PDA

View Full Version : Saturn V production



mike alexander
2012-Apr-23, 06:12 PM
I have found some indirect references suggesting that, back in the heyday, the Saturn V production line could have built six of those puppies per year. If anyone could point me in a direction to confirm this, I would be grateful.

slang
2012-Apr-23, 07:10 PM
Browsing through NTRS (http://ntrs.nasa.gov), finding some stuff that some people might like. Feels like a waste to leave these buried in a search engine.

Saturn illustrated chronology. saturn's first eight years, april 1957 - april 1965 (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19650024284&hterms=19650024284&qs=Ntx%3Dmode%2520matchallpartial%2520%26Ntk%3DAll %26N%3D0%26Ntt%3D19650024284)
Saturn illustrated chronology, april 1957 to june 1964 (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19650006748&hterms=19650006748&qs=Ntx%3Dmode%2520matchallpartial%2520%26Ntk%3DAll %26N%3D0%26Ntt%3D19650006748)

This has some numbers on production:
saturn launch vehicles- status and plans (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19650070614&hterms=19650070614&qs=Ntx%3Dmode%2520matchallpartial%2520%26Ntk%3DAll %26N%3D0%26Ntt%3D19650070614) Author: Von Braun, W.

publiusr
2012-Apr-23, 09:32 PM
With any luck, we will at least see F-1 strap-ons for the Block II SLS.

Jens
2012-Apr-26, 07:56 AM
That's one of the most incomprehensible posts I remember reading for a long time. An F-1 strap-on? I picture a racing car being tied to something.

Hal37214
2012-Apr-26, 04:05 PM
Why? A Space Shuttle SRB is a strap-on, and has almost twice the thrust.

NEOWatcher
2012-Apr-26, 04:58 PM
And; from what I see from searching, a liquid booster from Thiakol was one of the options for the shuttle.

Torsten
2012-Apr-26, 11:49 PM
Browsing through NTRS (http://ntrs.nasa.gov), finding some stuff that some people might like. Feels like a waste to leave these buried in a search engine.

Saturn illustrated chronology. saturn's first eight years, april 1957 - april 1965 (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19650024284&hterms=19650024284&qs=Ntx%3Dmode%2520matchallpartial%2520%26Ntk%3DAll %26N%3D0%26Ntt%3D19650024284)
Saturn illustrated chronology, april 1957 to june 1964 (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19650006748&hterms=19650006748&qs=Ntx%3Dmode%2520matchallpartial%2520%26Ntk%3DAll %26N%3D0%26Ntt%3D19650006748)

This has some numbers on production:
saturn launch vehicles- status and plans (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19650070614&hterms=19650070614&qs=Ntx%3Dmode%2520matchallpartial%2520%26Ntk%3DAll %26N%3D0%26Ntt%3D19650070614) Author: Von Braun, W.

Once again I have to thank you slang for a most informative post. What a treasure trove! Made my day.

JustAFriend
2012-Apr-29, 07:56 PM
I'm not a conspiracy nut, but I do wonder why so much of the Von Braun paper was blacked out...

publiusr
2012-Apr-29, 09:24 PM
The Cold War, non-prolif' etc.
More on the return of the F-1 (I hope)
http://www.dynetics.com/news/293
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=0be3257e68bc5d353915f5c827c302 e8&topic=28693.0

mike alexander
2012-Apr-29, 11:22 PM
One of the most important items I find in here (and there is much fascinating stuff) is the contracts let by NASA appear from the start to have envisioned a discrete number of units (21-24). I have found no mention so far of ongoing production capacity, and the last Saturn was completed in August 1968, almost a year before the first moon landing. The Apollo Applications Program looks more like paper than anything else, and the input end of the program was winding down almost before he first flights began.

Thanks to everyone here for finding all sorts of interesting and useful material. If I could just find that pork chop plotting program it would be about perfect.

glappkaeft
2012-Apr-30, 12:51 AM
I'm not a conspiracy nut, but I do wonder why so much of the Von Braun paper was blacked out...

Ehh, which Von Braun paper are you talking about? Not even a single word in the one linked by Slang is blacked out.

mike alexander
2012-May-18, 04:32 PM
The information everyone helped me with is greatly appreciated. My coauthor and I just sold the story using all this to Analog, it will be in the December issue.

Now working on a prequel, and another query. The current NASA headquarters in Washington DC is south of the Capitol on E street. It was built in 1992. Can anyone tell me if that is the same site for headquarters in 1975? The zip code on letters from that period seems to indicate it was, but finding an actual street address has been much more difficult.

Thanks.

cjl
2012-May-19, 11:40 AM
With any luck, we will at least see F-1 strap-ons for the Block II SLS.

Why?

The F-1, though an incredible engine for its time, is pretty hopelessly inefficient by modern kerolox engine standards. There's really no reason to resurrect it. Study it, absolutely, but if you're looking for a flight proven kerolox engine to use for really high thrust, the RD-171 would be a much better choice. Slightly higher thrust, and something like 20% better specific impulse.

chrlzs
2012-May-19, 01:06 PM

Ehh, which Von Braun paper are you talking about? Not even a single word in the one linked by Slang is blacked out.

In some browsers there are compatibility issues with pdf's, and if it all goes wrong the document looks like it's covered in blackout lines! Eg Google's Chrome browser just did it to me on that same document. I right-clicked and saved it, then opened it (with, in my case, Foxit) and it looks fine.

So he wasn't being 'difficult' - Justafriend, try right-click-saving the file, then opening it outside your browser. There is no blacking out in the 'real thing'.

publiusr
2012-May-19, 05:12 PM
Why?

The F-1, though an incredible engine for its time, is pretty hopelessly inefficient by modern kerolox engine standards. There's really no reason to resurrect it. Study it, absolutely, but if you're looking for a flight proven kerolox engine to use for really high thrust, the RD-171 would be a much better choice. Slightly higher thrust, and something like 20% better specific impulse.

P&W Rocketdyne was a merger that place both big liquid fueled engine makers under the same tent. They now have both F-1 and the RD-171 derived RD-180 to look at, so I imagine future hydrocarbon engines will have better cross-pollination of ideas.

Glushko had troubles with advanced nozzles and he always went with multiple nozzles (outside of RD-270.) I think there were those who wanted F-1s to be upgrade to match RD-171.

Jeff Root
2012-May-19, 05:54 PM
The information everyone helped me with is greatly
appreciated. My coauthor and I just sold the story
using all this to Analog, it will be in the December
issue.
I didn't see any clear indication in the thread that
you confirmed that the Saturn V program was indeed
planned for a much higher production rate. The VAB
had four high bays so that four Saturn Fives could
be processed simultaneously. A third launch pad
was planned and came fairly close to being built.



The current NASA headquarters in Washington DC is
south of the Capitol on E street. It was built in 1992.
Can anyone tell me if that is the same site for
headquarters in 1975? The zip code on letters from
that period seems to indicate it was, but finding an
actual street address has been much more difficult.
Ha. I see what you mean. The NASA publications I
have from that era don't show a street address, just
the zip code (20546).

In 1985, a year or two after the National Air and
Space Museum opened on the Mall, I walked from
the museum over to NASA headquarters and went
to the press office and browsed through the picture
collection. At that time NASA HQ occupied the two
identical-looking buildings which, IIRC, had been
built for the Department of Education. It later
moved into the building built for the Department
of Transportation.



Thanks.
Well, I thought I'd be able to help. Unh-uh.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

mike alexander
2012-May-19, 07:21 PM
It's often the simplest, most obvious questions that are the hardest to answer historically, since everyone at the time knew and didn't make anything of it.

Much like booster production. I've found statement of contracts for booster stages (each stage contracted separately), say the S-1C, calling for so many units by some date. That can give an idea of production capacity, but still leaves the question of units/month or units/year in terms of maximum line capacity unanswered. NASA/Boeing historical references indicate total fabrication time for an S-1C was about 14 months. Sitill have not found definitive reference to capacity at Michoud.