PDA

View Full Version : NASA Study Summary: "FINAL REPORT: STUDIES OF IMPROVED SATURN V AND INTERMEDIATES"


luke strawwalker
04-06-2011, 01:13 PM
Hey again! Here's another good NASA study done by Boeing for MSFC in June of 1966... "Final Report: Studies of Improved Saturn V Vehicles and Intermediate Payload Vehicles". This study is almost 200 pages, and a lot of it is relevant to the choices of which launch vehicles presented in the report were most likely to ever see the light of day, had Saturn rockets continued beyond the early 70's... Lots of interesting proposals in there and lots of information to flesh them out. Some has been seen before in some of the other Saturn Improvement Studies, but some of it's brand new and there are some better diagrams and scale data as well.

Certainly another addition to the "what if" department!

The summary is a bit long, but like I said, most of the information in the report was relevant, and there's a lot of scale data in the summary, as to additions to the stage lengths for extra fuel capacity, booster diameters, etc. Some of these would make really neat models.

Enjoy! Pics to come! OL JR

Edit: Sorry for having to break it up... the .txt file sizes allowed are pretty darn small, so it's the only way I could post the entire summary was to break it up. TRF has the study cross-posted there as a single file in the same thread in the scale section... :)

luke strawwalker
04-06-2011, 01:20 PM
Ok... first pic is the five categories of the study, and the major configurations studied for each category. The best rocket design from each category was to go on to Phase II of the study. The INT 20 and 21 were Saturn V's with missing engines and stages, designed to lift payloads between the size of the Saturn V and Saturn IB. The "3B" vehicle was an upsized, uprated Saturn V with all new uprated engines, best performance but longest lead time and costliest. The "4(S)B" vehicle used standard Saturn V engines, but with bigger fuel tanks and added four TITAN III-C SRM's on the first stage to obtain big payload capacity fastest. The "22(S)" vehicle was basically the same rocket as the "4(S)B" but with the new uprated engines for maximum performance. The "25(S)" vehicle also used stretched tanks, but with regular Saturn V engines, and upgraded to larger 156 inch SRMs for added thrust. The "23L" vehicle used standard Saturn V engines and stretched tanks, but added four LIQUID rocket boosters (LRB's) each powered by a pair of F-1's. The "24L" vehicle was the same basic vehicle as the 23L, but used uprated engines in the core and LRBs for maximum performance, with huge fuel tank stretches.

The second pic is the vehicles chosen after Phase I of the study, which is the best configurations from each particular category in a more in-depth study and compared to each other.

The third pic is the INT 20 vehicle-- a 4 F-1 engine Saturn S-IC first stage, with a S-IVB second stage.

The fourth pic is the INT 21 vehicle-- A 5 F-1 engine S-IC first stage coupled with a variable number of J-2 engine second stage. This basic version was used to launch Skylab (though the Skylab Saturn V wasn't 'officially' an INT vehicle)

The fifth pic is the INT 20 and 21 vehicles side by side, with measurements, and some engine performance data at the bottom.

More to come! OL JR

luke strawwalker
04-06-2011, 01:23 PM
The first pic is a comparison of the INT 20 and 21 vehicles.

The second pic is a performance chart comparing and contrasting the different engine configurations and their performance of the INT 20 and 21 vehicles.

The third pic is another chart comparing INT 20 and 21 performance versus engine type and counts.

The fourth pic is showing how to make a 4 engine S-IC from a 5 F-1 Saturn V first stage, and how to reverse the process if needed.

The fifth pic is the "3B" baseline vehicle-- uprated engines and greater fuel capacity on all stages (stretched tanks-longer stages). Sort of a "Saturn V ultimate" without add-on boosters.

More to come! OL JR

luke strawwalker
04-06-2011, 01:26 PM
The first pic is another graphic of the "3B" vehicle with some additional data on it...

The second pic is the advanced bell nozzle and toroidal aerospike engines considered for this study and their overall 'envelopes'.

The third pic is the baseline "4(S)B" vehicle, basically a Saturn V with regular engines, stretched fuel tanks, and 4 Titan III-C SRMs for boosters.

The fourth pic is another slide of the 4(S)B vehicle...

The fifth pic is the impact of the changes to the design of the structure of the Saturn V to turn it into a 4(S)B variant. Note the percents of strengthening required in various parts of the rocket, and the increase percentage of the dry weights of the vehicle stages...

More later! OL JR

luke strawwalker
04-06-2011, 01:29 PM
Ok... the first pic is the MAHS-- Mobile Assembly and Handling Structure, which would have been moved out to the pad by crawler after the core Saturn V was delivered there by the crawler from the VAB. In it, the 120 inch SRMs would have been stacked and assembled, then they would have been lifted by crane and attached to the Saturn V and the launch pad. Once assembled, the crawler would have carried the MAHS back to its parking spot safely away from the pad and brought back the Mobile Service Structure (MSS) tower for final checkout and arming of the Saturn V and SRMs.

The second pic is a performance chart of the Titan III-C UA-1205, 1206, and 1207 120 inch SRMs that would have been used on the 4(S)B vehicle. Interestingly enough, these SRMs were considered by NASA to be flight certified and ready to go, though 2 test flights were deemed necessary to check out the entire stack and the seperation mechanisms and the general interaction of all the different elements together as a single vehicle. There was no brou-ha-ha over "manrating" like the NASA of today... These boosters had flown successfully on Titan III-C enough to be considered "off-the-shelf"

The third pic is the "25(S)" baseline vehicle. It's a stretched tank Saturn V with standard F-1 and J-2 engines, but this time with 156 inch SRMs instead of the 120 inch SRMs of the "4(S)B" vehicle. Not sure if the 156 inch SRMs were anything other than test articles/proposals/notions or if they actually got made but never used... have to check up on that one...

The fourth pic is another view of the "25(S)" baseline vehicle from the study...

The fifth pic is showing the impacts of greater loads and acoustics on the stage structures. Note the percentage of strengthening required, and the tank stretches are also listed in inches. In a lot of these proposals, the S-IVB would have to be strengthened SUBSTANTIALLY to survive the greater loads placed on it by the larger payload on top, and higher thrust engines pushing it from the bottom... So the S-IVB which was trapped in the middle and had to be the lightest possible ended having to have the most work done to it.

More to come! OL JR

luke strawwalker
04-06-2011, 01:33 PM
The first pic is the MEPS-- Mobile Erection Processing Structure, which similar to the MAHS would have been brought to the pad by crawler to assemble the SRMs to the Saturn V. Unlike the MAHS concept, which would have assembled the 120 inch SRMs in cells on the MAHS, and then transferred the completed boosters by cranes to the Saturn V and MLP, the MEPS was designed differently to handle the larger and heavier 156 inch SRMs. The checked out segments and fwd/aft closures would each wait for stacking on the Saturn V MLP in it's own storage cell. Each segment would be fitted into place on the Saturn V from the bottom up. After the final SRM stacking, the MEPS would have been returned to it's parking area by crawler and the MSS would have been installed for final checkout and arming of the Saturn V and 156 inch SRM boosters...

The second pic is the "23(L)" baseline vehicle. It would have used standard F-1 and J-2 engines with stretched fuel tanks in its stages, with four 260 inch diameter Liquid Rocket Boosters (LRBs) "pods" attached to the Saturn V first stage, each powered by a pair of regular F-1 engines. This would have made THIRTEEN F-1 engines firing at liftoff! A "24(L)" vehicle was also studied using advanced uprated F-1 and aerospike engines in the upper stages, but was found that to get the most performance out of it, the propellant tanks in the stages had to be stretched to the point that the rocket couldn't fit in the VAB's 410 foot height limit... depending on exactly how the fuel was apportioned to the different stages, some variants of the design reached heights from 507 to 600 feet tall, nearly TWICE the height of the Saturn V! Since none of the "24(L)" uprated engine vehicles fell below the 410 foot height limit, they weren't studied any further than Phase I. The "23(L)" with regular off-the-shelf Saturn V engines was carried forward for further study and fleshing out in Phase II.

The third pic is another view of the "23(L)" vehicle from the study...

The fourth pic is a page from the study, showing the breakdown of the 260 inch LRBs. These would have been constructed from materials, designs, and processes almost identical to the S-IC Saturn V first stage, but scaled down to 260 inches. A new factory for manufacturing and testing these would have been built at Michoud, and they would have been test fired in the S-IC test stands (with adaptations) at Mississippi Test Facility (now Stennis Space Center) just north of Michoud before shipment to KSC. These would have made a fantastic first stage for the Saturn IB, and using monolithic tanks instead of the cluster of 70 inch tanks the S-IB first stage used, would have been cheaper and easier to manufacture, and would have allowed for the clustered tank stages to be phased out. By sharing double duty with Saturn V as boosters and Saturn IB as a new first stage, this would have increased the flight rates and brought down costs for both. Engineering the requirements for this flexibility into the design at this early stage would have been VERY cost efficient and eliminated the need for modifications for this use later on. Sadly it appears that the idea wasn't brought up or not pursued, as no mention of it is made in any of these studies I've seen to date. The main idea would have been to create a cheaper first stage for Saturn IB; the performance gains wouldn't have been very dramatic, as first stage structures weight doesn't have anywhere NEAR as much effect on payload performance as reducing upper stage weight does... (on S-IVB, 1 lb weight saved was another pound of payload and vice versa, on the S-IC, it took 7 pounds of weight being shaved off to give another pound of payload, IIRC). These "regular" booster stages would have been easier and cheaper to manufacture than the 70 inch tank clusters used on S-IB, and the pair of F-1's replacing the 8 engine cluster of H-1's would have likely been cheaper too, and would have had more lift capacity as well... Another "what if" moment missed...

The fifth pic is a close-up of the LRB's... I took this over to 'Paint' and relabeled everything, as it was VERY difficult to read on the computer screen, even highly magnified... these old mimeographed reports were readable to the "mark 1 eyeball" but didn't copy well, and when scanned in and stored digitally and then downloaded and manipulated in the computer, printed off, etc. become almost unreadable, due to the small font size commonly used and the poor quality of the duplication equipment they had in the past, deterioration of the paper, inks, and copies over time (flaking or spotting of the ink, yellowing of the paper, etc.... even "blueprint" drawings are extremely hard to read due to the extremely fine lines of the drawing and lettering-- they used larger fonts in the drawings, but the fineness of the lines means that the scanners that digitized them either missed part of the lettering or drawing lines, or if they were photostatic copies made in the 70's, the poor image quality or subsequent breakdown in the quality of the copied image on the paper has deteriorated to the point it's very difficult to see or simply flaked off the paper or been otherwise damaged. Small but thicker lettering fonts like on this page simply 'blurred' together due to poor copier/printer quality, and while probably readable in the original copy, when scanned simply blurs to almost unreadableness... So, where I can I relabel everything in the computer so it's more readable-- where I can't read it, I go dig up the relevant information from the report, if I can find it. "I go blind so you don't have to... :chuckle:

More to come... OL JR

luke strawwalker
04-06-2011, 01:36 PM
Okay... Here's the last three pics for this study...

First off we have the structural impacts of the "23(L)" vehicle, with the percentage of strengthening and additional dry weights incurred on each stage, plus the tank stretches necessary to optimize the performance, within the 410 foot height limit and the performance capabilities of the engines.

Second we have a chart showing the performance of the "23(L)" vehicle when used with no LRBs, a pair, or all four. Interestingly, a companion study found that costs were basically insensitive to the booster diameter, between 200 and 300 inches. I would have LOVED to see the cost estimates for a 396 inch booster, which was studied, but no data given. Basically, this would have been strapping a pair of S-IC stages to the side of the "23L" vehicle, instead of FOUR of the ALL NEW 260 inch boosters. Essentially, it would have been a "Delta IV Heavy" designed 30+ years earlier... with each 396 inch booster, essentially a downrated S-IC with FOUR F-1 engines, (which incidentally was the first stage configuration for the "INT-20" vehicle, which would have increased flight rates and reduced costs, while increasing payload performance MASSIVELY over Saturn IB!) these "boosters" could have been produced side-by-side with the S-IC stages used for first stages on Saturn V-- increasing the production numbers and gaining economies of scale, reducing per-unit costs. Also, the mass fraction of the boosters should have been better, since ONE 4-engine 396 inch "booster" should have been lighter than the TWO 2-engine boosters it replaced... it would have also reduced the amount of seperation hardware and pad mating hardware necessary, though certainly it would have required a new MLP, which many of these proposals did anyway... or simply due to the numbers and flight rates they assumed in the studies (which were rather unrealistic IMHO-- 30 flights in 5 years seems overly optimistic to me-- while the early pace of Saturn V flights WAS frenetic, after the first moon landing was successfully accomplished, the flight rate dropped to more like 2 per year until Apollo ended-- and with these larger and costlier rockets and payloads, the 2 per year figures seem much more 'affordable' and believable than 6 per year... flight rates REALLY have a HUGE effect on your program costs-- higher flight rates reduce per-unit costs by amortizing infrastructure and workforce overhead by spreading it out over a larger number of flights. IE, doubling flight rate essentially 'halves' your infrastructure costs since it's spread over twice as many flights... )
Sadly it appears that this idea didn't get beyond the initial trades on booster size, for whatever reason... but even if it meant having to add another line for S-IC boosters beside the new MS-IC upgraded cores (which would have had to been retooled for anyway) it would have been cheaper than creating an ENTIRELY NEW 260 inch booster assembly and checkout line, and it would have given you an 'optimized' "INT-20" vehicle first stage as a side-benefit (the mods necessary for the "INT-20" first stage, capping off the LOX ducts through the fuel tank bulkheads and capping off the engine connection ports on the fuel tank and LOX manifolds could have been "permanently changed" on the booster assembly line, and the unneeded hardware removed rather than simply 'corked off', reducing weight and costs. Course the flip side of that is, it would be easy to add that fifth engine back to the booster and have FIFTEEN F-1 engines available at liftoff... and in only TWO boosters-- THAT would have rattled a few windows at liftoff!!
At any rate, it would have made some interesting trades, and some interesting models...

Last we have the conclusions page, which is a screencap directly from the study itself. Interesting reading, due to the tradeoffs and lead times and expenditures required to get the various rockets ready to fly... Really demonstrates how the choices would have been made... for instance, the "3B" vehicle, with NO boosters, which would seem "easiest" to build, actually had the greatest expenditure and lead time of any of the proposals, due to the fact that it used all-uprated engines in all the stages-- redesigned F-1's and all-new high-pressure bell or toroidal aerospike engines, which would have taken years and millions to develop (at the time). The "4(S)B" vehicle, on the other had, using "small" existing 120 inch SRMs, with existing off-the-shelf F-1 and J-2 engines already being used on Saturn V, requiring only tank stretches for extra propellant and generally stiffening up the stages, would have been one of the quickest and cheapest to create, despite the need for the MAHS and extra crawler, etc. The liquid boosted rocket (23(L)) would have had the most capacity, but would have had some pretty big infrastructure impacts at KSC... new crawler was anticipated and new MLP, mods to existing MLPs, etc... Lots of interesting tradeoffs, and depending on where you're priorities lie, the answers you get at the end are markedly different... Neat stuff...

That's it for this one! Enjoy and go build a Saturn V with SRBs!!! :D OL JR :)