Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Saturn V Myths

6 views
Skip to first unread message

James A Davis

unread,
May 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/9/00
to
anw...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> After talking to someone at a NSS meeting several yrs ago and reading a
> Larry Niven column at Space.com, can someone tell me which is fact and
> which is myth?

I'll try.

> NSS speaker said that NASA still has 3 Saturn Vs in storage, not
> counting the JSC lawn ornament.

15 flight worthy Saturn Vs were built of which 13 were launched. The
remaining two along with various stages from Saturn V static test
articles are on display at Huntsville (MSFC), Houston (JSC), and Cape
Canaveral (KSC).

> Niven says the lawn ornament is all thats left of the Saturns.
>
> Who's right?

Niven.

> If the NSS speaker is right, can the Saturn Vs be manrated and launch
> Apollo capsules to the moon?

He's mistaken.

> Are there any Apollo capsules & LEMs left?

There was one one flight worthy CSM (CSM 119) left - a Skylab backup.
One flight worthy LM was left (LM 9). Other unused CSMs (CSM 102, CSM
105) and LMs (LM 2) were probably beyond hope of manned flight. At
present, of course, further use by any Apollo hardware is out of the
question.

> Did NASA really tried to burn the Saturn V blueprints?

No. That's silly. A certain amount of documentation has been lost over
the years by NASA and its contractors but that's inevitable without an
expensive and dedicated open ended program to preserve it.

> If true, what
> the hell were they thinking? The obvious answer that I heard to this
> story is that NASA didn't want any kind of competition to the STS. Is
> there more to this?

Saturn and Shuttle were never seen as competitive at the time the
decisions about each were made. In retrospect the Shuttle's problems
suggest that continuing with Saturn/Apollo technology might have been a
better choice but at the time the battle was between Shuttle and
nothing. Shuttle won by a nose.

> Lastly, can anyone bring the Saturn V assembly line up?

Long gone.

> Is it
> worthwhile and possible?

Possible only at enormous cost. Not worthwhile because it has no mission
that anyone with money is willing to pay for.

> Or should Saturn V belong to a lost golden
> age best remembered with fond nostalgia?

Along with rigid airships, luxurious flying boats, and battleships.

Jim Davis

Jorge R. Frank

unread,
May 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/9/00
to
anw...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> After talking to someone at a NSS meeting several yrs ago and reading a
> Larry Niven column at Space.com, can someone tell me which is fact and
> which is myth?
>
> NSS speaker said that NASA still has 3 Saturn Vs in storage, not
> counting the JSC lawn ornament.
>
> Niven says the lawn ornament is all thats left of the Saturns.
>
> Who's right?

Neither. The JSC Saturn is the only Saturn V containing all
flight-rated components, but the MSFC and KSC lawn ornaments have enough
flight-rated parts between them to build one more. Although the KSC
Saturn V was recently moved indoors, none of them can be counted as "in
storage."

> If the NSS speaker is right, can the Saturn Vs be manrated and launch
> Apollo capsules to the moon?

No. They've been out in the elements far too long.

> Did NASA really tried to burn the Saturn V blueprints?

Total myth. The Saturn V blueprints do exist. The Saturn V *production
tooling* was destroyed.

> Lastly, can anyone bring the Saturn V assembly line up?

It's possible, but you'd have to rebuild the production tooling and find
substitutes for components built by subcontractors that long ago went
out of business. The biggest challenge would be to reassemble the
workforce... at its height, Project Apollo employed, directly or
indirectly, about 400,000 people.

> Is it
> worthwhile and possible?

It would probably be cheaper to design a new booster with more modern,
design-to-cost methodologies. But in the end, you also need to ask what
such a large booster would be needed for. There are no existing
payloads that large, and just about any hypothetical large payload (e.g.
return to the moon, humans to Mars) can in principle be launched in
pieces by smaller rockets and assembled in orbit.

> Or should Saturn V belong to a lost golden
> age best remembered with fond nostalgia?

Yes.

--

JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" and think one step ahead of IBM.

Bruce Sterling Woodcock

unread,
May 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/9/00
to

"James A Davis" <jimd...@primary.net> wrote in message
news:3918BF04...@primary.net...

> > Are there any Apollo capsules & LEMs left?
>
> There was one one flight worthy CSM (CSM 119) left - a Skylab backup.
> One flight worthy LM was left (LM 9). Other unused CSMs (CSM 102, CSM
> 105) and LMs (LM 2) were probably beyond hope of manned flight. At
> present, of course, further use by any Apollo hardware is out of the
> question.

The Apollo 10 LM is still in heliocentric orbit last anyone knew, and it
should be pretty well preserved. I wonder how much it would take to
salvage it just for kicks?

Bruce


anw...@my-deja.com

unread,
May 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/10/00
to
After talking to someone at a NSS meeting several yrs ago and reading a
Larry Niven column at Space.com, can someone tell me which is fact and
which is myth?

NSS speaker said that NASA still has 3 Saturn Vs in storage, not
counting the JSC lawn ornament.

Niven says the lawn ornament is all thats left of the Saturns.

Who's right?

If the NSS speaker is right, can the Saturn Vs be manrated and launch


Apollo capsules to the moon?

Are there any Apollo capsules & LEMs left?

Did NASA really tried to burn the Saturn V blueprints? If true, what


the hell were they thinking? The obvious answer that I heard to this
story is that NASA didn't want any kind of competition to the STS. Is
there more to this?

Lastly, can anyone bring the Saturn V assembly line up? Is it
worthwhile and possible? Or should Saturn V belong to a lost golden


age best remembered with fond nostalgia?

Ad Astra

AW

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Greg D. Moore

unread,
May 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/10/00
to

anw...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> After talking to someone at a NSS meeting several yrs ago and reading a
> Larry Niven column at Space.com, can someone tell me which is fact and
> which is myth?
>
> NSS speaker said that NASA still has 3 Saturn Vs in storage, not
> counting the JSC lawn ornament.
>
> Niven says the lawn ornament is all thats left of the Saturns.

Niven is closer to correct. I think only JSC is complete flight ready
hardware, the other two are combinations of flight hwardware and boiler
plate/test units.

15 were ordered and built, and 12 used (Apollo 5,6, 8, 10-17, Skylab 1)
(I may be off on if it's 5,6 or 4 and another.)


>
> Who's right?
>
> If the NSS speaker is right, can the Saturn Vs be manrated and launch
> Apollo capsules to the moon?
>

No. They are far to deteriorated.


> Are there any Apollo capsules & LEMs left?
>

Yes, but none anywhere near flight ready. (I think the only complete
LM's would be too heavy, such as LM 2 at the NASM.)


> Did NASA really tried to burn the Saturn V blueprints? If true, what
> the hell were they thinking? The obvious answer that I heard to this
> story is that NASA didn't want any kind of competition to the STS. Is
> there more to this?
>

Yes. It's an urban myth. NASA did not try to burn the blueprints.

> Lastly, can anyone bring the Saturn V assembly line up? Is it
> worthwhile and possible? Or should Saturn V belong to a lost golden
> age best remembered with fond nostalgia?
>

Anyone with billions in tooling and money to burn. It is far from
worthwhile (you'd have to convert LC-39 BACK to Saturn capability.)

If you really want that sort of lift, look at Shuttle-C, Shuttle-Z,
Magnum or Ares.

Henry Spencer

unread,
May 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/10/00
to
In article <8faatc$fj4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <anw...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>NSS speaker said that NASA still has 3 Saturn Vs in storage, not
>counting the JSC lawn ornament.
>Niven says the lawn ornament is all thats left of the Saturns.
>Who's right?

Niven is closer to being right. 15 Saturn Vs were built, and 13 were used
(Apollos 4, 6, and 8-17, plus Skylab). The pieces of the remaining two,
plus assorted ground-test articles, make up the JSC lawn ornament, the
former KSC lawn ornament (now inside), the MSFC lawn ornament, and one or
two fragmentary lawn ornaments elsewhere. The pieces are distributed
somewhat haphazardly; no single lawn ornament has even all the major
pieces of a specific Saturn V, never mind the minor ones. None of the
lawn ornaments has been "in storage" in any reasonable sense of the word;
none could possibly be made flight-ready again.

Some smaller items, like some Saturn V engines, *are* still in protected
storage, or were last I heard.

>Are there any Apollo capsules & LEMs left?

Again, none that could be made flight-ready.

>Did NASA really tried to burn the Saturn V blueprints?

No. This is a myth.

>...The obvious answer that I heard to this


>story is that NASA didn't want any kind of competition to the STS. Is
>there more to this?

No. NASA considered retaining Saturn launch capability in parallel with
the shuttle, but could not justify the extra costs when Congress quite
consistently refused to fund any program which could use the Saturns.

>Lastly, can anyone bring the Saturn V assembly line up?

No; it's gone. It would have to be rebuilt very nearly from scratch.
That might be a little cheaper than just designing and building an all-new
heavy launcher, but not a lot. The bottom line, in any case, is that no
funded mission exists that could justify a heavy launcher.

>...Or should Saturn V belong to a lost golden


>age best remembered with fond nostalgia?

The "lost golden age" part I'll buy. But a more appropriate way to
remember it is with a combination of anger (that its potential was fumbled
and lost) and sorrow (that its glorious achievements in the short term
ended up making such a mess of things in the long term, a mess we're still
not really out of).
--
"Be careful not to step | Henry Spencer he...@spsystems.net
in the Microsoft." -- John Denker | (aka he...@zoo.toronto.edu)

Henry Spencer

unread,
May 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/10/00
to
In article <8fauc9$tq7$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>,

Bruce Sterling Woodcock <sirb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>The Apollo 10 LM is still in heliocentric orbit last anyone knew, and it
>should be pretty well preserved.

Only the ascent stage is there. The descent stage was abandoned in low
lunar orbit, and almost certainly crashed within weeks.

As for well preserved, I dunno. For example, unless they were vented -- I
doubt that was done -- the insides of the propellant tanks will be pretty
well corroded. The LM had a very limited shelf life once it was fueled;
this was an important constraint on Apollo launch scheduling.

>I wonder how much it would take to salvage it just for kicks?

A whole bunch. :-) Just finding it would be a problem -- quite probably
it has made at least one Earth encounter since, and that means its orbit
is very hard to predict.

Geoffrey A. Landis

unread,
May 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/10/00
to
Bruce Sterling Woodcock <sirb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>The Apollo 10 LM is still in heliocentric orbit last anyone knew, and it
>should be pretty well preserved.

Really? Just for my own curiosity, what reason did they have for giving
it an Earth-escape burn to put it into heliocentric orbit?

--
Geoffrey A. Landis
http://www.sff.net/people/geoffrey.landis

Thomas Kalbfus

unread,
May 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/10/00
to
>No; it's gone. It would have to be rebuilt very nearly from scratch.
>That might be a little cheaper than just designing and building an all-new
>heavy launcher, but not a lot. The bottom line, in any case, is that no
>funded mission exists that could justify a heavy launcher.
>

A little cheaper?! I think it might be alot cheaper. I think the Saturn could
be uprated like the Shuttle. Install new electronics for example as was done
with the 20 year old space shuttle. With Saturn V launchers available we
wouldn't have to depend upon the Russians to complete the International Space
Station. Saturn V is old technology so its not unreasonable to get a factory up
and running and Saturn Vs built on time and on budget. With brand new heavy
lift launchers were likely to get an initial budget estimate to get it through
Congress and then their will be cost overruns as unthought of consequences of
the new technology sink it or as things don't work quite right during assembly.
The Shuttle C, Shuttle Z, and Aries Boosters have never been built so we don't
know how much they are going to cost. We know how much a Saturn V can be
expected to cost just by looking at old budget appropriations and indexing them
to inflation. A Saturn V should cost less to build now then they did in the
1960's because we have better factory automation and computer aided design.
Their is no excuse for cost overruns in this case.

What can Saturns be used for? If appropriations to resume production begin in
the next 2 years we can have humans on Mars by 2010.

Scott Lowther

unread,
May 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/10/00
to
In article <20000510135032...@ng-cs1.aol.com>,

thomas...@aol.com (Thomas Kalbfus) wrote:
> >No; it's gone. It would have to be rebuilt very nearly from scratch.
> >That might be a little cheaper than just designing and building an
all-new
> >heavy launcher, but not a lot. The bottom line, in any case, is that
no
> >funded mission exists that could justify a heavy launcher.
> >
>
> A little cheaper?! I think it might be alot cheaper.

You're probably wrong. In order for reviving the Saturn V to be
low-cost, everythign that was off-the-shelf at the time would have to
still be available. Every sensor, actuator, bit of transistorized
electronics, nut, bolt, wire, sheet of insulation, pyrotecnic, fitting,
etc. that was easily available then would ahve to be eaily available
now. And much of this is simply gone.

Also, you _could_ build things exactly the same (such as using F-1's),
but there are much better options now (such as F-1A's or RD-170's). But
the better options available now can't be simply plugged into the same
hole; not only would the thrust structureof the S-V have to be
completely redesigned to handle RD-170s, but the performance would be
so much better that the trajectory and payload accomodations would be
all different. PLUS the basic vehicle dynamics (bending, resonances,
POGO, response to fuel slosh) will change with every major design
revision.

If you're going to the bother of building such a big vehicle, you'd be
insane to not build it as best as you can. So how will the vehicle bend
in the wind while on the pad when the tanks are a combination of
aluminum-lithium and kevlar fiber wound?

A Saturn V class booster seems an easier, cheaper prospect than a Saturn
V. If you want to build big, that's fine... but building an old,
outdated design is something left for the leisure industry, not for
costt-effective space launch.

--
Scott Lowther
A&E Engineering
http://www.up-ship.com

Bruce Sterling Woodcock

unread,
May 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/10/00
to

"Henry Spencer" <he...@spsystems.net> wrote in message
news:FuCGy...@spsystems.net...
> In article <8fauc9$tq7$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>,

> Bruce Sterling Woodcock <sirb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >The Apollo 10 LM is still in heliocentric orbit last anyone knew, and it
> >should be pretty well preserved.
>
> Only the ascent stage is there. The descent stage was abandoned in low
> lunar orbit, and almost certainly crashed within weeks.

Really? Darn, I didn't know they tested the ascent stage.

Bruce


Bruce Sterling Woodcock

unread,
May 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/10/00
to

"Geoffrey A. Landis" <geoffre...@sff.net> wrote in message
news:8fc1fa$sgl$1...@sulawesi-fi.lerc.nasa.gov...

> Bruce Sterling Woodcock <sirb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >The Apollo 10 LM is still in heliocentric orbit last anyone knew, and it
> >should be pretty well preserved.
>
> Really? Just for my own curiosity, what reason did they have for giving
> it an Earth-escape burn to put it into heliocentric orbit?

Apollo 10 was a dry run for the moon landing, so they tested everything
out in lunar orbit. Don't know why the LM ended up where it did
except they had to let go of it somewhere. :)

Bruce


Geoffrey A. Landis

unread,
May 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/10/00
to
In article <8fcc1f$a2n$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net> Bruce Sterling

In an actual Apollo landing mission, the LM was either abandoned in lunar
orbit or crashed into the moon. To get to heliocentric orbit, you need
to make an additional burn, to escape the lunar orbit and also to escape
Earth orbit (minimal escape from lunar orbit not quite being good
enough). I can't think of a good reason that they would have done that
additional burn-- to run the ascent engines to the limit, I guess.

--
Geoffrey A. Landis
Scientist and part-time science fiction writer
http://www.sff.net/people/geoffrey.landis

Bruce Sterling Woodcock

unread,
May 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/10/00
to

"Geoffrey A. Landis" <geoffre...@sff.net> wrote in message
news:8fcdpm$2js$1...@sulawesi-fi.lerc.nasa.gov...

> In an actual Apollo landing mission, the LM was either abandoned in lunar
> orbit or crashed into the moon. To get to heliocentric orbit, you need
> to make an additional burn, to escape the lunar orbit and also to escape
> Earth orbit (minimal escape from lunar orbit not quite being good
> enough). I can't think of a good reason that they would have done that
> additional burn-- to run the ascent engines to the limit, I guess.

I found this from the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal:

Once Stafford and Cernan regained control of the LM, they fired the Ascent
Engine and, two orbits later, rendezvoused and docked with Young in the
Command Module. Another orbit later, after Stafford and Cernan were safely
back in the Command Module, they jettisoned the LM which Houston then sent
into a solar orbit with a final firing of its engine.

Still, you would think they could just fly it into the moon like everything
else. I'm also surprised that the ascent engine could be remotely fired.
Was there remote RCS control as well?

Bruce


Henry Spencer

unread,
May 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/10/00
to
In article <8fc1fa$sgl$1...@sulawesi-fi.lerc.nasa.gov>,

Geoffrey A. Landis <geoffre...@sff.net> wrote:
>>The Apollo 10 LM is still in heliocentric orbit last anyone knew, and it
>>should be pretty well preserved.
>
>Really?

Yep. After the crew transferred back to the CM and separated from the LM,
it burned its ascent engine to propellant depletion, which left it in a
heliocentric orbit.

>Just for my own curiosity, what reason did they have for giving
>it an Earth-escape burn to put it into heliocentric orbit?

I don't believe I've ever seen an explanation for this maneuver. A few of
the usual references have none.

Brian Thorn

unread,
May 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/10/00
to
On Tue, 09 May 2000 20:44:36 -0500, James A Davis
<jimd...@primary.net> wrote:

>There was one one flight worthy CSM (CSM 119) left - a Skylab backup.

What about the original Apollo 15 CSM?

>One flight worthy LM was left (LM 9).

Three. LM-2 is in the Nat'l Air And Space Museum. LM-7 (the original
Apollo 15) is at Kennedy's Apollo-Saturn V Center. LM-11 (?) was in
the Cradle of Aviation Museum in New York and was loaned to Universal
Studios for filming "From the Earth to the Moon" in Orlando.

Brian

Brian Thorn

unread,
May 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/10/00
to
On Wed, 10 May 2000 17:04:39 -0500, Brian Thorn
<bst...@cox-internet.com> wrote:


>Three. LM-2 is in the Nat'l Air And Space Museum. LM-7 (the original
>Apollo 15) is at Kennedy's Apollo-Saturn V Center. LM-11 (?) was in
>the Cradle of Aviation Museum in New York

Got my numbers mixed up. LM-9 is at KSC, and LM-13 was the leftover.

Brian

James A Davis

unread,
May 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/10/00
to

No. LMs 13-15 were canceled. I have seen the references labeling the
exhibit at the Cradle of Aviation Museum, LM 13, and the exhibit at the
Franklin Institute in Philadelphia, LM 14, but these are mistaken. As
you mentioned in your other post, the Cradle of Aviation Museum item was
used in filming "From the Earth to the Moon". Does it really seem likely
that NASA or whoever would allow a real lunar module to be used as a
movie prop? For that matter, would two private museums each be given a
production LM to display? Not likely.

As to what those exhibits really are my suspicion is that they are
former LTAs (lunar test articles) refurbished for display but that's
just a guess.

Jim Davis

Henry Spencer

unread,
May 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/10/00
to
In article <20000510135032...@ng-cs1.aol.com>,

Thomas Kalbfus <thomas...@aol.com> wrote:
>>No; it's gone. It would have to be rebuilt very nearly from scratch.
>>That might be a little cheaper than just designing and building an all-new
>>heavy launcher, but not a lot...

>
>A little cheaper?! I think it might be alot cheaper.

The people who've looked at this carefully (NASA has seriously studied it)
say it wouldn't be. Remember that you have to redesign the stuff that's
just impossibly outdated (e.g., you wouldn't duplicate the original
electronics), rebuild the whole subcontractor network, and reinvent a lot
of the manufacturing processes. Inevitably, some of the results will be a
little different, and so you'll have to re-test and re-qualify everything
just to be sure. It won't be quite as hard as starting from scratch, but
much of the original work will have to be repeated. It really will take
almost as long and cost almost as much as a clean-slate design.

While I would personally love to see the Saturn V flying again, it's not a
good choice as a new launcher. For one thing, it is simply *too big*.
Smaller launchers plus orbital assembly work much better for almost
anything you'd want to do with it. (In fact, that's how NASA would have
gone to the Moon, had they not been in a great big Presidentially-mandated
hurry.)

>...With Saturn V launchers available we wouldn't have


>to depend upon the Russians to complete the International Space Station.

The timescales are utterly incompatible. ISS will succeed or fail well
before a Saturn V rebuild could be flying, even as a crash program.

>...A Saturn V should cost less to build now then they did in the


>1960's because we have better factory automation and computer aided design.

We also have an old and tired NASA, very unlike the young and enthusiastic
one that built the original Saturn V. Don't underestimate the added load
of paperwork and bureaucracy that will cause.

>What can Saturns be used for?

At present, nothing. The original Saturn production line closed because
Congress wouldn't fund any further use for them. That situation has not
changed.

Brian Thorn

unread,
May 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/10/00
to
On Wed, 10 May 2000 18:29:48 -0500, James A Davis
<jimd...@primary.net> wrote:

>No. LMs 13-15 were canceled. I have seen the references labeling the
>exhibit at the Cradle of Aviation Museum, LM 13, and the exhibit at the
>Franklin Institute in Philadelphia, LM 14, but these are mistaken.

"Chariots For Apollo" by Pellegrino and Stoff (page 278) does indeed
claim that LM-13 went to Cradle of Aviation and LM-14 to the Franklin
Institute. They say LM-15 was scrapped. I'd have to consider their
sources to be quite reliable.

>As
>you mentioned in your other post, the Cradle of Aviation Museum item was
>used in filming "From the Earth to the Moon". Does it really seem likely
>that NASA or whoever would allow a real lunar module to be used as a
>movie prop?

I don't see why not. This wasn't flown hardware, so the standards are
somewhat lower. NASA and the Smithsonian have let other unflown
hardware rot out in the sun.

>For that matter, would two private museums each be given a
>production LM to display? Not likely.

If they are reputable, why not? I don't know about the Franklin
Museum, but I wouldn't be surprised if Grumman used some leverage to
get LM-13 in the Cradle of Aviation, since it was built in nearby
Bethpage.

Compared to what Johnson Space Center has allowed to happen to its
Saturn V, Cradle of Aviation and Franklin Institute look World Class.

>As to what those exhibits really are my suspicion is that they are
>former LTAs (lunar test articles) refurbished for display but that's
>just a guess.

One of the LTAs, I think, is at KSC, sitting outdoors at the Visitor's
Center.

Brian

anw...@my-deja.com

unread,
May 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/11/00
to
In article <FuBu8...@spsystems.net>,

he...@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) wrote:
> >...Or should Saturn V belong to a lost golden
> >age best remembered with fond nostalgia?
>
> The "lost golden age" part I'll buy. But a more appropriate way to
> remember it is with a combination of anger (that its potential was
fumbled
> and lost) and sorrow (that its glorious achievements in the short term
> ended up making such a mess of things in the long term, a mess we're
still
> not really out of).
> --
> "Be careful not to step | Henry Spencer
he...@spsystems.net
> in the Microsoft." -- John Denker | (aka
he...@zoo.toronto.edu)

Thanks to all for replying to my message. Thank you, Henry, for
phrasing it better. I should have said with bitterness, anger, and
sadness for the shortsightedness, lost opportunities, and
disillusionment caused by those bastards who couldn't imagine or dream
of a spacefaring humanity.

If the phrase "the meek shall inherit the Earth" ever apply to a group
of human beings it would be them.

As for my personal opinion of the S-V, I think it was and will be the
most beautiful rocket and one of the greatest achievement ever made by
the hands of human beings. To paraphrase Homer Hickman in his
book "Back to the Moon", the Saturn V was built on dreams. I wonder if
the dreams turned into nightmares. I don't think all pro-spacers ever
thought that upon reaching the Moon, we turn our backs on it, Mars, &
the Universe. What waste!

I was born at the height of Apollo, so I never had the opportunity to
watch an actual Saturn moonshot. In one of my darker moods, I wonder
if I will ever see another human being walk on the surface of another
heavenly body live and in real time. Or will I and other prospacers be
condemned to watching old footage of men walking on the moon on the
History Channel.

I optimistic that the rest of humanity will wake up and realize that we
have to grow up and move out of our cradle. I just hope it will be
sooner rather than later. I like to walk on and see another heavenly
body before I die. I just hope that others and me will not turn to be
real D.D. Harriman's.

Ad Astra, now!

AW

Thomas Kalbfus

unread,
May 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/11/00
to
>>A little cheaper?! I think it might be alot cheaper.
>
>The people who've looked at this carefully (NASA has seriously studied it)
>say it wouldn't be. Remember that you have to redesign the stuff that's
>just impossibly outdated (e.g., you wouldn't duplicate the original
>electronics), rebuild the whole subcontractor network, and reinvent a lot
>of the manufacturing processes. Inevitably, some of the results will be a
>little different, and so you'll have to re-test and re-qualify everything

Alright so you replace a bunch of vacuum tubes with microchips the size of your
thumbnail. This leaves alot of empty space inside the Saturn. If the Saturn
engines produce the same thrust and carry the same amount of fuel then you have
a surplus of acceleration. If this is too much you could always add a fourth or
fifth astronaut to compensate or make the lem a one piece space ship instead of
a two piece space ship, and theres no need for a command module that acts as a
manned satellite to take photgraphic pictures of the Moon's surface while the
other astronauts are on the surface. If this doesn't add sufficient weight to
compensate you could alway add lead weights.

>just to be sure. It won't be quite as hard as starting from scratch, but
>much of the original work will have to be repeated. It really will take
>almost as long and cost almost as much as a clean-slate design.

To be perfectly honest we should be able to land men on the Moon within the
same administration that launched the program in the first place. The Apollo
program was cutting edge science in its day, today its not, it is merely an
engineering project well within known capacities. There is no edges to cut this
time around. All we are talking about is testing off the shelf components to
see if they work together. We're not talking about ruptured ceramic tanks of
testing out areospike engines to see if they work. If the contractor takes
longer than the original program and spends more money he's defrauding the U.S.
government and this time he would have no excuse. I think 6 years ought to be
enough time to launch Apollo 18 using 21st century off the shelf components.

>
>While I would personally love to see the Saturn V flying again, it's not a
>good choice as a new launcher. For one thing, it is simply *too big*.
>Smaller launchers plus orbital assembly work much better for almost
>anything you'd want to do with it. (In fact, that's how NASA would have
>gone to the Moon, had they not been in a great big Presidentially-mandated
>hurry.)

Whats wrong with too big? I wasn't aware of any height restrictions on going
into space. Anyway what presidential mandated hurry. Was going to the Moon
supposed to take 30 to 50 years? We probably built several aircraft carriers in
the time it took from the beginning of the Apollo program to Man's first steps
on the Moon.

>>...With Saturn V launchers available we wouldn't have
>>to depend upon the Russians to complete the International Space Station.
>
>The timescales are utterly incompatible. ISS will succeed or fail well
>before a Saturn V rebuild could be flying, even as a crash program.

The ISS program began in 1981 and was due for completion in 1992 for $8
billion, eight years later its still not finished. At the rate were going who's
to say that it still won't be finished by 2015? I think several Apollo programs
could have reached maturity within that time frame.

>
>>...A Saturn V should cost less to build now then they did in the
>>1960's because we have better factory automation and computer aided design.
>
>We also have an old and tired NASA, very unlike the young and enthusiastic
>one that built the original Saturn V. Don't underestimate the added load
>of paperwork and bureaucracy that will cause.
>

Yep all those 80 year old rocket engineers with arthritis who should have
retired long ago. As for the paperwork, Boing built its 777 airplane using
virtual reality software eliminating most of the interm blueprinting.

Also the beauty of trying to duplicate a Saturn's capabilities as opposed to
recreating an antique is that we already have a standard to compare our efforts
too. We can create a virtual race with history if we align our timeline with
Apollo's Lets say we match up the year 2000 with 1960. That means our goal
should be to land men on the Moon before July 20, 2009. Any NASA administrator
with the same budget who fails to accomplish this task with 21st century
technology is a pitiful excuse for a human being. This is tantamount to losing
the Vietnam war after spending billions of dollars on defense. Completely
inexcusible.

>>What can Saturns be used for?
>
>At present, nothing. The original Saturn production line closed because
>Congress wouldn't fund any further use for them. That situation has not
>changed.

The Saturn V could perform any mission the Shuttle can. A special module can
even be built to retrieve a satellite from orbit. Saturn assembly requires less
specialized skills than maintaining a reusable shuttle. A factory worker at a
Saturn assembly line performs the same set of actions each time a new Saturn is
built. Those maintaining the Shuttle must figure out which parts are worn, find
them and replace them.Repair and maintenaince require a greater level of human
inginuity that mere assembly. Robots can due assembly better than they can do
repairs which makes assembly cheaper than repairs.

As for Congress, its future makeup is unknowable, so its hard to say what they
will and won't do in the next Administration.

We should drop this wimpish attitude toward future projects in space. We make
building a simple space station seem so hard and so expensive. Skylab was sent
up in one piece using a Saturn V. 4 or 5 Saturn launches could build a much
more impressive space station that the ISS which will be mostly solar panels
anyway. What are all those solar panels for anyway? One wouldn't think that
biological experiments in orbit would be so energy intensive. I guess it could
be used to heat up carbon dioxide to disassociate the carbon from the oxygen to
regenerate a breathable atmosphere, but it seems that NASA is still studying
the problem.

Tom Kalbfus.

Scott Lowther

unread,
May 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/11/00
to
In article <20000511000435...@ng-cu1.aol.com>,
thomas...@aol.com (Thomas Kalbfus) wrote:

> I think 6 years
ought to be
> enough time to launch Apollo 18 using 21st century off the shelf
components.

I agree. But rebuilding the Saturn V is the wrong way to do it. There
are other, better ways of doing things. The SPAD was capable of doing
things modern jet fighters cannot (minimum speeds, short TO and L,
etc.). Does that mean that if we decide we need a fighter with slow
speed characteristics and short field abilities that we shoudl start up
the SPAD lines... or do we build a new fighter capable of STOL?

If we need to pitch a hundred tons into orbit, do we start up the old
Saturn lines, or do we build a new vehicle based on things we've learned
in the last 40 years?

> Whats wrong with too big? I wasn't aware of any height restrictions on
going
> into space.

Ever seen any 7 footers on the shuttle?


> >The timescales are utterly incompatible. ISS will succeed or fail
well
> >before a Saturn V rebuild could be flying, even as a crash program.
>
> The ISS program began in 1981 and was due for completion in 1992 for
$8
> billion, eight years later its still not finished. At the rate were
going who's
> to say that it still won't be finished by 2015?

If it doesn't get finished in the next few, or at least make some majopr
progress, then it will be over.


> Yep all those 80 year old rocket engineers with arthritis who should
have
> retired long ago. As for the paperwork, Boing built its 777 airplane
using
> virtual reality software eliminating most of the interm blueprinting.

Wouldn't Boeing have been better advised to just start up the old
747-100 assembly lines, rather than going to all the trouble of
designing a whole new airplane??

> Also the beauty of trying to duplicate a Saturn's capabilities as
opposed to
> recreating an antique is that we already have a standard to compare
our efforts
> too.

Agreed. Duplicating Saturn's capabilities, however, doesn't mean
duplicating the Saturn.


--
Scott Lowther
A&E Engineering
http://www.up-ship.com

Jorge R. Frank

unread,
May 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/11/00
to
Thomas Kalbfus wrote:
>
> Also the beauty of trying to duplicate a Saturn's capabilities as opposed to
> recreating an antique is that we already have a standard to compare our efforts
> too. We can create a virtual race with history if we align our timeline with
> Apollo's Lets say we match up the year 2000 with 1960. That means our goal
> should be to land men on the Moon before July 20, 2009. Any NASA administrator
> with the same budget who fails to accomplish this task with 21st century
> technology is a pitiful excuse for a human being. This is tantamount to losing
> the Vietnam war after spending billions of dollars on defense. Completely
> inexcusible.

"With the same budget?" If you believe NASA will get the same budget in
the next decade that it got during Project Apollo, you are *seriously*
deluded.

Andrew Plotkin

unread,
May 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/11/00
to
Thomas Kalbfus <thomas...@aol.com> wrote:
> Also the beauty of trying to duplicate a Saturn's capabilities as opposed to
> recreating an antique is that we already have a standard to compare our efforts
> too. We can create a virtual race with history if we align our timeline with
> Apollo's Lets say we match up the year 2000 with 1960. That means our goal
> should be to land men on the Moon before July 20, 2009. Any NASA administrator
> with the same budget

I think I have found a flaw in your position.

--Z

"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the
borogoves..."

Henry Spencer

unread,
May 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/11/00
to
In article <20000511000435...@ng-cu1.aol.com>,

Thomas Kalbfus <thomas...@aol.com> wrote:
>Alright so you replace a bunch of vacuum tubes with microchips the size of your
>thumbnail. This leaves alot of empty space inside the Saturn.

Not a lot, just a little. With the exception of the Instrument Unit, which
you can make out as a distinct piece only if you know exactly where to look
(it's a 3ft slice of a 300ft+ launcher), the electronics were fitted into
corners around the propulsion system.

>If the Saturn
>engines produce the same thrust and carry the same amount of fuel then you have
>a surplus of acceleration.

Again, not a lot. The IU weighed about 2t, on a rocket that already had
a payload of 50t+.

>The Apollo
>program was cutting edge science in its day, today its not, it is merely an
>engineering project well within known capacities.

Actually, Apollo used new and unproven technology in only a few areas. Its
schedule was too aggressive for a lot of technology pioneering; it had to
rely mostly on what was already "within known capacities". The engineering,
not the science, was what took a lot of time.

>>While I would personally love to see the Saturn V flying again, it's not a

>>good choice as a new launcher. For one thing, it is simply *too big*...


>
>Whats wrong with too big?

It means too expensive and too inflexible. A somewhat smaller booster
launched more often is cheaper and more versatile.

>...Anyway what presidential mandated hurry. Was going to the Moon


>supposed to take 30 to 50 years?

As a matter of fact, yes, almost. The original notion was that Apollo
would start with Earth-orbit flights -- it was meant as a general-purpose
successor to Mercury, not a dedicated lunar spacecraft -- and work up to
lunar-orbit flights in perhaps the mid-1970s. Then development would
start on "Apollo B", which would fly actual lunar landings in perhaps the
mid-1980s. Going to the Moon was a costly and difficult project and there
wasn't any great rush. NASA management was horrified when Kennedy told
them to do it by 1970.

Apollo was done in a desperate scramble, accepting many suboptimal
decisions (e.g., limits on later growth) for the sake of maintaining the
almost-impossibly-tight schedule.

>We probably built several aircraft carriers in
>the time it took from the beginning of the Apollo program to Man's first steps
>on the Moon.

If memory serves, even in those days it took nearly a decade for a
*new design* of carrier to go from preliminary sketches to operational
service.

>>The timescales are utterly incompatible. ISS will succeed or fail well
>>before a Saturn V rebuild could be flying, even as a crash program.
>
>The ISS program began in 1981 and was due for completion in 1992 for $8
>billion, eight years later its still not finished. At the rate were going who's
>to say that it still won't be finished by 2015?

If ISS doesn't make major progress within the next year or two, almost
certainly it will simply be canceled. Much of its gestation was spent
marking time on drafting boards, but the situation has gone beyond that
now. There is no time, and no money, to build a new launcher as part of
it. A decade ago, such a suggestion made more sense, and in fact there
*was* a serious proposal to do just that (Shuttle C).

>>We also have an old and tired NASA, very unlike the young and enthusiastic
>>one that built the original Saturn V. Don't underestimate the added load
>>of paperwork and bureaucracy that will cause.
>
>Yep all those 80 year old rocket engineers with arthritis who should have
>retired long ago.

No, the problem is mostly 50-year-old post-Apollo bureaucrats, who have
spent their whole lives managing projects rather than actually getting
things done. (Even some of the young heros of Apollo have turned into
bureaucratic obstacles in their old age.) Retiring them might do a lot
of good, but it's not something you can arrange with the wave of a hand.

And even if you could, who exactly would replace them? Even without
wave-of-a-hand mass retirement, NASA is having a real problem finding
experienced, competent upper managers these days -- the guys who should
be moving into those slots are the ones who weren't hired because of the
1970s budget slump.

>As for the paperwork, Boing built its 777 airplane using
>virtual reality software eliminating most of the interm blueprinting.

Virtual paperwork costs, if anything, more than real paperwork.

>...Lets say we match up the year 2000 with 1960. That means our goal


>should be to land men on the Moon before July 20, 2009. Any NASA administrator

>with the same budget who fails to accomplish this task...

Where's he going to get "the same budget"? Not from Congress, he's not.

And remember, he hasn't got the same agency. Starting from scratch, with
a *new agency*, it might be feasible. But not if you do it within NASA.

>>At present, nothing. The original Saturn production line closed because
>>Congress wouldn't fund any further use for them. That situation has not
>>changed.
>
>The Saturn V could perform any mission the Shuttle can.

And existing expendable launchers can perform almost any mission the
shuttle can, and they already exist. Rebuilding the Saturn V means paying
a lot of money for extra capabilities that there is no (funded) use for.

>As for Congress, its future makeup is unknowable, so its hard to say what they
>will and won't do in the next Administration.

They've been quite consistent in some areas over the past couple of
decades, despite Administrations and House/Senate leaders coming and
going, and several changes in which party had a majority. Abrupt change
is theoretically possible, but that's not the way to bet.

>...We make


>building a simple space station seem so hard and so expensive. Skylab was sent
>up in one piece using a Saturn V. 4 or 5 Saturn launches could build a much

>more impressive space station that the ISS...

Indeed so. That was NASA's original plan, until it became clear that
Congress simply would not fund it.

>...which will be mostly solar panels


>anyway. What are all those solar panels for anyway? One wouldn't think that
>biological experiments in orbit would be so energy intensive.

Materials experiments often are. Moreover, there's a certain amount
needed for housekeeping too -- the station design has been criticized for
not providing enough power for experiments.

Remember that Skylab had big solar panels too.

>I guess it could
>be used to heat up carbon dioxide to disassociate the carbon from the oxygen to

>regenerate a breathable atmosphere...

I suppose it could, but that is not the approach being taken.

William Wright

unread,
May 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/11/00
to
Here is the catalog of unflown flight articles that I have collected over
time:

S-IVB-513 at NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston TX

S-IC-14 at NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston TX
S-II-14 at NASA Kennedy Space Center, FL
S-IVB-514 disposition unknown
S-IU-514 disposition unknown

S-IC-15 at Michoud Assembly Plant, New Orleans LA
S-II-15 at NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston TX
S-IVB-515 rebuilt as backup Skylab OWS now at National Air and Space Museum,
Washington DC
S-IU-515 disposition unknown

So far as I have been able to determine both surviving flight IUs were
acquired by a private collector so I would say there are no complete Saturn
V boosters left.

If anyone has better data I would appreciate corrections.
--
William H. Wright
Systems Architect
The Boeing Company

Henry Spencer <he...@spsystems.net> wrote in message

news:FuBu8...@spsystems.net...

> No; it's gone. It would have to be rebuilt very nearly from scratch.
> That might be a little cheaper than just designing and building an all-new

> heavy launcher, but not a lot. The bottom line, in any case, is that no
> funded mission exists that could justify a heavy launcher.
>

> >...Or should Saturn V belong to a lost golden
> >age best remembered with fond nostalgia?
>
> The "lost golden age" part I'll buy. But a more appropriate way to
> remember it is with a combination of anger (that its potential was fumbled
> and lost) and sorrow (that its glorious achievements in the short term
> ended up making such a mess of things in the long term, a mess we're still
> not really out of).

Greg Bondar

unread,
May 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/11/00
to
Hi!
Here's some corrections:

William Wright wrote:

> S-IVB-514 disposition unknown

S-IVB-514 on display at Apollo-Saturn V Center, Kennedy Space Center

> So far as I have been able to determine both surviving flight IUs were
> acquired by a private collector so I would say there are no complete Saturn
> V boosters left.
>

Yup, you're right...his name is Uncle Sam ;-)
Apparently the Smithsonian has them...see:

http://www.nasm.edu/nasm/dsh/artifacts/GC-SaturnVUnit.htm
http://www.nasm.edu/nasm/dsh/artifacts/GC-SaturnVRing.htm

> S-IU-514 disposition unknown
> S-IU-515 disposition unknown

Cheers,
greg


James A Davis

unread,
May 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/11/00
to
Brian Thorn wrote:

> "Chariots For Apollo" by Pellegrino and Stoff (page 278) does indeed
> claim that LM-13 went to Cradle of Aviation and LM-14 to the Franklin
> Institute. They say LM-15 was scrapped. I'd have to consider their
> sources to be quite reliable.

But virtually every other source disagrees with them, at least in part.
Taking the LMs in reverse numerical order:

LM 15: It is just inconceivable (Yes, I do know what that word means!)
that NASA (or the NASM) would have scrapped a LM with countless
facilities worldwide perfectly willing to pay for the privilege of
displaying it. It is possible P & S meant that material purchased for LM
15 was scrapped.

LM 14: This does not seem to at the Franklin Institute. Interestingly,
Jim Gerard at his Field Guide site (
http://aesp.nasa.okstate.edu/fieldguide/ ) lists its current whereabouts
as "unknown". He *does* show an LTA (identified as LTA 3 in his list and
LTA 5 in his photos) at the Franklin Institute. Since he took the photos
of the LTA he apparently satisfied himself that there was no LM 14
there.

LM 13: Gerard lists both LTA 1 *and* LM 13 at the Cradle of Aviation
Museum. It seems very unlikely that a museum would have both an LTA and
a LM on display. I think it likely that, as in the case of the Franklin
Institute, only LTA 1 is indeed present and this was lent to the
producers of "From Earth to the Moon". Does anyone know if it has it
been returned from Florida yet?

At some point it appears that the LTAs above became mistakenly
identified as LM 13 and LM 14. As I mentioned above other sources (such
as the Apollo Spacecraft Chronology and Francillon's Grumman Aircraft
since 1929) state that they were canceled. Other sources, such as
http://specdata.com/home/pullo/ , which one would think would mention
LMs 13-15 if they were built, don't.

> >As
> >you mentioned in your other post, the Cradle of Aviation Museum item was
> >used in filming "From the Earth to the Moon". Does it really seem likely
> >that NASA or whoever would allow a real lunar module to be used as a
> >movie prop?
>
> I don't see why not. This wasn't flown hardware, so the standards are
> somewhat lower.

Well, *all* available Lunar Modules by their very design, are unflown
hardware. They're the closest thing we have to the real thing. They are
very valuable for just this reason. One would sooner expect to see the
genuine Wright Flyer or Spirit of St. Louis as a movie prop.

Also, why would the producers necessarily *want* a genuine flight
article LM? Why assume all the headaches that would cause? Authenticity
can't be the reason because the LM would have to represent all the flown
models with all their differences. Surely using an LTA, which was
designed to take the punishment of terrestrial training, would be more
logical as the props folks could play with its appearance to their
heart's content (within reason) without worries of damaging a priceless
historical article and the actors, camera men, etc. could climb in and
around at leisure.

And if for some reason one *had* to have a genuine article, why not use
LM 9 right up the road from Disney-Universal at the Cape? They have the
same owner - why use the one the farthest away?

> NASA and the Smithsonian have let other unflown
> hardware rot out in the sun.

I think you have launch vehicles in mind here. With something the size
of the Saturn V there are few real choices. Where would you put a Saturn
V?



> >For that matter, would two private museums each be given a
> >production LM to display? Not likely.
>
> If they are reputable, why not? I don't know about the Franklin
> Museum, but I wouldn't be surprised if Grumman used some leverage to
> get LM-13 in the Cradle of Aviation, since it was built in nearby
> Bethpage.

Their reputation is not the point. One can think of a lot of places that
would have a better claim - Space Center Houston, US Space and Rocket
Center in Huntsville, US Air Force Museum - C of A and FI would be way
down the list.



> Compared to what Johnson Space Center has allowed to happen to its
> Saturn V, Cradle of Aviation and Franklin Institute look World Class.

Again, I doubt a Saturn V would have fared any better at those places.

> >As to what those exhibits really are my suspicion is that they are
> >former LTAs (lunar test articles) refurbished for display but that's
> >just a guess.
>
> One of the LTAs, I think, is at KSC, sitting outdoors at the Visitor's
> Center.

The Franklin Institute's is also displayed outdoors.

Jim Davis

Brian Thorn

unread,
May 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/11/00
to
On Thu, 11 May 2000 19:34:16 -0500, James A Davis
<jimd...@primary.net> wrote:

>LM 15: It is just inconceivable (Yes, I do know what that word means!)
>that NASA (or the NASM) would have scrapped a LM

However, the Field Guide you mention in the next paragraph also says
LM-15 was scrapped.

>LM 14: This does not seem to at the Franklin Institute. Interestingly,
>Jim Gerard at his Field Guide site (
>http://aesp.nasa.okstate.edu/fieldguide/ ) lists its current whereabouts
>as "unknown".

>LM 13: Gerard lists both LTA 1 *and* LM 13 at the Cradle of Aviation
>Museum.

The Cradle Of Aviation Museum itself does not. See...
http://www.cradleofaviation.org/0401grumman_lm13.html

Or a report about the filming of "From The Earth To The Moon"...
http://www.ocregister.com/science/features/liftoff/news/hbo.shtml

and another report at...
http://www.guard-lee.com/television_and_film.html

...both of which claim this LM is LM-13.

and...

http://www.nku.edu/~kimed/list.html

Which says LM-13 is at the CoA and LM-14 is at the FI.

>At some point it appears that the LTAs above became mistakenly
>identified as LM 13 and LM 14. As I mentioned above other sources (such
>as the Apollo Spacecraft Chronology

Can you elaborate? The only reference to LM-13 or LM-14 I could find
was this, from 1970...

"January 7
NASA issued instructions for deletion of the Apollo 20 mission from
the program (see January 4). MSC was directed to take immediate action
to:
Stop work on LM-14 and determine its disposition.
Delete requirements for the Apollo 20 spacesuits and portable and
secondary life support systems.
Determine disposition of CSM 115A pending a final decision as to its
possible use in a second workshop mission.
Reevaluate orbital science experiments and assignments and prepare
proposed revisions.
TWX, Rocco A. Petrone, NASA Hq., to MSC, "Apollo 20 Deletion," Jan. 7,
1970."

Which makes it seem as though LM-14 was at least partly built, not
just cancelled.

See...
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4009/v4p3g.htm

>It seems very unlikely that a museum would have both an LTA and
>a LM on display.

KSC does.

>Other sources, such as
>http://specdata.com/home/pullo/ ,

That link didn't work for me.

>which one would think would mention LMs 13-15 if they were built, don't.

What does it claim are at CoA and FI?

>Well, *all* available Lunar Modules by their very design, are unflown
>hardware. They're the closest thing we have to the real thing. They are
>very valuable for just this reason.

And I think CoA had a very strong case for getting one of them. FI, I
don't know.

>One would sooner expect to see the
>genuine Wright Flyer or Spirit of St. Louis as a movie prop.

Your correlation broke down. The Wright Flyer and the Spirit are, of
course, *flown* hardware. The real McCoys. Not spare parts or
never-needed backups.

>Also, why would the producers necessarily *want* a genuine flight
>article LM?

Cheaper than building a full-scale mockup. Since they were already
building a full-scale mockup CM, Universal might have decided using
the real thing would be faster and cheaper than building two mockups.

>Why assume all the headaches that would cause? Authenticity
>can't be the reason because the LM would have to represent all the flown
>models with all their differences.

Only us space geeks would notice that Apollo 11's LM incorrectly had
the same paint pattern as Apollo 9s.

>And if for some reason one *had* to have a genuine article, why not use
>LM 9 right up the road from Disney-Universal at the Cape? They have the
>same owner - why use the one the farthest away?

Because they *don't* have the same owner. Cradle Of Aviation Museum
claims the Smithsonian donated LM-13. It is not on loan. The vehicles
at KSC are still Smithsonian property. This also supports the idea
that Grumman pulled strings to get LM-13 to the CoA.

>> NASA and the Smithsonian have let other unflown
>> hardware rot out in the sun.
>
>I think you have launch vehicles in mind here.

I was thinking about the tons of leftover hardware that ended up in
junkyards around Cape Canaveral. Including lots of Lunar Module parts
that were recently auctioned-off after the junkyard owner died.

>Their reputation is not the point. One can think of a lot of places that
>would have a better claim - Space Center Houston,

Which didn't exist in 1972. In fact, there's no indoor space for it
even today, after major expansion in the mid-1990s. That means JSC
would have had to display LM-13 outdoors. In that case, the CoA was
the better recipient by anyone's standard.

>US Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville,

No indoor space to display one.

>US Air Force Museum - C of A and FI would be way down the list.

I can't speak of FI, but CoA has a much stronger case... it had indoor
display space available, and had Grumman's backing (look at the list
of aircraft on display there... almost all Grumman machines.)

Brian

Thomas Kalbfus

unread,
May 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/12/00
to
>And even if you could, who exactly would replace them? Even without
>wave-of-a-hand mass retirement, NASA is having a real problem finding
>experienced, competent upper managers these days -- the guys who should
>be moving into those slots are the ones who weren't hired because of the
>1970s budget slump.

We could hire Russian Rocket Engineers who have been more recently unemployed,
and likely to be younger than the old NASA hacks and it would suck them out
from under the thumbs of the Iranians, Iraqis, North Koreans, and Chinese. A
revived Manned Lunar and Mars Program could employ all of them. We used German
Scientists at the end of World War II. Why not use Russian scientists now?

Scott Lowther

unread,
May 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/12/00
to
In article <20000511200223...@ng-fm1.aol.com>,
thomas...@aol.com (Thomas Kalbfus) wrote:

> We could hire Russian Rocket Engineers who have been more recently
unemployed,
> and likely to be younger than the old NASA hacks and it would suck
them out
> from under the thumbs of the Iranians, Iraqis, North Koreans, and
Chinese. A
> revived Manned Lunar and Mars Program could employ all of them. We
used German
> Scientists at the end of World War II. Why not use Russian scientists
now?

A) Germans knew stuff we didn't and had experience far beyond ours.
B) We grabbed the Germans to make sure the Russians didn't.
C) There are quite enough American rocket engineers, just not enough
work. Bringing in yet more foreigners who probably don't speak the
language all that well, have different ideas about what defines
"quality" and different ideas about what defines "ethics," probably
won't hold you in good stead.

If you really want to bring America's space industry back to life,
employ those Russians. In Russia.

Derek Lyons

unread,
May 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/12/00
to
thomas...@aol.com (Thomas Kalbfus) wrote:

>>And even if you could, who exactly would replace them? Even without
>>wave-of-a-hand mass retirement, NASA is having a real problem finding
>>experienced, competent upper managers these days -- the guys who should
>>be moving into those slots are the ones who weren't hired because of the
>>1970s budget slump.
>

>We could hire Russian Rocket Engineers who have been more recently unemployed,
>and likely to be younger than the old NASA hacks and it would suck them out
>from under the thumbs of the Iranians, Iraqis, North Koreans, and Chinese. A
>revived Manned Lunar and Mars Program could employ all of them. We used German
>Scientists at the end of World War II. Why not use Russian scientists now?

The problem isn't lack of engineers. It's lack of managers.
------------------------------
Proprietor, Interim Books http://www.interimbooks.com
USS Henry L. Stimson homepage http://www.interimbooks.com/655/
Derek on Books http://www.interimbooks.com/derek/books/
------------------------------

Derek Lyons

unread,
May 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/12/00
to
thomas...@aol.com (Thomas Kalbfus) wrote:
>We probably built several aircraft carriers in the time it took from the beginning
>of the Apollo program to Man's first steps on the Moon.

Nope. CV-66 was begun before and completed during. CV-67 was planned
before and completed during. CV-68 was planned during and completed
after.

Ref; http://hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/us_super.htm

D.

BrianF5070

unread,
May 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/12/00
to
Henry Spencer says:

>>...Lets say we match up the year 2000 with 1960. That means our goal
>>should be to land men on the Moon before July 20, 2009. Any NASA
>administrator
>>with the same budget who fails to accomplish this task...
>
>Where's he going to get "the same budget"? Not from Congress, he's not.

Everyone keeps complaining about NASA's budget. However, if you take the
average NASA budget from the 1960's and adjust it for inflation, you will find
that it was only about 20% more than the average budget in the 1990's.

20% is important, but the fact is that NASA is currently spending about 80% as
much as it was during its heyday, and is certainly not getting 80% of the
results. IMO, it is not getting 10% of the results.

NASA's problem is not funding. Not really. It is lack of a goal or vision or
direction or (as near as I can make out) any competent management at any level.


jeff findley

unread,
May 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/12/00
to
el...@hurricane.net (Derek Lyons) writes:
> The problem isn't lack of engineers. It's lack of managers.

The problem is a lack of *good* managers coupled with an abundance of
*bad* managers.

Jeff
--
Whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist. - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Rand Simberg

unread,
May 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/12/00
to
On Sat, 13 May 2000 00:43:25 +1000, in a place far, far away,
s.so...@edfac.usyd.edu.au (Stephen Souter) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

>> While I would personally love to see the Saturn V flying again, it's not a

>> good choice as a new launcher. For one thing, it is simply *too big*.
>> Smaller launchers plus orbital assembly work much better for almost
>> anything you'd want to do with it.
>

>But wouldn't orbital assembly be far more expensive than ground assembly?

Not necessarily, compared to the development and operational costs of
a large booster.

>If the present (small) space station is costing billions to put up there,
>how much would an orbital assembly plant cost?

Not much more. Very little of the space station costs represent
actual flight hardware. We could build one ten times as large for
very little additional money.

>Particularly one that might
>end up only being used once or twice if future Congress budget cutters
>prune as much as their predecessors did with the present space station and
>Apollo.

Well, yes, that's one of the major problems, and the reason that the
space station is so small and so late--we don't really need one. We
do, however, need a space station program, judging by the fact that it
gets funded every year.

************************************************************************
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Replace first . with @ and throw out the "@trash." to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers: postm...@fbi.gov

Doug Jones

unread,
May 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/12/00
to
Stephen Souter wrote:
>
> In article <3918B8E7...@ibm-pc.org>, jrf...@ibm-pc.org wrote:
>
> > anw...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > Is it
> > > worthwhile and possible?
> >
> > It would probably be cheaper to design a new booster with more modern,
> > design-to-cost methodologies. But in the end, you also need to ask what
> > such a large booster would be needed for. There are no existing
> > payloads that large, and just about any hypothetical large payload (e.g.
> > return to the moon, humans to Mars) can in principle be launched in
> > pieces by smaller rockets and assembled in orbit.
>
> In principle, perhaps, but economically how feasible would it be?
>
> Assuming we aren't talking about a Mars (or wherever) vehicle assembled by
> something way-way futuristic like nanotechs or A.I. robots, the assembly
> would presumably have to be carried out by human beings housed and fed in
> some sort of orbital facility, a space station somewhat larger and grander
> than the one now being constructed in orbit.

I think you've missed the point- the system would be assembled, not
built, in orbit. Multiple automatic dockings (possibly assisted by
manipulator arms), and just a couple EVA's to plug external connectors
together. The tough stuff would be done on the ground, not in orbit-
contrast a "stick built" house requiring a lot of labor on site, with a
mobile home that's trucked in from the factory.

The orbital facility need not be continuously manned- an extended period
of component launches would culminate in an assembly crew's arrival to
plug the pieces together. If you're particularly parsimonious, the
assembly crew could be the mission crew.

--
Doug Jones
Rocket Plumber, XCOR Aerospace
http://www.xcor-aerospace.com

Phil McRevis

unread,
May 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/12/00
to
[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]

Scott Lowther <lex...@ix.netcom.com> spake the secret code
<8ffpvo$idm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> thusly:

>B) We grabbed the Germans to make sure the Russians didn't.

We grabbed 'em, but "The Rocket Team" makes it quite clear that they
were fleeing the Russians and running in the direction of the US
troops. When they first encountered an American GI, he didn't even
believe they were rocket scientists!
--
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/> Legalize Adulthood!
``Ain't it funny that they all fire the pistol,
at the wrong end of the race?''--PDBT
lega...@xmission.com <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/who/>

Geoffrey A. Landis

unread,
May 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/12/00
to
In article <yz9ln1f...@sdrc.com> jeff findley, jeff.f...@sdrc.com
writes:

>el...@hurricane.net (Derek Lyons) writes:
>> The problem isn't lack of engineers. It's lack of managers.

No, it's lack of political will.

With no directive to build a large launch vehicle, all the engineers and
managers together will just sit there.


In article <20000512102743...@ng-cl1.aol.com> BrianF5070,


brian...@aol.com writes:
>Everyone keeps complaining about NASA's budget. However, if you take the
>average NASA budget from the 1960's and adjust it for inflation, you will find
>that it was only about 20% more than the average budget in the 1990's.

According to the best inflation figures I have, the 1994 budget (the
largest budget NASA got in the 90s) was 68% of the Apollo peak (1965).

--
Geoffrey A. Landis
Scientist and part-time science fiction writer
http://www.sff.net/people/geoffrey.landis

William Wright

unread,
May 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/12/00
to

Greg Bondar <gh...@psu.edu> wrote in message
news:391B4C75...@psu.edu...

> Hi!
> Here's some corrections:
>
> William Wright wrote:
>
> > S-IVB-514 disposition unknown
>
> S-IVB-514 on display at Apollo-Saturn V Center, Kennedy Space Center

Do they have two because I show them as having S-IVB-500F which is of course
a non-flight article. Ok I see on another page that was thought to be
S-IVB-500F was discovered in 1997 to actually be S-IVB-514. Cool!


>
> > So far as I have been able to determine both surviving flight IUs were
> > acquired by a private collector so I would say there are no complete
Saturn
> > V boosters left.
> >
>
> Yup, you're right...his name is Uncle Sam ;-)
> Apparently the Smithsonian has them...see:
>


> http://www.nasm.edu/nasm/dsh/artifacts/GC-SaturnVUnit.htm

Unfortunately this page says "The record is incomplete concerning the
provenance of this article. Dates marked on several of the components
indicate that it was built sometime around 1970. It may well have been a
flight article intended for a Lunar mission that was canceled, but more
research is needed to determine this. "

> http://www.nasm.edu/nasm/dsh/artifacts/GC-SaturnVRing.htm\

and this one "There are also instrument rings of varying fidelity installed
in the three Saturn V vehicles, at Huntsville, Kennedy Space Center, and
Houston (one of these was probably intended for the never-flown Apollo 18
mission, therefore it would be a flight-qualified article.) Little is known
of the provenance of any of them. Based on informal discussions with
curatorial staff at the Alabama Space and Rocket Center, it is likely that
1975-0678 [Smithsonian catalog number] was a development test model, used
for structural and fit tests. "

>
> > S-IU-514 disposition unknown
> > S-IU-515 disposition unknown

So the the Smithsonian does not yet know what they have for certain.

>
> Cheers,
> greg
>

Bruce Sterling Woodcock

unread,
May 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/12/00
to

"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@trash.org> wrote in message
news:391c2c7c...@nntp.ix.netcom.com...

> Not much more. Very little of the space station costs represent
> actual flight hardware. We could build one ten times as large for
> very little additional money.

Not without a heavier launcher. That's the problem of orbital
assembly of large projects... at some point it becomes cheaper
to design and build a large launch vehicle to put it up in fewer
trips.

Bruce


Brian Thorn

unread,
May 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/12/00
to

Brian Thorn

unread,
May 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/12/00
to
On 13 May 2000 03:40:29 GMT, thomas...@aol.com (Thomas Kalbfus)
wrote:

>
>That changes if George Bush wins the presidency and the House and Senate
>Republicans maintain their majority. Most people do not like the Russians, and
>the Chinese threatening their lives with nuclear missiles and prefer the
>Government to take action rather that maintain the balance of terror.

Am I the only one around here who double-checked the date on this
message? It sure seems to have been written in 1988.

Brian

Jorge R. Frank

unread,
May 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/12/00
to
Jeff Greason wrote:
>
> Thomas Kalbfus <thomas...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20000512200442...@ng-ff1.aol.com...
> > The Ballistic Missile Defense Organization could use a heavy lift rocket
> like
> > the Saturn. Especially if it pursues a missile shield against a full scale
> > nuclear attack as Congress prefers instead of the partial shield. Those
> space
> > based chemical lasers would require alot of heavy lift launchers to
> deploy.
>
> This, of course, is one of the seldom-spoken reasons why NASA will never
> get approval for a HLLV or a near-term project for a high-capacity RLV until
> there is a significant shift in the political climate. Looking useful for
> BMDO
> purposes is the kiss of death for a space project seeking funding. There
> are too
> many executive branch officials who really don't want to see BMDO capable
> of bigger and better things.

Exactly. Need we remind everyone of the fate of DC-X?

James A Davis

unread,
May 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/12/00
to
Brian Thorn wrote:

> >LM 15: It is just inconceivable (Yes, I do know what that word means!)
> >that NASA (or the NASM) would have scrapped a LM
>
> However, the Field Guide you mention in the next paragraph also says
> LM-15 was scrapped.

Indeed, it does.


> >LM 14: This does not seem to at the Franklin Institute. Interestingly,
> >Jim Gerard at his Field Guide site (
> >http://aesp.nasa.okstate.edu/fieldguide/ ) lists its current whereabouts
> >as "unknown".
>
> >LM 13: Gerard lists both LTA 1 *and* LM 13 at the Cradle of Aviation
> >Museum.
>
> The Cradle Of Aviation Museum itself does not. See...
> http://www.cradleofaviation.org/0401grumman_lm13.html
>
> Or a report about the filming of "From The Earth To The Moon"...
> http://www.ocregister.com/science/features/liftoff/news/hbo.shtml
>
> and another report at...
> http://www.guard-lee.com/television_and_film.html
>
> ...both of which claim this LM is LM-13.
>
> and...
>
> http://www.nku.edu/~kimed/list.html
>
> Which says LM-13 is at the CoA and LM-14 is at the FI.

We are in agreement that some sources say that LM 13 is at CofA and LM
14 is at FI. I mentioned Jim Gerard's site specifically because he was
at FI and there was no LM 14 to be found, only an LTA. I theorize that
the LTA has been misidentified at FI. I suspect the same thing might be
the case at CofA. My reasons for thinking so:

1.) References that claim LMs 13-15 were canceled.

2.) Frequent confusion over the provenance of other leftover
Saturn/Apollo hardware (the various Saturn V stages, CSMs 115 and 115A),
even by their builders and NASA.

3.) The use of a supposedly genuine flight article LM in a film series.


> >At some point it appears that the LTAs above became mistakenly
> >identified as LM 13 and LM 14. As I mentioned above other sources (such
> >as the Apollo Spacecraft Chronology
>
> Can you elaborate? The only reference to LM-13 or LM-14 I could find
> was this, from 1970...
>
> "January 7
> NASA issued instructions for deletion of the Apollo 20 mission from
> the program (see January 4). MSC was directed to take immediate action
> to:
> Stop work on LM-14 and determine its disposition.
> Delete requirements for the Apollo 20 spacesuits and portable and
> secondary life support systems.
> Determine disposition of CSM 115A pending a final decision as to its
> possible use in a second workshop mission.
> Reevaluate orbital science experiments and assignments and prepare
> proposed revisions.
> TWX, Rocco A. Petrone, NASA Hq., to MSC, "Apollo 20 Deletion," Jan. 7,
> 1970."
>
> Which makes it seem as though LM-14 was at least partly built, not
> just cancelled.

How much work do you think was done on a lunar module whose flight, had
it occurred, was a minimum of four years away when the stop work order
was issued? Apollos 15 and 19 were canceled in September 1970 so LM 13
would have been about three years away from flight. Again, how much work
would have been done by then?

LM 15 of course could never have flown. There was no Saturn V to fly it
on.

> >It seems very unlikely that a museum would have both an LTA and
> >a LM on display.
>
> KSC does.

Well, okay, change that to "a private museum which didn't happen to be
the site of a large collection of lunar articles because it wasn't the
major launch and training site."



> >Other sources, such as
> >http://specdata.com/home/pullo/ ,
>
> That link didn't work for me.

Sorry about that. Try http://www3.spec.net/home/pullo/

> >One would sooner expect to see the
> >genuine Wright Flyer or Spirit of St. Louis as a movie prop.
>
> Your correlation broke down. The Wright Flyer and the Spirit are, of
> course, *flown* hardware. The real McCoys. Not spare parts or
> never-needed backups.

I think the analogy holds up. In this case all the flown articles are
destroyed or undergoing a slow destruction in an inaccessible place
(like sunken ships). The unflown lunar modules are *the very best
representations of the flown articles that we will ever have for all
time to come*. There are no existing flown articles to depress their
historical value.

> >Also, why would the producers necessarily *want* a genuine flight
> >article LM?
>
> Cheaper than building a full-scale mockup. Since they were already
> building a full-scale mockup CM, Universal might have decided using
> the real thing would be faster and cheaper than building two mockups.

I find this debatable for two reasons:

1.) The headache of having to avoid damaging a valuable historical
artifact (transportation, filming, security against vandalism, souvenir
hunters, insurance, etc.) might very well cost more than making your
own.

2.) The US government has already built full-scale mockups (the LTAs).
Why not lease one of them? Which, of course, is what I suspect happened.

> >Why assume all the headaches that would cause? Authenticity
> >can't be the reason because the LM would have to represent all the flown
> >models with all their differences.
>
> Only us space geeks would notice that Apollo 11's LM incorrectly had
> the same paint pattern as Apollo 9s.

Well, tell me, was the lunar module in the various episodes pretty much
the same? Or did they try to depict them accurately?



> >And if for some reason one *had* to have a genuine article, why not use
> >LM 9 right up the road from Disney-Universal at the Cape? They have the
> >same owner - why use the one the farthest away?
>
> Because they *don't* have the same owner. Cradle Of Aviation Museum
> claims the Smithsonian donated LM-13. It is not on loan.

Now this astounds me. I can believe that LM 13 was actually built. I can
believe that the NASM would lend it to CofA for display. But to donate
it outright to them? Is there any other instance of a title to a manned
spacecraft being transferred to another party? Why would NASM do such a
thing? Maybe a boilerplate capsule, an LTA, perhaps a Block I Apollo,
but a production lunar module?

> I was thinking about the tons of leftover hardware that ended up in
> junkyards around Cape Canaveral. Including lots of Lunar Module parts
> that were recently auctioned-off after the junkyard owner died.

All in a different category entirely as far as historical value goes.
You can't preserve *everything*.



> >Their reputation is not the point. One can think of a lot of places that
> >would have a better claim - Space Center Houston,
>
> Which didn't exist in 1972. In fact, there's no indoor space for it
> even today, after major expansion in the mid-1990s. That means JSC
> would have had to display LM-13 outdoors. In that case, the CoA was
> the better recipient by anyone's standard.

But with a genuine lunar module in prospect things might have played out
differently. How were CofA and FI fixed for space in 1972?



> >US Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville,
>
> No indoor space to display one.

Again, arrangements might have been made had a lunar module been
available.



> >US Air Force Museum - C of A and FI would be way down the list.
>
> I can't speak of FI, but CoA has a much stronger case... it had indoor
> display space available, and had Grumman's backing (look at the list
> of aircraft on display there... almost all Grumman machines.)

I agree with the sentiment but lunar modules are government property
paid for by the taxpayers. As such, priority goes to government
institutions also paid for by the taxpayers so a large number of
taxpayers can see them and see exactly what their taxes are paying for.
Taxpayers tend to resent it when something they paid a lot of taxes for
is given away.

Our exchanges are beginning to reach Mookian proportions so I'll let you
have the last word. I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I think our
major disagreement is over exactly how much value an unflown lunar
module has.

Jim Davis

Bruce Sterling Woodcock

unread,
May 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/12/00
to

"BrianF5070" <brian...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000513005338...@ng-bg1.aol.com...
> These days, NASA is simply not achieving as much per dollar as they used
to.
> There is no getting around this simple fact.

I'm not sure I'd agree there. There were, what, 25 manned missions
between 1960-1970 whereas there were, what, 65 between 1990
and 2000? And this year isn't even over. So you get over 2 1/2 times
as many missions on 75% of the money, and something like 8 times
as many people. Duration was certainly many times longer too. Sure,
we didn't go to the moon, but we did a lot more space science.

And that doesn't even count the unmanned space science.

Bruce


Rand Simberg

unread,
May 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/12/00
to
Brian Thorn wrote:

> >That changes if George Bush wins the presidency and the House and Senate
> >Republicans maintain their majority. Most people do not like the Russians, and
> >the Chinese threatening their lives with nuclear missiles and prefer the
> >Government to take action rather that maintain the balance of terror.
>
> Am I the only one around here who double-checked the date on this
> message? It sure seems to have been written in 1988.

The House and Senate didn't have a Republican majority to maintain in 1988.


--
************************************************************************
sim...@interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)

Stephen Souter

unread,
May 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/13/00
to
In article <8fcu82$c8d$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, anw...@my-deja.com wrote:

<snip>

> I was born at the height of Apollo, so I never had the opportunity to
> watch an actual Saturn moonshot. In one of my darker moods, I wonder
> if I will ever see another human being walk on the surface of another
> heavenly body live and in real time. Or will I and other prospacers be
> condemned to watching old footage of men walking on the moon on the
> History Channel.
>
> I optimistic that the rest of humanity will wake up and realize that we
> have to grow up and move out of our cradle. I just hope it will be
> sooner rather than later. I like to walk on and see another heavenly
> body before I die. I just hope that others and me will not turn to be
> real D.D. Harriman's.

Someone on another thread has posted a Space.com URL giving a brief sketch
of NASA's plans for a robotic sample-return mission to the Moon "toward[s]
the end of the decade". That would seem to suggest there will be no more
manned missions to the Moon (NASA ones at any rate) before the middle of
the NEXT decade at the earliest.

--
Stephen Souter
s.so...@edfac.usyd.edu.au
http://www.edfac.usyd.edu.au/staff/souters/

Stephen Souter

unread,
May 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/13/00
to

> anw...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Is it
> > worthwhile and possible?
>
> It would probably be cheaper to design a new booster with more modern,
> design-to-cost methodologies. But in the end, you also need to ask what
> such a large booster would be needed for. There are no existing
> payloads that large, and just about any hypothetical large payload (e.g.
> return to the moon, humans to Mars) can in principle be launched in
> pieces by smaller rockets and assembled in orbit.

In principle, perhaps, but economically how feasible would it be?

Assuming we aren't talking about a Mars (or wherever) vehicle assembled by
something way-way futuristic like nanotechs or A.I. robots, the assembly
would presumably have to be carried out by human beings housed and fed in
some sort of orbital facility, a space station somewhat larger and grander
than the one now being constructed in orbit.

All this would be built and assembled before you could assemble your
manned mission vehicle.

It all sounds very expensive, particularly when NASA is copping enough
flak for wasting money on a small space station, and probably ripe for
pruning by a budget-conscious Congress before anything even (so to speak)
gets off the ground.

Stephen Souter

unread,
May 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/13/00
to
In article <FuD5H...@spsystems.net>, he...@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer)
wrote:

> In article <20000510135032...@ng-cs1.aol.com>,


> Thomas Kalbfus <thomas...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>No; it's gone. It would have to be rebuilt very nearly from scratch.
> >>That might be a little cheaper than just designing and building an all-new

> >>heavy launcher, but not a lot...
> >
> >A little cheaper?! I think it might be alot cheaper.
>
> The people who've looked at this carefully (NASA has seriously studied it)
> say it wouldn't be. Remember that you have to redesign the stuff that's
> just impossibly outdated (e.g., you wouldn't duplicate the original
> electronics), rebuild the whole subcontractor network, and reinvent a lot
> of the manufacturing processes. Inevitably, some of the results will be a
> little different, and so you'll have to re-test and re-qualify everything
> just to be sure. It won't be quite as hard as starting from scratch, but
> much of the original work will have to be repeated. It really will take
> almost as long and cost almost as much as a clean-slate design.


>
> While I would personally love to see the Saturn V flying again, it's not a
> good choice as a new launcher. For one thing, it is simply *too big*.
> Smaller launchers plus orbital assembly work much better for almost
> anything you'd want to do with it.

But wouldn't orbital assembly be far more expensive than ground assembly?

After all, you don't have to transport (to and from orbit), feed, house,
and entertain an entire assembly workforce on the ground, whereas you have
to in space.

If the present (small) space station is costing billions to put up there,

how much would an orbital assembly plant cost? Particularly one that might


end up only being used once or twice if future Congress budget cutters
prune as much as their predecessors did with the present space station and
Apollo.

> (In fact, that's how NASA would have
> gone to the Moon, had they not been in a great big Presidentially-mandated
> hurry.)

That wouldn't be an antecedent to the $100 billion wish-list NASA put
together for President Bush when he invited them to submit plans for a
manned mission to Mars? :)

Thomas Kalbfus

unread,
May 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/13/00
to
The Ballistic Missile Defense Organization could use a heavy lift rocket like
the Saturn. Especially if it pursues a missile shield against a full scale
nuclear attack as Congress prefers instead of the partial shield. Those space
based chemical lasers would require alot of heavy lift launchers to deploy. If
BMDO is going to build the factory and start production of HLLV then NASA could
order a few more and conduct manned Lunar and Mars Missions at bargain basement
prices. The mass production of these thing should lower the per unit cost. I
think anyone in favor of a manned mission to the Moon and Mars should support
SDI since it would dovetail nicely.

Tom Kalbfus.

Jeff Greason

unread,
May 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/13/00
to
Thomas Kalbfus <thomas...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000512200442...@ng-ff1.aol.com...
> The Ballistic Missile Defense Organization could use a heavy lift rocket
like
> the Saturn. Especially if it pursues a missile shield against a full scale
> nuclear attack as Congress prefers instead of the partial shield. Those
space
> based chemical lasers would require alot of heavy lift launchers to
deploy.

This, of course, is one of the seldom-spoken reasons why NASA will never


get approval for a HLLV or a near-term project for a high-capacity RLV until
there is a significant shift in the political climate. Looking useful for
BMDO
purposes is the kiss of death for a space project seeking funding. There
are too
many executive branch officials who really don't want to see BMDO capable
of bigger and better things.

----------------------------------------------------------------
"While dramatic ventures can be Jeff Greason
invigorating, they can also make us lose President & Eng. Mgr.
sight of the amazing achievements that XCOR Aerospace
occur bit by bit" <jgre...@hughes.net>
-- V. Postrel, The Future and its Enemies <www.xcor-aerospace.com> If


Thomas Kalbfus

unread,
May 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/13/00
to
>> The Ballistic Missile Defense Organization could use a heavy lift rocket
>like
>> the Saturn. Especially if it pursues a missile shield against a full scale
>> nuclear attack as Congress prefers instead of the partial shield. Those
>space
>> based chemical lasers would require alot of heavy lift launchers to
>deploy.
>
>This, of course, is one of the seldom-spoken reasons why NASA will never
>get approval for a HLLV or a near-term project for a high-capacity RLV until
>there is a significant shift in the political climate. Looking useful for
>BMDO
>purposes is the kiss of death for a space project seeking funding. There
>are too
>many executive branch officials who really don't want to see BMDO capable
>of bigger and better things.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>"While dramatic ventures can be Jeff Greason

That changes if George Bush wins the presidency and the House and Senate


Republicans maintain their majority. Most people do not like the Russians, and
the Chinese threatening their lives with nuclear missiles and prefer the

Government to take action rather that maintain the balance of terror. Everyone
in this country is a virtual hostage. If am not willing to be a hostage in
order to maintain Russia's sense of security. Alot of other countries don't
have nuclear weapons at all and they don't worry about the U.S. nuking them
just because they can. If the Russians don't want to be our enemy they should
stop acting like they are. Allowing people to stick a gun to our heads is not a
gesture of good will, it is a gesture of stupidity. Humans are unpredictable,
and it cannot be assumed that everyone will have a sense of self presurvation
for the doctrine of mutually assured destruction to work against. Just because
our cold war adversaries remained rational in this reguard for the last 50
years does not guarantee that this will remain the case. I particularly worry
about religious fanatics taking over the government of nuclear powers.

Tom Kalbfus

BrianF5070

unread,
May 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/13/00
to
Geoffrey A. Landis writes:

>In article <20000512102743...@ng-cl1.aol.com> BrianF5070,
>brian...@aol.com writes:
>>Everyone keeps complaining about NASA's budget. However, if you take the
>>average NASA budget from the 1960's and adjust it for inflation, you will
>find
>>that it was only about 20% more than the average budget in the 1990's.
>
>According to the best inflation figures I have, the 1994 budget (the
>largest budget NASA got in the 90s) was 68% of the Apollo peak (1965).

Sure, I'd believe that. But the figure you give is lower than the figure I
give because I am comparing the average expenditure. The annual peak to peak
comparison says that NASA spent more money in the 1960's because the
expenditures during the Apollo program fluctuated much more than in the 1990's
(In fact, this has a bearing on the point I am trying to make - in the 60's
they spent money purposefully, while in the 90's the money is more a sort of
"maintaining" mode, without much purpose behind it).

Compare the total expenditures for 1960 - 1969 vs. 1990 - 1999. You'll find
that the total money spent in the 90's is around 75 - 85% of the money spent in
the 60's, depending on the inflation figures you use.

Brian Thorn

unread,
May 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/13/00
to
On Fri, 12 May 2000 23:22:49 -0500, James A Davis
<jimd...@primary.net> wrote:

>We are in agreement that some sources say that LM 13 is at CofA and LM
>14 is at FI. I mentioned Jim Gerard's site specifically because he was
>at FI and there was no LM 14 to be found, only an LTA.

This does indeed seem to be the case. However another answer is simply
that LM-14 was moved elsewhere or is being restored by the NASM. By
the way, the LTA at Kennedy doesn't seem to be on anyone's list. But
it's still there. Could LM-14 be at KSC? Or is the "LTA" at
Philadelphia actually LM-14 and the LTA reported there, really at KSC.
(Confused yet? I am!)

> I theorize that
>the LTA has been misidentified at FI. I suspect the same thing might be
>the case at CofA. My reasons for thinking so:
>
>1.) References that claim LMs 13-15 were canceled.

I don't mean to offend, Jim. But I haven't been able to verify these
references. I've not found this reference in _The Apollo Spacecraft: A
Chronology_ that you cite.

I did find (and quoted) a reference there that says a Stop Work Order
was issued for LM-14 after Apollo 20 was cancelled. Now if work had to
be stopped on LM-14, then work presumably was even farther along for
LM-13. And it would be another six months before LM-13's flight was
cancelled.

You list a couple of web sites, one of which tends to undermine your
position.

I also provided a web site, which supports the claim that LM-13 and 14
were actually built.

Web sites aren't particularly reliable, so I think we should discount
all three references. That leaves NASA's _The Apollo Spacecraft: A
Chronology_ and Pellegrino & Stoff's _Chariots for Apollo_, both of
which support my position.

>> Because they *don't* have the same owner. Cradle Of Aviation Museum
>> claims the Smithsonian donated LM-13. It is not on loan.
>
>Now this astounds me. I can believe that LM 13 was actually built. I can
>believe that the NASM would lend it to CofA for display. But to donate
>it outright to them? Is there any other instance of a title to a manned
>spacecraft being transferred to another party? Why would NASM do such a
>thing? Maybe a boilerplate capsule, an LTA, perhaps a Block I Apollo,
>but a production lunar module?

Strictly speaking, there isn't much technical difference between a
Block I Apollo and LM-13 or 14. All were meant to fly, but
circumstances in the end meant that they never got the chance. (Apollo
19 and 20 were cancelled, so was Schirra's crew's original Block I
flight.) And there are Block Is here and there, in some very
unglamorous places. I'm not at all convinced the Smithsonian would
have drawn a distinction between unflown CMs and unflown LMs.

>> I was thinking about the tons of leftover hardware that ended up in
>> junkyards around Cape Canaveral. Including lots of Lunar Module parts
>> that were recently auctioned-off after the junkyard owner died.
>
>All in a different category entirely as far as historical value goes.
>You can't preserve *everything*.

But where do you draw the line? As far as the Smithsonian was
concerned, LM-13 was just more unneeded junk. It just happened to be
all in one piece. Or, as I suspect, LM-13 was mostly complete and was
finished off by Grumman workers in an arrangement between Grumman, the
Smithsonian, and the Cradle of Aviation Museum. Certainly, the large
Grumman presence at CoA points to a close relationship between the
two. Grumman would later spiff-up one of their mockups for a Japanese
firm, calling it LM 7 1/2, so there is some precedence for this.

I think it is very likely that Grumman reached a similar agreement to
finish off LM-13 for the Cradle of Aviation. This explains why LM-13
is much more realistic-looking than, say, the LTA at KSC (which really
looks like a boilerplate.)

Grumman's backing of a home at CoA can easily explain why LM-13 did
not go to Houston or Huntsville, especially when neither JSC nor MSFC
had a suitable home for it. And in the end, LM-13 was still just
unflown hardware. Nothing historic. (It's a crown jewel today, but in
1972, the Smithsonian clearly had more space relics than it knew what
to do with.)

>But with a genuine lunar module in prospect things might have played out
>differently.

Unlikely. If getting an unflown Saturn V and a flown CM didn't
jumpstart development of a Space Museum, I don't think an unflown LM
would have helped much. (Today, that arrangement is spectacularly
successful at Kennedy Space Center, but it took 25 years to build it,
and Houston gets a small fraction of the number of visitors who come
to Kennedy.)

Besides, Houston already had an LTA. Wouldn't the Smithsonian have
wanted to spread things around a little? New York is a very good place
to put an LM where it will be seen by a lot of people.

>How were CofA and FI fixed for space in 1972?

LM-13 was always indoors at CoA. I can't say about FI. But LM-14's
less-complete status (from cancellation six months earlier of a flight
six months later than LM-13's) could explain why outdoor display at
Philadelphia was considered acceptable. The long-lead items for LM-15,
I think, are the parts that ended up in the junkyard outside KSC for
thirty years until they were sold this spring.



>> >US Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville,
>>
>> No indoor space to display one.
>
>Again, arrangements might have been made had a lunar module been
>available.

And again, MSFC already had an LTA. If getting an unflown Saturn V and
a flown Command Module didn't do it...

>> >US Air Force Museum - C of A and FI would be way down the list.

This is probably the strongest contender. But when all is said and
done, sending LM-13 to CoA was a lot cheaper.

>Our exchanges are beginning to reach Mookian proportions so I'll let you
>have the last word. I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I think our
>major disagreement is over exactly how much value an unflown lunar
>module has.

My disagreement is more "had at the time". Today, they seem priceless.
At the time, few were interested. KSC and the Smithsonian in
Washington already had a real LM. JSC and MSFC already had LTAs or the
like. So the Smithsonian would then have needed to choose the best
destination for LM-13. You believe a private museum in New York City
wouldn't have gotten a real-life LM. But some "private" museums have
actual flown spacecraft (Apollo 14 is at the very commercial Astronaut
Hall Of Fame), so one getting an unflown spacecraft is not unlikely. I
think the Smithsonian would have considered CoA a very good place to
send a leftover LM. When you consider the likely lobbying of Grumman
to keep LM-13 near Bethpage... I have no trouble believing this at
all.

Have a good weekend.

Brian

Jorge R. Frank

unread,
May 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/13/00
to
BrianF5070 wrote:
>
> The annual peak to peak
> comparison says that NASA spent more money in the 1960's because the
> expenditures during the Apollo program fluctuated much more than in the 1990's
> (In fact, this has a bearing on the point I am trying to make - in the 60's
> they spent money purposefully, while in the 90's the money is more a sort of
> "maintaining" mode, without much purpose behind it).

You can thank Congress for that, for mandating annual spending caps.
This was penny-wise/pound-foolish because it forced deferment of
development work from year to year in order to stay under the caps, with
the resultant schedule delays and cost overruns. It also forced some
unpleasant tradeoffs between development funding (to stay within the
caps) and later operational costs of the finished systems.

Apollo, on the other hand, pretty much got what it asked for up until
about 1966 or so. The development "peak" that occurred between 1964 and
1966 was necessary to meet the program's presidentially-imposed
deadline. I submit that, had Apollo been funded like shuttle and station
(with the same total amount of spending between 1961-73, but capped at
the "average" level of spending over those years), Apollo would have
failed miserably.

PhilipW66

unread,
May 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/13/00
to
> thomas...@aol.com (Thomas Kalbfus)

>That changes if George Bush wins the presidency and the House and Senate
>Republicans maintain their majority. Most people do not like the Russians,
>and
>the Chinese threatening their lives with nuclear missiles and prefer the
>Government to take action rather that maintain the balance of terror.
>Everyone
>in this country is a virtual hostage. If am not willing to be a hostage in
>order to maintain Russia's sense of security. Alot of other countries don't
>have nuclear weapons at all and they don't worry about the U.S. nuking them
>just because they can. If the Russians don't want to be our enemy they should
>stop acting like they are. Allowing people to stick a gun to our heads is not
>a
>gesture of good will, it is a gesture of stupidity. Humans are unpredictable,
>and it cannot be assumed that everyone will have a sense of self presurvation
>for the doctrine of mutually assured destruction to work against. Just
>because
>our cold war adversaries remained rational in this reguard for the last 50
>years does not guarantee that this will remain the case. I particularly worry
>about religious fanatics taking over the government of nuclear powers.

Good point. Given the Republicans and GW Bush's syncophantic pandering to the
religious right, there is a danger of our government and its nuclear arsenal
being taken over by religious fanatics. See Robert Heinlein's "If this Goe On"
"Revolt in 2100" for an America where just this happened.


Henry Spencer

unread,
May 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/13/00
to
> ...Looking useful for BMDO purposes is

> the kiss of death for a space project seeking funding. There are too
> many executive branch officials who really don't want to see BMDO capable
> of bigger and better things...

And it's not just the executive branch, either; this problem existed even
under the Reagan and Bush administrations. Congress did not, and does
not, want to face the *question* of whether missile defences should be
deployed on a large scale.

Large-scale deployment would be an intensely controversial issue -- note
how much political uproar there is about even small-scale defences -- and
any full-fledged debate over it would probably end some political careers.
**Congress's first priority is getting re-elected.** If an issue looks
polarized enough to get voters significantly excited about it, to the
point where they'd remember it at election time, then it's best avoided.

For that matter, the White House works the same way, to some extent.
There is a bipartisan Administration-House-Senate consensus :-) that
making any big decision about this stuff is undesirable. Not building any
useful infrastructure for it is a good way to postpone that dreadful day
without having to openly admit your motives.
--
"Be careful not to step | Henry Spencer he...@spsystems.net
in the Microsoft." -- John Denker | (aka he...@zoo.toronto.edu)

BrianF5070

unread,
May 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/13/00
to
Jorge R. Frank writes:

>You can thank Congress for that, for mandating annual spending caps.
>This was penny-wise/pound-foolish because it forced deferment of
>development work from year to year in order to stay under the caps, with
>the resultant schedule delays and cost overruns. It also forced some
>unpleasant tradeoffs between development funding (to stay within the
>caps) and later operational costs of the finished systems.

You certainly can blame Congress for many things, but it's clear that there is
enough blame to go around. The current Administration (and past ones) can be
blamed, as well as NASA itself. Assigning blame is, to me, of minor interest
at best. I am much more interested in finding a path forward.

>Apollo, on the other hand, pretty much got what it asked for up until
>about 1966 or so. The development "peak" that occurred between 1964 and
>1966 was necessary to meet the program's presidentially-imposed
>deadline. I submit that, had Apollo been funded like shuttle and station
>(with the same total amount of spending between 1961-73, but capped at
>the "average" level of spending over those years), Apollo would have
>failed miserably.

I have no doubt. Any competent project manager knows that you first develop
the project objectives, and then the budget and schedule. Trying to reverse
this is a classic cart-and-horse scenario and almost inevitably leads to
disaster. Witness the Mars Climate Observer and Mars Polar Lander.


George William Herbert

unread,
May 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/13/00
to
BrianF5070 <brian...@aol.com> wrote:
>I have no doubt. Any competent project manager knows that you first develop
>the project objectives, and then the budget and schedule. Trying to reverse
>this is a classic cart-and-horse scenario and almost inevitably leads to
>disaster. Witness the Mars Climate Observer and Mars Polar Lander.

No, any competent project manager knows that your budget is not going
to be an independent variable, and is in most situations an external
fixed constraint. You develop project objectives and tradeoffs, determine
the budget, and then integrate the two into a budget and objectives
package which either works or doesn't, and if it doesn't you go home.

The real world, and particularly government activities, don't let you
juggle things budgetarily like you imply is necessary. Engineers who
can't figure that out will never advance to project management.
Project managers ignore it at their peril and the peril of the projects
in question.

The key, of course, is making sure that the objectives you are aiming
for are achiveable with the budget you got with the level of confidence
your organization demands for project success. That's the real trick.


-george william herbert
gher...@retro.com


Ives100

unread,
May 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/13/00
to
Brian Thorn wrote:

>James A Davis wrote:

>>US Space and Rocket Center in >>Huntsville,
>
>No indoor space to display one.

They have one indoors. I've seen it. I don't know which one it is, but it's
indoors on a simulated Moonscape with an Apollo Lunar EVA suit next to it.

>>US Air Force Museum - C of A and FI >>would be way down the list.

>I can't speak of FI, but CoA has a much >stronger case... it had indoor


>display space available, and had >Grumman's backing (look at the list
>of aircraft on display there... almost all >Grumman machines.)

Franklin Institute did have a LM. The stupid (censored)s left it outside and
it deterorated to the point where it had to be scrapped. Supposedly it was a
flight article too, a J series LM- intended for 19, I think. Talk about losing
a historical treasure...

Jeff Dougherty

Ad Astra pro Humanae Generis

Ives100

unread,
May 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/13/00
to
Regarding the analysis of NASA's budget- if you average everything in the
1960s, this would also be taking into account the years 1960-3, when Apollo was
just a design study and manned spaceflight was something that we weren't sure
we wanted to do at all. NASA was a pretty low priority back then- wouldn't
this skew the average?

Brian Thorn

unread,
May 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/13/00
to

>Franklin Institute did have a LM. The stupid (censored)s left it outside and
>it deterorated to the point where it had to be scrapped. Supposedly it was a
>flight article too, a J series LM- intended for 19, I think. Talk about losing
>a historical treasure...

Thanks for the information. That explains an awful lot!

Brian

Thomas Kalbfus

unread,
May 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/14/00
to
>And it's not just the executive branch, either; this problem existed even
>under the Reagan and Bush administrations. Congress did not, and does
>not, want to face the *question* of whether missile defences should be
>deployed on a large scale.
>
>Large-scale deployment would be an intensely controversial issue -- note
>how much political uproar there is about even small-scale defences -- and
>any full-fledged debate over it would probably end some political careers.
>**Congress's first priority is getting re-elected.** If an issue looks
>polarized enough to get voters significantly excited about it, to the
>point where they'd remember it at election time, then it's best avoided.
>

What's so controversial about not wanting to die? If some liberal anti SDI
people feel strongly about it they can shoot themselves in the event on a
nuclear war, or the can offer themselves up as hostages to the Russians, the
Iranians or any convieniant terroist group. Just because they don't care to
survive and would gladly offer up their lives for the MAD doctrine doesn't mean
they should impose this choice on others? A ballistic missile defense would not
preclude this, the can still go to Russia and demand to be taken hostage if
they want.

Thomas Kalbfus

unread,
May 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/14/00
to
>> I was born at the height of Apollo, so I never had the opportunity to
>> watch an actual Saturn moonshot. In one of my darker moods, I wonder
>> if I will ever see another human being walk on the surface of another
>> heavenly body live and in real time. Or will I and other prospacers be
>> condemned to watching old footage of men walking on the moon on the
>> History Channel.
>>

I too was born in 1967 ans was not old enough to remember the last lunar
landing. I, a denzen of the 21st century, am jealous of a bunch of Pot smoking
hippies who were too high to give a damn about the Moon program when they
actually saw it on television live. All those pathetic politicians and Generals
who couldn't beat a third world country trying to impose an unworkable economic
system on its neighbor. The generation of the late 60s and early seventies let
OPEC push it around, could not prevent rioting in the streets or pass on
respect for the law to their children who waved red flags of the enemy in their
antiwar protests. These people get a first class space program while my
generation is left with crumbs from the last century. I don't know about
everybody else, but I find this situation to be intolerable. We of the 21st
century have greater capabilities and are wealthier than those of the late
60s/early seventies. The people of the 20th century we're never asked to humble
themselves before the achievements of the 19th century. People in the 20th
century did not stand in awe of those accomplishments of the previous century.
I think we should not reduce our sights and expectations to that of a crawling,
limping space program, otherwise it will become a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Tom Kalbfus

Henry Spencer

unread,
May 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/14/00
to
In article <20000513215117...@ng-cr1.aol.com>,

Thomas Kalbfus <thomas...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Large-scale deployment would be an intensely controversial issue -- note
>>how much political uproar there is about even small-scale defences -- and
>>any full-fledged debate over it would probably end some political careers.
>
>What's so controversial about not wanting to die?

Not relevant. I'm not talking about the *facts* of the situation, but
about the *politics* of it. Politicians who value principles over votes
seldom get re-elected. In the House in particular, that means their
political lifetime is very short, and so there are not very many of them.

Whether or not such a defence system might be useful, unquestionably it
will provoke large-scale organized opposition -- it already has! That
opposition will not go away just because you think they're idiots, and
they do vote, and politicians know that.

James Stutts

unread,
May 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/14/00
to

Thomas Kalbfus wrote in message
<20000513222738...@ng-cr1.aol.com>...


<snip>

>I too was born in 1967 ans was not old enough to remember the last lunar
>landing. I, a denzen of the 21st century, am jealous of a bunch of Pot
smoking

You aren't a denizen of the 21st century yet. No one is.

JCS

BrianF5070

unread,
May 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/14/00
to
George William Herbert writes:

>BrianF5070 <brian...@aol.com> wrote:
>>I have no doubt. Any competent project manager knows that you first develop
>>the project objectives, and then the budget and schedule. Trying to reverse
>>this is a classic cart-and-horse scenario and almost inevitably leads to
>>disaster. Witness the Mars Climate Observer and Mars Polar Lander.
>
>No, any competent project manager knows that your budget is not going
>to be an independent variable, and is in most situations an external
>fixed constraint. You develop project objectives and tradeoffs, determine
>the budget, and then integrate the two into a budget and objectives
>package which either works or doesn't, and if it doesn't you go home.

Well, yeah, I oversimplified, of course. The project manager has to take into
account the real world of budgetary stuff. What I was basically saying was
that the PM places the objectives FIRST. Then the budget is determined. If
the budget doesn't fit in to the available resources, then the objectives can
be adjusted or the whole thing scrapped.

But the objectives always have to be and remain the primary focus. And then
the PM has to fight tooth and nail to prevent objective creep.


George William Herbert

unread,
May 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/14/00
to

I'm not sure that "tooth and nail" is the right way of putting it.
There are situations where objective creep is a good thing...
the Pioneer and Voyager space probes are excellent examples of
creeping in some more capability and using it to the maximum limits.

The line should be, given the external constraints (schedule, budget,
politics) what objectives are key mission critical, and which are gravy.
KMC objectives must be met. Gravy objectives are nice to have but cannot
threaten any KMC objective or external constraint. You have to know
what is what, how to manage the two different types to assure mission
success (all key mission critical objectives) and as many gravy objectives
as you can get within the external budget, schedule, and political constraints.
If it comes to it, and it eventually will, some gravy objectives must
be intentionally dropped or deprioritized to the point they are unlikely
to succeed in order to meet KMC objectives, budget, schedule, and the
political environment's demands. If you cannot understand which are
which, manage resources accordingly, and make the decision to cut off
gravy objectives when they become untenable then you're not a good PM.
That doesn't mean you shouldn't aim for a few at the beginning;
a lot of really good science has come out of things like that
(just off the top of my head... the whole Clementine science return;
a lot of DS-1's science return; specific instruments on other missions;
extended missions on a number of probes; etc).


-george william herbert
gher...@retro.com


Thomas Kalbfus

unread,
May 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/15/00
to
>Not relevant. I'm not talking about the *facts* of the situation, but
>about the *politics* of it. Politicians who value principles over votes
>seldom get re-elected. In the House in particular, that means their
>political lifetime is very short, and so there are not very many of them.
>
>Whether or not such a defence system might be useful, unquestionably it
>will provoke large-scale organized opposition -- it already has! That
>opposition will not go away just because you think they're idiots, and
>they do vote, and politicians know that.
>--
>"Be careful not to step | Henry Spencer

Which scale is larger, those who want to die or those who don't. I suppose
those who want to die believe that they will go to heaven for dying in a
nuclear war. The reason its called MAD is that only a madman would depend on
rational human behavior as their sole defense against the threat of nuclear war
for the indefinite future. If you ask those people what they would do once the
nuclear missile are on their way, they just shrug their shoulders because they
have no good answer. SDI can provide some defense against nuclear missiles that
are on their way, the doctrine of mutually assured destruction does not. All
that liberals can do is chant, "But they'll be destroyed! Are they Mad?" What
if the answer is yes? What if the enemy is really and truly insane? There is a
hint of insanity in political philosopys such as communism and Islamic
Fundamentalism. The reason communism fails is that communists are unwilling to
connect with the truth, they do not tolerate criticism, both valid and invalid
so they have no self correcting mechnism. Millions of Russians have been put to
death beause they dared to tell their government what it was doing wrong.
Islamic fundamentalism likewise tolerates no criticism, instead they call for
assasination of their critics like Salman Rushdie. People who come to power
under these systems are bound to be somewhat less that rational, such people
might not care about mutual destruction or think that god will save them
because he is on their side.

Stephen Souter

unread,
May 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/15/00
to
In article <391C3C61...@qnet.com>, Doug Jones <ran...@qnet.com> wrote:

> Stephen Souter wrote:
> >
> > In article <3918B8E7...@ibm-pc.org>, jrf...@ibm-pc.org wrote:
> >
> > > anw...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > Is it
> > > > worthwhile and possible?
> > >
> > > It would probably be cheaper to design a new booster with more modern,
> > > design-to-cost methodologies. But in the end, you also need to ask what
> > > such a large booster would be needed for. There are no existing
> > > payloads that large, and just about any hypothetical large payload (e.g.
> > > return to the moon, humans to Mars) can in principle be launched in
> > > pieces by smaller rockets and assembled in orbit.
> >
> > In principle, perhaps, but economically how feasible would it be?
> >
> > Assuming we aren't talking about a Mars (or wherever) vehicle assembled by
> > something way-way futuristic like nanotechs or A.I. robots, the assembly
> > would presumably have to be carried out by human beings housed and fed in
> > some sort of orbital facility, a space station somewhat larger and grander
> > than the one now being constructed in orbit.
>

> I think you've missed the point- the system would be assembled, not
> built, in orbit.

I thought I was being careful by using the word "assembled" (as opposed to
"built" or "constructed"). :)

(Perhaps you were misled by my reference to nanotechs & A.I. If one is
going to be futuristic about the matter, and the assembly is as simple and
straightforward as you make out below, you presumably do not need to send
up human assemblers at all. If robots of the A.I. sort were not available
to the assembling, a few of the teleoperated sort could presumably be sent
up to do the job.)

> Multiple automatic dockings (possibly assisted by
> manipulator arms), and just a couple EVA's to plug external connectors
> together. The tough stuff would be done on the ground, not in orbit-
> contrast a "stick built" house requiring a lot of labor on site, with a
> mobile home that's trucked in from the factory.

Sounds very ad hoc to me. It would as if Cape Kennedy had never been
developed into a permanent launch site, complete with a VAB, modile
launchers, and permanent launch pads, but instead NASA had assembled and
launched the Apollo missions at a makeshift site at an undeveloped swamp
at Cape Canaveral.

> The orbital facility need not be continuously manned- an extended period
> of component launches would culminate in an assembly crew's arrival to
> plug the pieces together.

That isn't how they're assembling the ISS. One piece goes up, with (or
followed by) an assembly crew. They do their job, then come back down
again. Another piece goes up, with (or followed by) another crew. They do
their job, then down they come. Etc etc.

Had they followed your schedule--ie waiting until all the pieces were in
orbit *before* shipping up the assembly crew--some of those initial
modules would by now have started back down again due to the Russians and
their delays. :)

On the one hand, the ISS way seems a safer way of going about it. If
problems do arise in orbit, you're less likely to find out about them
right at the last minute, and if unforeseen delays interrupt the launch
schedule you don't face the embarrassing possibility of having bits of
hardware fall out of the skies.

On the other hand, the entire ISS assembly process will take not just
months but years to complete (40 flights--by the shuttle & others--over 5
years, according to the ISS homepage; presumably not including delays). If
manned missions to Mars were put together at that kind of rate we'd be
lucky to see two manned missions per decade (as opposed to one every
possible opportunity). Granted a Mars ship may not require as many
components to be assembled as the ISS, but unless the components were all
launched over a comparatively brief period I can readily envisage twelve
months or more elapsing between the time the first one is launched and the
arrival of the assembly crew.

Then there's the question of idle infrastructure. If the orbital assembly
facility is only going to be used just once every few years there is bound
to be somebody in Congress who will want to know why you need it at all.
That is to say, in between bursts of assembly you would have a large and
(presumably) highly expensive piece of hardware orbiting around up there
doing nothing. A facility which would (again presumably) itself have had
to be assembled in orbit, probably over a period of years, at a cost of
goodness-knows how many billions of dollars.

A cheaper alternative might be to adapt or expand the existing station to
do the job, but that would be assuming the assembly activities did not
impinge on the ISS's existing ones.

The third alternative would be (as you suggest) to have no orbital
facility at all but to live in a kind of "mobile home"; or if even that
was too expensive or impractical in the shuttle (or whatever NASA is
flying then). But IMHO that would surely be only the sort of ad hoc system
you would resort to if you were planning to do just one manned mission to
Mars (or wherever) for the foreseeable future. Not if you were planning to
do a whole string them.

And BTW, of course, all this is assuming that the first Mars ship that
gets assembled will be the one which actually takes people off to land on
Mars.

How many Apollo missions were there before men actually landed on the Moon?

Maybe not as many as for a Mars mission, perhaps, but I would guess there
would have to be at least one (unmanned?) test flight of an assembled
ship. There would be hell to pay were a Mars mission sent off without such
a test and the mission went awry due to hardware problems.

***

I may be in a minority of one, but to be frank about it I don't see the
point of orbital assembly unless it's part of some coordinated assembly
line process that would make it easier, cheaper, and faster to build and
launch manned interplanetary (or lunar) missions in general. That is, a
facility that can be used to send either a string of single-shot missions
to Mars, the Moon or wherever, or for assembling and maintaining reusable
lunar or interplanetary craft.

All that in turn presupposes an initial investment in suitable orbital
infrastructure, and an ongoing investment in manpower to run and maintain
it. Such an investment would doubtless be expensive. Perhaps hideously so.
But over the longer term it would pay for itself.

On the other hand if the only point of orbital assembly is to try to save
a buck that might otherwise have been invested in designing and building a
heavylift launch vehicle, then while you might get one or two Mars
missions out of it, what then? Are you going to keep on assembling them
that way? Or just until the public (and Congress) start to lose interest
in Mars, the same as they did with the Moon back in the '70s, and somebody
eventually says: OK, we've been to Mars and brought back lots of rocks,
now let's leave the Red Planet alone for a while and send a mission to
Jupiter?

NASA has been stuck in the rut of serial manned projects for decades now.
The use of an ad hoc system of orbital assembly for a Mars mission would
merely be another sign that it is still stuck there.

> If you're particularly parsimonious, the
> assembly crew could be the mission crew.

How many airlines would expect their flight crews to assemble a 747 from a
handful of prefabricated components before setting off on a flight? :)

Geoffrey A. Landis

unread,
May 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/15/00
to
In article <20000513005338...@ng-bg1.aol.com> BrianF5070,

brian...@aol.com writes:
>>According to the best inflation figures I have, the 1994 budget (the
>>largest budget NASA got in the 90s) was 68% of the Apollo peak (1965).
>
>Sure, I'd believe that. But the figure you give is lower than the figure I
>give because I am comparing the average expenditure.
>...

>Compare the total expenditures for 1960 - 1969 vs. 1990 - 1999.

I could do that. But for 1960 to 1962, before the Apollo project
started, NASA's budget was essentially zero. So you're averaging in
three years when NASA spent nothing, and STILL NASA's budget was higher
for that decade.

If I accept your figures, then the average NASA budget in the 90's was
52-60 % of the NASA budget 1963-1990 (adjusted for inflation)

--
Geoffrey A. Landis
http://www.sff.net/people/geoffrey.landis

Rand Simberg

unread,
May 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/15/00
to
On Fri, 12 May 2000 17:41:32 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Bruce
Sterling Woodcock" <sirb...@ix.netcom.com> made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

>
>"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@trash.org> wrote in message
>news:391c2c7c...@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
>> Not much more. Very little of the space station costs represent
>> actual flight hardware. We could build one ten times as large for
>> very little additional money.
>
>Not without a heavier launcher.

No, we don't need a heavier launcher--we just need cheaper launch. In
fact, we could even do it with the Shuttle, had we planned to. The
marginal cost of building and launching additional modules is quite
low compared to the development costs. Now the costs of supporting it
will require cheaper launch, but not a bigger vehicle.

>That's the problem of orbital
>assembly of large projects... at some point it becomes cheaper
>to design and build a large launch vehicle to put it up in fewer
>trips.

Oh, I didn't say that it couldn't be done even more cheaply with a
heavier launcher--just that it could have been done for not much more
money than the current one.


************************************************************************
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Replace first . with @ and throw out the "@trash." to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers: postm...@fbi.gov

Bruce Sterling Woodcock

unread,
May 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/15/00
to

"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@trash.org> wrote in message
news:39200a2...@nntp.ix.netcom.com...

> Oh, I didn't say that it couldn't be done even more cheaply with a
> heavier launcher--just that it could have been done for not much more
> money than the current one.

I disagree. For not much more than the current one, you were
basing your figure on the fact that bigger, thus heavier, modules
don't cost much more. That's true, but you don't have anything
that can launch them. I suppose you could put up twice as many
modules, and then as you say, you could also use a cheaper launch
vehicle as opposed to a heavier one. That's true, but the cost of
developing and using that cheaper launch vehicle would be more
that "not much more money" than is currently being spent, IMHO.

Bruce


Rand Simberg

unread,
May 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/15/00
to
On Mon, 15 May 2000 08:28:02 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Bruce

Sterling Woodcock" <sirb...@ix.netcom.com> made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

>> Oh, I didn't say that it couldn't be done even more cheaply with a


>> heavier launcher--just that it could have been done for not much more
>> money than the current one.
>
>I disagree. For not much more than the current one, you were
>basing your figure on the fact that bigger, thus heavier, modules
>don't cost much more.

No, I wasn't. I didn't state the basis of my claim.

>That's true, but you don't have anything
>that can launch them.

Yes, but I don't care, since I wasn't proposing that.

>I suppose you could put up twice as many
>modules, and then as you say, you could also use a cheaper launch
>vehicle as opposed to a heavier one. That's true, but the cost of
>developing and using that cheaper launch vehicle would be more
>that "not much more money" than is currently being spent, IMHO.

No, I could build a much larger station with the existing modules, and
the existing launcher, for not much more money than the current ones
(or at least I could have, had it been designed that way in the first
place). Hardware and launch costs are not the significant drivers in
the station budget. The marginal costs of building it bigger are
small.

Jim Kingdon

unread,
May 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/16/00
to
> If ISS doesn't make major progress within the next year or two, almost
> certainly it will simply be canceled.

Wishful thinking, I suspect. Or do you know something I don't, Henry,
I haven't been keeping up with Av Week and what-not as much as you,
I'm sure.

I'm not even sure I hope for ISS's cancellation. I mean, the problems
with the status quo are glaringly obvious but it is far from clear to
me that the situation with ISS being cancelled would be any better.

Of course I agree that a Saturn V launched station just ain't gonna
get funded (not by the US government anyway), so the implications for
the Saturn V thread are the same.

Jonathan A Goff

unread,
May 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/16/00
to
On Sat, 13 May 2000, Stephen Souter wrote:

> But wouldn't orbital assembly be far more expensive than ground assembly?

The correct answer would be: it depends.

Basically, it all depends on what technologies, design,
design system, management style, business plan, etc,
etc, etc. There are ways to do expensive stations that
are made from very large pieces, and to do cheap ones
done with really itty bitty pieces. My personal ideal
is ~30-40klbm per piece, but that is just a gut feeling.
I could easily be wrong in either direction or both!

There are just too many variables. I think a good
small space station could be done for ~$200M, but
until I actually sit down, crank out a real business
plan, and get some real data to back it up (or better
yet, actually build it), we'll never know.


Just for kicks though, always try playing devil's
advocate. Take the exact opposite view of that which
you would normally be inclined to, and see how close
you can come to getting a workable idea. I used to
be a total RLV fan, until I analyzed the oft repeated
belief that launch cost is driven by the fact that you
are tossing stuff away. I found that it might be very
possible to make an expendable booster far cheaper
than anything that has ever flown into space. I found
that reusability can reduce costs, but you can get a
lot more bang for the buck with proper focus on keeping
things simple.

Anyhow, I'm rambling.

Jonathan Goff

"America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the
well wisher to the freedom and independence of all." -- John Q. Adams


Jorge R. Frank

unread,
May 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/18/00
to
Jonathan A Goff wrote:
>
> There are ways to do expensive stations that
> are made from very large pieces, and to do cheap ones
> done with really itty bitty pieces. My personal ideal
> is ~30-40klbm per piece, but that is just a gut feeling.

What a coincidence... most ISS modules are around that mass! We'll turn
you to the Dark Side yet, young Goffwalker...

;-)

Roger Balettie

unread,
May 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/18/00
to
Jorge R. Frank <jrf...@ibm-pc.org> wrote:
> What a coincidence... most ISS modules are around that mass! We'll turn
> you to the Dark Side yet, young Goffwalker...

Jorge, are you breathing heavy or is that just the Houston allergies?

<snicker>
Roger
==============================
Roger Balettie
former Flight Dynamics Officer
Space Shuttle Mission Control
http://members.aol.com/ramjetfdo/

Jonathan A Goff

unread,
May 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/18/00
to
On Thu, 18 May 2000, Jorge R. Frank wrote:

> What a coincidence... most ISS modules are around that mass!

Even NASA can't do _everything_ wrong......

;-)

> We'll turn you to the Dark Side yet, young Goffwalker...

I'll never turn to the Dark Side of the Farce!

You're not my father!!!!!

;-)

ftan...@my-deja.com

unread,
May 31, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/31/00
to
In article <8fcu82$c8d$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
anw...@my-deja.com wrote:
> .....

> I was born at the height of Apollo, so I never had the opportunity to
> watch an actual Saturn moonshot. In one of my darker moods, I wonder
> if I will ever see another human being walk on the surface of another
> heavenly body live and in real time. Or will I and other prospacers
be
> condemned to watching old footage of men walking on the moon on the
> History Channel.
>
> I optimistic that the rest of humanity will wake up and realize that
we
> have to grow up and move out of our cradle. I just hope it will be
> sooner rather than later. I like to walk on and see another heavenly
> body before I die. I just hope that others and me will not turn to be
> real D.D. Harriman's.
>
> Ad Astra, now!
>
> AW
>
Well, I'm a little older than you, and I'd like to make a couple
of perhaps heretical observations. Note that I don't work in the
space industry - but I'd be interested whether the readers of this
group feel that my comments are generally applicable.....

Our countries spend much of the early part of the last century at
war, or preparing for war. Nobody sane would suggest that that was
a good thing, but the generation of engineers who worked on Apollo
(+B747, Concorde, early computer languages & operating systems...)
had honed their skills in an environment which was much more
risk-tolerant than that which exists today in most corporations
and government bodies.

I would guess that these people would have worked on more projects
and had more experience of innovation - not only because we were
prepared to devote a greater proportion of our national resources
to their work, but also because the consequences of failure were
perceived as subordinate to the consequences of inaction. You could
produce 5 radar or cryptanalysis prototypes - as long as one of
them worked. When pilots (e.g) were being killed regularly by an
enemy, it was more acceptable to produce experimental aircraft
designs that risked the lives of test pilots than it is today.
Life and money have become more precious - and in the process, so
perhaps have we.

Furthermore, the teams themselves were motivated by simpler, clearer,
and more uniform ideals; there was less inclination to question
the value of their work and less tolerance of navel-gazing and
pursuit of personal goals than we have in the (post-)post-modern
world. The workforce was less mobile - teams suffered less churn,
and quality arose from experience, commitment, peer-trust and
honest assessments of competence rather than external auditing and
meta-meta-meta process development.

That's not to say that the early space programme was undisciplined
- but I believe they had an advantage in that they were inventing
their procedures and methodologies because they understood that
they brought risk to an acceptable level. Today, we get the
methodologies out of a book and have no confidence that the invisible
authors have ever worked on a real project - let alone understand
the subtleties of the domains in which we are required to apply
them.

The canon of engineering methodologies and practices is now so
large and the quality so variable that few of us have the confidence
of the previous generation. We don't trust ourselves - we're not
allowed to trust ourselves - and so we goof off; we believe things
we don't understand, we cut corners, we assume "someone else will
check", and we produce five productivity reports for every one
usable design. Even in the last 15 years, I have seen innovation,
personal commitment, and team enthusiasm crushed gradually by the
culture of the organisations I've worked for.

Or is it just me....?

(name and affiliations not supplied!)


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Brett Buck

unread,
May 31, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/31/00
to
ftan...@my-deja.com wrote:


> That's not to say that the early space programme was undisciplined
> - but I believe they had an advantage in that they were inventing
> their procedures and methodologies because they understood that
> they brought risk to an acceptable level. Today, we get the
> methodologies out of a book and have no confidence that the invisible
> authors have ever worked on a real project - let alone understand
> the subtleties of the domains in which we are required to apply
> them.
>
> The canon of engineering methodologies and practices is now so
> large and the quality so variable that few of us have the confidence
> of the previous generation. We don't trust ourselves - we're not
> allowed to trust ourselves - and so we goof off; we believe things
> we don't understand, we cut corners, we assume "someone else will
> check", and we produce five productivity reports for every one
> usable design. Even in the last 15 years, I have seen innovation,
> personal commitment, and team enthusiasm crushed gradually by the
> culture of the organisations I've worked for.


Spot On!

Brett Buck
Control System Design/Systems engineer
Lockheed Martin Military Space Division

rk

unread,
Jun 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/2/00
to
ftan...@my-deja.com wrote:

< massive snip >

> The canon of engineering methodologies and practices is now so
> large and the quality so variable that few of us have the confidence
> of the previous generation. We don't trust ourselves - we're not
> allowed to trust ourselves - and so we goof off; we believe things
> we don't understand, we cut corners, we assume "someone else will
> check", and we produce five productivity reports for every one
> usable design. Even in the last 15 years, I have seen innovation,
> personal commitment, and team enthusiasm crushed gradually by the
> culture of the organisations I've worked for.
>

> Or is it just me....?

No, it's not just you.

Also, from just personal observation working in and out of aerospace, it
seems that the leaders of organizations have turned into managers. Ever go
into a welding shop and find a foreman who doesn't know square one about
welding?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
rk From leaders, scientists, and
stellar engineering, ltd. engineers to managers, co-ordinators,
stel...@erols.com.NOSPAM and bureaucrats.
Hi-Rel Digital Systems Design -- rk, 2000


0 new messages