Could the museum Saturn V's be refitted for one more flight?
$begingroup$
Even though we will not build new Saturn Vs, there currently exist three Saturn Vs in museums. Could any of these rockets be refitted for flight? If not, what specific component would prevent the program from going forward?
This question is meant to address the rocket itself. I understand that the VAB, crawlers, and launch infrastructure would need retrofitting as well, not to mention finding and training crews.
nasa saturn-v
edited 44 mins ago
Michael Seifert
50327
asked 6 hours ago
Happy PhantomHappy Phantom
31318
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Even though we will not build new Saturn Vs, there currently exist three Saturn Vs in museums. Could any of these rockets be refitted for flight? If not, what specific component would prevent the program from going forward?
This question is meant to address the rocket itself. I understand that the VAB, crawlers, and launch infrastructure would need retrofitting as well, not to mention finding and training crews.
nasa saturn-v
edited 44 mins ago
Michael Seifert
50327
asked 6 hours ago
Happy PhantomHappy Phantom
31318
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
You expect a rocket stored in the open for more than two decades to be refittable for flight? See wikipedia. Only one consist of stages intended for launch.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Uwe: Thank you for chiming in! I'm not expecting, I'm asking. This Mustang had been stored in the open for four and a half decades, and then was restarted recently. I'm sure that it is not a matter of simply filling up the H2, O2, and RP-1. What are the bottlenecks, and are they surmountable? As you mention, we do have a complete rocket consisting of flight stages.
$endgroup$
– Happy Phantom
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Even though we will not build new Saturn Vs, there currently exist three Saturn Vs in museums. Could any of these rockets be refitted for flight? If not, what specific component would prevent the program from going forward?
This question is meant to address the rocket itself. I understand that the VAB, crawlers, and launch infrastructure would need retrofitting as well, not to mention finding and training crews.
nasa saturn-v
edited 44 mins ago
Michael Seifert
50327
asked 6 hours ago
Happy PhantomHappy Phantom
31318
$endgroup$
Even though we will not build new Saturn Vs, there currently exist three Saturn Vs in museums. Could any of these rockets be refitted for flight? If not, what specific component would prevent the program from going forward?
This question is meant to address the rocket itself. I understand that the VAB, crawlers, and launch infrastructure would need retrofitting as well, not to mention finding and training crews.
nasa saturn-v
nasa saturn-v
edited 44 mins ago
Michael Seifert
50327
asked 6 hours ago
Happy PhantomHappy Phantom
31318
edited 44 mins ago
Michael Seifert
50327
asked 6 hours ago
Happy PhantomHappy Phantom
31318
edited 44 mins ago
Michael Seifert
50327
edited 44 mins ago
Michael Seifert
50327
edited 44 mins ago
Michael Seifert
50327
50327
asked 6 hours ago
Happy PhantomHappy Phantom
31318
asked 6 hours ago
Happy PhantomHappy Phantom
31318
asked 6 hours ago
Happy PhantomHappy Phantom
31318
31318
$begingroup$
You expect a rocket stored in the open for more than two decades to be refittable for flight? See wikipedia. Only one consist of stages intended for launch.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Uwe: Thank you for chiming in! I'm not expecting, I'm asking. This Mustang had been stored in the open for four and a half decades, and then was restarted recently. I'm sure that it is not a matter of simply filling up the H2, O2, and RP-1. What are the bottlenecks, and are they surmountable? As you mention, we do have a complete rocket consisting of flight stages.
$endgroup$
– Happy Phantom
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You expect a rocket stored in the open for more than two decades to be refittable for flight? See wikipedia. Only one consist of stages intended for launch.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Uwe: Thank you for chiming in! I'm not expecting, I'm asking. This Mustang had been stored in the open for four and a half decades, and then was restarted recently. I'm sure that it is not a matter of simply filling up the H2, O2, and RP-1. What are the bottlenecks, and are they surmountable? As you mention, we do have a complete rocket consisting of flight stages.
$endgroup$
– Happy Phantom
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
You expect a rocket stored in the open for more than two decades to be refittable for flight? See wikipedia. Only one consist of stages intended for launch.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
You expect a rocket stored in the open for more than two decades to be refittable for flight? See wikipedia. Only one consist of stages intended for launch.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Uwe: Thank you for chiming in! I'm not expecting, I'm asking. This Mustang had been stored in the open for four and a half decades, and then was restarted recently. I'm sure that it is not a matter of simply filling up the H2, O2, and RP-1. What are the bottlenecks, and are they surmountable? As you mention, we do have a complete rocket consisting of flight stages.
$endgroup$
– Happy Phantom
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Uwe: Thank you for chiming in! I'm not expecting, I'm asking. This Mustang had been stored in the open for four and a half decades, and then was restarted recently. I'm sure that it is not a matter of simply filling up the H2, O2, and RP-1. What are the bottlenecks, and are they surmountable? As you mention, we do have a complete rocket consisting of flight stages.
$endgroup$
– Happy Phantom
5 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The one at the Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville has been stored outside so it wasn't in good shape.
Displayed outdoors and on its side since 1969, the rocket was exhibiting widespread paint failure, moisture infiltration, an overall accumulation of atmospheric and biological soiling, and corrosion of its complex system of metal alloys, including aluminum. Non-metal materials such as polyurethane foam, various types of plastics including Tedlar®, phenolic resin, and fiberglass composites, had significantly deteriorated. The spacecraft portion of the Saturn V display (Lunar Adapter, Service Module, Command Module and Launch Escape System) were full scale 1970s era mock-ups constructed of sheet aluminum and fiberglass. The Command Module, constructed almost completely out of plywood and fiberglass, was is very poor condition
The others have been indoors so should be a bit better. The Huntsville rocket was incomplete. It's been restored from the above condition, but that's to 'museum exhibit' state, not 'functional rocket' state.
They'd need significant amount of work to be usable again:
- complete inspection of the metalwork, with replacement of any corroded parts. That alone is years of work. To do an inspection to the standard you want for spaceflight, you may have to disassemble most of the rocket (to make sure you get to all the corners that become inaccessible after assembly).
- replacement of all seals and other materials that can deteriorate. This may include the wiring.
- replacement of all the electronics
- new turbopumps
- new LOX tanks, maybe (LOX reacts with lots of things, there's no way to guarantee the tanks are clean)
- the Huntsville one was missing its CM, SM an LEM, so they'd have to be built.
- other parts may have been cannibalized, no way to know until you strip the rocket.
IOW, you're better off building new Saturn Vs.
I'm tempted to compare it to building vs restoring cars. A thorough restoration can easily take a year. Handbuilt cars are built in weeks...
answered 5 hours ago
HobbesHobbes
95.1k2267421
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you Hobbes! I suppose that inspection, repair, and proper cleaning would be easier than to rebuild a substantial slice of the US aerospace industry as it existed circa 1965!
$endgroup$
– Happy Phantom
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@HappyPhantom: Is it obvious that your "inspection, repair and proper cleaning" can be done without doing that first too? There are plenty of "replacement" and "new parts" in Hobbes's list.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
New electronics, new guidance software and new turbopumps would require a new man rating of the rocket. But before man rating is finished, all museum Saturn V rockets are used,
$endgroup$
– Uwe
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "508"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35239%2fcould-the-museum-saturn-vs-be-refitted-for-one-more-flight%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The one at the Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville has been stored outside so it wasn't in good shape.
Displayed outdoors and on its side since 1969, the rocket was exhibiting widespread paint failure, moisture infiltration, an overall accumulation of atmospheric and biological soiling, and corrosion of its complex system of metal alloys, including aluminum. Non-metal materials such as polyurethane foam, various types of plastics including Tedlar®, phenolic resin, and fiberglass composites, had significantly deteriorated. The spacecraft portion of the Saturn V display (Lunar Adapter, Service Module, Command Module and Launch Escape System) were full scale 1970s era mock-ups constructed of sheet aluminum and fiberglass. The Command Module, constructed almost completely out of plywood and fiberglass, was is very poor condition
The others have been indoors so should be a bit better. The Huntsville rocket was incomplete. It's been restored from the above condition, but that's to 'museum exhibit' state, not 'functional rocket' state.
They'd need significant amount of work to be usable again:
- complete inspection of the metalwork, with replacement of any corroded parts. That alone is years of work. To do an inspection to the standard you want for spaceflight, you may have to disassemble most of the rocket (to make sure you get to all the corners that become inaccessible after assembly).
- replacement of all seals and other materials that can deteriorate. This may include the wiring.
- replacement of all the electronics
- new turbopumps
- new LOX tanks, maybe (LOX reacts with lots of things, there's no way to guarantee the tanks are clean)
- the Huntsville one was missing its CM, SM an LEM, so they'd have to be built.
- other parts may have been cannibalized, no way to know until you strip the rocket.
IOW, you're better off building new Saturn Vs.
I'm tempted to compare it to building vs restoring cars. A thorough restoration can easily take a year. Handbuilt cars are built in weeks...
answered 5 hours ago
HobbesHobbes
95.1k2267421
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you Hobbes! I suppose that inspection, repair, and proper cleaning would be easier than to rebuild a substantial slice of the US aerospace industry as it existed circa 1965!
$endgroup$
– Happy Phantom
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@HappyPhantom: Is it obvious that your "inspection, repair and proper cleaning" can be done without doing that first too? There are plenty of "replacement" and "new parts" in Hobbes's list.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
New electronics, new guidance software and new turbopumps would require a new man rating of the rocket. But before man rating is finished, all museum Saturn V rockets are used,
$endgroup$
– Uwe
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The one at the Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville has been stored outside so it wasn't in good shape.
Displayed outdoors and on its side since 1969, the rocket was exhibiting widespread paint failure, moisture infiltration, an overall accumulation of atmospheric and biological soiling, and corrosion of its complex system of metal alloys, including aluminum. Non-metal materials such as polyurethane foam, various types of plastics including Tedlar®, phenolic resin, and fiberglass composites, had significantly deteriorated. The spacecraft portion of the Saturn V display (Lunar Adapter, Service Module, Command Module and Launch Escape System) were full scale 1970s era mock-ups constructed of sheet aluminum and fiberglass. The Command Module, constructed almost completely out of plywood and fiberglass, was is very poor condition
The others have been indoors so should be a bit better. The Huntsville rocket was incomplete. It's been restored from the above condition, but that's to 'museum exhibit' state, not 'functional rocket' state.
They'd need significant amount of work to be usable again:
- complete inspection of the metalwork, with replacement of any corroded parts. That alone is years of work. To do an inspection to the standard you want for spaceflight, you may have to disassemble most of the rocket (to make sure you get to all the corners that become inaccessible after assembly).
- replacement of all seals and other materials that can deteriorate. This may include the wiring.
- replacement of all the electronics
- new turbopumps
- new LOX tanks, maybe (LOX reacts with lots of things, there's no way to guarantee the tanks are clean)
- the Huntsville one was missing its CM, SM an LEM, so they'd have to be built.
- other parts may have been cannibalized, no way to know until you strip the rocket.
IOW, you're better off building new Saturn Vs.
I'm tempted to compare it to building vs restoring cars. A thorough restoration can easily take a year. Handbuilt cars are built in weeks...
answered 5 hours ago
HobbesHobbes
95.1k2267421
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you Hobbes! I suppose that inspection, repair, and proper cleaning would be easier than to rebuild a substantial slice of the US aerospace industry as it existed circa 1965!
$endgroup$
– Happy Phantom
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@HappyPhantom: Is it obvious that your "inspection, repair and proper cleaning" can be done without doing that first too? There are plenty of "replacement" and "new parts" in Hobbes's list.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
New electronics, new guidance software and new turbopumps would require a new man rating of the rocket. But before man rating is finished, all museum Saturn V rockets are used,
$endgroup$
– Uwe
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The one at the Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville has been stored outside so it wasn't in good shape.
Displayed outdoors and on its side since 1969, the rocket was exhibiting widespread paint failure, moisture infiltration, an overall accumulation of atmospheric and biological soiling, and corrosion of its complex system of metal alloys, including aluminum. Non-metal materials such as polyurethane foam, various types of plastics including Tedlar®, phenolic resin, and fiberglass composites, had significantly deteriorated. The spacecraft portion of the Saturn V display (Lunar Adapter, Service Module, Command Module and Launch Escape System) were full scale 1970s era mock-ups constructed of sheet aluminum and fiberglass. The Command Module, constructed almost completely out of plywood and fiberglass, was is very poor condition
The others have been indoors so should be a bit better. The Huntsville rocket was incomplete. It's been restored from the above condition, but that's to 'museum exhibit' state, not 'functional rocket' state.
They'd need significant amount of work to be usable again:
- complete inspection of the metalwork, with replacement of any corroded parts. That alone is years of work. To do an inspection to the standard you want for spaceflight, you may have to disassemble most of the rocket (to make sure you get to all the corners that become inaccessible after assembly).
- replacement of all seals and other materials that can deteriorate. This may include the wiring.
- replacement of all the electronics
- new turbopumps
- new LOX tanks, maybe (LOX reacts with lots of things, there's no way to guarantee the tanks are clean)
- the Huntsville one was missing its CM, SM an LEM, so they'd have to be built.
- other parts may have been cannibalized, no way to know until you strip the rocket.
IOW, you're better off building new Saturn Vs.
I'm tempted to compare it to building vs restoring cars. A thorough restoration can easily take a year. Handbuilt cars are built in weeks...
answered 5 hours ago
HobbesHobbes
95.1k2267421
$endgroup$
The one at the Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville has been stored outside so it wasn't in good shape.
Displayed outdoors and on its side since 1969, the rocket was exhibiting widespread paint failure, moisture infiltration, an overall accumulation of atmospheric and biological soiling, and corrosion of its complex system of metal alloys, including aluminum. Non-metal materials such as polyurethane foam, various types of plastics including Tedlar®, phenolic resin, and fiberglass composites, had significantly deteriorated. The spacecraft portion of the Saturn V display (Lunar Adapter, Service Module, Command Module and Launch Escape System) were full scale 1970s era mock-ups constructed of sheet aluminum and fiberglass. The Command Module, constructed almost completely out of plywood and fiberglass, was is very poor condition
The others have been indoors so should be a bit better. The Huntsville rocket was incomplete. It's been restored from the above condition, but that's to 'museum exhibit' state, not 'functional rocket' state.
They'd need significant amount of work to be usable again:
- complete inspection of the metalwork, with replacement of any corroded parts. That alone is years of work. To do an inspection to the standard you want for spaceflight, you may have to disassemble most of the rocket (to make sure you get to all the corners that become inaccessible after assembly).
- replacement of all seals and other materials that can deteriorate. This may include the wiring.
- replacement of all the electronics
- new turbopumps
- new LOX tanks, maybe (LOX reacts with lots of things, there's no way to guarantee the tanks are clean)
- the Huntsville one was missing its CM, SM an LEM, so they'd have to be built.
- other parts may have been cannibalized, no way to know until you strip the rocket.
IOW, you're better off building new Saturn Vs.
I'm tempted to compare it to building vs restoring cars. A thorough restoration can easily take a year. Handbuilt cars are built in weeks...
answered 5 hours ago
HobbesHobbes
95.1k2267421
edited 4 hours ago
answered 5 hours ago
HobbesHobbes
95.1k2267421
answered 5 hours ago
HobbesHobbes
95.1k2267421
answered 5 hours ago
HobbesHobbes
95.1k2267421
95.1k2267421
$begingroup$
Thank you Hobbes! I suppose that inspection, repair, and proper cleaning would be easier than to rebuild a substantial slice of the US aerospace industry as it existed circa 1965!
$endgroup$
– Happy Phantom
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@HappyPhantom: Is it obvious that your "inspection, repair and proper cleaning" can be done without doing that first too? There are plenty of "replacement" and "new parts" in Hobbes's list.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
New electronics, new guidance software and new turbopumps would require a new man rating of the rocket. But before man rating is finished, all museum Saturn V rockets are used,
$endgroup$
– Uwe
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Thank you Hobbes! I suppose that inspection, repair, and proper cleaning would be easier than to rebuild a substantial slice of the US aerospace industry as it existed circa 1965!
$endgroup$
– Happy Phantom
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@HappyPhantom: Is it obvious that your "inspection, repair and proper cleaning" can be done without doing that first too? There are plenty of "replacement" and "new parts" in Hobbes's list.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
New electronics, new guidance software and new turbopumps would require a new man rating of the rocket. But before man rating is finished, all museum Saturn V rockets are used,
$endgroup$
– Uwe
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Thank you Hobbes! I suppose that inspection, repair, and proper cleaning would be easier than to rebuild a substantial slice of the US aerospace industry as it existed circa 1965!
$endgroup$
– Happy Phantom
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thank you Hobbes! I suppose that inspection, repair, and proper cleaning would be easier than to rebuild a substantial slice of the US aerospace industry as it existed circa 1965!
$endgroup$
– Happy Phantom
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@HappyPhantom: Is it obvious that your "inspection, repair and proper cleaning" can be done without doing that first too? There are plenty of "replacement" and "new parts" in Hobbes's list.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@HappyPhantom: Is it obvious that your "inspection, repair and proper cleaning" can be done without doing that first too? There are plenty of "replacement" and "new parts" in Hobbes's list.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
New electronics, new guidance software and new turbopumps would require a new man rating of the rocket. But before man rating is finished, all museum Saturn V rockets are used,
$endgroup$
– Uwe
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
New electronics, new guidance software and new turbopumps would require a new man rating of the rocket. But before man rating is finished, all museum Saturn V rockets are used,
$endgroup$
– Uwe
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Space Exploration Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35239%2fcould-the-museum-saturn-vs-be-refitted-for-one-more-flight%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
You expect a rocket stored in the open for more than two decades to be refittable for flight? See wikipedia. Only one consist of stages intended for launch.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Uwe: Thank you for chiming in! I'm not expecting, I'm asking. This Mustang had been stored in the open for four and a half decades, and then was restarted recently. I'm sure that it is not a matter of simply filling up the H2, O2, and RP-1. What are the bottlenecks, and are they surmountable? As you mention, we do have a complete rocket consisting of flight stages.
$endgroup$
– Happy Phantom
5 hours ago