NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/space/18139

Text File | 1992-12-23 | 3.5 KB | 68 lines

Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!decuac!pa.dec.com!engage.pko.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!gary.enet.dec.com!hughes
From: [e-mail] (Gary Hughes - VMS Development)
Subject: Re: ASTM, Saturn and MOL (Was Re: MOL)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 19:17:40 GMT
Lines: 56


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...
>Also I have been doing some sleuthing and have found a few details abou the
>Saturn I series. There is actually three distinct vehicles in the Saturn I
>series. The Saturn C-1 was basically a 2 stage vehicle that used the Centaur
>first generation as its second stage. I do not know yet whether this is the
>six engine configuration Henry talked about or not.
>
>Then there is the Saturn 1. This beast had several changes relative to the C-1.
>This including adding the fins that you see on the televised Saturn 1 launches.
>This vehicle had the stage mentioned before, whether a six engine centaur or
>whatever, and the Command and service module as the payload to to a suborbital
>trajectory. This combination was unable to boost the 45,000 lbs CSM to orbit.

Uh, no. The original Saturn C config was three stage, using Von Braun's Saturn
booster as the first stage. The second stage (S-IV) was to have had 4 LR-119
(may have that number wrong, it was to be a growth version of the RL-10, aka
LR-115) engines. The third stage (S-V) was to have been powered by 2 RL-10
engines. The S-V was NOT Centaur. They both were designed around a pair of
RL-10s, but had very different avionics and structure.

The S-IV evolved to use 6 RL-10s, thus avoiding the cost of developing a new
engine.

The 'C' designation was dropped somewhere along the way, with the Saturn C-1
becoming simply Saturn 1. FWIW, the Saturn A and B proposals used conventional
propellants in their second stages, and both had a third stage similar to the
S-V.

The first Saturn 1s flew with dummy second and third stages, and no fins. The
first block 2 Saturn 1 flew with a live S-IV stage and a dummy S-V (and tail
fins). Subsequent block 2 Saturns had dummy Apollo CSMs instead of the dummy
S-V.

The original intent was to fly the two stage Saturn 1 for LEO and the three
stage variant for lunar/planetary missions (unmanned of course). Remember that
the Saturn program predates Apollo. It was originally intended to produce a
family of general purpose ELVs.

>Finally there is the famous Saturn 1B that carried the manned Apollo CSM/LM to
>orbit. This configuration also carried the Saturn V, SIVB stage, which is the
>third stage of full up Saturn V. This combination was able to boost the
>full Saturn V payload to LEO altitude of 105 nautical miles.

The Saturn 1B, aka Uprated Saturn 1, was developed to meet the increasing mass
of the CSM. As you said, the CSM grew beyond the original Saturn 1 LEO
capability. The Saturn 1B could lift the CSM or the LM, but not both (i.e. it
could not carry the full Saturn V payload to LEO).

>This is the booster
>that was used for the Apollo 7 mission. I forget whether it was used for
>Apollo 9 or whether that was a full up Saturn V.

The only manned Saturn 1B flights were Apollo 7, Skylab 2,3,4 and ASTP.

gary