Saturn V vs. Shuttle

[thomasantony]

Theoretically, how much would it cost to rebuild the Saturn V?

~
Thomas

 

[Urwumpe]

Theoretically, how much would it cost to rebuild the Saturn V?

Almost as much as building a new one from the scratch.

 

[Andy44]

Well, a good guess is "at least as much as Ares V". But keep in mind that if you built the Saturn V today you'd make some changes in it. Technology has advanced a bit sinc the 1970s. The avionics would all be much more capable and much lighter; the J2 and F1 engines would probably all be upgraded, newer, better materials would be used throughout, and while you're at it you may as well explore ways to make the launchpad and other ground facilities more efficient.

But it won't happen because of politics. Many see Ares V as a step backward, imagine the howl of protest if NASA actually wanted to rebuild a successful rocket. Call me a pessemist, but I think NASA has become really good at wasting money and not much else when it comes to manned spaceflight. They occasionally do the unmanned stuff right; hopefully this will prove true during the events on the Martian surface that will occur a few hours from now.

 

[Usonian]

"America's Concorde" is what I call it, except it's less reliable and more risky.

It's worth noting (and this also relates to your latest comment) that the two fatal accidents were administrative screw-ups, as much as technical/engineering failures.

The technicians knew that the SRB o-rings were sensitive to cold temperatures, but their caution was over ruled by higher ups who OK'd the Challenger launch. The foam strike on Columbia was know, filmed, considered closely by the technicians. Arrangements were made with the Air Force to use ground-based telescopes to examine the shuttle's underside, but that was nixed by the head of the Mission Management Team. I don't know what would have been done to save the crew had the damage been verified, but a normal reentry and landing would not have topped the list of things to do.

Apparently, NASA's manned spaceflight program is a management nightmere, at least since the end of Apollo.

 

[Urwumpe]

I don't know what would have been done to save the crew had the damage been verified, but a normal reentry and landing would not have topped the list of things to do.

There would have been not much left to do. Even if they detected the damage (which would have been unlikely with a earth based telescope, because of its small size), the only option would have been landing. Even a rescue mission with Soyuz capsule would have taken a longer preparation than just the 15 days available. The only option would have been a RTLS abort - this would have had less thermal stresses. But who would have had the balls to say "uuuh, I think we should make a RTLS abort, it looks like foam hit Columbia and I can't exclude major damage". Flight rules did not allow this option.

The real option would have been dealing with the foam damage right at the beginning of the Shuttle program, instead of tolerating it. Why is it possible to now reduce the foam loss on the ET and why was it impossible before 2003?

For example, they could have used smaller foam blocks - smaller blocks cause less damage. Of course, this is more expensive.

 

[DaveS]

Even a rescue mission with Soyuz capsule would have taken a longer preparation than just the 15 days available. The only option would have been a RTLS abort - this would have had less thermal stresses. But who would have had the balls to say "uuuh, I think we should make a RTLS abort, it looks like foam hit Columbia and I can't exclude major damage". Flight rules did not allow this option.

Atlantis was an option. She was in the VAB at the time of the Columbia accident just 2 days away from rolling out to 39A. Expedited processing could have been implemented and she would have been ready to launch by Febraury 10.

By powering down Columbia she could have lasted until about FD30 which was February 16. Main concern was CO2 generated by the crew.

An expedited rendezvous by Atlantis was possible and loading aboard new LiOH canisters for Columbia would have eased the CO2 concerns greatly.

Atlantis nominal launch date for STS-114/ULF1 was March 11. That date included about 7 days of contigency time to handle any problems at the pad.

 

[Urwumpe]

Atlantis was an option. She was in the VAB at the time of the Columbia accident just 2 days away from rolling out to 39A. Expedited processing could have been implemented and she would have been ready to launch by Febraury 10.

By powering down Columbia she could have lasted until about FD30 which was February 16. Main concern was CO2 generated by the crew.

An expedited rendezvous by Atlantis was possible and loading aboard new LiOH canisters for Columbia would have eased the CO2 concerns greatly.

Atlantis nominal launch date for STS-114/ULF1 was March 11. That date included about 7 days of contigency time to handle any problems at the pad.

Oh, did not know that. But still, one problem is the risk of Atlantis also getting damaged the same way.