improved F1 engines burning high efficiency kerosene/nanoaluminum powder fuels.

Part one: Saturn V initial specs:
Empty weight: 250 tons.
Empty weight of first stage: 100 tons.
Fueled weight 3000 tons.
Takeoff thrust: 3750 tons.
Takeoff weight / thrust ratio: 80/100.
Thrust of each main first F1 engine: 750 tons.
Efficiency of each F1 engine: 250:1
Fuel consumption of each F1 engine: 3 tons/second.
Ratio of LO2/Kerosene: 2 tons/1 ton/ second.
Total mass of fuel consumed at and of first stage cutoff: 2250 tons
Mass of all upper stages at seperation:650 tons.
Thrust of second stage:600 tons.
Net weight of two stage orbit capability, based on skylab data: 90 tons.
Net weight of 2.5 stage orbit capability, based on moon launches: 150 tons.
Net capacity escape to moon: 45-50 tons.

Part two: Improved F1 engines:
The russians designed during the Moon landing era LO2/kerosene engines with efficiencies of 333, sea level, which is 33% greater than the existing F1.
That means the redesigned F1 engines could have produced 2 million pounds of thrust ( 1000 tons) at the same 3 tons per second consumption. That means that take off thrust of 5000 tons versus 3750 tons, an increased thow upper stage total weight jumping from 650 tons to 1650 tons and a probable doubling of mass to orbit:
2 stage mass: 180-200 tons.
2.5 stage mass: 300 tons
3 stage escape mass to moon: 90-100 tons.
So a conventional but improved F1 engine could have allowed supporting an early small manned colony on the moon.

Part three: Use of NanoAlumimum powder in Kerosene fuels: Link here.

Based on the article, efficiency could increase at least 50%. If so then the 333 ISP of the 1970's technology could have been raised to 450.

Thus, a possible F3 engine, designed for high efficiency and high energy fuels could have an efficiency rating of 450-500. That means that the Saturn V could have evolved into a rocket that could have placed:
2 stage orbit: 300 tons
2.5 stage orbit: 450 tons.
3 stage escape: 150 tons.

All this without resorting to adding side boosters to the Saturn vehicle. If side boosters of equal or better design than that used by the current space shuttle could have been added to the Saturn V then that vehicle could have evolved to place in orbit perhaps 600 to 1000 tons and have capacity to put into escape 300 tons.

The mass of the current space station is now 200 tons and if core completed will weight 300 tons. It is estimated that the required mass of a Mars expedition space ship will be 300 tons.

The world could have been colonizing the moon right now and be on the verge this year of making the jump to Mars.


----end quote here----

Now, personally, I can't help thinking that the Beal Aerospace heavy lifter effort should be relevant to some of this. They did some mighty serious work on revamping HL tech. But beyond that, does anybody have a breakdown on what parts of the S5 used up how much of the budget? If nobody here has any leads, then in about a month and a half I'll send one of my assistants out to start researching that.

Rustin

[1] Could this informational clarity possibly have to do with the thread having had nothing obvious to do with Linux, gaming, or overclocking? Nawwwww.

[2] Yes, along with my umpty-bazzilion other pathetically geekish tendencies, I used to spend many hours at a time studying fastener technology, with an emphasis on aerospace applications. At this very moment a container sits beside me with twenty-one types (3x7 chamber) of 24 pitch screws and bolts.
It's true, I have no life.

[3] Speaking of interesting but questionable data, one AC wrote:

I spent one evening in the mid-90's at the Kaffeeklatch--Huntsville's premiere blues* emporium. Ended up sitting with a few folks who after a sufficient quantity of alcohol, voluntereered that they worked in the space program, and that their undertanding was that in addition to the hulks on display at the Huntsville museum and elsewhere, there was supposed to be *another*, complete Saturn/Apollo system, carefully mothballed and maintained in one of the huge underground bunkers at the Redstone Arsenal. The idea was that if something unexpected happened (like the Russians going to the moon and setting up a weapon of some sort), the US could, on about six months' notice, get someone back to the moon. Just once. Seemed at the time like just about a wild enough story to be true.

Anybody know anything about this?

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

So ya wanna be a rocket scientist? More

So ya wanna be a rocket scientist?

Comments Filter:
  • You've jumped out of what I know about to place me firmly in the cheerleader seats:)

    Seriously though, in the front page article (that I missed due to its being posted by /.'s chief asshat) there was a thread that only 19 of a planned 20 S5s were built. For some reason, this doesn't sound right. If contracters were contracted to build something, they get mightily pissed if they don't get paid. IOW, the claim about a hidden S5 passes the sniff test.

    I'm a little unsure about the weights and so forth. Are you
    • Well, from Luckylindy's comments and some independent checking I've been doing, it does indeed appear that the whole fucking core of the ISS could have been put up in one launch.
      Even assuming lots of odd geometry issues, it looks like the whole damned thing could have been put up with five launches, max.
      And remember that the configuration of the ISS in all those little Tinkertoy modules is because they have to fit in bite-sized chunks to accomodate the capacity of the shuttle. So, in truth, not only could
      • I knew the two countries were right around the corner. Always screwed me up on geography quizzes. At least I got to take them before the Berlin Wall came down, and all hell broke out WRT the European borders:)

        What's this about the shuttle's external tank?
        • As long as there have been detailed specs on the shuttle, there have been those of us who felt that the external tanks were an obvious, efficient, and very effective way to get a station in place. Ya see, the burn the shuttle does when going up is actually interrupted so that it can drop back down a bit, turn over, and jettison the ETs, which then burn up in the atmosphere.
          Can you say "government stupidity"? I knew you could.
          In the meantime, the rest of us have done detailed overviews [space-frontier.org] of what we should be
  • First off: *blush*

    Second, some tidbits:

    David Stover, CA sends a letter to space.com in response to their [space.com] Non-missing blueprints story [space.com].

    I think I just found the missing Saturn V here [hiddenmickeys.org] (item 4). ;-)

    ...and The Reason [uga.edu] for doing it at all.

    Right now, I'm recovering from a tiny Death March (more like a dead run) involving Pagemaker, a 12 page tabloid print run and a deadline. More when I have started breathing again.

    • I haven't done PM work on deadline in almost a decade. I'm not even going to ask why you had to use it.

      We shall await your recovery. At least around here, the weather has sucked recently, so I'm feeling kinda torpid myself.

      Rustin
      • Back around 92-93, I had the pleasure of knowing the co-editors of the college paper. For some reason, everyone on staff who knew how to use Pagemaker bailed. Since I shared more than a few classes with the editors, they prevailed upon me to help out. So I did. Once a fortnight. And nobody ever, ever, ever turned in a story before 9:00 pm the night before it had to go to the printer (and God forbid they had the tech to just take a disc to the printer. We had to print the entire thing, attach it to boards, a
  • How about looking into nuclear [slashdot.org] propulsion [nuclearspace.com] methods? Normally political suicide, but that's one other thing that Bush might be able to pull off. He's so anti-environmental anyway that proposing nuclear-powered space vehicles would mean nothing to him. Except his pronounciation problem, that is...

Slashdot Top Deals

You will be successful in your work.

Close