archipeppe
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 18 October 2007
- Messages
- 2,291
- Reaction score
- 2,339
Saturn C-8
- Thread starter archipeppe
- Start date
archipeppe
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 18 October 2007
- Messages
- 2,291
- Reaction score
- 2,339
RanulfC said:
Many thanks Randy.
miraglia
ACCESS: Restricted
Thank you for your excellent designs.
Miraglia
www.edgeofspace.org
Miraglia
www.edgeofspace.org
archipeppe
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 18 October 2007
- Messages
- 2,291
- Reaction score
- 2,339
miraglia said:
I'm glad for your appreciation.
Anyhow I want to point out some striking resemblances with the Russian N1 rocket (even if C-8 is far greater).[/size]We know that Korolev elaborated the N1 shape called "raketov" by russians starting by Gottrupp early desings of mid-50's so it is difficult to argue a carbon-copy operation since at that time (1962) the N1 was design was already decided.In any case the two designs share lot of similiarities.
Attachments
- Joined
- 13 August 2007
- Messages
- 7,149
- Reaction score
- 6,522
first Good work, archipeppe
on Saturn C-8
it's a strange case is this Saturn, is a Saturn or NOVA ?
definitely planed for manned direct lunar landing
here from the Unwanted blog
on Saturn C-8
it's a strange case is this Saturn, is a Saturn or NOVA ?
definitely planed for manned direct lunar landing
here from the Unwanted blog
Wow, eight Rocketdyne F-1 rocket engines! B) Saturn VIII?
archipeppe
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 18 October 2007
- Messages
- 2,291
- Reaction score
- 2,339
sferrin said:
I fully agree, absolutely nice models!!!
jetboy said:
Ok so I don't make archipeppe jelous or anything.... Nice!
Looking at it I have to say though, you could probably get at least one more F1 in there... Then add some large solids...
Light that sucker off and watch Florida sink! Hmmm, ok maybe not such a good idea...
Randy
- Joined
- 27 May 2007
- Messages
- 676
- Reaction score
- 36
There are a few physics effects here.
1. With engines of a certain exhaust velocity, the rocket has a characteristic length where the base is full of engines. If you make the rocket taller, then you need to flare the base. Basically, when you reach full length, you can only scale sideways (constant mass per base area). You can't just scale up a Saturn 5 proportionally, or it couldn't lift off (or you'd have to have higher pressure engines). The base diameter must grow proportionally more than the other dimensions. And Saturn 5 was already flared at the base.
2. The N-1 used denser propellants, hence it was more cone-shaped (need more base area per length).
3. On the other hand, the N-1 used higher pressure engines than Saturn. So the base was actually not filled with rocket engines, if you look at photos. The rocket was cone shaped since the first stage tank had to be big, and the dense upper stages were thin. From the engine standpoint, the N1 actually could have been built with a longer first stage with cylindrical tanks and shorter and fatter upper stages. I don't know why they did not do that.
4. Also the Saturn 5 could have been built slightly more cone-like. but the upper stages needed to be quite fat because of the hydrogen.
Does it make sense to you?
1. With engines of a certain exhaust velocity, the rocket has a characteristic length where the base is full of engines. If you make the rocket taller, then you need to flare the base. Basically, when you reach full length, you can only scale sideways (constant mass per base area). You can't just scale up a Saturn 5 proportionally, or it couldn't lift off (or you'd have to have higher pressure engines). The base diameter must grow proportionally more than the other dimensions. And Saturn 5 was already flared at the base.
2. The N-1 used denser propellants, hence it was more cone-shaped (need more base area per length).
3. On the other hand, the N-1 used higher pressure engines than Saturn. So the base was actually not filled with rocket engines, if you look at photos. The rocket was cone shaped since the first stage tank had to be big, and the dense upper stages were thin. From the engine standpoint, the N1 actually could have been built with a longer first stage with cylindrical tanks and shorter and fatter upper stages. I don't know why they did not do that.
4. Also the Saturn 5 could have been built slightly more cone-like. but the upper stages needed to be quite fat because of the hydrogen.
Does it make sense to you?
- Joined
- 16 December 2010
- Messages
- 2,841
- Reaction score
- 2,084
luke strawwalker
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 28 November 2012
- Messages
- 41
- Reaction score
- 6
archipeppe said:
Not as many as might outwardly appear...
The C-8 was not very well "fleshed out" in the design phase since it was basically never anything more than a proposal. Also, the construction of the two rockets were radically different.
The Soviets had a lot of problems building and transporting large rockets... especially in the 60's and early 70's. The Proton was the largest "realistic" rocket that could be built in pre-manufactured sections and transported by rail to the launch area, then assembled from the block components (external "strap on" tanks surrounding a central tank). N-1 was of course going to be MUCH larger, and Korolev wanted single oxidizer and fuel tanks per stage. The tank gores were manufactured in the industrial heartland of Eastern Russia and transported by rail to Kazakhstan, and then the rocket was actually manufactured from the component parts there. The large pressure vessels necessary for the monstrous tanks were at the limits of what Soviet industry could do, so they were manufactured in a simple spherical shape (most efficient and simplest pressure vessel to design and manufacture) but that made the rocket much taller than its American counterpart, which used cylindrical tanks with elliptical tank domes and a MUCH shorter intertank band between the fuel and oxidizer tank on the first stage. On N-1 basically the entire conical part of the stage was an intertank, going from the equator of the upper fuel spherical tank to the equator of the lower liquid oxygen tank. The aft thrust structure and manifold piping to feed the thirty NK-33 engines in a ring around the back was behind that. The upper stages of N-1 were also hypergolically fueled, which with its greater density reduced the stage size, but the poor ISP of storable hypergolic propellants meant MUCH lower performance and required larger tanks and more propellant to do the smaller amount of lifting it could do... it also required four stages instead of the Saturn V's three. The second stage was of the same spherical tank and large conical intertank construction as the first stage. These factors led to a MASSIVELY inefficient rocket design that produced around 11 million pounds at liftoff (versus Saturn V's 7.5 million pounds of thrust, and the C-8's roughly 12 million pounds of thrust) but could only lift about HALF the weight of a Saturn V... (about 70 tons to orbit versus the 130 tons of the Saturn V...) Plans were in the works for liquid hydrogen upper stages for N-1 that would have GREATLY increased its capabilities, but they weren't much past the proposal phase when they were canceled (other than LH2 engine work done by Isayev...)
IF we had actually seen the C-8 designed and produced, it would almost certainly have looked somewhat different from the proposals shown here... for instance, the first stage "ring" of engines is just about the worst way to do it... it creates a MASSIVE low pressure area behind the rocket that causes exhaust plume recirculation and massive heating of the bottom of the stage and the engines, requiring a substantial heat shield to prevent the structures from weakening or melting and to prevent the engines from being destroyed. N-1 originally planned to use "air ingestion" into the exhaust to increase thrust, and did to some extent, but the Russians underestimated the massive heat from exhaust plume recirculation in the base region and had to add a huge heat shield to protect the aft end of the rocket... which of course is extra weight. Part of N-1's problems were caused by severe base heating, as a matter of fact. One of the N-1's unused heat shields is actually a pavilion cover near the cosmodrome to this day-- it was inverted and put up on poles to make a massive covered pavilion!
The most logical way to reduce the base heating issue would be to put four F-1's in the center and another four in an outer ring offset by 45 degrees from the inner four, just like on the Saturn I/IB. The engines would have to be spaced wider than on the Saturn IB since the F-1's are much larger (to reduce power-robbing plume interactions between engines) but they would reduce the low pressure area in the center of the base area. These engines could probably be fixed, reducing the control complexity as well, just as in Saturn I/IB. The outer ring of four F-1's would of course be gimballed for control of the vehicle. The wider spacing between these outer engines would allow more airflow in between them, thus further reducing the base plume interactions. The large conical aft fairing wouldn't be required-- smaller half-conical fairings like Saturn V would suffice, probably equipped with fins.
The second stage tanks would likely have been a common bulkhead design, if at all possible... the massive weight savings over a double-bulkhead seperate tanks and the intertank required to connect them would create a huge payload advantage.
Later! OL JR
luke strawwalker
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 28 November 2012
- Messages
- 41
- Reaction score
- 6
RanulfC said:jetboy said:
Ok so I don't make archipeppe jelous or anything.... Nice!
Looking at it I have to say though, you could probably get at least one more F1 in there... Then add some large solids...
Light that sucker off and watch Florida sink! Hmmm, ok maybe not such a good idea...
Randy
TOTAL overkill... just like all the proposals to add large solids to the Saturn V...
There were no payloads that needed that much lift...
I wouldn't have minded seeing the twin F-1 LIQUID booster "pods" designed and built though-- replace the "cluster's last stand" assemblage of tanks for the Saturn IB first stage with a twin F-1 powered first stage that could also serve as a booster for the Saturn V... that gets you NINE F-1's at liftoff, which is probably more than the pads at KSC were designed for... but it's a MUCH more flexible design than the large solids which had to be stacked at the pad due to their massive weight. Deleting the center F-1 on the Saturn V first stage gets you down to 8 F-1's with two booster pods...
Still, you'd need either a moonbase or a Mars program to justify such a beast... and neither was in the cards in the early 70's...
Later! OL JR
That WAS kind of the point to the commentluke strawwalker said:RanulfC said:jetboy said:
Ok so I don't make archipeppe jelous or anything.... Nice!
Looking at it I have to say though, you could probably get at least one more F1 in there... Then add some large solids...
Light that sucker off and watch Florida sink! Hmmm, ok maybe not such a good idea...
Randy
TOTAL overkill... just like all the proposals to add large solids to the Saturn V...
Randy
jetboy
SPACE,ROCKETS,MISSILES DOES,NT GET ANY BETTER.
- Joined
- 1 April 2013
- Messages
- 34
- Reaction score
- 3
HI,GREAT THREAD,knowledgable people,but i think the way the nova was planned,was the first stage tank was protuding into the base,which is why the engines are around the edge,just bgoing by what ive read about the proposals?,anyway cracking thread...cheers DonGeorge Allegrezza said:
archipeppe
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 18 October 2007
- Messages
- 2,291
- Reaction score
- 2,339
I wanna thanks Luke Strawwalker and all the other folks for the detailed explainations about both N1 and C-8/NOVA.
Giuseppe
Giuseppe
- Joined
- 13 August 2007
- Messages
- 7,149
- Reaction score
- 6,522
in the wonderful alternate history scenario "Eyes Turned Skywards" we discus the option of a "Super Saturn" and change on Launch Pad 39 A&B
http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=208954
here my reply on that topic:
According the Boeing "integrated Manned Interplanetary Spacecraft" documents.
they needed A Saturn V-25(S)U, 40 ft Stretch S-IC with 5 x upgraded F-1 (1.8 million pounds thrust) , strengthened standard length S-II with 5xJ-2S.
For heavy payload this Saturn is equipped with 4 Solid booster (4 segment 156 inch ø weight each 1.38 million pound, total lift off thrust 72,338.40 kN
For safety reason the SRB are Not install inside VAB but on Launch pad 39 A B C
the Pads are modified for new task, like High extension on launch platform tower, module device structure (also for NERVA engine check),
they launch platform must be protected for Fire and Sound pressure of SRB and Saturn-IC stage during lift-off
the crawlers require uprating for bigger mass, it have to role from VAB to Pads.
also the launch platform is strengthened to take the heavier Saturn.
oddly the Launch Pad only modification is for to survive the Blast in case the Saturn explode on launch pad or above if
and bigger blast pit for SRB, to take thrust of72,338.40 kN or 7374 tons
in short: Launch Pad 39 A&B can take Saturn C-8 and Saturn V-23(L) especially because no use of Solid booster
http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=208954
here my reply on that topic:
According the Boeing "integrated Manned Interplanetary Spacecraft" documents.
they needed A Saturn V-25(S)U, 40 ft Stretch S-IC with 5 x upgraded F-1 (1.8 million pounds thrust) , strengthened standard length S-II with 5xJ-2S.
For heavy payload this Saturn is equipped with 4 Solid booster (4 segment 156 inch ø weight each 1.38 million pound, total lift off thrust 72,338.40 kN
For safety reason the SRB are Not install inside VAB but on Launch pad 39 A B C
the Pads are modified for new task, like High extension on launch platform tower, module device structure (also for NERVA engine check),
they launch platform must be protected for Fire and Sound pressure of SRB and Saturn-IC stage during lift-off
the crawlers require uprating for bigger mass, it have to role from VAB to Pads.
also the launch platform is strengthened to take the heavier Saturn.
oddly the Launch Pad only modification is for to survive the Blast in case the Saturn explode on launch pad or above if
and bigger blast pit for SRB, to take thrust of72,338.40 kN or 7374 tons
in short: Launch Pad 39 A&B can take Saturn C-8 and Saturn V-23(L) especially because no use of Solid booster
R
RGClark
Guest
luke strawwalker said:
Thanks for that. Koelle wrote a lot of excellent reports on space travel particularly on lunar colonization:
http://server02.fb12.tu-berlin.de/ILR/koelle/
Bob Clark
luke strawwalker
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 28 November 2012
- Messages
- 41
- Reaction score
- 6
Michel Van said:
Very good, but the decision to stack the SRB's at the pad rather than in the VAB wasn't safety related (as much)... it was the fact that it was simply IMPOSSIBLE to move a vehicle with FOUR SRB's stacked on the pad in the VAB using the crawlers... they simply couldn't handle that much weight, period.
As it was, the shuttle SRB's were SO heavy that the tower had to come off the MLP's, hence the FSS and RSS at 39A and B for the shuttle program versus the "clean pad" approach with the LUT on the MLP as was done with Apollo/Saturn. The crawlers could BARELY handle the weight of the PAIR of loaded shuttle SRB's with the ~100 ton orbiter and the ET (don't remember the empty weight of the ET offhand) along with the weight of the MLP itself.
This was going to be a real killer with Ares V as well... the 5.5 segment boosters planned for the Ares V basically broke the bank-- the 5 segment boosters along with the heavier core vehicle had already maxed out the crawler and crawlerway capabilities as it was. Going bigger just made the problems worse.
There have been lots of four-SRB proposals around over the years-- I USED to have some on my hard drive (before it melted and lost everything for me without a backup) that showed basically a shuttle stack ET-type core vehicle with four SRB's... but the problem with all these proposals were, they took NO account of ground processing, stacking, or moving to the pad. These were the show stoppers.
In the case of the four-SRB-equipped Saturn V variants, the plan was to stack the Saturn V in the VAB normally on its modified MLP, without the SRB's. The vehicle and platform would then be moved to the pad and set up there, while the crawler returned and hauled back a "solid stacking facility" designed to interface with the pad and MLP structures, and which was "parked" in a parking lot adjacent to the crawlerway, much as the Mobile Service Structure was stored and hauled to the pads via the crawler. The "SSF" would be set up on the pad by the crawler, which would then go back to shuttle out the solid booster segments to the pad, where they'd be lifted off the crawler's strongback, erected vertically via cranes, and stacked adjacent to the Saturn V on the pad. The connections would be made with the base segments and the pad, and with the Saturn V vehicle itself, and the subsequent segments stacked atop them until the boosters were completed. The facility would then be rotated or rearranged to stack the other pair of boosters on the other side of the Saturn V. Then the crawler would haul away the SSF back to its parking area, and bring a modified MSS back from its parking spot and erect it around the Saturn V/SRB stack, which would then be used for the final checkout and preparation of the Saturn V for launch. Afterwards it too would be removed via crawler back to its parking spot for the launch.
All of this complex ground operations to prepare for each flight, as well as the additional costs to engineer all the support equipment and modify the existing equipment to handle such a vehicle, was IMHO not particularly realistic... the funding would never appear for any of it and it shouldn't have passed the "smell test" from day one... IMHO it would have been better and cheaper to simply divide up the cargoes and launch more existing rockets (Saturn V's) without the modifications for large SRB's. Either that, or if the modules couldn't be broken down or launched empty and tanked in orbit, then a LIQUID rocket booster would have made MUCH more sense. Unlike SOLID rocket boosters, LRB's are stacked and moved EMPTY, and thus add very little additional weight to the stack and MLP for the crawler to carry over the crawlerway. This means that they are FAR more versatile and scalable for MUCH larger payloads than a solid-boosted vehicle is. Plus, since the LRB's are handled, stacked, and transported empty, there is none of the safety hazards and concerns of handling extremely heavy SRB's FILLED WITH MIXED PROPELLANTS inside the VAB. Liquid boosters made it possible for the Soviet Buran shuttle and Energia booster rocket to be horizontally integrated in the assembly building, hauled by rail to the pad, and then erected vertically for launch... heavy SRB's would have made that impossible, but their much lighter LIQUID Zenit boosters made it straightforward to do it that way...
Just one of the reasons why the F-1B powered advanced boosters being researched for possible replacements for the five-segment SLS boosters is a superior idea...
Later! OL JR
OM
ACCESS: Top Secret
George Allegrezza said:
...Excellent find, sir! I now have something to read while at the Beloved Quack's office next week besides another Dune book
Is not clear to me a thing.
NOVA was only the project for an heavy lift booster for launch a spacecraft directly to the Moon BEFORE the choise of Lunar orbit rendezvous (LOR) strategy?
Or was also a project for a more mighty successor of Saturn V (for advanced moon missions,flight on Mars and space stations)?
NOVA was only the project for an heavy lift booster for launch a spacecraft directly to the Moon BEFORE the choise of Lunar orbit rendezvous (LOR) strategy?
Or was also a project for a more mighty successor of Saturn V (for advanced moon missions,flight on Mars and space stations)?
- Joined
- 16 December 2010
- Messages
- 2,841
- Reaction score
- 2,084
carmelo said:
It was both, before the LOR strategy was settled on NOVA was used as a blanket name to cover the vehicles for the Direct Ascent strategy, rather than a formal launch vehicle series as the Saturn C-8 (Saturn VIII) shows.
The various Saturns were intended for a strategy called Earth Orbital Rendezvous (EOR) in which the lunar vehicle would be assembled in a 300 nautical mile parking orbit before heading to the moon.
Once LOR was decided on NOVA became the blanket name for super-heavy launch vehicles in the Post-Apollo period.
- Joined
- 26 September 2008
- Messages
- 1,925
- Reaction score
- 640
Yep. There is Nova before the Saturn V decision and Nova after the Saturn V decision. The Nova vehicles before the Saturn V decision usually had a lunar payload and engine options similar to those used on the Saturn V. Afterwards, the Nova designs were much more open. No clear payload, lots of different engine options.
- Joined
- 13 August 2007
- Messages
- 7,149
- Reaction score
- 6,522
blackstar said:
Original Nova had to bring manned spacecraft direct to lunar surface
after LOR strategy and Saturn V
Nova became a heavy Lift rocket with 1 million pound payload, for manned Mars mission.
- Joined
- 13 August 2007
- Messages
- 7,149
- Reaction score
- 6,522
on luke strawwalker remark on weight problems of SLS on Launch pad
can it be that NASA realize that Problem and work on alternative ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3O43J7JFTY
can it be that NASA realize that Problem and work on alternative ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3O43J7JFTY
- Joined
- 26 September 2008
- Messages
- 1,925
- Reaction score
- 640
George Allegrezza said:
Only one crawler is being upgraded. I think the upgrades have been completed. There's more detail on NASASpaceflight.com.
I got to see the work being performed on it last year when I took my group to KSC. Unfortunately, my pictures didn't come out very well. The VAB has lower lighting levels, they had the garage doors open behind the crawler, and they were welding with torches. So the lighting conditions were challenging! I'll see if I can post one of my pictures here.
OM
ACCESS: Top Secret
blackstar said:
"Holy cow! There's a hundred cops chasing down A1A after someone like they stole something What happened?"
"Some idiot let some visitor sit in the cab of Crawler #2, and left the keys in the ignition."
Similar threads
-
By solids to the Moon: all-solid JPL Nova proposal- Started by Skybolt
- Replies: 33
-
-
Saturn V, Saturn Ib, Ib w/SRBs, LM and Skylab blueprint posters- Started by Orionblamblam
- Replies: 3
-
-
