Could the museum Saturn V's be refitted for one more flight?Why not build Saturn V's again?What will be NASA's successor to the Saturn V rocket?Launch roll program for the Saturn five rocketWhy not build Saturn V's again?What would be the configuration and performance for Saturn V with all stages RP-1/LOX?How had the Saturn V lifting capacity changed throughout the Apollo program?Was 39A built with a rocket much larger than the Saturn V in mind?Saturn launch precautions for clearing tower?Did the Saturn V rocket have any purely aesthetic features that didn't serve an actual function?Vented interstage for the final stage of Saturn VUse of different fuels for stages of Saturn V
Were days ever written as ordinal numbers when writing day-month-year?
Does Dispel Magic work on Tiny Hut?
How seriously should I take size and weight limits of hand luggage?
What is the opposite of "eschatology"?
What is the most common color to indicate the input-field is disabled?
How can saying a song's name be a copyright violation?
What is required to make GPS signals available indoors?
Is it possible to map the firing of neurons in the human brain so as to stimulate artificial memories in someone else?
Did 'Cinema Songs' exist during Hiranyakshipu's time?
What Exploit Are These User Agents Trying to Use?
How exploitable/balanced is this homebrew spell: Spell Permanency?
how do we prove that a sum of two periods is still a period?
Implication of namely
Can someone clarify Hamming's notion of important problems in relation to modern academia?
Can compressed videos be decoded back to their uncompresed original format?
Obtaining database information and values in extended properties
How to show a landlord what we have in savings?
Why are UK visa biometrics appointments suspended at USCIS Application Support Centers?
How to travel to Japan while expressing milk?
Is there a hemisphere-neutral way of specifying a season?
Can a virus destroy the BIOS of a modern computer?
What exactly is ineptocracy?
GFCI outlets - can they be repaired? Are they really needed at the end of a circuit?
Is it possible to create a QR code using text?
Could the museum Saturn V's be refitted for one more flight?
Why not build Saturn V's again?What will be NASA's successor to the Saturn V rocket?Launch roll program for the Saturn five rocketWhy not build Saturn V's again?What would be the configuration and performance for Saturn V with all stages RP-1/LOX?How had the Saturn V lifting capacity changed throughout the Apollo program?Was 39A built with a rocket much larger than the Saturn V in mind?Saturn launch precautions for clearing tower?Did the Saturn V rocket have any purely aesthetic features that didn't serve an actual function?Vented interstage for the final stage of Saturn VUse of different fuels for stages of Saturn V
$begingroup$
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
$endgroup$
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
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
9 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
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Won't this raise the ship of Theseus problem? If too many parts have to be replaced in order to make it functional, can we still call it the original one? If yes, even then it will be much much cheaper to design and build a completely new rocket from scratch, then to repair or rebuild the original one.
$endgroup$
– vsz
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@vsz I assume if you were looking at it from a practical perspective, the important part would be determining if it does require so many replacements as it make it more expensive than one from scratch. As far as just general interest goes, "can it be done" is a pretty interesting question IMO.
$endgroup$
– JMac
3 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
$endgroup$
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 5 hours ago
Michael Seifert
50327
50327
asked 11 hours ago
Happy PhantomHappy Phantom
338110
338110
$begingroup$
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
9 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
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Won't this raise the ship of Theseus problem? If too many parts have to be replaced in order to make it functional, can we still call it the original one? If yes, even then it will be much much cheaper to design and build a completely new rocket from scratch, then to repair or rebuild the original one.
$endgroup$
– vsz
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@vsz I assume if you were looking at it from a practical perspective, the important part would be determining if it does require so many replacements as it make it more expensive than one from scratch. As far as just general interest goes, "can it be done" is a pretty interesting question IMO.
$endgroup$
– JMac
3 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
9 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
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Won't this raise the ship of Theseus problem? If too many parts have to be replaced in order to make it functional, can we still call it the original one? If yes, even then it will be much much cheaper to design and build a completely new rocket from scratch, then to repair or rebuild the original one.
$endgroup$
– vsz
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@vsz I assume if you were looking at it from a practical perspective, the important part would be determining if it does require so many replacements as it make it more expensive than one from scratch. As far as just general interest goes, "can it be done" is a pretty interesting question IMO.
$endgroup$
– JMac
3 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
9 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
9 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
9 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
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Won't this raise the ship of Theseus problem? If too many parts have to be replaced in order to make it functional, can we still call it the original one? If yes, even then it will be much much cheaper to design and build a completely new rocket from scratch, then to repair or rebuild the original one.
$endgroup$
– vsz
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Won't this raise the ship of Theseus problem? If too many parts have to be replaced in order to make it functional, can we still call it the original one? If yes, even then it will be much much cheaper to design and build a completely new rocket from scratch, then to repair or rebuild the original one.
$endgroup$
– vsz
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@vsz I assume if you were looking at it from a practical perspective, the important part would be determining if it does require so many replacements as it make it more expensive than one from scratch. As far as just general interest goes, "can it be done" is a pretty interesting question IMO.
$endgroup$
– JMac
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@vsz I assume if you were looking at it from a practical perspective, the important part would be determining if it does require so many replacements as it make it more expensive than one from scratch. As far as just general interest goes, "can it be done" is a pretty interesting question IMO.
$endgroup$
– JMac
3 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
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...
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
9 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@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
7 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
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@HenningMakholm: No, I am not sure. That is why Inspection is the first step.
$endgroup$
– Happy Phantom
4 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
Also worth noting that when a restored vintage car breaks down because you missed something, it doesn't disintegrate traveling on a trans-lunar trajectory with you in it.
$endgroup$
– Seth R
2 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
I carefully examined the Saturn V in Houston (in particular the instrumentation unit) few months ago. There's no way this Saturn V would fly for a couple reasons:
It was stored outside and suffered lots of corrosion and damage. It was restored enough to be exhibited but the metal still has lots of corrosion covered by paint.
The instrumentation unit is missing many components. In particular, I noticed it is missing the LVDC (launch vehicle digital computer), other important electronics, some large tanks, covers on much of the electronics, a lot of wiring, and various random parts. The parts that remained were very dirty and corroded and I wouldn't expect them to work.
I agree with what @Hobbes concluded, you'd be better off building a new Saturn V.
New contributor
$endgroup$
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
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
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...
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
9 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@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
7 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
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@HenningMakholm: No, I am not sure. That is why Inspection is the first step.
$endgroup$
– Happy Phantom
4 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
Also worth noting that when a restored vintage car breaks down because you missed something, it doesn't disintegrate traveling on a trans-lunar trajectory with you in it.
$endgroup$
– Seth R
2 hours ago
|
show 1 more 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...
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
9 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@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
7 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
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@HenningMakholm: No, I am not sure. That is why Inspection is the first step.
$endgroup$
– Happy Phantom
4 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
Also worth noting that when a restored vintage car breaks down because you missed something, it doesn't disintegrate traveling on a trans-lunar trajectory with you in it.
$endgroup$
– Seth R
2 hours ago
|
show 1 more 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...
$endgroup$
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...
edited 8 hours ago
answered 9 hours ago
HobbesHobbes
95.1k2271425
95.1k2271425
$begingroup$
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
9 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@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
7 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
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@HenningMakholm: No, I am not sure. That is why Inspection is the first step.
$endgroup$
– Happy Phantom
4 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
Also worth noting that when a restored vintage car breaks down because you missed something, it doesn't disintegrate traveling on a trans-lunar trajectory with you in it.
$endgroup$
– Seth R
2 hours ago
|
show 1 more 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
9 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@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
7 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
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@HenningMakholm: No, I am not sure. That is why Inspection is the first step.
$endgroup$
– Happy Phantom
4 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
Also worth noting that when a restored vintage car breaks down because you missed something, it doesn't disintegrate traveling on a trans-lunar trajectory with you in it.
$endgroup$
– Seth R
2 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
9 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
9 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
@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
7 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
7 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
5 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
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@HenningMakholm: No, I am not sure. That is why Inspection is the first step.
$endgroup$
– Happy Phantom
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@HenningMakholm: No, I am not sure. That is why Inspection is the first step.
$endgroup$
– Happy Phantom
4 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
Also worth noting that when a restored vintage car breaks down because you missed something, it doesn't disintegrate traveling on a trans-lunar trajectory with you in it.
$endgroup$
– Seth R
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Also worth noting that when a restored vintage car breaks down because you missed something, it doesn't disintegrate traveling on a trans-lunar trajectory with you in it.
$endgroup$
– Seth R
2 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
I carefully examined the Saturn V in Houston (in particular the instrumentation unit) few months ago. There's no way this Saturn V would fly for a couple reasons:
It was stored outside and suffered lots of corrosion and damage. It was restored enough to be exhibited but the metal still has lots of corrosion covered by paint.
The instrumentation unit is missing many components. In particular, I noticed it is missing the LVDC (launch vehicle digital computer), other important electronics, some large tanks, covers on much of the electronics, a lot of wiring, and various random parts. The parts that remained were very dirty and corroded and I wouldn't expect them to work.
I agree with what @Hobbes concluded, you'd be better off building a new Saturn V.
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I carefully examined the Saturn V in Houston (in particular the instrumentation unit) few months ago. There's no way this Saturn V would fly for a couple reasons:
It was stored outside and suffered lots of corrosion and damage. It was restored enough to be exhibited but the metal still has lots of corrosion covered by paint.
The instrumentation unit is missing many components. In particular, I noticed it is missing the LVDC (launch vehicle digital computer), other important electronics, some large tanks, covers on much of the electronics, a lot of wiring, and various random parts. The parts that remained were very dirty and corroded and I wouldn't expect them to work.
I agree with what @Hobbes concluded, you'd be better off building a new Saturn V.
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I carefully examined the Saturn V in Houston (in particular the instrumentation unit) few months ago. There's no way this Saturn V would fly for a couple reasons:
It was stored outside and suffered lots of corrosion and damage. It was restored enough to be exhibited but the metal still has lots of corrosion covered by paint.
The instrumentation unit is missing many components. In particular, I noticed it is missing the LVDC (launch vehicle digital computer), other important electronics, some large tanks, covers on much of the electronics, a lot of wiring, and various random parts. The parts that remained were very dirty and corroded and I wouldn't expect them to work.
I agree with what @Hobbes concluded, you'd be better off building a new Saturn V.
New contributor
$endgroup$
I carefully examined the Saturn V in Houston (in particular the instrumentation unit) few months ago. There's no way this Saturn V would fly for a couple reasons:
It was stored outside and suffered lots of corrosion and damage. It was restored enough to be exhibited but the metal still has lots of corrosion covered by paint.
The instrumentation unit is missing many components. In particular, I noticed it is missing the LVDC (launch vehicle digital computer), other important electronics, some large tanks, covers on much of the electronics, a lot of wiring, and various random parts. The parts that remained were very dirty and corroded and I wouldn't expect them to work.
I agree with what @Hobbes concluded, you'd be better off building a new Saturn V.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 3 hours ago
Ken ShirriffKen Shirriff
1414
1414
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
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
9 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
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Won't this raise the ship of Theseus problem? If too many parts have to be replaced in order to make it functional, can we still call it the original one? If yes, even then it will be much much cheaper to design and build a completely new rocket from scratch, then to repair or rebuild the original one.
$endgroup$
– vsz
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@vsz I assume if you were looking at it from a practical perspective, the important part would be determining if it does require so many replacements as it make it more expensive than one from scratch. As far as just general interest goes, "can it be done" is a pretty interesting question IMO.
$endgroup$
– JMac
3 hours ago