The Mighty Saturn V

This month Lego released their version of the Saturn V rocket that carried humanity to the Moon, and those kits quickly became backordered. Thankfully, I was able to get my hands on one before they became scarce (otherwise I would not have been a very happy man). Building the kit, pictured below, motivated me to do a quick write up on the basics of the Saturn V for all of you.

Lego's version of the Saturn V (Image Credit: Lego)

Wernher von Braun, the Saturn V’s architect, created the vehicle to meet the needs of the lunar orbit rendezvous (LOR) technique employed by NASA for the Apollo program. To complete a mission using LOR, a new rocket would have to be designed to far exceed the capabilities of von Braun’s previous Saturn rockets, which were much smaller except for later Nova rocket concepts. At one point, NASA officials considered launching several smaller Saturn boosters to assemble a lunar landing spacecraft. Direct ascent lunar mission options were also considered early in NASA's time, but that proposal had many difficulties. These proposals were ultimately disregarded in favor of the LOR approach, which led to the creation of the Saturn V program in January 1962.

Launching for the first time in November 1967 with the mission of Apollo 4, the rocket famously shook Walter Cronkite’s temporary studio so much ceiling tiles fell (video link at the end). All crewed Apollo missions, minus Apollo 7, launched on the massive rocket. Thus allowing the Saturn V to be etched in history.  Sadly, the Saturn V’s final launch was the Skylab 1 mission in 1973—ending years of successful launches.

Apollo 4 launch in November 1967. (Photo Credit: NASA)

The Saturn V currently holds the title of most powerful rocket ever flown, and it remains the only rocket to carry human beings beyond low Earth orbit. Composed of three stages and the Apollo spacecraft hardware, the massive machine stood 363 feet tall. For reference, the Statue of Liberty stands at 305 feet.

During a launch, the first stage, the S-IC, produced 7.5 million pounds of thrust using five F-1 engines. That stage lasted until 2 minutes and 42 seconds after launch when explosive bolts fire and the stage falls into the Atlantic Ocean. Shortly after first stage shutdown, the second stage, the S-II, fires five J-2 rocket engines to push the payload closer to low Earth orbit. A bit after nine minutes the second stage separates, and the third stage, the S-IVB, ignites to make the final push into orbit. The S-IVB fires for over two minutes (2 minutes and 30 seconds) and puts the spacecraft(s) into a parking orbit. At this point the crew would check out the spacecraft before committing to a trans-lunar injection—the S-IVB engine burn maneuver that takes the crew towards the Moon. Once the trans-lunar injection burn is complete, the command/service module separates from the third stage to dock and extract the lunar module. With a job well done, the S-IVB heads into space or is directed to crash into the Moon.

Whenher von Braun standing next to Saturn V first stage engines. (Photo Credit: NASA)

If launching a rocket that weighed over 6 million pounds at liftoff and separating stages to ensure a lunar voyage sounds damn difficult, you are correct. Considering that 1960s technology was employed to make this happen, the task seems even greater given the end of the decade deadline set by President Kennedy. The Saturn V was not only a showcase in our engineering and technology at the time, but a testament to the ability of people to create complex machines to enable our pursuits. I would give anything to have seen more Saturn V rockets built for additional lunar missions. My imagination runs wild with what upgrades could have been made to the Saturn V for voyages to Venus or Mars. Having said that, we can hope the Space Launch System now being built by NASA will continue the legacy of the mighty Saturn V in our lifetimes.

AND as promised, the Walter Cronkite Apollo 4 liftoff video!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uoVfZpx5dY

As always catch more space content by liking our Facebook Page, and feel free to comment your thoughts or memories of the Saturn V!!

Sources Used:

Apollo 8: The NASA Mission Reports by Robert Godwin

https://www.space.com/18422-apollo-saturn-v-moon-rocket-nasa-infographic.html

https://history.msfc.nasa.gov/saturn_apollo/documents/Saturn_V.pdf

Keeping Up with Human Spaceflight News

Staying informed about news in general has been quite the task lately, and human spaceflight news is no different. Over the past few months two large and important stories jumped out of NASA circles. First, as mentioned in a previous blog post, the Trump administration asked NASA to evaluate placing a crew on the first flight of the Space Launch System (SLS). Earlier this month, that plan was formally ruled out by NASA officials. Second, a relatively detailed definition for a lunar orbiting space station came out of NASA. Although the lunar space station story is from March, it has taken me this long to get a grip on my feelings and thoughts—albeit a loose one. Before I rush to my opinions, let’s cover some background information for both stories.

Before the Trump administration requested NASA to study placing a crew on the first flight of the SLS, the schedule called for Exploration Mission 1 (EM-1) to fly the Orion spacecraft around the Moon without a crew. A second Exploration Mission (EM-2) would fly astronauts around the Moon around 2021 (hopefully). This strategy of an uncrewed EM-1 mission followed by a crewed EM-2 mission still won the approval of NASA managers, thus rejecting the idea proposed by the administration. A crewed EM-1 mission would have increased costs, delayed the launch date, and would have been much riskier. These factors ultimately led NASA to stick with the current crew and mission arrangement.

  

Artist Concept of  SLS Block 1A During Launch (Credit: NASA)

While NASA was tinkering with the idea of adding a crew to the EM-1 mission, details emerged on the agency’s planned lunar orbit (cis-lunar orbit) space station. Construction will begin in the early 2020s with a launch of the SLS carrying the new station’s Power and Propulsion Bus (PPB). Other modules, structures concerned with habitation, will be added to the PPB in later missions. A Russian airlock module will also be added for easier station based spacewalking. Maximizing consumable usage and minimizing waste will be critical design goals for the station, which will prove to be no easy task. Each crewed shift on the lunar outpost will feature a dedicated supply vehicle—NASA still must determine whether the supply ship will be provided by a public or private organization. Although, I would place my bets on a private company providing the supply vehicle.

Overall, the lunar station will provide a platform for dress rehearsal Mars missions and a hub for returning robotic and crewed spacecraft from lunar surface operations. Design flexibilities will also allow Russian and possibly Chinese spacecraft to use the station.

NASA Lunar Space Station Concept (Credit: Popular Mechanics)

Now my opinions.

Leaving the EM-1 mission uncrewed appears to be the best option. Placing a crew on this mission would suffer from serious drawbacks (increased cost, delayed launch, and higher risk). Even with an uptick in funding, the increased risk associated with adding a crew serves no valid purpose without a clear goal in mind. Apollo 8’s trip around the Moon was risky as well, but the risk was taken to increase the likelihood of meeting President Kennedy’s goal. Developing complex hardware like the Orion spacecraft and SLS should be taken in a step-by-step fashion to decrease risk and increase the chances of success towards the end goal. This process can be hastened with adequate funding and human resources, but that is not the case with the American space program right now.

Mixed emotions do not begin to describe my feelings towards the lunar space station concept. Frankly, I am an advocate of virtually any human space exploration that extends beyond low Earth orbit. However, I feel using the lunar station as a means for Mars mission testing or getting to the Red Planet expends more resources and time than a direct path. I would advocate for a path similar to the one outlined in Robert Zubrin’s A Case for Mars. Building and testing habitation, propulsion, and Mars landing hardware in the lunar environment before traveling to Mars could be more efficient. For example, NASA could build and test the Mars mission hardware by long duration Moon landing missions. Eventually, this could lead to an Apollo 10 style dress rehearsal for a Mars landing once NASA officials felt necessary objectives were met.

Another issue I have with the proposed lunar station revolves around Russian involvement. It is no secret tensions between the United States and Russia have been high for many years now, and this tension could derail future joint endeavors. U.S. and Russian officials continue to cooperate on the International Space Station because the project is already completed. I would advise NASA to work with the Europeans, Canadians, and Japanese on future projects to avoid potential issues with Russia stemming from international politics.  

I would love to hear your thoughts on either issue!! And, as always, check out The Space Endeavor’s Facebook page for more space related content!

Sources used:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a25872/nasa-cis-lunar-orbit/

https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/05/12/nasa-rules-out-crew-on-first-sls-flight/

Serious space policy or continued bluster?

Last month NASA announced they were conducting a feasibility study on adding a crew to the first planned mission for their new rocket—the Space Launch System (SLS). Currently, the first flight of the SLS (Exploration Mission 1 or EM-1) is scheduled for late 2018 with an uncrewed Orion spacecraft. The first crewed mission would occur around 2021 according to the current plan. This study apparently comes at the urging of the Trump administration, which has yet to name a NASA administrator. Is this idea just political bluster?

Before I dive into my analysis of the idea, let’s cover the basics of NASA’s new rocket and capsule. The rocket, SLS, is being designed to take astronauts past low Earth orbit. There will be several configurations known as “blocks” to gain higher performance. Astronauts will reside in the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, often referred to as the Orion spacecraft. It strongly resembles the Apollo Command/Service Module that carried astronauts to the Moon in the 1960s.   SLS and Orion are pictured below.

SLS Block Configurations. Photo Credit: NASA

Artist Rendition of Orion in Earth Orbit. Photo Credit: NASA

With that covered, let’s head back to my thoughts on the feasibility study. I am tremendously skeptical of this potential shift in mission schedule. Without a long-term space policy in place, rushing into a crewed mission serves no useful purpose. Rushing into a plan where astronauts are aboard the first SLS/Orion flight will increase risk substantially. Some of this risk could be mitigated with more funding, but that is unlikely to happen. Additionally, there is no reason to squander precious financial and time resources without a long-term plan in place. It is best to take a step by step approach with space hardware development with no long-term plan in place. My main point is simple—we need a long-term plan (ideally 10-15 years) for space exploration before rushing into anything.  

If the Trump administration would propose—and fund—a robust space policy with specifically defined goals, I would happily support the effort. Having said that, many presidents have offered grand space plans without properly shepherding the proposal through Congress for approval. When plans have been approved by Congress, administrations usually fail to push Congress for adequate funding (i.e. George W. Bush’s 2004 Vision for Space Exploration).

Given the terrible track record most presidents have with space policy, I have serious doubts about Trump’s ability to articulate, push for, and provide enduring support for a robust space effort. President Trump has a history of making grandiose proposals and statements without the needed backing. Furthermore, if President Trump waits until late this year or later to make his space policy proposal, his political capital will likely be too depleted for a major shift in space policy. A major policy change towards increased space exploration outside low Earth orbit will require more funding if NASA continues to operate the International Space Station and other important programs.

At the beginning of this post I asked if this proposal was political bluster by the new administration. My answer: without a doubt. Trump is trying to have a “Kennedy” space moment without the wisdom, support, and effort President Kennedy gave in the 1960s.

Get more thoughts on space news and quick space history bits on Facebook!

https://www.facebook.com/TheSpaceEndeavor/

Learn more about SLS and Orion using the links below:

https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/index.html

https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/orion/index.html

Sources used:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nasa-studies-adding-crew-to-super-rocket-test-flight/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/02/24/nasa-officials-discuss-trumps-push-for-first-term-moon-mission/?utm_term=.8bc8d290b207