• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

The (cancelled) second production run of Saturn Vs

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,273
Reaction score
103
blackstar said:
Yeah, I doubt that they would have needed to go to that solution, although I can expect that there were some engineers who would have loved the challenge.

like a Teflon coated Mobile Launcher Platform & Tower ? ::)
paved with warning sign: UTMOST CAUTION - SLIPPERY ;D
 

The Artist

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
537
Reaction score
34
blackstar said:
Michel Van said:
this to put it mildly,
negative site: after each launch the Pad have to undergo expensive detoxification and long term heavy corrorsion on Mobile Launcher Platform...
Yeah, I doubt that they would have needed to go to that solution, although I can expect that there were some engineers who would have loved the challenge.

With the Saturn overall they had plenty of options--increase the power of the F-1s (they were already there at the end of the program), then increase the power of the J-2s. After that, they could have increased the length of the stages. The first two steps would have been relatively easier, whereas increasing the length of the stages (i.e. the tanks) would have forced changes on the tower, assembly, etc.
Another limiting factor in lengthening the stages would have been the vertical space available within the VAB. Raising the roof over just one bay would not have worked because of the overhead crane layout. They could have raised the entire roof but that would have meant a stand-down from Saturn launches until the work was complete.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
9,029
Reaction score
204
Michel Van said:
blackstar said:
Yeah, I doubt that they would have needed to go to that solution, although I can expect that there were some engineers who would have loved the challenge.

like a Teflon coated Mobile Launcher Platform & Tower ? ::)
paved with warning sign: UTMOST CAUTION - SLIPPERY ;D
Launch from the middle of an artificial lake, like they considered for some other (very) heavy lift concepts? Or some other type of hydro pad?
 

blackstar

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,684
Reaction score
13
Grey Havoc said:
Launch from the middle of an artificial lake, like they considered for some other (very) heavy lift concepts? Or some other type of hydro pad?
Well, he was joking.

And a lake launch is not what you would want to do--fluorine reacts with water.

But it is not just the launch location that is an issue. Look up fluorine as a propulsion fuel. I think there's a Wikipedia entry on it (and I'm too tired to go there and look myself). It's just nasty stuff all around. If you have a leak, you're in trouble. Testing is a pain. Aborts are horrible. Engine shutdowns can be a mess. It's just horrible horrible stuff and they never would have gone that route.

I wrote a bit about it here:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1580/1
 

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,273
Reaction score
103
blackstar said:
Grey Havoc said:
Launch from the middle of an artificial lake, like they considered for some other (very) heavy lift concepts? Or some other type of hydro pad?
Well, he was joking.

And a lake launch is not what you would want to do--fluorine reacts with water.

But it is not just the launch location that is an issue. Look up fluorine as a propulsion fuel. I think there's a Wikipedia entry on it (and I'm too tired to go there and look myself). It's just nasty stuff all around. If you have a leak, you're in trouble. Testing is a pain. Aborts are horrible. Engine shutdowns can be a mess. It's just horrible horrible stuff and they never would have gone that route.

I wrote a bit about it here:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1580/1
respect Blackstar on spaceview article

yes that was a joke about aTeflon coated Mobile Launcher Platform & Tower
about Flourine, Grey Havoc you don't want mix Florine residues with water. That give very toxic hydrofluoric acid !
by the way NASA Launch Pad 39 A&B are build near to Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge !
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
9,029
Reaction score
204
Michel Van said:
respect Blackstar on spaceview article

yes that was a joke about aTeflon coated Mobile Launcher Platform & Tower
about Flourine, Grey Havoc you don't want mix Florine residues with water. That give very toxic hydrofluoric acid !
by the way NASA Launch Pad 39 A&B are build near to Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge !
;D I was half-joking about the lake/hydro pad idea, although if we are seriously talking about using artificial lakes for a moment, one of the ideas behind the use of artificial lakes as launch sites for heavy lift vehicles AFAIK was that, in theory at least, it would be easier to contain, and dispose of, launch related contamination. Of course with a booster using Florine as a fuel, you wouldn't be able to use pure water or anything like it in the lake.

One possible (albeit highly expensive) solution to minimise both any aggressive Florine + Water reaction and reduce the amount of Hydrofluoric acid produced as a side product, would be to continuously aerate the water in the lake with neon gas prior to launch, using large numbers of some form of diffuser on the lake bed. A more direct approach to the Hydrofluoric acid problem could be the post-launch use of a hydrogel containing relatively low levels of calcium gluconate to help lower the toxicity of the water, prior to it being pumped to a dedicated treatment plant (although of course there would be technical difficulties, such as how to ensure all the water in the lake would pass through the hydrogel at least once). A cheaper and simpler approach here may be to just have large amounts of Calcium hydroxide dissolved in the water at all times. A major side benefit would be that it would also help to counter fuel leaks or other Florine exposure to the water along with the resultant runaway reactions.

One thing though. If one did decide to use artificial lakes together with Flourine fueled launch vehicles, one better make sure there is no sand or any other silicon bearing material in or around said lakes...
 

OM

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
753
Reaction score
0
Website
www.io.com
would be to continuously aerate the water in the lake with neon gas prior to launch,
...Until someone drops a power line into the drink, and all the hippies go apeshit, claiming NASA turned the lake radioactive because of the neon glow.

[/joke]
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,653
Reaction score
241
RyanCrierie said:
Final Report – Studies of Improved Saturn V Vehicles and Intermediate Payload Vehicles (P-115) Summary (7 October 1966)
By Boeing Company, Space Division

S-IC / S-IVB (INT-20) and S-IC / S-II (INT-21) Families

Notes: INT-20/21 costs were based on six launches a year for five years, next to six Saturn V launches a year during that period. Also, there is a single cost of DDT&E to implement all eight engine configurations possible across the INT-20/21 family.

Facility changes at KSC alone would have been an additional mobile launcher, mobile service structure, and firing room upgrades to maintain the 6 x INT + 6 x SAT-V launch rate a year.

DDT&E: $164~ million ($1.1 billion in 2010)
R&D Flight Tests: $60.8 million (one test for INT-20 under MSFC ground rules regarding man-rating) ($409.19m in 2010)
INT-20 Unit Cost: $60.5 million ($407m in 2010)
INT-21 Unit Cost: $74.6 million ($502m in 2010)
First Delivery: If Authority to Proceed was given in January 1968, the first vehicle would be AS-516 in February 1970; 25 months later.)
Total Program Cost: $2 to $2.4 billion (depending on what mixture of INT-20/21 are procured over the 30-vehicle run) ($13-16.15 Billion in 2010)
How do this compare with Titan III costs as found there -

http://www.google.fr/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=fr&prmdo=1&tbm=bks&source=hp&q=%22Titan+IIIC%22%22cost%22%22million%22&pbx=1&oq=%22Titan+IIIC%22%22cost%22%22million%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=27609l27609l3l27967l1l1l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0&prmdo=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=4e867ff6f8b4df97&biw=1024&bih=598

$12 - 24 million ?

I'm at lost with the expression "recurring costs" - what does it mean, and what costs does it includes ?
Thanks in advance.
 

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,273
Reaction score
103
Archibald said:
I'm at lost with the expression "recurring costs" - what does it mean, and what costs does it includes ?
Thanks in advance.
repairs on launch pad after Rocket liftoff (most fire damages and explosive bolts damages)
Rocket to Launch Pad transport cost, crew labor costs, flight control.
also is there cost in keep airspace and Ocean clear were rocket fly over
in case of Kennedy Space center is USAF and US coastguard
 

luke strawwalker

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Nov 28, 2012
Messages
41
Reaction score
0
Michel Van said:
blackstar said:
Thanks. I need to look that over.

I just got the Springer-Praxis book on the F-1 engine. There is a short chapter at the end about the F-1A engine. Does anybody know if any other F-1 upgrades were ever considered? Or did the F-1A max out its performance?

(Of course, I have not read the chapter yet, so I should probably go do that.)

I found a PDF at NTRS about F-1A
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740077747_1974077747.pdf


there something about variable thrust valve, but i have no time to read the PDF complete
about the Use of F-1A i got vague indication by Boeing in J-2S PDF and in Saturn S-ID PDF
that they wanna use F-1A so soon as possible (from SA-518 on ?)
Would you happen to have a link to this S-ID PDF?? I'd LOVE to see it!

Later and thanks! OL JR :)
 

blackstar

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,684
Reaction score
13
NASA did some tests with the F-1 gas generator. They are handing over their results to Dynetics and Pratt and Whitney who will do a test of the powerpack, which is the upper assembly of the engine without the thrust chamber. Essentially they run the gas generator to turn the turbopump machinery. The article indicates that this is for work on the F-1B engine, but I don't think that's an official designation.

http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/f1_sls.html

I still have not come up with a list of how many F-1A tests were performed.
 

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,273
Reaction score
103
luke strawwalker said:
Michel Van said:
I found a PDF at NTRS about F-1A
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740077747_1974077747.pdf


there something about variable thrust valve, but i have no time to read the PDF complete
about the Use of F-1A i got vague indication by Boeing in J-2S PDF and in Saturn S-ID PDF
that they wanna use F-1A so soon as possible (from SA-518 on ?)
Would you happen to have a link to this S-ID PDF?? I'd LOVE to see it!

Later and thanks! OL JR :)

you find the PDF here titel : Saturn Mission Payload Versatility
http://www.up-ship.com/drawndoc/drawndocspacesaturn.htm#spacedoc63
 

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,273
Reaction score
103
carmelo said:
Saturn ID SINGLE STAGE TO ORBIT semi recoverable!!!!!!???!!! :eek: :eek: :eek:

http://www.up-ship.com/drawndoc/sdoc63ani.jpg
yes that's it,
it was design to bring 51160 lb (23206 kg) in low orbit of 100 n.m. (185 km)
with launch mass off 4884140 lb (2215408 kg) !

Boeing wanted to use S-ID with S-IVB (and S-II) as Saturn launch family for payloads of 51160 lb to 250000 lb.
So far i know, it was Boeing last attempt to save the Saturn production.
 

luke strawwalker

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Nov 28, 2012
Messages
41
Reaction score
0
Cool... thanks guys... I appreciate it!

So up-ship.com is the only source for this material?? I've been unable to find anything on NTRS, but then again, my "search-fu" with their search engine is not strong...

Is up-ship worth the money??

Thanks! OL JR :)
 

mz

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
683
Reaction score
1
There's this 1967 trip report to Boeing Huntsville about studying S-IC uses on NTRS:

Single Stage-to-Orbit, "S-ID:" An S-IC modified to drop
the four outboard F-1 engines and associated structure
during ascent. The stage would operate in a mode
similar to the Atlas 1-1/2 stage operation. The staged
structure weighs approximately 50 percent of the total.
Ifdeveloped the SI-D would be incorporated into all
the preceeding configurations.
No picture.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19790072565_1979072565.pdf
 

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,273
Reaction score
103
luke strawwalker said:
Cool... thanks guys... I appreciate it!

So up-ship.com is the only source for this material?? I've been unable to find anything on NTRS, but then again, my "search-fu" with their search engine is not strong...

Is up-ship worth the money??

Thanks! OL JR :)
Hell yes, up-ship IS worth the money !
 

carmelo

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
220
Reaction score
6
Michel Van said:
carmelo said:
Saturn ID SINGLE STAGE TO ORBIT semi recoverable!!!!!!???!!! :eek: :eek: :eek:

http://www.up-ship.com/drawndoc/sdoc63ani.jpg
yes that's it,
it was design to bring 51160 lb (23206 kg) in low orbit of 100 n.m. (185 km)
with launch mass off 4884140 lb (2215408 kg) !

Boeing wanted to use S-ID with S-IVB (and S-II) as Saturn launch family for payloads of 51160 lb to 250000 lb.
So far i know, it was Boeing last attempt to save the Saturn production.
Theoretically this semi recoverable Saturn SSTO could launch the Shuttle?
 

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,273
Reaction score
103
carmelo said:
Theoretically this semi recoverable Saturn SSTO could launch the Shuttle?

Theoretical yes, but I don't know if Boeing play with that Idea...
 

blackstar

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,684
Reaction score
13
Somebody who worked at NASA in the early 1970s told me that Rocketdyne discussed F-1B and F-1C engines for these reusable Saturn designs. I've never seen that in print or documents anywhere else. Am trying to track it down.

It makes sense. They had already developed the F-1A, and a reusable stage would require reusable rocket engines (otherwise, what's the point?), so a reusable F-1 would have had a new designation, like F-1B. But what would be the F-1C?
 

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,273
Reaction score
103
blackstar said:
Somebody who worked at NASA in the early 1970s told me that Rocketdyne discussed F-1B and F-1C engines for these reusable Saturn designs. I've never seen that in print or documents anywhere else. Am trying to track it down.

It makes sense. They had already developed the F-1A, and a reusable stage would require reusable rocket engines (otherwise, what's the point?), so a reusable F-1 would have had a new designation, like F-1B. But what would be the F-1C?

the F-1 or F-1A engine had also be use for NOVA booster study until 1964.
Boeing study also the use of F-1 in reusable Big SSTO for Solar Power Satellite in 1970s.
I think that the F-1B/C version was for last one, also for Shuttle they study F-1 but NASA administration show no interest because low life time against SSME.

I think that the SSME was the wrong choice, they had better option and cheaper operation cost with F-1A and J-2S
...
 

blackstar

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,684
Reaction score
13
Michel Van said:
the F-1 or F-1A engine had also be use for NOVA booster study until 1964.
Boeing study also the use of F-1 in reusable Big SSTO for Solar Power Satellite in 1970s.
I think that the F-1B/C version was for last one, also for Shuttle they study F-1 but NASA administration show no interest because low life time against SSME.
Yep. The problem is that I cannot find anything written down that says "F-1B" or "F-1C." My source is pretty good, but he is working from memory.
 

RanulfC

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
738
Reaction score
121
George Allegrezza said:
blackstar said:
I just got the Springer-Praxis book on the F-1 engine. There is a short chapter at the end about the F-1A engine. Does anybody know if any other F-1 upgrades were ever considered? Or did the F-1A max out its performance?
The summary reports of the Saturn Uprating Study and the later Saturn Improvement Study mention both a F-1 using FLOX and a 9M lbf toroidal aerospike for the S-IC using F-1 turbopumps. This seemed to be more notional than anything, although an illustration of it appears in one of NASA's semiannual reports to Congress that were produced in the 1960s. More details are in the Rocketdyne F-1 uprating study (no online source found so far).

Saturn V uprating study (configurations E and F have the toroidal aerospike):

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740073470_1974073470.pdf

Saturn V improvement study (mentions aerospike and FLOX but concentrates on F-1A):

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19650020081_1965020081.pdf

Lots of good upper-stage uprating ideas in these as well.
Second pdf link doesn't come up for me, (in fact it keeps saying my "internet is down" even though it's working fine) anyone else have problems with it?

Randy
 

RanulfC

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
738
Reaction score
121
blackstar said:
Michel Van said:
the F-1 or F-1A engine had also be use for NOVA booster study until 1964.
Boeing study also the use of F-1 in reusable Big SSTO for Solar Power Satellite in 1970s.
I think that the F-1B/C version was for last one, also for Shuttle they study F-1 but NASA administration show no interest because low life time against SSME.
Yep. The problem is that I cannot find anything written down that says "F-1B" or "F-1C." My source is pretty good, but he is working from memory.
I don't think it was ever an "official" designation really. Something to call it but not something to put into writing unless and until NASA expresses "official" interest.

Randy
 

RanulfC

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
738
Reaction score
121
George Allegrezza said:
RanulfC said:
George Allegrezza said:
Saturn V uprating study (configurations E and F have the toroidal aerospike):

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740073470_1974073470.pdf

Saturn V improvement study (mentions aerospike and FLOX but concentrates on F-1A):

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19650020081_1965020081.pdf

Lots of good upper-stage uprating ideas in these as well.
Second pdf link doesn't come up for me, (in fact it keeps saying my "internet is down" even though it's working fine) anyone else have problems with it?

Randy

Not sure what happened there but I fixed the link in the original post.
Thanks!

Randy
 

Johnbr

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
744
Reaction score
94
The Jane's all world Aircraft dos have a little bit of info on the F1b and I no a little info on the F1c.The F1b had 250'000 LBS more thrust.
The F1c they very much what'd to go over 2 million.
 

blackstar

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,684
Reaction score
13
Johnbr said:
The Jane's all world Aircraft dos have a little bit of info on the F1b and I no a little info on the F1c.The F1b had 250'000 LBS more thrust.
The F1c they very much what'd to go over 2 million.
That's interesting. Can you get me a citation on that? What edition of Jane's? I'd like to track it down. And where do you have information on the F-1C from?

The F-1A was 1.8 million pounds of thrust, so are you saying that the F-1B was 2.05 million pounds?

By the way, according to an AIAA paper by Dynetics, which is leading the study into what could become the F-1B (they are planning hotfire tests of the powerpack by next year), they evaluated the possibility of higher performance from the engine, but determined that it was more important to reduce the cost per engine. No details in the paper, but presumably they determined that they could have gotten more than 1.8 million pounds of thrust out of it.

There are downsides to going to higher thrust, of course. More vibration for starters. More noise generation. Possibly higher base heating of the rocket. And it is possible to have too much thrust and with a really big engine you have a limited ability to throttled it down when you reach the point of overstressing the structure.
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,653
Reaction score
241
Near Term Intermediate Launch Vehicle: Low Cost S-IVB Stages – Case 103-8 (18 March 1969)
By Bellcomm, Inc and C. Bendersky

Saturn IB Costs from 1965 based on an order of 30 vehicles at 6 per year. Final cost does not include transportation or launch costs.

S-IB Stage: $6.28 million ($43.47 million in 2010 Dollars)
S-IVB Stage: $5.98 million ($41.4 million in 2010 Dollars)
Instrument Unit: $3.49 million ($24.16 million in 2010 Dollars)
Government Supervision and GSE: $2.25 million ($15.58 million in 2010 Dollars)
Total Cost Per Saturn IB: $18 million ($124.6 million in 2010 Dollars)
$/lb to Orbit (42,000 lb payload): $429/lb ($2,969/lb in 2010 dollars)

Saturn Derivative Costs (Based on buys of two INTermediate vehicles each year alongside two Saturn V's).

Saturn IB with 120” Solids: $50 million recurring cost ($297 FY10) + $67 million non-recurring costs, 78 klb to 100 n.mi ($3,807/lb in FY10)
156” SRM + S-IVB: $46 million recurring cost ($273.31 FY10) + $162 million non-recurring costs, 108 klb to 100 n.mi ($2,530/lb in FY10)
260” SRM + S-IVB: $41 million recurring cost ($243.6 FY10) + $183 million non-recurring costs, 95 klb to 100 n.mi ($2,564/lb in FY10)
S-IC + S-IVB: $69 million recurring cost ($409.97 FY10) + $31 million non-recurring costs, 132 klb to 100 n.mi ($3,105/lb in FY10)

They were very confident of getting launch costs in the range of $200 to $260 per pound; which translates to about $1,253 to $1,629 per pound in 2010 dollars, if a low cost S-IVB were developed. In fact, there was a cost estimate by the Aerospace Corporation which estimated $260/lb to LEO on the basis of a 15-vehicle buy of the 260” SRM + S-IVB configuration, and a launch rate of five a year.

Changes for the low cost S-IVB would have likely been:

  • Low cost insulation, likely similar to the sprayed on external insulation used for the S-II; as the internal tank insulation was very expensive and time consuming to install.
  • Flat wire used for all wiring, reducing wiring cost to 16% of prior costs.
  • A machined interstage structure, instead of the skin/stringer construction which consumed thousands of rivets and cost more than the hydrogen tank.
  • Reducing documentation count from 97 to 44, and checking calibrations against spec, rather than individually calibrating and publishing each one.
  • Eliminating hot-firing at Stennis before each launch for unmanned missions.
  • Developing a simplified Instrument Unit that would cost only $1 million in 1968~ dollars.
I red again the Bellcom memo. 200$ per pound to orbit is pretty close from the shuttle target.
The simplified S-IVB would be mated to a bundle of Titan UA-1207 solids (the seven segments used on the Titan IVA)
Why would this vehicle be so cheap ?
First, it would only have a single J-2 bolted to a much simplified S-IVB (itself a couple of tanks).
Everything else would be solid rocket motors, and solids don't cost that much, since they are steel tubes filled with fertilizer. ;)
The Bellcomm memo doesn't mention the possibility of recovering the solids at sea. Would that make the launcher even more cheap ?
The bitter irony in all this is the solid / S-IVB is (was?) very much like the maligned Ares 1. How about that ::)
 

luke strawwalker

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Nov 28, 2012
Messages
41
Reaction score
0
Archibald said:
The bitter irony in all this is the solid / S-IVB is (was?) very much like the maligned Ares 1. How about that ::)
Yes, and we know how well THAT turned out, don't we??

Later! OL JR :)
 

uk 75

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
1,450
Reaction score
95
Not sure if it fits this thread but Stephen Baxter's book VOYAGE about a US Mars mission in the 1980s contains a lot of detail about Saturns and also the real world decisions that axed Von Braun's plans.
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,653
Reaction score
241
Not sure if it fits this thread but Stephen Baxter's book VOYAGE about a US Mars mission in the 1980s contains a lot of detail about Saturns and also the real world decisions that axed Von Braun's plans.
Was just thinking about Voyage this morning. The novel would have been better had Baxter not drawn inspiration from the Worst Ever Astronaut Biography: The making of an ex-astronaut, by Brian O'Leary. Maybe it was done on purpose, to fuel an anti-NASA heroics / gun-go storyline. but it really doesn't help the story nor make Natalie York sympathetic. O'Leary was a complex man but also an asshole at times. He started as an astronaut, threw the novel whinning about a nasty NASA, then become Gerard K. O'Neill space colony advocate, before ending his life as a nutty conspirationist, Hoagland style.

The irony of course if that in 1966 O'Leary and O'Neill both made it to the XS-11 semi-finals to become NASA scientist-astronauts. O'Leary got through while O'Neill did not. Imagine if their fates had been reversed.

In Voyage the Saturn V gets a stretched S-IC with F1A and four big SRBs more or less borrowed from OTL Shuttle. Plus of course a very flawed NERVA in place of its S-IVB.
 

uk 75

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
1,450
Reaction score
95
Archibald

Thanks for the background to VOYAGE, it answers a lot of questions I had when reading it.

I started a thread in Alternate History to try and tease out what might have happened in the 70s and 80s if NASA had not been blighted by Vietnam and Johnson rather than Nixon had been President from 1968 to 1972
 

RanulfC

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
738
Reaction score
121
In Voyage the Saturn V gets a stretched S-IC with F1A and four big SRBs more or less borrowed from OTL Shuttle. Plus of course a very flawed NERVA in place of its S-IVB.
Very flawed, but mostly due to highly inaccurate and author driven flaws that the real NERVA didn't have. He needed to kill nuclear space propulsion to allow the use of the all chemical, gravity assist misson so he did it. Much like the characterizations the story drove the tech, the politics and the personal interaction more than any similarity to historical fact.

Randy
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,653
Reaction score
241
In Voyage the Saturn V gets a stretched S-IC with F1A and four big SRBs more or less borrowed from OTL Shuttle. Plus of course a very flawed NERVA in place of its S-IVB.
Very flawed, but mostly due to highly inaccurate and author driven flaws that the real NERVA didn't have. He needed to kill nuclear space propulsion to allow the use of the all chemical, gravity assist misson so he did it. Much like the characterizations the story drove the tech, the politics and the personal interaction more than any similarity to historical fact.

Randy
also did not helped that natalie york was based on Brian O'Leary shitty biography, The making of an ex-astronaut.
To think O'Leary whinned and wasted an XS-11scientist- astronaut job his fellow Gerard O'Neill had been denied... life is unfair...
 
Top