Could the museum Saturn V's be refitted for one more flight?Why not build Saturn V's again?Do we still have...
How can the DM most effectively choose 1 out of an odd number of players to be targeted by an attack or effect?
Why do we use polarized capacitor?
Is it possible to make sharp wind that can cut stuff from afar?
What is GPS' 19 year rollover and does it present a cybersecurity issue?
declaring a variable twice in IIFE
Why has Russell's definition of numbers using equivalence classes been finally abandoned? ( If it has actually been abandoned).
Does the radius of the Spirit Guardians spell depend on the size of the caster?
Motorized valve interfering with button?
What do you call something that goes against the spirit of the law, but is legal when interpreting the law to the letter?
Why are 150k or 200k jobs considered good when there are 300k+ births a month?
How did the USSR manage to innovate in an environment characterized by government censorship and high bureaucracy?
Do airline pilots ever risk not hearing communication directed to them specifically, from traffic controllers?
Why doesn't Newton's third law mean a person bounces back to where they started when they hit the ground?
Why don't electron-positron collisions release infinite energy?
Circuitry of TV splitters
Copycat chess is back
What is the offset in a seaplane's hull?
A function which translates a sentence to title-case
What would happen to a modern skyscraper if it rains micro blackholes?
Are white and non-white police officers equally likely to kill black suspects?
My colleague's body is amazing
I see my dog run
A newer friend of my brother's gave him a load of baseball cards that are supposedly extremely valuable. Is this a scam?
A Journey Through Space and Time
Could the museum Saturn V's be refitted for one more flight?
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
433410
$endgroup$
|
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
433410
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
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
$begingroup$
I was in Cape Canaveral recently, and the staff mentioned that if a Saturn V is needed, the one in the Kennedy space center is the one in the best condition...
$endgroup$
– Miguel
Apr 3 at 16:22
|
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
433410
$endgroup$
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
433410
edited Apr 2 at 18:02
Michael Seifert
50327
asked Apr 2 at 12:17
Happy PhantomHappy Phantom
433410
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
433410
asked Apr 2 at 12:17
Happy PhantomHappy Phantom
433410
asked Apr 2 at 12:17
Happy PhantomHappy Phantom
433410
433410
1
$begingroup$
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
$begingroup$
I was in Cape Canaveral recently, and the staff mentioned that if a Saturn V is needed, the one in the Kennedy space center is the one in the best condition...
$endgroup$
– Miguel
Apr 3 at 16:22
|
show 4 more comments
1
$begingroup$
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
$begingroup$
I was in Cape Canaveral recently, and the staff mentioned that if a Saturn V is needed, the one in the Kennedy space center is the one in the best condition...
$endgroup$
– Miguel
Apr 3 at 16:22
1
1
$begingroup$
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
$begingroup$
I was in Cape Canaveral recently, and the staff mentioned that if a Saturn V is needed, the one in the Kennedy space center is the one in the best condition...
$endgroup$
– Miguel
Apr 3 at 16:22
$begingroup$
I was in Cape Canaveral recently, and the staff mentioned that if a Saturn V is needed, the one in the Kennedy space center is the one in the best condition...
$endgroup$
– Miguel
Apr 3 at 16:22
|
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
95.9k2272426
$endgroup$
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
3515
New contributor
Ken Shirriff is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
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
23913
$endgroup$
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.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
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
95.9k2272426
$endgroup$
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
95.9k2272426
$endgroup$
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
95.9k2272426
$endgroup$
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
95.9k2272426
edited Apr 2 at 14:36
answered Apr 2 at 13:44
HobbesHobbes
95.9k2272426
answered Apr 2 at 13:44
HobbesHobbes
95.9k2272426
answered Apr 2 at 13:44
HobbesHobbes
95.9k2272426
95.9k2272426
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
3515
New contributor
Ken Shirriff is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
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
3515
New contributor
Ken Shirriff is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
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
3515
New contributor
Ken Shirriff is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
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
3515
New contributor
Ken Shirriff is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered Apr 2 at 20:20
Ken ShirriffKen Shirriff
3515
New contributor
Ken Shirriff is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered Apr 2 at 20:20
Ken ShirriffKen Shirriff
3515
answered Apr 2 at 20:20
Ken ShirriffKen Shirriff
3515
3515
New contributor
Ken Shirriff is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Ken Shirriff is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Ken Shirriff is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
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
23913
$endgroup$
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
23913
$endgroup$
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
23913
$endgroup$
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
23913
answered Apr 3 at 14:21
Seth RSeth R
23913
answered Apr 3 at 14:21
Seth RSeth R
23913
answered Apr 3 at 14:21
Seth RSeth R
23913
23913
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
1
$begingroup$
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
$begingroup$
I was in Cape Canaveral recently, and the staff mentioned that if a Saturn V is needed, the one in the Kennedy space center is the one in the best condition...
$endgroup$
– Miguel
Apr 3 at 16:22