3 ms·

As magnificent as the Apollo program was, and the Saturn V in particular, it was an incredibly expensive and complex launch system, unsustainably so. Additiona

As magnificent as the Apollo program was, and the Saturn V in particular, it was an incredibly expensive and complex launch system, unsustainably so. Additionally, even if you did want to recreate a Saturn V, the designs themselves aren't going to get you very far. Most of the tooling has been lost likely along with much of the institutional know how, especially on the technician side of things. I'd be very surprised if you could recreate a functioning Saturn V for a lower cost than designing an entirely new launch system.

eesmith 9y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocketdyne_F-1#F-1B_booster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocketdyne_F-1#F-1B_booster > As part of the Space Launch System (SLS) program, NASA had been running the Advanced Booster Competition, which was scheduled to end with the selection of a winning booster configuration in 2015. In 2012, Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne (PWR) proposed using a derivative of the F-1 engine in the competition as a liquid rocket booster ... The F-1B engine has a design goal to be at least as powerful as the un-flight-tested F-1A, while also being more cost effective. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_C-3#Pyrios https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_C-3#Pyrios > Developed during the later stages of the Apollo program, the F-1A was test fired, but never flew. Several were crated and stored by Rocketdyne (later Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne). The company has also maintained an F-1/F-1A knowledge retention program for its engineers for the entire period the engine has been mothballed. Also, https://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/new-f-1b-rocket-engine-upgrades-apollo-era-deisgn-with-1-8m-lbs-of-thrust/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/new-f-1b-rocket-engi... .
- greglindahl 9y ago
  And this engine lost the SLS competition to the SSME+solids. So yes, it's an interesting point that the Saturn V engine might still be buildable, but it's not cost effective today, and it's not the Saturn V rocket.

eesmith 9y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocketdyne_F-1#F-1B_booster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocketdyne_F-1#F-1B_booster > As part of the Space Launch System (SLS) program, NASA had been running the Advanced Booster Competition, which was scheduled to end with the selection of a winning booster configuration in 2015. In 2012, Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne (PWR) proposed using a derivative of the F-1 engine in the competition as a liquid rocket booster ... The F-1B engine has a design goal to be at least as powerful as the un-flight-tested F-1A, while also being more cost effective. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_C-3#Pyrios https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_C-3#Pyrios > Developed during the later stages of the Apollo program, the F-1A was test fired, but never flew. Several were crated and stored by Rocketdyne (later Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne). The company has also maintained an F-1/F-1A knowledge retention program for its engineers for the entire period the engine has been mothballed. Also, https://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/new-f-1b-rocket-engine-upgrades-apollo-era-deisgn-with-1-8m-lbs-of-thrust/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/new-f-1b-rocket-engi... .

greglindahl 9y ago
And this engine lost the SLS competition to the SSME+solids. So yes, it's an interesting point that the Saturn V engine might still be buildable, but it's not cost effective today, and it's not the Saturn V rocket.