of 23
7/29/2019 post-saturn-19640012565_1964012565
1/23
j/ASA TECHNICALMEMORANDUM
N64 1 2 2 4 7 9&2&J/ a,NASA TM X-53010AprlI 10, 1964I
P O S T m S A T U R N L A U N C H V E H f C L ESTU D Y ( P A R T I / ]C O N D E N S E DS U M M A R Y R E P O R Tby W. G . HUBERFuture ProjectsOfficeNASA
-- - - - - - - -_ _George C. Murshdll OTS PRICE$uce Flight Center, X E R O XHantsuille, Aldbumu MICROFILM $
7/29/2019 post-saturn-19640012565_1964012565
2/23
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM X-53010
POST-SATURN LAUNCH VEHICLE STUDY (P ART 11)CONDENSED SUMMARY REPORT
W. G. HuberGeorge C. M a r s h a l l Space Flight Center
Huntsville , Alabama
The purpose of this report is to summa riz e the res ul ts of studies todefine, in as much detail as feasible, vehicle concepts for a lar ge launch vehiclebeyond Saturn V.Post-Saturn study, p re se nts the author's conclusions based on the resulting data,and gives recommendations fo r future work.
The reRo,rt outlines the sco pe and object ives of th e Part I1
A wide range of conce pts were inv estigated and wer e divided into thr eevehicle cl as ses for study purposes. Cla ss I rep rese nts cur re nt technology;Class I1 rep rese nts advanced state of the art ; and Class III represen ts ve ryadvanced technology.
The recommended future work includes follow-on stu die s to per fo rm amo re detailed design of C la ss 11, update Class I concepts, perform a concen-tr at ed missi on analys is, furth er define required technology advances, andmake a comparison of al l promising Clas s I11 concepts.M - i engine and lar ge solids should be d etermined, and the cu rre nt technologypr og ra m should be oriented to provide a sound base f or fur ther Post-Saturn .
The role of the pr es en t-
,
investigations.
NASA-GEORGE C. MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER
7/29/2019 post-saturn-19640012565_1964012565
3/23
NASA-GEORGE C. MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM X-53010
POST-SATURN LAUNCH VEHICLE STUDY (PART 11)CONDENSED SUMMARY REPORT
W . G. Huber
FUTURE PROJECTS OFFICE
7/29/2019 post-saturn-19640012565_1964012565
4/23
TABLE O F CONTENTS PageSUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
11. SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES O F THE STUDY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3111. METHOD O F APPROACH AND ASSUMPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A. Conceptual Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B. Reliability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C. Manufacturing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .D. Quality Assuranc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E. Test and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .F. Development Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .G. Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .H . Evaluation.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
IV . BASIC DATA GENERATED AND SIGNIFICANT CONCLUSIONS . . 6A. C l a s s I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6B. Class11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7C . C l a s s I I I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10D. Int erc las s Comparison. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. RECOMMENDED FUTURE ACTIVITIES 13LIST OF ILLUSTRAT~ONS
Figure Title Page. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Post-Saturn Class I Baseline Vehicle. 7
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .: Payload ver sus Chamber Pre ssu re 93. Post-Saturn Class I1 Baseline Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Post-Saturn Class 111 Baseline Vehicles 1 2
ii i
7/29/2019 post-saturn-19640012565_1964012565
5/23
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM X-53010POST-SATURN LAUNCH VEHICLE STUDY (PA RT 11)CONDENSED SUMMARY REPORT
SUMMARY
The purpose of this re po rt is to sum mar ize the re sul ts of studies todefine, in as much detail as feasible, vehicle concepts for a large launch vehiclebeyond Saturn V .Post-Saturn study, pr es en ts the author's conclusions based on the resultingdata, and gives recommendations for future work.
The re po rt outlines the scope and objectives of the Part I1
A wide range of concepts were investigated and were divided into threevehicle cl as se s fo r study purposes. Class I rep res ents cur rent technology;Class I1 rep res ents advanced state of th e art; and Cla ss 111 represe nts veryadvanced technology.
The recommended future w o r k includes follow-on studi es to pe rf or m am or e detailed design of Class II, update Class I concepts, perform a concen-tr at ed missi on analy sis, furthe r define require d technology advances, andmake a comparison of all promising Class I11 concepts.M -1 engine and large solid s should be determin ed, and the cu rr en t technologypr og ra m should be oriented to provide a sound base for fur the r Post-Saturninvestigations.
The role of the pr es en t
SECTION I. INTRODUCTION
In August 1962, contr acts were awarded to the Mart in Company andGene ral Dynamics/As tronautics to study the next lar ge launch vehicle beyondSaturn V. The maj or objective w a s to define various vehicle concepts and tomake s yst ems comparisons to determine the most desirable concepts for aPost-Saturn vehicle.
A t this time, an ear ly manned M a r s mission w a s of intere st; the refo re,the majority of the effort w a s spent on configurations that offered ea rl y avail-ability. Upon completion of thes e Post-Saturn stud ies (Part I) and severa l
7/29/2019 post-saturn-19640012565_1964012565
6/23
mission studies, it w a s concluded that early (mid-1970's) planetary mi ssi on susing new launch vehicles w e r e impractical, since expected re so ur ce s did notpe rm it the required development work.
Therefo re, in May 1963, the Pa r t I1 Post-Saturn studies wer e st ar te d toconcentrate on mor e advanced vehicle concepts that w er e m or e compatible withthe expected res ou rc es and availability requirements. It is the purpose of thisre po rt to sum mar ize the r es ul ts and conclusions of the Part I1 studies.effort w a s accomplished under contra ct to the Martin Company, Baltimo re,Maryland ( NAS8-5135) , and General Dynamics/Astronautics, San Diego,California (NAS8-5135).and the contract period w a s fr om May 1963 to Oc tober 1963.
This
The total cos t of the Part I1 studies w a s $1,200, 000
The detailed work summ arized i n this re po rt w a s documented in thef011 owing repor t s:
I.detailed technical reports) , Report No. 12589, September 1 63, Martin-Marietta,Space Sys tems Division, CONFIDENTIAL.
"NOVA Vehicle Sy stem s Study, I ' Part I1 ( 4 volumes plus 33
2. "NOVA Vehic le Sy stem s Study, IfPart I1 ( 3 volumes plus 39detailed technical reports) , Report No. GDA63-0844, September 1963, GeneralDynamics/Astronautics , CONFIDENTIAL.
The technical supervision fo r th is effort was provided by a managementteam mad e up of re pres enta tive s fro m al l MSFC la bo ra to ri es , KSC, MSC, LeRC,NASA Hea dqu arte rs, and the Air Fo rce.
Since the date of development initiation of the Post-Saturn vehicle as w e l las its des ire d availability w e r e not known, it w a s nece ssar y to study a widerang e of concepts repr esen ting var iou s degrees of advanced technology andsophistication. These w e r e divided into three vehicle cl as se s fo r study purpose s.
The vehicle concepts in Class I represen t cu rr en t technology. They a r eexpendable configurations using propulsion sy st em s eith er available o r currentlyunder development. These include the F-I, M -1 , and large solids. A detailedpro gra m definition could be sta rte d on Class I immediately i f desired; andavailab ility would be in the e ar ly to mid-1970's.
2
7/29/2019 post-saturn-19640012565_1964012565
7/23
Cla ss I1 concepts r ep re se nt advanced state of the art prima rily in thepropulsion a rea .sation are cons idere d. Sub-orbital recovery is al so included. Approximatelyone to two years of technology advancement work are needed prior to the startof a detailed program definition, with operational availability in the middle tolate 1970's.
Such fea tur es a s high chamb er pr es su re a nd altitude compen-
Class ILI consi ders ver y advanced technology with pr im ar il y single-stage-to-orbit concepts. Recovery fr om near-orbital velocities is included. Threey e a r s o r mo re of technological effort a r e requ ire d before a concept could ent erdetailed prog ram definition. These concepts represen t availability times in thelate 1970's and early 1980's.
SECTION LI. SCOPE AND OELJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The pri nci ple objective of the Pa r t I1 Post -Satu rn study w a s to define, inas much detail as feasible, the most desirabk vehicle configurations in eachvehicle class and to identify the advanced technology req uir ed to support t hes eresul ting vehicle concepts.of the study:
The following were considered secondary objectives
I. tudy of manufacturing plan s, including the meth ods of fab ri -cation, inspection, and te st , as well as the facility and major equipment requir e-ments.
2. Determination of methods of achieving acc ept abl e reliabil itywith reasonable ti me and cost.
3 . Study of t esting prog rams and require ment s f or facil ities .4. Development of requ irements f or trans porta tion and tra nsp ort
equipment.5. Development of schedules and funding plans fo r the o vera ll
Post-Saturn system, including the advanced technology plan.6. Definition of the potential mi ssion spe ctr um and opera tion al
plan f or meeting th e mission objectives.
3
7/29/2019 post-saturn-19640012565_1964012565
8/23
Due to the potential gains in the m or e advanced concepts and the expectedavailability of Post-Saturn development funding, a major portion (approximately60 pe rc en t) was devoted to Cl as s III. Only a small effort (approximately 5percent) w a s spent on Cla ss I, since the prese nt confidence level of the existingdata is relatively high,devoted to Class 11.bet ter the more advanced concepts to inc rea se the confidence level and concentrateon the concepts tha t w e know least about. In this mann er, a better comparison ofcl as se s ca n be accomplished.
The remaining effort (approximately 35 percent) w a sThis distribution of effo rt resu lted fr om tryin g to define
SECTION III. METHOD OF APPROACH AND ASSUMPTIONS
A . CONCEPTUAL DESIGNIn t h e vehicle systems design area, the following approach w a s used
for Class I and Cl as s III. Meetings we re conducted to define candidate conceptsin the various c lasse s. A narrowing-downprocess w a s then undertaken by making com par iso ns between concepts. Somewere eliminated aft er a pur e engineering comparison, oth ers involved the useof a simplified cost effectiveness consideration, while others were given adetailed comparison by use of a launch vehicle evaluation model.concept used for compari sons w a s the F - I / M - 1 Class I configuration, whichw a s the most promising Class I vehicle as determined by the Part I study.
A ll possible concepts were listed.
The baseline
A major consi deration in the design approach used fo r the conceptualvehicles w a s to use consistent techniques in or de r to allow a prop er comparison.In general, all vehicles w e r e si ze d fo r the one-million-pound-to-orbit payloadclass, with suitable scaling l a w s gene rated to allow evaluations at other payloadsizes.
B. RELIABILITYIn the reliability area, the approach w a s two fold. The first objectivew a s to develop and provide, to the overall evaluation, detailed reliability est ima tes
on all the concepts under study.cr it er ia important to vehicle design, development, and operation and to identifytechniques for reaucing fai iures a na faiiure effects.
The second objective w a s to establish design
4
7/29/2019 post-saturn-19640012565_1964012565
9/23
C. MANUFACTURlNGThe bas ic manufacturing effort, in suppor t of the conceptual design
studies, w a s the prepar ation of manufacturing operations plan s for the vario usconfigurations and the analys is of specific stru ctu ral design areas. The forme rw a s used in the schedule and cost evaluations, while the latter assis ted in theselection of pra cti cal configurations. In addition to th is gene ral support, sev era lspecific studies w e r e accomplished. These w e r e an action plan for the Class Ivehicle implementation and a comparison of multi-cell ve rs us single-ce ll con-struction for a tandem stage, LOX-LH2 vehicle based on the evaluations of thefabrication, assembly, and testing required.
D. QUALITY ASSURANCE .In support of the conceptual design studies , the g re at es t portion of
the effort in this area w a s applied t o the refurbishing of recovered vehicles.Consideration w a s given to assessment of vehicle condition after recovery,monitoring of work performed during the refurbishment cycle, and checkoutand acce ptance of the vehicle for subsequent missions .
The hardw are technology pro gra m on welding, which w a s star ted inPart I, w a s completed.tive menhods, such as radiography, ultrasonics, and'eddy curre nts. Informationw a s cor rel ate d with res ult s obtained by tensile destruction of the sa mpl es.Detailed studi es w ere al so conducted on lea k detection and contamination.
The welded specime ns w e r e examined by non-destruc-
E. TEST A N D EVALUATIONIn this ar ea , the effort was aimed at defining, in as much detail as feas
ible , the testing, and tes t facility requirements, launch operations and faci litie s,stage trans port atio n, logi stics including propellant supply, and the conceptualdesign of the ground support equipment. In the areas of test facilities and launchfacilities, the study w a s supported by Ma rt id De nv er under contracts NAS8-5159(d ir ec te d by KSC) and NAS8-5620 (di rec ted by MSFC, Te st Labora tory ) .
F. DEVE LOPME NT PLANNINGThe approach in this ar ea w a s to develop overall schedules considering
detailed anal yses of the cri tic al items, such as engine development, sta ge develop-ment and facil ities , test operations, and leadtimes.w a s determining what advanced technology activities are required to give sufficient
The major consideration
5
7/29/2019 post-saturn-19640012565_1964012565
10/23
7/29/2019 post-saturn-19640012565_1964012565
11/23
500
400
300
200
100
0
ENGINES:THRUST:LAUNCH WEIGHT:
18 F-IA/3M-I32.4M25.2M
PA YLOAD: 980,000PROP. MASS FRACTION: .920/.904GROSS WEIGHT/PAYLOAD: 25.7
It ha s been concluded that the cri ti ca l technology requ ired f or a Class IPost-Saturn is within the cu rr en t state of the art and repres ents essentially justa la rg er version of Saturn V. If a Class I concept wer e d esired, a detailedpr og ra m definition could start immediately, thus leading to a fi rs t developmentflight in mid-1972, and operationa l availability in la te 1974.
B. CLASS11Before attempting to select the most desirable Cla ss I1 concepts, itw a s ne ce ss ar y to conduct se ve ra l vehicle trade-off studies. An anal ysis w a s
made of ree ntr y shapes fo r the first stage, since it is recoverable. It w a s foundthat positive, hypersonic s ta ti c stability mar gi ns could be achieved with cylindricalshap es by the u se of inflatable stability augmentation devices at an appreciablereduction in launch weight and drag over a fixed fla re. This cylindrical shapeshowed a performance and cost effectiveness advantage over the tapered shape.
7
7/29/2019 post-saturn-19640012565_1964012565
12/23
Another consideration w a s 1 - o r 2-stage vehicles. H e r e , no significantTwo-stage vehicles
cos t difference exis ted; however, the two-stage concept w a s favo red because ofits lower sensitivity to variations in performance param eters.were sized from 420,000 pounds to i , 140,000 ounds payload capability, and thencompared with the bes t available es tim ate s fo r the planetary m issions requirements.The conclusion, ba sed on cost effectiveness and orbital operations considerations,w a s that the large r si ze vehicles w e r e superior.one million pounds to orbit has been established f or the Post-Saturn studies.
Therefore, a baseline value of
The effect of various degrees of recovery w a s studied, and the resultsshowed tha t a two-stage vehicle, with a recoverable first stage, w a s 35 percentbet ter f rom a cost effectiveness standpoint than a completely expendable vehicle.The fully recovera ble two-stage vehicle offered about a 9 percent improvementover the recoverable first stage concept, but the technical problems associatedwith near-orbital velocity rec overy of the second stage wer e considered to fallin t he C lass 111 technology area; therefore, for Cla ss I1 the recoverable firststage , with an expendable second stag e, w a s selected. However, if the develop-ment of a Clas s I1 vehicle should be und ertaken, it is recommend ed that, duringits design, consideration be given to the addition of second sta ge rec ove ry at alater date, as growth potenti al.
The prima ry trade-off studi es involved propulsion s ys te ms and propellantcombination selection. Since Cl as s I1 represents advanced technology, manyadvanced propulsion concepts we re investigated. Figur e 2 shows the benefitsderived from altitude compensation and the us e of higher chamber p re ss ur es .These are given as a ra ti o of payload improvem ent. F o r a single-stage-to-orbitvehicle, both high chamber p re ss ur e and altitude compensation give a la rgeimprovement in performance; however, for a two-stage vehicle only small gainscan be achieved, using these technology advancements in the first stage. At thistime, no conclusion has been reached concerning the most desirable propulsionsyste m for the Class I1 vehicle.technology work must be conducted to obtain experimental data. Such questio nsas the following must b e answer ed before the m os t desira ble propulsion syste mcan be selected: What degre e of altitude compensation can be re alist icallyachieved? What overall perform ance does a plug nozzle pro duc e? What happensto plug performance i f an engine is los t? Thes e problems a r e recognized byboth OMSF and OART, and some technology work is presently underway in thesea r e a s .
Before fi rm conclusions can be drawn, hardw are
After realis tic advantages of the advanced propulsion s ys te ms are deter-mined, these must be co mpared with engines under development such as the M - I .N o fi rm conclusions have been reached concerning the ro le of the M-i engine.
8
7/29/2019 post-saturn-19640012565_1964012565
13/23
PAYLOAD WEIGHTM-1 PAYLOAD WEIGHT (NONCOMPI
- - NONCOMPENSATED- OMPENSATEDloo +- M-l (REF. '
Several propellant combinations f o r the second s tage w er e studied; how-ev er, based on the curre nt vehicle systems, LOX/LH2 w a s selected. If currenttechnology work on LF2 o r FLOX shows pr om is e, the se could of c ou rs e be usedin any Post-Saturn vehicle. The selection of propellants f or the fi r st stag e hasnot been resolved at this time, and will recei ve a concentrated effort i n thePart 111 study. LH2 as a fuel offershigher impulse, a lighter vehicle, no com-bustion residue for refurb ishme nt, the possibility of using the s am e engine modulein both s tag es , and the potential of using the fi rs t stage as a single-stage-to-orbitvehicle. On the other hand, RP-I gives a bet ter propellant bulk density, sm al lervehicle s iz e, slightly lower cost, and sim pl er launch operations.
9
7/29/2019 post-saturn-19640012565_1964012565
14/23
In conclusion, Fig ure 3 shows a typical Class I1 Post-Saturn. It is atwo-stage vehicle .with a recoverable first stage.payload, is about 420 feet and each stage is 70 feet in diameter. One to twoy ea rs of advanced technology work, pr im ar il y in the areas of propulsion andrecovery, would be required pr io r to starting a detailed pro gr am definition.This would result in a first flight in mid-1974 and operational availability inearly 1977.
The vehicle height, including
500
4 0 0
300
2 0 0
1 0 0
0
ENGINES: 18/2 @ l O O O KTHRUST: 18MLAUNCH WEIGHT: 14.4 MPAY LOAD: 9 4 2 , 00 0PROP. MASS FRACTION: .897 / .883GROSS WE IGHT/PAYLO AD: 15.3
FIGURE 3. POST-SATURN CLASS I1 BASELINE VEHICLE
C. CLASSIIIConsidering the concepts that w er e investigated and the data avail-
able at this time, it is not possible to sel ect a mo st promis ing concept; how-ev er , certain conclusions can be reached. The goal in Clas s I11 is a single
10
7/29/2019 post-saturn-19640012565_1964012565
15/23
stage, fully recoverable vehicle. In th e investigation, it became apparent thatthese vehicles were in tw o distinct categories of technology with the recoveryground rule: Those which used pure rocket propulsion and ballis tic r ee nt rytechniques, and those in which the atmosphere was used to varying degr ees i nthe propulsion sy st em and for the development of lift.
Pr im ar y inte res t in the second category w a s the us e of air augmentation.Th e air augmentation configurations, in spi te of optimisit c assum ption s, showedno design region in which a performance advantage could be achieved ov er a nequivalent rocket system.in er t weights of the ducted sys te m, was found to mo re than offset the performanceimprovement, due to the augmented specific impulse.
The degradation in vehic le per for man ce, due to the
In the rocket propulsion category, considerable effort w a s devoted to theproblem of obtaining a var iab le payload capability with a basic single-stage-to-or bi t vehicle. This capability is of interest, since it would provide g re at er pay-load design flexibility an d mis sio n planning. It also app ear s possible to improvethe co st effectiveness sensitivity to variations in the payload distribution spectrum.However, at this t ime it is not possible to make conclusions on this featu re, sinceonly a quantitative definition of the Post-Saturn payload capability w a s investigated.The st udi es included off-loading to obtain lower-than-design payloads, the additionof sol id and liquid JATO'S, strap-on tanks, expendable second stages, and thesubstitution of flour ine fo r oxygen in varying de gr ee s to obtain higher-than-designpayloads. The flour ine substitution and the expendable second sta ge showed asignificant payload augmentation advantage over either the liquid or solid JATO's.lhese conclusions, 01 course, depend on the basic vehicle Size and payloadrequirements distribution.
From a propulsion standpoint both high cha mber p re ss ur e and altitudecompensation a r e required to achieve single-stage-to-orbit capability ( Fig. 2) .Also, advanced st ru ctu ral concepts and tankage configurations a re relativelyimportant. The payload sensi tivity of this vehicle concept requires state-of-the-art advances in all ar e as of technology; however, the mos t important ar epropulsion and the problems a ssociated with o rbital o r near-orbital, velocityree ntr y, recovery, and re-use.
Figure 4 hows a typical Class 111 Post-Saturn concept. The data shownin the left column is fo r the basi c single-stage v ehicle and on the right , theaddition of an expendable second stage. This concept gives a payload fro m460,000 to 1,2 50, 000 pounds.high and 115 feet in diameter. The vehicle with second s tag e is about 220 feet
7/29/2019 post-saturn-19640012565_1964012565
16/23
200
1 0 0
0 -
1 STAGE 2 STAGEENGINES: 18 @ lO O O K 1 8 /3 @ lOOOKTHRUST: 1 8 M 1 8 MLAUNCH W EIG HT: 12-14 . 4 M 14.4MP A Y LOAD: 4 6 0 K - 8 2 6 K 1 , 2 5 0 , 0 0 0PROP. MASS FRACTION: . w a .92a/.922GROSS WEIGH T/PAY LOAD : 14.5 11.3
-
-
FIGURE 4. POST-SATURN CLASS 111 BASELINE VEHICLE
About thr ee to f ou r y ea rs of concentrated technology work (depending onThis would r esu lt i n a first flight in thethe concept) should be acc omplished before a detailed prog ra m definition isundertaken on a Class I11 Post-Saturn.
i 976-1 977 period a nd operational'availability bout 1980.D. INTERCLASS COMPARISON
I n addition to the work and conclusions previously desc ribe d fo r eachPost-Saturn vehicle cla ss, some inte rclas s comparisons wer e made.vehicles have been sized for the sa me payload capability, the comp arisons we remade fr om both a performance and a cost effectivenes s standpoint.
Since all
7/29/2019 post-saturn-19640012565_1964012565
17/23
In reviewing Figures i , 3, and 4, which illus trate d representative concepts,it w a s shown that the ,gross-weight-to-payload rat io, which is a measure of thevehicle efficiency, improves from 2 5 . 7 to i5 . 3 to 14. 5, going from C las s I toI1 to III. This, of cou rse , ref lec ts the advancement in propulsion and str uct ura ldesign.le ss thrust; and, in turn, easier operational pro blem s at both the test site andlaunch si te , due to noise and explosive haza rds.
Fo r the sam e payload, the more advanced concepts offer sma ll er vehicles,
Fr om the co st effective ness standpoint and bas ed on a launch rate ofapproximately eight pe r ye ar, Cla ss I showed a direct cos t effective ness ofabout $100 per pound of payload delivered to orbit. An equivalent numb er fo rSaturn V would be about $ 2 0 0 pe r pound. Cl as s I1 could furth er reduce the costto about $50 pe r pound. Cla ss III cost effectivenes s is in the $40 to $50 p e rpound range; however, this cla ss has the potential for fur ther reductions throughthe use of payload vari ation capability.
SECTION V. RECOMMENDED FUTURE ACTIVITIES
Based on the res ul ts of the Post-Saturn stud ies and the re su lt s of vario usmissi on studies and technology activities , the following is recommended
i . A follow-on study be conducted with the following objectives:a. More de tailed design of Cl as s 11, concentrati ng on a r e a s
of g re at es t uncertainity and those that have the gr ea te st effect on over all vehicle(5070) .
b. Concentrated effort in mission analysis area to define betterwhy w e need a Post-Saturn, when we need it , and what it should be capable ofdoing (4070).
c. Updating of Class I concepts (570).d. Further definition of required technology (570).
(A 12-month contract w a s awarded to Martin-Marie tta in October 1964 fo r$ i ,499,000 to accomplish this work) .
1 3
7/29/2019 post-saturn-19640012565_1964012565
18/23
2. A follow-on study be conducted to compa re all of the promisingconcepts fo r Class 111, including those developed under the Post-Nova contr act swith General Dynamics/Astronautics and Douglas and any new concepts that maybe proposed. It is important to have these compared under the sa me groundrul es and under the sa me assumptions.
3 . A concentrate d effort be made to dete rmine the r ole of thepr es en t M-1 engine or define the design changes desirable from a Post-Saturnvehicle viewpoint.MSFC, as well a s Martin-Marietta and Aero jet, to clarify this question. )(Work is currently underway at Lewis Research Center and
4. Fu rt he r work be accomplished to bette r define the Post-Saturnapplications of lar ge solid motor.
5. The cur ren t technology pr ogr am be oriented to provide a soundba se fo r further Post-Saturn study activities. Advances in all ar ea s a r e neededto in cr ea se the confidence level of C la ss I1 designs and to prove the feasibility ofsome of the Class 111 concepts.
The above con sid ers only the deliv ery of payload to orbit. In the case ofStudies
manned planetary mi ssi ons , orbital assembly, refueling, and other operationsare required.have shown this orbital burden rate to vary fr om approximately $900 pe r pound(departing orbit) for Saturn V , down to $240 p e r pound using Post-Saturn vehicles.In conclusion, Post-Saturn not only provides reduced orbi tal delivery cos ts , butal so offer s additional savings through minimized orbital oper ations.planetary mission s, the cost asso ciate d with orbital support operations exceedsthe orbital delivery costs.
These re pre sen t additional c ost pri or to departing orbit.
For manned
14
7/29/2019 post-saturn-19640012565_1964012565
19/23
APPROVAL April 10, 1964ASA TM X-53010POST-SATURN LAUNCH VEHICLE STUDY (PART 11)CONDENSED SUMMARY R EP OR T
By W . G. H u b e rT h e i n f o r m a t i o n i n this r e p o r t h a s b ee n r e v i e w e d f o r s e c u r i t y
c l a s s i f i ca t ion . R ev iew of any in fo rm a t ion conce r n ing Depar tm en t ofD e f e n s e o r A t o m i c E n e. rg y C o m m i s s i o n p r o g r a m s has b e e n m a d e b ythe M SFC Secur i ty C las s i f i ca t ion Of f i ce r.ha s been d e te rm in ed to be unc la s s if i ed .r e v i e w e d a n d a p p r o v e d f o r t e c h ni c al a c c u r a c y .
T h i s r e p o r t , i n i ts e n t i r e t y ,T h i s r e p o r t a l s o h a s b e en
H. H. K O E L L ED i r e c t o r , F u t u r e P r o j e c t s Office
1 5
7/29/2019 post-saturn-19640012565_1964012565
20/23
DIRDr. von BraunM r . WilliamsDr. Lange
DEP-TDr. Rees
EX-DIRMr. Maus
EX-PMr. WaiteMr. Bethay
R-DIRMr. Weidner
R-AE RO-DIRDr. Geissler
R-AERO-SMr. de Fries
R-AE RO-DPMr. ThomaeMr. Funk
R-AERO-AAMr. Donehoo
R-ASTR-DIRDr. Haeussermann
R-ASTR-TNMr. Currie
R-AS TR- NGAMr. Drame
1 6
INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION TM X-53010
R-C OM P -DIRDr. HoelzerR-ME-DIR
Mr. KuersM r . Wuenscher
R-ME-XMr. Eddins
R-QUAL-DIRMr. Grau
R-QUAL-JMr. Hofman
R-QUAL-PCMr. Burdette
R-QUAL-REMr. Dollins
R-QUAL-RAMr. Trewhitt
R-RP-DIRDr. Stuhlinger
R-P&VE-DIRMr. ClineM r . Hellebrand
R-P&VE-TM r . FinzelMr. Bond
R-P&VE-AMr. GoernerMr. BarkerMr. Beaman
7/29/2019 post-saturn-19640012565_1964012565
21/23
R - P & V E - AVM r . N e i g h b o r s
R - P & V E - A LM r . J o h n s
R - P & V E - A V DM r . G a r d n e r
R - P & V E - A AM r . F e l l e n z
R-P& VE-SM r . K r o l l
R - P & V E - S AM r . B l u m r i e h
R - P & V E - S A AM r . E n g l e r
R - P & V E - S JM r . Z i m m e r m a n
I N T E R N A L D I S TR I B U T IO N ( C O N T ' D )T M X-53010
R - P & V E - PM r . P a u lM r . M i l l e r
R - P & V E - P A AM r . D e M a r sM r . Lombard0
R - T E S T - D I RM r . H e i m b u r gM r . M i t c h e l l
R - T E S T - VM r . H a m i l t o n
R - T E S T - MM r . E d w a r d s
R - T E S T - TM r . E v a n s
R-FPD r . K o e l l eD r . R u p p eM r . H u b e r ( 20 )M r . S a n d e r sM r . D e t k oM r . SpearsM r . V o s sM r . C a r t e rM r . H a m b yM r . G r a d e c a kM r . W o o d c o c kM r . P a y n e ( 2)
1-xM r . T h o m a s
L O - D F 2M r . v o n T i e s e n h a u s e nM r . S p a r k s
L V OM r . Z e i l e rM r . W i l l ia m s
F & D - RM r . H i r s h b u r g
R - T E S T - SM r , W i l l i a m s
17
7/29/2019 post-saturn-19640012565_1964012565
22/23
INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION (CONT'D) TM X-53010MS-IPL (8 )MS-IPMS-HHME-Pcc-PScientific and Techn ical InformationFacility ( 2 5 )Attn: NASA Representa tive (S-AK/RKT)P. 0. Box 5700Bethesda, Maryland
18
7/29/2019 post-saturn-19640012565_1964012565
23/23
E X T E R N A L D I S T R IB U T IO NTM X-53010N AS A H e a d q u a r ter s
N a t io n al A e r o n a u t i c s a n d Space A d m i n i s t r a t i o nW a s h i n g t o n 25, D. C.A t t n : D r . G. M u e l l e r ( M )
M r . G . L o w ( M D )M r . E. G r a y ( M T )M r . W . T a y l o r ( M T - I )M r . D . L o r d (M T - 2 )M r . W . G r e e n ( M T B )M r . L. Fer0 ( M T C )M r . M. Y a r y m o r y c h ( M T E )M a j . T. E v a ns ( M T F )M r . J. S t o n e ( M T C ) ( I O )Cap t . R . Freitag ( M C )M r . W . L i l l y ( M P )M r . G . K n a u f ( M M )M r . D . W y a t t ( P )M r . W. F l e m i n g ( P T )A d m . W . B o o n e ( W )D r . R . B i s p l i n g h o f f ( R )M r . J . S l o o p ( R S )M r . A . E v a n s (RA)M r . A . T i s c h l e r ( R P )D r . A . K e l ly ( R E )M r . H. F i n g e r ( R N )M r . F. S c h w e n k ( N P O )M r . M . A m e s ( R V )M r . E. P e a r s o n ( R V - I)M r . M . R o s c h e ( R V - 2 )
Y * .-.)T.E. K c c x c i (ZZ)
R o c k e t R e s e a r c h Labs ( D G R )A T T N : M r . H o w a r d B a r f i e l dE d w a r d s AFB, C a l i f o r n i a
A m e s R e s e a r c h C e n te rD i r e c t o rL i b r a r yK e n n e d y Space C e n t e rD i r e c t o rL i b r a r yF l ig h t R e s e a r c h C e n t e rD i r e c t o rL i b r a r yG o d d a r d S p a c e F l ig h t C e n t e rD i r e c t o rL i b r a r yJet P r o p u l s i o n L a b o r a t o r yD i r e c t o rL i b r a r yL a ng le y R e s e a r c h C e n t e rD i r e c t o rL i b r a r yL e w i s R e s e a r c h C e n t e rD i r e c t o rL i b r a r yM r . E. G o m e r s a l lM a n n e d Spacecraft C e n t e rD i r e c t o rL i b r a r yM r . W . S t o n e y
