Could the museum Saturn V's be refitted for one more flight? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Why not build Saturn V's again?Do we still have all the blueprints to go to the Moon?Were the Saturn V construction plans destroyed?What will be NASA's successor to the Saturn V rocket?Launch roll program for the Saturn five rocketWhy not build Saturn V's again?What would be the configuration and performance for Saturn V with all stages RP-1/LOX?How had the Saturn V lifting capacity changed throughout the Apollo program?Was 39A built with a rocket much larger than the Saturn V in mind?Saturn launch precautions for clearing tower?Did the Saturn V rocket have any purely aesthetic features that didn't serve an actual function?Vented interstage for the final stage of Saturn VUse of different fuels for stages of Saturn V
How to pronounce 伝統色
Putting class ranking in CV, but against dept guidelines
How can I prevent/balance waiting and turtling as a response to cooldown mechanics
Maximum summed subsequences with non-adjacent items
Is there any word for a place full of confusion?
What is an "asse" in Elizabethan English?
Dyck paths with extra diagonals from valleys (Laser construction)
One-one communication
Is it fair for a professor to grade us on the possession of past papers?
Amount of permutations on an NxNxN Rubik's Cube
Should a wizard buy fine inks every time he want to copy spells into his spellbook?
QGIS virtual layer functionality does not seem to support memory layers
Would it be possible to dictate a bech32 address as a list of English words?
Most bit efficient text communication method?
Crossing US/Canada Border for less than 24 hours
Did Mueller's report provide an evidentiary basis for the claim of Russian govt election interference via social media?
How does the math work when buying airline miles?
Why can't I install Tomboy in Ubuntu Mate 19.04?
Electrolysis of water: Which equations to use? (IB Chem)
Do I really need to have a message in a novel to appeal to readers?
Has negative voting ever been officially implemented in elections, or seriously proposed, or even studied?
How were pictures turned from film to a big picture in a picture frame before digital scanning?
Why do early math courses focus on the cross sections of a cone and not on other 3D objects?
Is it possible to give , in economics, an example of a relation ( set of ordered pairs) that is not a function?
Could the museum Saturn V's be refitted for one more flight?
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Why not build Saturn V's again?Do we still have all the blueprints to go to the Moon?Were the Saturn V construction plans destroyed?What will be NASA's successor to the Saturn V rocket?Launch roll program for the Saturn five rocketWhy not build Saturn V's again?What would be the configuration and performance for Saturn V with all stages RP-1/LOX?How had the Saturn V lifting capacity changed throughout the Apollo program?Was 39A built with a rocket much larger than the Saturn V in mind?Saturn launch precautions for clearing tower?Did the Saturn V rocket have any purely aesthetic features that didn't serve an actual function?Vented interstage for the final stage of Saturn VUse of different fuels for stages of Saturn V
$begingroup$
Even though we will not build new Saturn Vs, there currently exist three Saturn Vs in museums. Could any of these rockets be refitted for flight? If not, what specific component would prevent the program from going forward?
This question is meant to address the rocket itself. I understand that the VAB, crawlers, and launch infrastructure would need retrofitting as well, not to mention finding and training crews.
nasa saturn-v
edited Apr 2 at 18:02
Michael Seifert
50327
asked Apr 2 at 12:17
Happy PhantomHappy Phantom
443410
$endgroup$
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
Even though we will not build new Saturn Vs, there currently exist three Saturn Vs in museums. Could any of these rockets be refitted for flight? If not, what specific component would prevent the program from going forward?
This question is meant to address the rocket itself. I understand that the VAB, crawlers, and launch infrastructure would need retrofitting as well, not to mention finding and training crews.
nasa saturn-v
edited Apr 2 at 18:02
Michael Seifert
50327
asked Apr 2 at 12:17
Happy PhantomHappy Phantom
443410
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
You expect a rocket stored in the open for more than two decades to be refittable for flight? See wikipedia. Only one consist of stages intended for launch.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
Apr 2 at 13:41
6
$begingroup$
@Uwe: Thank you for chiming in! I'm not expecting, I'm asking. This Mustang had been stored in the open for four and a half decades, and then was restarted recently. I'm sure that it is not a matter of simply filling up the H2, O2, and RP-1. What are the bottlenecks, and are they surmountable? As you mention, we do have a complete rocket consisting of flight stages.
$endgroup$
– Happy Phantom
Apr 2 at 13:46
1
$begingroup$
Won't this raise the ship of Theseus problem? If too many parts have to be replaced in order to make it functional, can we still call it the original one? If yes, even then it will be much much cheaper to design and build a completely new rocket from scratch, then to repair or rebuild the original one.
$endgroup$
– vsz
Apr 2 at 19:35
6
$begingroup$
Basically, other than fusion reactors and perpetual motion machines, the question of can we do it is answered by how many zeros you have in your check book.
$endgroup$
– Mazura
Apr 3 at 1:48
1
$begingroup$
Stephen Baxter's book "Titan" has a very similar premise, and goes over many of the problems. In the fiction, it succeeds.
$endgroup$
– Christopher Hostage
Apr 3 at 15:36
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
Even though we will not build new Saturn Vs, there currently exist three Saturn Vs in museums. Could any of these rockets be refitted for flight? If not, what specific component would prevent the program from going forward?
This question is meant to address the rocket itself. I understand that the VAB, crawlers, and launch infrastructure would need retrofitting as well, not to mention finding and training crews.
nasa saturn-v
edited Apr 2 at 18:02
Michael Seifert
50327
asked Apr 2 at 12:17
Happy PhantomHappy Phantom
443410
$endgroup$
Even though we will not build new Saturn Vs, there currently exist three Saturn Vs in museums. Could any of these rockets be refitted for flight? If not, what specific component would prevent the program from going forward?
This question is meant to address the rocket itself. I understand that the VAB, crawlers, and launch infrastructure would need retrofitting as well, not to mention finding and training crews.
nasa saturn-v
nasa saturn-v
edited Apr 2 at 18:02
Michael Seifert
50327
asked Apr 2 at 12:17
Happy PhantomHappy Phantom
443410
edited Apr 2 at 18:02
Michael Seifert
50327
asked Apr 2 at 12:17
Happy PhantomHappy Phantom
443410
edited Apr 2 at 18:02
Michael Seifert
50327
edited Apr 2 at 18:02
Michael Seifert
50327
edited Apr 2 at 18:02
Michael Seifert
50327
50327
asked Apr 2 at 12:17
Happy PhantomHappy Phantom
443410
asked Apr 2 at 12:17
Happy PhantomHappy Phantom
443410
asked Apr 2 at 12:17
Happy PhantomHappy Phantom
443410
443410
2
$begingroup$
You expect a rocket stored in the open for more than two decades to be refittable for flight? See wikipedia. Only one consist of stages intended for launch.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
Apr 2 at 13:41
6
$begingroup$
@Uwe: Thank you for chiming in! I'm not expecting, I'm asking. This Mustang had been stored in the open for four and a half decades, and then was restarted recently. I'm sure that it is not a matter of simply filling up the H2, O2, and RP-1. What are the bottlenecks, and are they surmountable? As you mention, we do have a complete rocket consisting of flight stages.
$endgroup$
– Happy Phantom
Apr 2 at 13:46
1
$begingroup$
Won't this raise the ship of Theseus problem? If too many parts have to be replaced in order to make it functional, can we still call it the original one? If yes, even then it will be much much cheaper to design and build a completely new rocket from scratch, then to repair or rebuild the original one.
$endgroup$
– vsz
Apr 2 at 19:35
6
$begingroup$
Basically, other than fusion reactors and perpetual motion machines, the question of can we do it is answered by how many zeros you have in your check book.
$endgroup$
– Mazura
Apr 3 at 1:48
1
$begingroup$
Stephen Baxter's book "Titan" has a very similar premise, and goes over many of the problems. In the fiction, it succeeds.
$endgroup$
– Christopher Hostage
Apr 3 at 15:36
|
show 4 more comments
2
$begingroup$
You expect a rocket stored in the open for more than two decades to be refittable for flight? See wikipedia. Only one consist of stages intended for launch.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
Apr 2 at 13:41
6
$begingroup$
@Uwe: Thank you for chiming in! I'm not expecting, I'm asking. This Mustang had been stored in the open for four and a half decades, and then was restarted recently. I'm sure that it is not a matter of simply filling up the H2, O2, and RP-1. What are the bottlenecks, and are they surmountable? As you mention, we do have a complete rocket consisting of flight stages.
$endgroup$
– Happy Phantom
Apr 2 at 13:46
1
$begingroup$
Won't this raise the ship of Theseus problem? If too many parts have to be replaced in order to make it functional, can we still call it the original one? If yes, even then it will be much much cheaper to design and build a completely new rocket from scratch, then to repair or rebuild the original one.
$endgroup$
– vsz
Apr 2 at 19:35
6
$begingroup$
Basically, other than fusion reactors and perpetual motion machines, the question of can we do it is answered by how many zeros you have in your check book.
$endgroup$
– Mazura
Apr 3 at 1:48
1
$begingroup$
Stephen Baxter's book "Titan" has a very similar premise, and goes over many of the problems. In the fiction, it succeeds.
$endgroup$
– Christopher Hostage
Apr 3 at 15:36
2
2
$begingroup$
You expect a rocket stored in the open for more than two decades to be refittable for flight? See wikipedia. Only one consist of stages intended for launch.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
Apr 2 at 13:41
$begingroup$
You expect a rocket stored in the open for more than two decades to be refittable for flight? See wikipedia. Only one consist of stages intended for launch.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
Apr 2 at 13:41
6
6
$begingroup$
@Uwe: Thank you for chiming in! I'm not expecting, I'm asking. This Mustang had been stored in the open for four and a half decades, and then was restarted recently. I'm sure that it is not a matter of simply filling up the H2, O2, and RP-1. What are the bottlenecks, and are they surmountable? As you mention, we do have a complete rocket consisting of flight stages.
$endgroup$
– Happy Phantom
Apr 2 at 13:46
$begingroup$
@Uwe: Thank you for chiming in! I'm not expecting, I'm asking. This Mustang had been stored in the open for four and a half decades, and then was restarted recently. I'm sure that it is not a matter of simply filling up the H2, O2, and RP-1. What are the bottlenecks, and are they surmountable? As you mention, we do have a complete rocket consisting of flight stages.
$endgroup$
– Happy Phantom
Apr 2 at 13:46
1
1
$begingroup$
Won't this raise the ship of Theseus problem? If too many parts have to be replaced in order to make it functional, can we still call it the original one? If yes, even then it will be much much cheaper to design and build a completely new rocket from scratch, then to repair or rebuild the original one.
$endgroup$
– vsz
Apr 2 at 19:35
$begingroup$
Won't this raise the ship of Theseus problem? If too many parts have to be replaced in order to make it functional, can we still call it the original one? If yes, even then it will be much much cheaper to design and build a completely new rocket from scratch, then to repair or rebuild the original one.
$endgroup$
– vsz
Apr 2 at 19:35
6
6
$begingroup$
Basically, other than fusion reactors and perpetual motion machines, the question of can we do it is answered by how many zeros you have in your check book.
$endgroup$
– Mazura
Apr 3 at 1:48
$begingroup$
Basically, other than fusion reactors and perpetual motion machines, the question of can we do it is answered by how many zeros you have in your check book.
$endgroup$
– Mazura
Apr 3 at 1:48
1
1
$begingroup$
Stephen Baxter's book "Titan" has a very similar premise, and goes over many of the problems. In the fiction, it succeeds.
$endgroup$
– Christopher Hostage
Apr 3 at 15:36
$begingroup$
Stephen Baxter's book "Titan" has a very similar premise, and goes over many of the problems. In the fiction, it succeeds.
$endgroup$
– Christopher Hostage
Apr 3 at 15:36
|
show 4 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The one at the Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville has been stored outside so it wasn't in good shape.
Displayed outdoors and on its side since 1969, the rocket was exhibiting widespread paint failure, moisture infiltration, an overall accumulation of atmospheric and biological soiling, and corrosion of its complex system of metal alloys, including aluminum. Non-metal materials such as polyurethane foam, various types of plastics including Tedlar®, phenolic resin, and fiberglass composites, had significantly deteriorated. The spacecraft portion of the Saturn V display (Lunar Adapter, Service Module, Command Module and Launch Escape System) were full scale 1970s era mock-ups constructed of sheet aluminum and fiberglass. The Command Module, constructed almost completely out of plywood and fiberglass, was is very poor condition
The others have been indoors so should be a bit better. The Huntsville rocket was incomplete. It's been restored from the above condition, but that's to 'museum exhibit' state, not 'functional rocket' state.
They'd need significant amount of work to be usable again:
- complete inspection of the metalwork, with replacement of any corroded parts. That alone is years of work. To do an inspection to the standard you want for spaceflight, you may have to disassemble most of the rocket (to make sure you get to all the corners that become inaccessible after assembly).
- replacement of all seals and other materials that can deteriorate. This may include the wiring.
- replacement of all the electronics
- new turbopumps
- new LOX tanks, maybe (LOX reacts with lots of things, there's no way to guarantee the tanks are clean)
- the Huntsville one was missing its CM, SM an LEM, so they'd have to be built.
- other parts may have been cannibalized, no way to know until you strip the rocket.
IOW, you're better off building new Saturn Vs.
I'm tempted to compare it to building vs restoring cars. A thorough restoration can easily take a year. Handbuilt cars are built in weeks...
answered Apr 2 at 13:44
HobbesHobbes
96.4k2272427
$endgroup$
5
$begingroup$
@HappyPhantom: Is it obvious that your "inspection, repair and proper cleaning" can be done without doing that first too? There are plenty of "replacement" and "new parts" in Hobbes's list.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
Apr 2 at 16:34
1
$begingroup$
New electronics, new guidance software and new turbopumps would require a new man rating of the rocket. But before man rating is finished, all museum Saturn V rockets are used,
$endgroup$
– Uwe
Apr 2 at 17:42
1
$begingroup$
@HenningMakholm: No, I am not sure. That is why Inspection is the first step.
$endgroup$
– Happy Phantom
Apr 2 at 19:09
3
$begingroup$
@HappyPhantom, the inspection isn't too bad -- it's basically the rocket equivalent of an aviation D-check. The problem is the repair -- for example, if one of the gyroscopes in the ST-124-M3 guidance platform has gone bad, where are you going to find a replacement?
$endgroup$
– Mark
Apr 2 at 20:19
6
$begingroup$
Also worth noting that when a restored vintage car breaks down because you missed something, it doesn't disintegrate traveling on a trans-lunar trajectory with you in it.
$endgroup$
– Seth R
Apr 2 at 20:41
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
I carefully examined the Saturn V in Houston (in particular the instrumentation unit) few months ago. There's no way this Saturn V would fly for a couple reasons:
It was stored outside and suffered lots of corrosion and damage. It was restored enough to be exhibited but the metal still has lots of corrosion covered by paint.
The instrumentation unit is missing many components. In particular, I noticed it is missing the LVDC (launch vehicle digital computer), other important electronics, some large tanks, covers on much of the electronics, a lot of wiring, and various random parts. The parts that remained were very dirty and corroded and I wouldn't expect them to work.
I agree with what @Hobbes concluded, you'd be better off building a new Saturn V.
answered Apr 2 at 20:20
Ken ShirriffKen Shirriff
36115
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Apparently there is an instrument unit in good condition at National Air & Space Museum, Udvar-Hazy Center, Dulles, Virginia.
$endgroup$
– dotancohen
Apr 3 at 17:01
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In addition to the other answers talking about the condition of the rocket itself, you have to realize it takes a lot more than just having the rocket to launch it. There is a whole mess of support infrastructure required to make the Saturn V, or any spacecraft, actually work.
Launch Center 39 hasn't been outfitted for a Saturn V since 1973 and has been reconfigured many times since. The machinery in the VAB used for prepping the Saturn V is gone; the building is being used by SpaceX now for its rockets. All the hardware in the control centers that worked with the Saturn V telemetry systems was dismantled a long time ago. You would have to rebuild the fueling systems to fill its massive tanks (not to mention, actually refind a way to get that much fuel to the launch pad). Every last one of the people who helped build it and understood how it worked are either long retired or dead. No one has even thought about launching a Saturn V since Skylab was put in orbit; the institutional knowledge at NASA on how to make it happen is forgotten.
Even if the museum pieces were flightworthy, you would have to rebuild and relearn so much of the support infrastructure and logistics that made it possible, you'd still be better off starting over with something new.
answered Apr 3 at 14:21
Seth RSeth R
24914
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Thank you Seth. In fact, I mention in the OP that I understand that the VAB, crawlers, and launch infrastructure would need retrofitting as well. But thank you for the details!
$endgroup$
– Happy Phantom
Apr 3 at 14:56
1
$begingroup$
@mgarey, no , but as an engineer I can tell you there is a huge difference between someone reading a 50-year old document on how something works and having someone who is actively wrist-deep in solving the challenges on a day-to-day basis. I'm sure NASA has reams of documentation on the Saturn V, but no one will understand a system that complex as well as the engineers who actually designed and built it.
$endgroup$
– Seth R
Apr 3 at 17:13
4
$begingroup$
@mgarey, I didn't mean to imply there was no documentation, but after 50 years I can't imagine anyone alive knows where it all is. Important to remember, too, that the Saturn V wasn't just built by NASA. It was a joint effort between hundreds of contractors and subcontractors who each had their own process documents and schematics. Who knows where all that is, if it is even still around. Trying to piece it all together is probably a bigger effort than just ordering a BFR from SpaceX.
$endgroup$
– Seth R
Apr 3 at 17:52
3
$begingroup$
@mgarey Even if documents "exist" that doesn't mean they are usable. Try making sense of poor-quality microfilm copies of thousands of pages of engineering drawings, which were originally only made as a "box ticking" backup measure by the company with the lowest price, and most likely never looked at by anyone to check their quality even when they were new. It's bad enough trying to read photocopies of reports from the 1960s originally written on manual typewriters with hand-drawn graphs and diagrams!
$endgroup$
– alephzero
Apr 3 at 19:01
1
$begingroup$
I was really just curious about the state of documentation on the Saturn V. To satisfy my own and others' curiosity on the subject: here here and here
$endgroup$
– mgarey
Apr 3 at 19:30
|
show 2 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "508"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35239%2fcould-the-museum-saturn-vs-be-refitted-for-one-more-flight%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The one at the Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville has been stored outside so it wasn't in good shape.
Displayed outdoors and on its side since 1969, the rocket was exhibiting widespread paint failure, moisture infiltration, an overall accumulation of atmospheric and biological soiling, and corrosion of its complex system of metal alloys, including aluminum. Non-metal materials such as polyurethane foam, various types of plastics including Tedlar®, phenolic resin, and fiberglass composites, had significantly deteriorated. The spacecraft portion of the Saturn V display (Lunar Adapter, Service Module, Command Module and Launch Escape System) were full scale 1970s era mock-ups constructed of sheet aluminum and fiberglass. The Command Module, constructed almost completely out of plywood and fiberglass, was is very poor condition
The others have been indoors so should be a bit better. The Huntsville rocket was incomplete. It's been restored from the above condition, but that's to 'museum exhibit' state, not 'functional rocket' state.
They'd need significant amount of work to be usable again:
- complete inspection of the metalwork, with replacement of any corroded parts. That alone is years of work. To do an inspection to the standard you want for spaceflight, you may have to disassemble most of the rocket (to make sure you get to all the corners that become inaccessible after assembly).
- replacement of all seals and other materials that can deteriorate. This may include the wiring.
- replacement of all the electronics
- new turbopumps
- new LOX tanks, maybe (LOX reacts with lots of things, there's no way to guarantee the tanks are clean)
- the Huntsville one was missing its CM, SM an LEM, so they'd have to be built.
- other parts may have been cannibalized, no way to know until you strip the rocket.
IOW, you're better off building new Saturn Vs.
I'm tempted to compare it to building vs restoring cars. A thorough restoration can easily take a year. Handbuilt cars are built in weeks...
answered Apr 2 at 13:44
HobbesHobbes
96.4k2272427
$endgroup$
5
$begingroup$
@HappyPhantom: Is it obvious that your "inspection, repair and proper cleaning" can be done without doing that first too? There are plenty of "replacement" and "new parts" in Hobbes's list.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
Apr 2 at 16:34
1
$begingroup$
New electronics, new guidance software and new turbopumps would require a new man rating of the rocket. But before man rating is finished, all museum Saturn V rockets are used,
$endgroup$
– Uwe
Apr 2 at 17:42
1
$begingroup$
@HenningMakholm: No, I am not sure. That is why Inspection is the first step.
$endgroup$
– Happy Phantom
Apr 2 at 19:09
3
$begingroup$
@HappyPhantom, the inspection isn't too bad -- it's basically the rocket equivalent of an aviation D-check. The problem is the repair -- for example, if one of the gyroscopes in the ST-124-M3 guidance platform has gone bad, where are you going to find a replacement?
$endgroup$
– Mark
Apr 2 at 20:19
6
$begingroup$
Also worth noting that when a restored vintage car breaks down because you missed something, it doesn't disintegrate traveling on a trans-lunar trajectory with you in it.
$endgroup$
– Seth R
Apr 2 at 20:41
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
The one at the Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville has been stored outside so it wasn't in good shape.
Displayed outdoors and on its side since 1969, the rocket was exhibiting widespread paint failure, moisture infiltration, an overall accumulation of atmospheric and biological soiling, and corrosion of its complex system of metal alloys, including aluminum. Non-metal materials such as polyurethane foam, various types of plastics including Tedlar®, phenolic resin, and fiberglass composites, had significantly deteriorated. The spacecraft portion of the Saturn V display (Lunar Adapter, Service Module, Command Module and Launch Escape System) were full scale 1970s era mock-ups constructed of sheet aluminum and fiberglass. The Command Module, constructed almost completely out of plywood and fiberglass, was is very poor condition
The others have been indoors so should be a bit better. The Huntsville rocket was incomplete. It's been restored from the above condition, but that's to 'museum exhibit' state, not 'functional rocket' state.
They'd need significant amount of work to be usable again:
- complete inspection of the metalwork, with replacement of any corroded parts. That alone is years of work. To do an inspection to the standard you want for spaceflight, you may have to disassemble most of the rocket (to make sure you get to all the corners that become inaccessible after assembly).
- replacement of all seals and other materials that can deteriorate. This may include the wiring.
- replacement of all the electronics
- new turbopumps
- new LOX tanks, maybe (LOX reacts with lots of things, there's no way to guarantee the tanks are clean)
- the Huntsville one was missing its CM, SM an LEM, so they'd have to be built.
- other parts may have been cannibalized, no way to know until you strip the rocket.
IOW, you're better off building new Saturn Vs.
I'm tempted to compare it to building vs restoring cars. A thorough restoration can easily take a year. Handbuilt cars are built in weeks...
answered Apr 2 at 13:44
HobbesHobbes
96.4k2272427
$endgroup$
5
$begingroup$
@HappyPhantom: Is it obvious that your "inspection, repair and proper cleaning" can be done without doing that first too? There are plenty of "replacement" and "new parts" in Hobbes's list.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
Apr 2 at 16:34
1
$begingroup$
New electronics, new guidance software and new turbopumps would require a new man rating of the rocket. But before man rating is finished, all museum Saturn V rockets are used,
$endgroup$
– Uwe
Apr 2 at 17:42
1
$begingroup$
@HenningMakholm: No, I am not sure. That is why Inspection is the first step.
$endgroup$
– Happy Phantom
Apr 2 at 19:09
3
$begingroup$
@HappyPhantom, the inspection isn't too bad -- it's basically the rocket equivalent of an aviation D-check. The problem is the repair -- for example, if one of the gyroscopes in the ST-124-M3 guidance platform has gone bad, where are you going to find a replacement?
$endgroup$
– Mark
Apr 2 at 20:19
6
$begingroup$
Also worth noting that when a restored vintage car breaks down because you missed something, it doesn't disintegrate traveling on a trans-lunar trajectory with you in it.
$endgroup$
– Seth R
Apr 2 at 20:41
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
The one at the Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville has been stored outside so it wasn't in good shape.
Displayed outdoors and on its side since 1969, the rocket was exhibiting widespread paint failure, moisture infiltration, an overall accumulation of atmospheric and biological soiling, and corrosion of its complex system of metal alloys, including aluminum. Non-metal materials such as polyurethane foam, various types of plastics including Tedlar®, phenolic resin, and fiberglass composites, had significantly deteriorated. The spacecraft portion of the Saturn V display (Lunar Adapter, Service Module, Command Module and Launch Escape System) were full scale 1970s era mock-ups constructed of sheet aluminum and fiberglass. The Command Module, constructed almost completely out of plywood and fiberglass, was is very poor condition
The others have been indoors so should be a bit better. The Huntsville rocket was incomplete. It's been restored from the above condition, but that's to 'museum exhibit' state, not 'functional rocket' state.
They'd need significant amount of work to be usable again:
- complete inspection of the metalwork, with replacement of any corroded parts. That alone is years of work. To do an inspection to the standard you want for spaceflight, you may have to disassemble most of the rocket (to make sure you get to all the corners that become inaccessible after assembly).
- replacement of all seals and other materials that can deteriorate. This may include the wiring.
- replacement of all the electronics
- new turbopumps
- new LOX tanks, maybe (LOX reacts with lots of things, there's no way to guarantee the tanks are clean)
- the Huntsville one was missing its CM, SM an LEM, so they'd have to be built.
- other parts may have been cannibalized, no way to know until you strip the rocket.
IOW, you're better off building new Saturn Vs.
I'm tempted to compare it to building vs restoring cars. A thorough restoration can easily take a year. Handbuilt cars are built in weeks...
answered Apr 2 at 13:44
HobbesHobbes
96.4k2272427
$endgroup$
The one at the Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville has been stored outside so it wasn't in good shape.
Displayed outdoors and on its side since 1969, the rocket was exhibiting widespread paint failure, moisture infiltration, an overall accumulation of atmospheric and biological soiling, and corrosion of its complex system of metal alloys, including aluminum. Non-metal materials such as polyurethane foam, various types of plastics including Tedlar®, phenolic resin, and fiberglass composites, had significantly deteriorated. The spacecraft portion of the Saturn V display (Lunar Adapter, Service Module, Command Module and Launch Escape System) were full scale 1970s era mock-ups constructed of sheet aluminum and fiberglass. The Command Module, constructed almost completely out of plywood and fiberglass, was is very poor condition
The others have been indoors so should be a bit better. The Huntsville rocket was incomplete. It's been restored from the above condition, but that's to 'museum exhibit' state, not 'functional rocket' state.
They'd need significant amount of work to be usable again:
- complete inspection of the metalwork, with replacement of any corroded parts. That alone is years of work. To do an inspection to the standard you want for spaceflight, you may have to disassemble most of the rocket (to make sure you get to all the corners that become inaccessible after assembly).
- replacement of all seals and other materials that can deteriorate. This may include the wiring.
- replacement of all the electronics
- new turbopumps
- new LOX tanks, maybe (LOX reacts with lots of things, there's no way to guarantee the tanks are clean)
- the Huntsville one was missing its CM, SM an LEM, so they'd have to be built.
- other parts may have been cannibalized, no way to know until you strip the rocket.
IOW, you're better off building new Saturn Vs.
I'm tempted to compare it to building vs restoring cars. A thorough restoration can easily take a year. Handbuilt cars are built in weeks...
answered Apr 2 at 13:44
HobbesHobbes
96.4k2272427
edited Apr 2 at 14:36
answered Apr 2 at 13:44
HobbesHobbes
96.4k2272427
answered Apr 2 at 13:44
HobbesHobbes
96.4k2272427
answered Apr 2 at 13:44
HobbesHobbes
96.4k2272427
96.4k2272427
5
$begingroup$
@HappyPhantom: Is it obvious that your "inspection, repair and proper cleaning" can be done without doing that first too? There are plenty of "replacement" and "new parts" in Hobbes's list.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
Apr 2 at 16:34
1
$begingroup$
New electronics, new guidance software and new turbopumps would require a new man rating of the rocket. But before man rating is finished, all museum Saturn V rockets are used,
$endgroup$
– Uwe
Apr 2 at 17:42
1
$begingroup$
@HenningMakholm: No, I am not sure. That is why Inspection is the first step.
$endgroup$
– Happy Phantom
Apr 2 at 19:09
3
$begingroup$
@HappyPhantom, the inspection isn't too bad -- it's basically the rocket equivalent of an aviation D-check. The problem is the repair -- for example, if one of the gyroscopes in the ST-124-M3 guidance platform has gone bad, where are you going to find a replacement?
$endgroup$
– Mark
Apr 2 at 20:19
6
$begingroup$
Also worth noting that when a restored vintage car breaks down because you missed something, it doesn't disintegrate traveling on a trans-lunar trajectory with you in it.
$endgroup$
– Seth R
Apr 2 at 20:41
|
show 2 more comments
5
$begingroup$
@HappyPhantom: Is it obvious that your "inspection, repair and proper cleaning" can be done without doing that first too? There are plenty of "replacement" and "new parts" in Hobbes's list.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
Apr 2 at 16:34
1
$begingroup$
New electronics, new guidance software and new turbopumps would require a new man rating of the rocket. But before man rating is finished, all museum Saturn V rockets are used,
$endgroup$
– Uwe
Apr 2 at 17:42
1
$begingroup$
@HenningMakholm: No, I am not sure. That is why Inspection is the first step.
$endgroup$
– Happy Phantom
Apr 2 at 19:09
3
$begingroup$
@HappyPhantom, the inspection isn't too bad -- it's basically the rocket equivalent of an aviation D-check. The problem is the repair -- for example, if one of the gyroscopes in the ST-124-M3 guidance platform has gone bad, where are you going to find a replacement?
$endgroup$
– Mark
Apr 2 at 20:19
6
$begingroup$
Also worth noting that when a restored vintage car breaks down because you missed something, it doesn't disintegrate traveling on a trans-lunar trajectory with you in it.
$endgroup$
– Seth R
Apr 2 at 20:41
5
5
$begingroup$
@HappyPhantom: Is it obvious that your "inspection, repair and proper cleaning" can be done without doing that first too? There are plenty of "replacement" and "new parts" in Hobbes's list.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
Apr 2 at 16:34
$begingroup$
@HappyPhantom: Is it obvious that your "inspection, repair and proper cleaning" can be done without doing that first too? There are plenty of "replacement" and "new parts" in Hobbes's list.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
Apr 2 at 16:34
1
1
$begingroup$
New electronics, new guidance software and new turbopumps would require a new man rating of the rocket. But before man rating is finished, all museum Saturn V rockets are used,
$endgroup$
– Uwe
Apr 2 at 17:42
$begingroup$
New electronics, new guidance software and new turbopumps would require a new man rating of the rocket. But before man rating is finished, all museum Saturn V rockets are used,
$endgroup$
– Uwe
Apr 2 at 17:42
1
1
$begingroup$
@HenningMakholm: No, I am not sure. That is why Inspection is the first step.
$endgroup$
– Happy Phantom
Apr 2 at 19:09
$begingroup$
@HenningMakholm: No, I am not sure. That is why Inspection is the first step.
$endgroup$
– Happy Phantom
Apr 2 at 19:09
3
3
$begingroup$
@HappyPhantom, the inspection isn't too bad -- it's basically the rocket equivalent of an aviation D-check. The problem is the repair -- for example, if one of the gyroscopes in the ST-124-M3 guidance platform has gone bad, where are you going to find a replacement?
$endgroup$
– Mark
Apr 2 at 20:19
$begingroup$
@HappyPhantom, the inspection isn't too bad -- it's basically the rocket equivalent of an aviation D-check. The problem is the repair -- for example, if one of the gyroscopes in the ST-124-M3 guidance platform has gone bad, where are you going to find a replacement?
$endgroup$
– Mark
Apr 2 at 20:19
6
6
$begingroup$
Also worth noting that when a restored vintage car breaks down because you missed something, it doesn't disintegrate traveling on a trans-lunar trajectory with you in it.
$endgroup$
– Seth R
Apr 2 at 20:41
$begingroup$
Also worth noting that when a restored vintage car breaks down because you missed something, it doesn't disintegrate traveling on a trans-lunar trajectory with you in it.
$endgroup$
– Seth R
Apr 2 at 20:41
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
I carefully examined the Saturn V in Houston (in particular the instrumentation unit) few months ago. There's no way this Saturn V would fly for a couple reasons:
It was stored outside and suffered lots of corrosion and damage. It was restored enough to be exhibited but the metal still has lots of corrosion covered by paint.
The instrumentation unit is missing many components. In particular, I noticed it is missing the LVDC (launch vehicle digital computer), other important electronics, some large tanks, covers on much of the electronics, a lot of wiring, and various random parts. The parts that remained were very dirty and corroded and I wouldn't expect them to work.
I agree with what @Hobbes concluded, you'd be better off building a new Saturn V.
answered Apr 2 at 20:20
Ken ShirriffKen Shirriff
36115
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Apparently there is an instrument unit in good condition at National Air & Space Museum, Udvar-Hazy Center, Dulles, Virginia.
$endgroup$
– dotancohen
Apr 3 at 17:01
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I carefully examined the Saturn V in Houston (in particular the instrumentation unit) few months ago. There's no way this Saturn V would fly for a couple reasons:
It was stored outside and suffered lots of corrosion and damage. It was restored enough to be exhibited but the metal still has lots of corrosion covered by paint.
The instrumentation unit is missing many components. In particular, I noticed it is missing the LVDC (launch vehicle digital computer), other important electronics, some large tanks, covers on much of the electronics, a lot of wiring, and various random parts. The parts that remained were very dirty and corroded and I wouldn't expect them to work.
I agree with what @Hobbes concluded, you'd be better off building a new Saturn V.
answered Apr 2 at 20:20
Ken ShirriffKen Shirriff
36115
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Apparently there is an instrument unit in good condition at National Air & Space Museum, Udvar-Hazy Center, Dulles, Virginia.
$endgroup$
– dotancohen
Apr 3 at 17:01
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I carefully examined the Saturn V in Houston (in particular the instrumentation unit) few months ago. There's no way this Saturn V would fly for a couple reasons:
It was stored outside and suffered lots of corrosion and damage. It was restored enough to be exhibited but the metal still has lots of corrosion covered by paint.
The instrumentation unit is missing many components. In particular, I noticed it is missing the LVDC (launch vehicle digital computer), other important electronics, some large tanks, covers on much of the electronics, a lot of wiring, and various random parts. The parts that remained were very dirty and corroded and I wouldn't expect them to work.
I agree with what @Hobbes concluded, you'd be better off building a new Saturn V.
answered Apr 2 at 20:20
Ken ShirriffKen Shirriff
36115
$endgroup$
I carefully examined the Saturn V in Houston (in particular the instrumentation unit) few months ago. There's no way this Saturn V would fly for a couple reasons:
It was stored outside and suffered lots of corrosion and damage. It was restored enough to be exhibited but the metal still has lots of corrosion covered by paint.
The instrumentation unit is missing many components. In particular, I noticed it is missing the LVDC (launch vehicle digital computer), other important electronics, some large tanks, covers on much of the electronics, a lot of wiring, and various random parts. The parts that remained were very dirty and corroded and I wouldn't expect them to work.
I agree with what @Hobbes concluded, you'd be better off building a new Saturn V.
answered Apr 2 at 20:20
Ken ShirriffKen Shirriff
36115
answered Apr 2 at 20:20
Ken ShirriffKen Shirriff
36115
answered Apr 2 at 20:20
Ken ShirriffKen Shirriff
36115
answered Apr 2 at 20:20
Ken ShirriffKen Shirriff
36115
36115
2
$begingroup$
Apparently there is an instrument unit in good condition at National Air & Space Museum, Udvar-Hazy Center, Dulles, Virginia.
$endgroup$
– dotancohen
Apr 3 at 17:01
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
Apparently there is an instrument unit in good condition at National Air & Space Museum, Udvar-Hazy Center, Dulles, Virginia.
$endgroup$
– dotancohen
Apr 3 at 17:01
2
2
$begingroup$
Apparently there is an instrument unit in good condition at National Air & Space Museum, Udvar-Hazy Center, Dulles, Virginia.
$endgroup$
– dotancohen
Apr 3 at 17:01
$begingroup$
Apparently there is an instrument unit in good condition at National Air & Space Museum, Udvar-Hazy Center, Dulles, Virginia.
$endgroup$
– dotancohen
Apr 3 at 17:01
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In addition to the other answers talking about the condition of the rocket itself, you have to realize it takes a lot more than just having the rocket to launch it. There is a whole mess of support infrastructure required to make the Saturn V, or any spacecraft, actually work.
Launch Center 39 hasn't been outfitted for a Saturn V since 1973 and has been reconfigured many times since. The machinery in the VAB used for prepping the Saturn V is gone; the building is being used by SpaceX now for its rockets. All the hardware in the control centers that worked with the Saturn V telemetry systems was dismantled a long time ago. You would have to rebuild the fueling systems to fill its massive tanks (not to mention, actually refind a way to get that much fuel to the launch pad). Every last one of the people who helped build it and understood how it worked are either long retired or dead. No one has even thought about launching a Saturn V since Skylab was put in orbit; the institutional knowledge at NASA on how to make it happen is forgotten.
Even if the museum pieces were flightworthy, you would have to rebuild and relearn so much of the support infrastructure and logistics that made it possible, you'd still be better off starting over with something new.
answered Apr 3 at 14:21
Seth RSeth R
24914
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Thank you Seth. In fact, I mention in the OP that I understand that the VAB, crawlers, and launch infrastructure would need retrofitting as well. But thank you for the details!
$endgroup$
– Happy Phantom
Apr 3 at 14:56
1
$begingroup$
@mgarey, no , but as an engineer I can tell you there is a huge difference between someone reading a 50-year old document on how something works and having someone who is actively wrist-deep in solving the challenges on a day-to-day basis. I'm sure NASA has reams of documentation on the Saturn V, but no one will understand a system that complex as well as the engineers who actually designed and built it.
$endgroup$
– Seth R
Apr 3 at 17:13
4
$begingroup$
@mgarey, I didn't mean to imply there was no documentation, but after 50 years I can't imagine anyone alive knows where it all is. Important to remember, too, that the Saturn V wasn't just built by NASA. It was a joint effort between hundreds of contractors and subcontractors who each had their own process documents and schematics. Who knows where all that is, if it is even still around. Trying to piece it all together is probably a bigger effort than just ordering a BFR from SpaceX.
$endgroup$
– Seth R
Apr 3 at 17:52
3
$begingroup$
@mgarey Even if documents "exist" that doesn't mean they are usable. Try making sense of poor-quality microfilm copies of thousands of pages of engineering drawings, which were originally only made as a "box ticking" backup measure by the company with the lowest price, and most likely never looked at by anyone to check their quality even when they were new. It's bad enough trying to read photocopies of reports from the 1960s originally written on manual typewriters with hand-drawn graphs and diagrams!
$endgroup$
– alephzero
Apr 3 at 19:01
1
$begingroup$
I was really just curious about the state of documentation on the Saturn V. To satisfy my own and others' curiosity on the subject: here here and here
$endgroup$
– mgarey
Apr 3 at 19:30
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
In addition to the other answers talking about the condition of the rocket itself, you have to realize it takes a lot more than just having the rocket to launch it. There is a whole mess of support infrastructure required to make the Saturn V, or any spacecraft, actually work.
Launch Center 39 hasn't been outfitted for a Saturn V since 1973 and has been reconfigured many times since. The machinery in the VAB used for prepping the Saturn V is gone; the building is being used by SpaceX now for its rockets. All the hardware in the control centers that worked with the Saturn V telemetry systems was dismantled a long time ago. You would have to rebuild the fueling systems to fill its massive tanks (not to mention, actually refind a way to get that much fuel to the launch pad). Every last one of the people who helped build it and understood how it worked are either long retired or dead. No one has even thought about launching a Saturn V since Skylab was put in orbit; the institutional knowledge at NASA on how to make it happen is forgotten.
Even if the museum pieces were flightworthy, you would have to rebuild and relearn so much of the support infrastructure and logistics that made it possible, you'd still be better off starting over with something new.
answered Apr 3 at 14:21
Seth RSeth R
24914
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Thank you Seth. In fact, I mention in the OP that I understand that the VAB, crawlers, and launch infrastructure would need retrofitting as well. But thank you for the details!
$endgroup$
– Happy Phantom
Apr 3 at 14:56
1
$begingroup$
@mgarey, no , but as an engineer I can tell you there is a huge difference between someone reading a 50-year old document on how something works and having someone who is actively wrist-deep in solving the challenges on a day-to-day basis. I'm sure NASA has reams of documentation on the Saturn V, but no one will understand a system that complex as well as the engineers who actually designed and built it.
$endgroup$
– Seth R
Apr 3 at 17:13
4
$begingroup$
@mgarey, I didn't mean to imply there was no documentation, but after 50 years I can't imagine anyone alive knows where it all is. Important to remember, too, that the Saturn V wasn't just built by NASA. It was a joint effort between hundreds of contractors and subcontractors who each had their own process documents and schematics. Who knows where all that is, if it is even still around. Trying to piece it all together is probably a bigger effort than just ordering a BFR from SpaceX.
$endgroup$
– Seth R
Apr 3 at 17:52
3
$begingroup$
@mgarey Even if documents "exist" that doesn't mean they are usable. Try making sense of poor-quality microfilm copies of thousands of pages of engineering drawings, which were originally only made as a "box ticking" backup measure by the company with the lowest price, and most likely never looked at by anyone to check their quality even when they were new. It's bad enough trying to read photocopies of reports from the 1960s originally written on manual typewriters with hand-drawn graphs and diagrams!
$endgroup$
– alephzero
Apr 3 at 19:01
1
$begingroup$
I was really just curious about the state of documentation on the Saturn V. To satisfy my own and others' curiosity on the subject: here here and here
$endgroup$
– mgarey
Apr 3 at 19:30
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
In addition to the other answers talking about the condition of the rocket itself, you have to realize it takes a lot more than just having the rocket to launch it. There is a whole mess of support infrastructure required to make the Saturn V, or any spacecraft, actually work.
Launch Center 39 hasn't been outfitted for a Saturn V since 1973 and has been reconfigured many times since. The machinery in the VAB used for prepping the Saturn V is gone; the building is being used by SpaceX now for its rockets. All the hardware in the control centers that worked with the Saturn V telemetry systems was dismantled a long time ago. You would have to rebuild the fueling systems to fill its massive tanks (not to mention, actually refind a way to get that much fuel to the launch pad). Every last one of the people who helped build it and understood how it worked are either long retired or dead. No one has even thought about launching a Saturn V since Skylab was put in orbit; the institutional knowledge at NASA on how to make it happen is forgotten.
Even if the museum pieces were flightworthy, you would have to rebuild and relearn so much of the support infrastructure and logistics that made it possible, you'd still be better off starting over with something new.
answered Apr 3 at 14:21
Seth RSeth R
24914
$endgroup$
In addition to the other answers talking about the condition of the rocket itself, you have to realize it takes a lot more than just having the rocket to launch it. There is a whole mess of support infrastructure required to make the Saturn V, or any spacecraft, actually work.
Launch Center 39 hasn't been outfitted for a Saturn V since 1973 and has been reconfigured many times since. The machinery in the VAB used for prepping the Saturn V is gone; the building is being used by SpaceX now for its rockets. All the hardware in the control centers that worked with the Saturn V telemetry systems was dismantled a long time ago. You would have to rebuild the fueling systems to fill its massive tanks (not to mention, actually refind a way to get that much fuel to the launch pad). Every last one of the people who helped build it and understood how it worked are either long retired or dead. No one has even thought about launching a Saturn V since Skylab was put in orbit; the institutional knowledge at NASA on how to make it happen is forgotten.
Even if the museum pieces were flightworthy, you would have to rebuild and relearn so much of the support infrastructure and logistics that made it possible, you'd still be better off starting over with something new.
answered Apr 3 at 14:21
Seth RSeth R
24914
answered Apr 3 at 14:21
Seth RSeth R
24914
answered Apr 3 at 14:21
Seth RSeth R
24914
answered Apr 3 at 14:21
Seth RSeth R
24914
24914
2
$begingroup$
Thank you Seth. In fact, I mention in the OP that I understand that the VAB, crawlers, and launch infrastructure would need retrofitting as well. But thank you for the details!
$endgroup$
– Happy Phantom
Apr 3 at 14:56
1
$begingroup$
@mgarey, no , but as an engineer I can tell you there is a huge difference between someone reading a 50-year old document on how something works and having someone who is actively wrist-deep in solving the challenges on a day-to-day basis. I'm sure NASA has reams of documentation on the Saturn V, but no one will understand a system that complex as well as the engineers who actually designed and built it.
$endgroup$
– Seth R
Apr 3 at 17:13
4
$begingroup$
@mgarey, I didn't mean to imply there was no documentation, but after 50 years I can't imagine anyone alive knows where it all is. Important to remember, too, that the Saturn V wasn't just built by NASA. It was a joint effort between hundreds of contractors and subcontractors who each had their own process documents and schematics. Who knows where all that is, if it is even still around. Trying to piece it all together is probably a bigger effort than just ordering a BFR from SpaceX.
$endgroup$
– Seth R
Apr 3 at 17:52
3
$begingroup$
@mgarey Even if documents "exist" that doesn't mean they are usable. Try making sense of poor-quality microfilm copies of thousands of pages of engineering drawings, which were originally only made as a "box ticking" backup measure by the company with the lowest price, and most likely never looked at by anyone to check their quality even when they were new. It's bad enough trying to read photocopies of reports from the 1960s originally written on manual typewriters with hand-drawn graphs and diagrams!
$endgroup$
– alephzero
Apr 3 at 19:01
1
$begingroup$
I was really just curious about the state of documentation on the Saturn V. To satisfy my own and others' curiosity on the subject: here here and here
$endgroup$
– mgarey
Apr 3 at 19:30
|
show 2 more comments
2
$begingroup$
Thank you Seth. In fact, I mention in the OP that I understand that the VAB, crawlers, and launch infrastructure would need retrofitting as well. But thank you for the details!
$endgroup$
– Happy Phantom
Apr 3 at 14:56
1
$begingroup$
@mgarey, no , but as an engineer I can tell you there is a huge difference between someone reading a 50-year old document on how something works and having someone who is actively wrist-deep in solving the challenges on a day-to-day basis. I'm sure NASA has reams of documentation on the Saturn V, but no one will understand a system that complex as well as the engineers who actually designed and built it.
$endgroup$
– Seth R
Apr 3 at 17:13
4
$begingroup$
@mgarey, I didn't mean to imply there was no documentation, but after 50 years I can't imagine anyone alive knows where it all is. Important to remember, too, that the Saturn V wasn't just built by NASA. It was a joint effort between hundreds of contractors and subcontractors who each had their own process documents and schematics. Who knows where all that is, if it is even still around. Trying to piece it all together is probably a bigger effort than just ordering a BFR from SpaceX.
$endgroup$
– Seth R
Apr 3 at 17:52
3
$begingroup$
@mgarey Even if documents "exist" that doesn't mean they are usable. Try making sense of poor-quality microfilm copies of thousands of pages of engineering drawings, which were originally only made as a "box ticking" backup measure by the company with the lowest price, and most likely never looked at by anyone to check their quality even when they were new. It's bad enough trying to read photocopies of reports from the 1960s originally written on manual typewriters with hand-drawn graphs and diagrams!
$endgroup$
– alephzero
Apr 3 at 19:01
1
$begingroup$
I was really just curious about the state of documentation on the Saturn V. To satisfy my own and others' curiosity on the subject: here here and here
$endgroup$
– mgarey
Apr 3 at 19:30
2
2
$begingroup$
Thank you Seth. In fact, I mention in the OP that I understand that the VAB, crawlers, and launch infrastructure would need retrofitting as well. But thank you for the details!
$endgroup$
– Happy Phantom
Apr 3 at 14:56
$begingroup$
Thank you Seth. In fact, I mention in the OP that I understand that the VAB, crawlers, and launch infrastructure would need retrofitting as well. But thank you for the details!
$endgroup$
– Happy Phantom
Apr 3 at 14:56
1
1
$begingroup$
@mgarey, no , but as an engineer I can tell you there is a huge difference between someone reading a 50-year old document on how something works and having someone who is actively wrist-deep in solving the challenges on a day-to-day basis. I'm sure NASA has reams of documentation on the Saturn V, but no one will understand a system that complex as well as the engineers who actually designed and built it.
$endgroup$
– Seth R
Apr 3 at 17:13
$begingroup$
@mgarey, no , but as an engineer I can tell you there is a huge difference between someone reading a 50-year old document on how something works and having someone who is actively wrist-deep in solving the challenges on a day-to-day basis. I'm sure NASA has reams of documentation on the Saturn V, but no one will understand a system that complex as well as the engineers who actually designed and built it.
$endgroup$
– Seth R
Apr 3 at 17:13
4
4
$begingroup$
@mgarey, I didn't mean to imply there was no documentation, but after 50 years I can't imagine anyone alive knows where it all is. Important to remember, too, that the Saturn V wasn't just built by NASA. It was a joint effort between hundreds of contractors and subcontractors who each had their own process documents and schematics. Who knows where all that is, if it is even still around. Trying to piece it all together is probably a bigger effort than just ordering a BFR from SpaceX.
$endgroup$
– Seth R
Apr 3 at 17:52
$begingroup$
@mgarey, I didn't mean to imply there was no documentation, but after 50 years I can't imagine anyone alive knows where it all is. Important to remember, too, that the Saturn V wasn't just built by NASA. It was a joint effort between hundreds of contractors and subcontractors who each had their own process documents and schematics. Who knows where all that is, if it is even still around. Trying to piece it all together is probably a bigger effort than just ordering a BFR from SpaceX.
$endgroup$
– Seth R
Apr 3 at 17:52
3
3
$begingroup$
@mgarey Even if documents "exist" that doesn't mean they are usable. Try making sense of poor-quality microfilm copies of thousands of pages of engineering drawings, which were originally only made as a "box ticking" backup measure by the company with the lowest price, and most likely never looked at by anyone to check their quality even when they were new. It's bad enough trying to read photocopies of reports from the 1960s originally written on manual typewriters with hand-drawn graphs and diagrams!
$endgroup$
– alephzero
Apr 3 at 19:01
$begingroup$
@mgarey Even if documents "exist" that doesn't mean they are usable. Try making sense of poor-quality microfilm copies of thousands of pages of engineering drawings, which were originally only made as a "box ticking" backup measure by the company with the lowest price, and most likely never looked at by anyone to check their quality even when they were new. It's bad enough trying to read photocopies of reports from the 1960s originally written on manual typewriters with hand-drawn graphs and diagrams!
$endgroup$
– alephzero
Apr 3 at 19:01
1
1
$begingroup$
I was really just curious about the state of documentation on the Saturn V. To satisfy my own and others' curiosity on the subject: here here and here
$endgroup$
– mgarey
Apr 3 at 19:30
$begingroup$
I was really just curious about the state of documentation on the Saturn V. To satisfy my own and others' curiosity on the subject: here here and here
$endgroup$
– mgarey
Apr 3 at 19:30
|
show 2 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to Space Exploration Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35239%2fcould-the-museum-saturn-vs-be-refitted-for-one-more-flight%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
$begingroup$
You expect a rocket stored in the open for more than two decades to be refittable for flight? See wikipedia. Only one consist of stages intended for launch.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
Apr 2 at 13:41
6
$begingroup$
@Uwe: Thank you for chiming in! I'm not expecting, I'm asking. This Mustang had been stored in the open for four and a half decades, and then was restarted recently. I'm sure that it is not a matter of simply filling up the H2, O2, and RP-1. What are the bottlenecks, and are they surmountable? As you mention, we do have a complete rocket consisting of flight stages.
$endgroup$
– Happy Phantom
Apr 2 at 13:46
1
$begingroup$
Won't this raise the ship of Theseus problem? If too many parts have to be replaced in order to make it functional, can we still call it the original one? If yes, even then it will be much much cheaper to design and build a completely new rocket from scratch, then to repair or rebuild the original one.
$endgroup$
– vsz
Apr 2 at 19:35
6
$begingroup$
Basically, other than fusion reactors and perpetual motion machines, the question of can we do it is answered by how many zeros you have in your check book.
$endgroup$
– Mazura
Apr 3 at 1:48
1
$begingroup$
Stephen Baxter's book "Titan" has a very similar premise, and goes over many of the problems. In the fiction, it succeeds.
$endgroup$
– Christopher Hostage
Apr 3 at 15:36