NASA thinking about bringing back Apollo.

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2003-05-08 03:13am

For use as a lifeboat/resupply module for the ISS.

Story out of the UK Guardian.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2003-05-08 03:18am

Yep, and these are the brains who canceled the X-38.

I wonder how much money it would take to resurrect and update the Apollo plans. They certainly wouldn't be sticking 1 MHz computers in them...

Post by **NecronLord** » 2003-05-08 03:34am

In order to be Apollo, wouldn't it have to be manned lunar missions?

Refurbishing the CM? are they nuts? They're all over twenty five years old.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2003-05-08 03:43am

No. You need the Saturn V to do lunar missions; nothing else (short of Energia) has the lifting power to get there.

The first Apollo modules were launched from smaller rockets, if I recall.

And at any rate, digging out the blueprints for the command module and updating them to modern standards wouldn't be too hard. We're not talking about a B-52 here, after all, just a little capsule.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-05-08 03:54am

The Soyuz is just fine for the task, the software glitch that altered its trajectory notwithstanding.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2003-05-08 03:56am

Vympel wrote:The Soyuz is just fine for the task, the software glitch that altered its trajectory notwithstanding.

I'll agree with that. NASA tends to be a little too US-centric, and they've got a history of going with inferior and more expensive domestic systems when outsourcing would have worked fine.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-05-08 10:13am

If I'm not mistaken, there are no copies of the Saturn V booster plans still in existance. However, a Saturn V booster would make the colonization of the moon considerably easier, and if they are intent on building brand new Saturn V's, I'm all for it. Anything to bring us closer to space.

However, it just seems like their doing the command module, which means they're wasting money making older capsules, instead of building new better ones from new designs. Typical. While the current NASA track record makes me have more faith in 1960s NASA designs, poor 2003 NASA implimentation of good 1960's is likely the result.NASA is old and bloated and needs to fade away.

Yuri Prime · Post by **Yuri Prime** » 2003-05-08 01:09pm

The rocket used for the non-lunar Apollo missions was called the Saturn-1B I think. I doubt they would build another, though when they could probably just throw it on a space shuttle.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2003-05-08 04:58pm

kojikun wrote:If I'm not mistaken, there are no copies of the Saturn V booster plans still in existance. However, a Saturn V booster would make the colonization of the moon considerably easier, and if they are intent on building brand new Saturn V's, I'm all for it. Anything to bring us closer to space.

The actual Saturn V blueprints have been destroyed, but not entirely. Copies exist in NASA's microfilm vault, and can be re-printed if they ever feel the need arises.

Honestly, I'd rather go with the Energia system at this point. At least Energia is entirely reusable...

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-05-08 06:56pm

Energia is just the russian equivalent of the exterior fuel tank and solid boosters that the shuttle uses.

http://astronautix.com/lvs/energiam.htm
http://astronautix.com/articles/eneision.htm

AFAIK there need to be extra bits to attach onto the Energia. And I think the main tank burns up on reentry.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-05-08 07:30pm

Yuri Prime wrote:The rocket used for the non-lunar Apollo missions was called the Saturn-1B I think. I doubt they would build another, though when they could probably just throw it on a space shuttle.

IIRC, the first stage of the S-V was the Saturn 1B and was used to launch Skylab.

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-05-08 08:17pm

Yuri was correct. the saturn IB was basically a bunch of Redstone rockets put together and was used for all the earth orbit based apollo missions, including the Apollo soyuz mission, it was also used to send the second and third Skylab crews to space.

Skylab used a modified Saturn V, but it was still a saturn V in name.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-05-08 10:23pm

phongn wrote:IIRC, the first stage of the S-V was the Saturn 1B and was used to launch Skylab.

Only thing similar between the V and the 1B was the name Saturn. And I think the J-2 engines. But the 1B was not a stage of the V.

Thirdfain · Post by **Thirdfain** » 2003-05-08 10:31pm

If I'm not mistaken, there are no copies of the Saturn V booster plans still in existance. However, a Saturn V booster would make the colonization of the moon considerably easier, and if they are intent on building brand new Saturn V's, I'm all for it. Anything to bring us closer to space.

this is not true, there is a Saturn V sitting down at Kennedy, rusting away in the corner, unused. It is a sign of Man's failure to follow up on the Apollo missions, and our willingness to slip back into our gravity well.

It makes me really sad.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-05-08 11:05pm

More Saturn Vs wouldn't help us colonize the moon. They have a payload into lunar orbit that is entirely insufficient.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-05-08 11:08pm

fain, i said PLANS. and whether there is or isnt an available booster is irrelevant, because like you said, its rusting away and useless.

however, a much better idea then ANYTHING proposed here would be to just take some Atlases or perhaps even an ESA Ariane-5 which has the ability to launch an 8.5 metric tonne payload to orbit. The Soyuz booster has a mere 7 tonne capacity, so an Ariane could easilly be used.

Infact, the ESA could augment the effort to build this space station, because they have larger launch capacities, which will be getting even larger (10 tonnes planned). Really, we should just go with a traditional booster like an Ariane-5 or Atlas-Mercury. It worked then, it can work now, damnit.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-05-09 12:50am

I'm not real impressed by Ariene-5. I'd go with either Proton or one of the US EELVs.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2003-05-09 07:35am

Does this mean in all the years since Apollo 17 they have yet to develop a better engine?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-05-09 10:07am

By the time NASA is done updating the Saturn V it will likely have proven cheaper and faster to have designed something new. Even thought it would work, there’s no way they’ll simply throw it back into production as it was.

Now if it goes back into production in some form, that also brings my plan for an ICBM variant into the range of possibility..