
The Lost Art of the Saturn V - ColinWright
http://amyshirateitel.com/2011/04/03/the-lost-art-of-the-saturn-v/
======
thearn4
> "The whole mission, however, depended on the titanic Saturn V rocket, a
> technology that is lost to the current generation."

NASA engineer here. I think it's actually kind of ludicrous to claim that we
have somehow "lost" the technology of the Apollo program. We're not living in
some sort of space technology dark ages here, where we've forgotten all of the
fundamentals of the 1960s 'classical enlightenment'. In fact, the decades
since then have provided invaluable experience in the design and use of
reusable launch systems, in-space assembly, astronaut medicine, etc.

If the agency and it's supporting industry contractors were given both an
executive mandate and the funding to construct a comparable system to Apollo
(for whatever reason that would be), today's engineers would not struggle to
do it for lack of technical prowess. We might struggle to do it in the current
federal budgetary climate (where we can't predict the whims of legislators 3
months from now, much less 10 years from now - and the Saturn V was expensive
as hell to operate), but the "lost rocket science" myth is a bit tiring.

~~~
stackcollision
I think people tend to romanticize old technology because it did so much with
so little. My dad always makes fun of these people by saying "They don't build
'em like they used to: They build 'em better."

I don't entirely agree with his sentiment but it's still for the most part
true. I have no doubt that, given a proper budget and mandate, NASA could once
again build a heavy lift vehicle like the Saturn V. However, I think we've
lost a certain elegance that was present in that age. Sure, our technology is
much more capable now, but it's definitely not as 'charming', for lack of a
better word.

I think the point that I'm trying to get at is this: I used to commute on
NJTransit, and every day I would get into crappy "modern" brushed aluminum
railcars with a freight locomotive pulling them. And one day, while I was
waiting, a refurbished Pennsylvania Railroad train rolled through with its
beautiful shiny brown paintjob, elegant railcars, and even people in period
garb. I have no idea what it was for - it didn't stop at our station - but it
was much more pretty than anything we see today. My dad was there too, and for
once he actually said without irony, "They don't build 'em like they used to."

But who knows, maybe fifty years from now people will see us the same way we
see them.

~~~
fennecfoxen
The New York subway occasionally runs historic trains. They're kind of
obnoxiously loud and rattly. I assume they were slightly better when they were
younger, but I'll take air conditioning over ceiling fans whenever I can.

That said, there's something to be said for the inhumanity of stark modern
designs:
[http://instagram.com/p/egILDiQAS2/](http://instagram.com/p/egILDiQAS2/)

compared to the older ones:
[http://instagram.com/p/gbwdmTwAZM/](http://instagram.com/p/gbwdmTwAZM/)

~~~
oxryly1
But... Helvetica!!

~~~
fennecfoxen
Plz n00b, [http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/fdi/wayfinding-sans-
pro/](http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/fdi/wayfinding-sans-pro/)

;)

------
antimagic
This needs a [2011] in the title, which is important as the space industry has
changed a lot in the last few years, particularly with the arrival of SpaceX
and other COTS competitors. Whilst it's true that no-one is planning a beast
like the Saturn V (although the Falcon 9 Heavy is getting close), it's also
true that these days we don't need that.

Back in the 60s/70s, it was not possible to do an automatic hook-up of modules
in space. Today we do these routinely. Those Apollo missions could still be
launched today by launching the command module, the service module and the
lunar module as separate payloads and joining them in orbit. The crew would
launch in the command module.

It's a bit like regretting that Formula 1 cars no longer have big 3.0L V12
engines, and instead have to get by with measly 2.4L V8s, whilst missing the
fact that the modern car will eat the V12's lunch, with it's eyes close, in
reverse.

~~~
valarauca1
Not exactly. The "real" difference is if we cut down to a 4 cylinder at half
the horse power, half the torque. While a "newer" engine does achieve higher
thrust to weight nobody is building engines with anywhere close to the trust
of the J-2.

NASA actually is attempting to rebuild the J-2, with the J-2X program. The
problem is nobody knows how the J-2 works and part of the contract included
NASA shipping several J-2's back for re-engineering.

I should also remind you that a year ago NASA didn't actually know "how" the
j-2 worked. Their numbers said the bell should melt during flight. Eventually
they realized that helium is injected on a outer ring of injectors to insulate
the bell.

~~~
antimagic
My point was more that you don't _need_ the raw thrust of the F-1 / J-2 so
much these days because we've made up for the lack of single-launch capacity
by advances in other areas. Look at the ISS - it could not have been launched
with Apollo-era tech, because the Saturn V couldn't launch it in one hit, and
they didn't know how to put things together on-orbit. +(see edit)

These days it becomes a cost/benefit analysis - is the extra cost of doing
things in one big monolithic lift more or less than the extra cost incurred by
having to break things into smaller components and assemble on orbit. Clearly
heavy lift still has advantages - there's a reason everyone is excited about
Falcon 9 Heavy, but rockets are tricky beasts, and multiple smaller launches
helps mitigate against catastrophic failure (although it may increase the risk
of partial failure).

Edit: Just to be clear, I'm talking about _automatic_ on-orbit assembly, which
means that you don't have to launch a pilot + life support each time you want
to join two bits together.

~~~
zhaphod
Actually it is far better to minimize the number of launches to complete any
mission. For example, Elon Musk has repeatedly mentioned that he is not
currently a fan of in-orbit assembly. So having a really powerful engine is of
great utility. The problem is one of cost-benefit. Having a huge engine means
a big rocket which needs to be launched multiple times to achieve economy. But
there are not too many missions around which require such capacity. Just look
at the proposed SLS cadence. So having a Falcon Heavy with 27 engines is a
much better solution any way. I cant wait when Merlin 1Ds are replaced with
Raptors on first stage on Falcon Heavy. That would be one monster of a rocket.

~~~
avmich
> Actually it is far better to minimize the number of launches to complete any
> mission.

Doubtful. To design a big rocket takes a lot of money - and big rocket doesn't
get to be used as much as a smaller rocket sometimes, which makes it more
expensive per flight.

The opinions of Elon Musk aren't always perfect either. Certain technical
decisions are made not because they are best, but because they are available -
like, SpaceX just knows how to do that, and considers it expensive to learn
the alternatives. Which is quite justifiable on economical grounds.

------
mapt
Funny time to complain about this, a few days after SpaceX confirms that it
will be building a 9-Raptor engine, 6-9M lbf methalox launch vehicle
comparable in scope _per core_ to the Saturn V, and suggests strongly that
they're going to make a 3-core configuration.

[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34015.msg11...](http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34015.msg1162024#msg1162024)

Ultimately we (our representatives in Congress) decided in ~1970 that actual
exploration was simply too expensive. Political goal accomplished, Moon
reached, Soviets cowed, mission over. Instead we would pay endless lip service
to the idea while cutting budgets as far as possible. The design-by-committee-
session Shuttle was a ridiculous project in a dozen different ways and failed
to do much of anything (including being cheap), beyond two key elements:
firstly, being _impossible to cancel_. Second, it waved the flag for the
notional romance of space in an age of decay, when we became disinterested in
funding and structuring programs at a sufficient level to innovate or even
seek out the maximum return per dollar by choosing appropriate technology.

[http://idlewords.com/2005/08/a_rocket_to_nowhere.htm](http://idlewords.com/2005/08/a_rocket_to_nowhere.htm)

SLS and Orion explicitly continue in this legacy. I'm hoping Elon Musk's
motivations outlast the US Congress's.

------
hcrisp
John Aaron saved the Apollo 12 mission with four words, "Try SCE to AUX". And
entered the history books as the best controller of the Apollo era.
[http://www.universetoday.com/98484/this-day-in-space-
history...](http://www.universetoday.com/98484/this-day-in-space-history-
apollo-12-and-sce-to-aux/)

~~~
stackcollision
Actually, I believe the words were "Flight, go SCE to AUX." But an awesome
story nonetheless.

------
djulius
The author of the blog is particularly known for plagiarism. Whenever I have
more time I will double check the originality of this article.

[http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2394/1](http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2394/1)
[http://www.friends-
partners.org/pipermail/fpspace/2013-Novem...](http://www.friends-
partners.org/pipermail/fpspace/2013-November/034335.html)

------
lmm
It's not a loss of art, it's a loss of political will. Given the same budget
as in the Apollo years, I have no doubt NASA could produce something better
than the Saturn V. But its current funding is a tiny fraction of that. (I
mean, Apollo 18 was a complete mission that was scrapped, more-or-less to save
the cost of the fuel).

~~~
greglindahl
NASA is building something better than the Saturn V: By buying launches from
SpaceX, they've enabled a company that is going to fly a rocket that's 1/2 of
a Saturn V next year, in a family of rockets that's commercially viable and
has a high launch rate.

------
jotm
The Saturn V doesn't really matter anymore - what matters is that we know it
can be done (the Falcon 9 Heavy would be impossible without the simple
knowledge that the Saturn V existed), and if need be, it will be done.

The second issue is that no one needs that powerful a rocket at the moment -
though I believe if it did exist, everyone would suddenly find use for it
(like it happened with PC's and smartphones, for example).

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _no one needs that powerful a rocket at the moment - though I believe if it
> did exist, everyone would suddenly find use for it_

This is an important and very underappreciated point in life in general.
Asking "will I ever need X?" is not a good idea, because it usually leads to
the answer "no", whereas if you _actually had_ X, you'd quickly invent many
uses for it. It works this way for smartphones ("why would I need Internet in
my phone? I have one in my laptop"), other tools, it works in programming
languages - it's what pg calls the "Blub paradox" in [0].

I find that the features of our tools limit our thinking and abilities both as
individuals and civilizations, therefore when possible I always opt for the
most flexible/feature-full solution.

(there's of course a flipside to that, visible e.g. in the ongoing process of
police militarization in the United States - don't give better tools to people
if you don't want them to start using those tools more and more)

[0] - [http://paulgraham.com/avg.html](http://paulgraham.com/avg.html)

~~~
avmich
Several big rockets already were built - and all struggled, more or less, with
lack of payloads. First was Saturn-5 - and N-1 arguably was closed because
there wasn't enough interest in it, in terms of payloads, for anybody
involved. Then it was Energia - again, may be, should USSR survive, it'd still
flew, but it was closed, while Proton and Zenit survived. Last was Space
Shuttle - which was particularly expensive lately with not enough missions to
justify its annual cost.

So, with big rockets, it's doubtful that "build them, and they will be used"
approach works. On the other hand, we really don't need big rockets that much
anymore - we can do anything with existing rockets. It would be interesting to
see how often Falcon 9 Heavy will be employed.

------
qwerta
Russians still develop Energia rockets and engines. It is modular rocket
system which included soviet space shuttle and some heavy orbital weapons. It
has more powerful engines than F-1 used in Saturn.

It is modular system and heaviest configuration were close to Saturn, but are
currently abandoned. The lighter configurations are in active use and share
the same engines and other components. Plus they develop new types.

I guess it would just take a few months/years to develop Saturn replacement if
there is demand.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-170](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-170)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energia)

~~~
avmich
Energia is long gone.

RD-170 family is alive and well though. You'd still need a good sized hydrogen
engine - a kind of SSME or RD-0120.

But may be you just don't need too big of a rocket. 25 tons on LEO could be
enough for everything, and you'll launch that often enough so a single launch
won't be expensive. You can assemble stations, create orbital fuel depots,
even make on-orbit manufacturing if you want something really big in one
piece.

------
graeham
An interesting comparison of rockets in the context of this article:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_heavy_lift_launch...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_heavy_lift_launch_systems)

------
julie1
Area 51 was the place where v2 where tested. The UFO bs was just a convenient
conspiracy theory to hide the fact USA was relying on more than morally
unclear methods to get the former IIIrd reich scientists to do their job.

It consisted notably in either stealing precious brains from the germany that
was in need, and -more troubling- preventing some persons to face the
consequence of their action in front of a tribunal (war crime).

For the record condor and gladio operations also are more than morally
questionable and also rely on explicit infringement in what a state is
authorized to do on foreign ground: killing people arbitrarily without a
trial.

I don't think that creating in relation with stuff like the infamous P12 loge
(in which il cavaliere was, and some of well known mafioso) a program of
"pseudo communist terrorisms" that were in fact the opposite and resulted in
civilian killed by terrorist actions is not kind of consistent with the USA
claim of war on terrorism.

USA is looking more and more like the former soviet union. NSA invasive
techniques to spy on citizens are now as efficient as the former KGB used to
be (that became the FSB and whose latest well known head was V. Poutine)

------
totalforge
Perhaps the blogger is not aware that, even if the tons of documentation and
data in the National Archives were lost, there are three actual rockets on
display across the country, and a good number of stored spare engines and
other components. Ars Technica recently ran a story on reverse engineering an
F-1 engine to aid in the design of a new heavy lift engine.

------
josh-wrale
_The world today is such a wicked place. Fighting going on between the human
race. People got to work just to earn their bread. While people just across
the sea are counting their dead.

A politician's job they say is very high. 'Cos he has to choose who's got to
go and die. They can put a man on the moon quite easy, While people here on
earth are dying of old diseases.

A woman goes to work every day after day. She just goes to work just to earn
her pay. Child sitting crying by a life that's harder. He doesn't even know
who is his father._

\- Black Sabbath's "Wicked World" (1970)

I'm a fan of manned spaceflight and exploration (slash finding a high
availability arrangement for life from Earth). However, I believe we have more
pressing matters to tend at the moment. In the meantime, it seems we need more
Encyclopedists. ;-)

~~~
angersock
There will always be more pressing matters. Prioritizing them is a bad idea.

~~~
josh-wrale
There are certainly always important things going on at home (Earth). I am not
suggesting that these will always be more important than manned space flight;
I'm suggesting that they are more important at this time. Are you saying that
prioritizing manned space flight, above all else, is always a good idea? If
not, what priorities have you before manned spaceflight? What's the rush? Are
you concerned with climate change? Is the answer to it to move on from Earth,
instead of _first_ trying to nurse it back to health?

~~~
some_guy_there
Not everyone on this planet shares the same priority.

Even if you wanted to, you cannot force everyone to share same priority.

We have the will and motive to do multiple things simultaneously.

------
icehawk
Even if we had the operational knowledge, you'd still be trying to assemble a
rocket that is half a century old. I would be amazed if the commodity parts,
things like screws and washers and whatnot, were still being made.

~~~
ghaff
I don't know so much about screws and washers but certainly there are any
number of components that we don't have the tools to make the tools any longer
--and we probably wouldn't want to use those components even if we could.
Would be want to use the Apollo guidance computer? Raytheon had better gear
back up to make core memory in that case.

The whole "Saturn V plans are lost" meme seems to be an urban legend but it's
a red herring in any case. We couldn't easily build a 100% authentic 1965
Corvette either but that doesn't mean that we've somehow lost the technology
to do so.

~~~
VLM
"doesn't mean that we've somehow lost the technology to do so"

I can think of two examples.

The LM had some truly weird chemical milling technology invented mostly
because they didn't have the CNC mills and CNC EDM gear we have today. Design
and production floor feed back on each other and some design decisions were
optimized to production realities such that you could at enormous expense
either reinvent the chemical milling processes or simulate them with EDM
and/or CNC mills but it would be enormously cheaper to scrap the design for a
chemically milled door or whatever and replace it with a door designed
specifically to match the modern technologies of EDM and milling machines.

The other example I can think of is I don't think we have the tech anymore to
make aerospace grade core memories. Too much info was in the brains of people
who died decades ago. To a first approximation the cost would be something
like the entire fixed capital expenses of the whole computation industry from
1940-1960 plus many man years of R+D and more importantly reverse engineering
and reinventing the QA/QC that man rated aerospace grade core memory would
require. It would be a heck of a lot simpler and cheaper to use modern tech.

There is an obvious computing analogy. For a good time check out the "soylent
news" project as in soylentnews.org who spent weeks re-implementing modperl
1.0 and apache 1 and all that so as to re-implement /. using the last public
release of slash code. Its non-trivial to bring up old software while
simultaneously applying a decade or two of security patches and best
practices.

~~~
ghaff
I meant that statement in the sense of it's not really as if we've lost the
knowledge from some golden age of engineering. I'm guessing it would be
enormously difficult and expensive to build an IBM 360 as well. (Or, if that's
not a good example for some reason, certainly any number of other obsolete
computer systems.) But people don't normally lament the fact that we can no
longer manufacture a 1960s-era computer.

But, that said, fair comment. It's the reason that there are always various
military projects ongoing to basically replace old technology (such as
guidance systems) with modern tech. Not necessarily to upgrade capabilities,
but simply because we can't build the old stuff any longer.

------
l_perrin
Nice writeup. One small error I noticed: the first manned flight was Apollo 7,
not Apollo 8.

~~~
andyjohnson0
I was confused by that too, until I realised that the article is specifically
about the Saturn V.

What the author wrote was: _" After only two unmanned launches, the third
Saturn V took Apollo 8 to the moon."_

Apollo 7 used a Saturn IB booster and so, while it was the first manned Saturn
launch, Apollo 8 was the first manned launch of a Saturn V. The two unmanned
launches were Apollo 4 and Apollo 6, which both used the Saturn V [1].

Edit: Clarity

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Apollo_missions#Unmanne...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Apollo_missions#Unmanned_Apollo-
Saturn_IB_and_Saturn_V)

