 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / October 2005Apollo/Saturn V question
I read somewhere, that the Saturn V was powerful enough to reach orbit with only four engines, running at 100%. But they added an extra engine and ran all five at 80%, in case an engine failed, they've have an extra one. Is this true? And if so, wasn't it called something, like the 80/20 solution or some such? I'm trying to win a bet, so if anyone knows that would be great. > Is this true? And if so, wasn't it called something, like the 80/20 > solution or some such? I think it even once happened so that one of the engines stopped and the inertia guiding system replaced that. I wonder how they are going to build inertia guiding system to this new "stick" rocket ? If it has only one shuttle booster engine it is going to be a difficult task. Matti single engine failure would cause a orbit, and use escape rocket or oms burn for controlled rentry. single engines are more reliable and less complex, but lack redundancy in a emergency. apollo depended on single engine for return from moon single engine failure would cause a abort, and use escape rocket or oms burn for controlled rentry. single engines are more reliable and less complex, but lack redundancy in a emergency. apollo depended on single engine for return from moon single engine failure would cause a abort, and use escape rocket or oms burn for controlled rentry. single engines are more reliable and less complex, but lack redundancy in a emergency. apollo depended on single engine for return from moon > single engine failure would cause a abort, and use escape rocket or oms > > burn for controlled rentry. Hi! Didn't apollo 13 have a center engine shut-down on the first stage late in the burn, but continued on four engines? (think i remember this from the apollo 13 movie, and with Jim Lovell confirming it on the audio-commentary track of the movie? Regards, Erik > Didn't apollo 13 have a center engine shut-down on the first stage late in > the burn, but continued on four engines? Close. The center engine on the second stage had an early shutdown (thought to be a result of pogo).  SignatureRichard W Kaszeta rich@kaszeta.org http://www.kaszeta.org/rich > Close. The center engine on the second stage had an early shutdown yess, so much for my memory, second stage, ofcourse! well, the discussion was on malfunctions on single engines anyway, and i guess that the result: "Abort mission" is quite obvious for single-engine craft..... Makes me think of a thread in space.history from Apollo 8, when Bill Anders is replying to Lovells question if they had ever thought of beeing orbiting the moon on Christmas eve: "Just hope we're not on New Year's... " those guys must have thought some of the fact that they were relying on a single engine to get home... regards, Erik :-) > apollo depended on single engine for return from moon Apollo depended on a single engine for escape velocity, lunar orbit insertion, LM descent stage, LM ascent stage as well as return from moon SignatureFree men own guns, slaves don't www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/ <Apollo depended on a single engine for escape velocity, lunar orbit insertion, LM descent stage, LM ascent stage as well as return from moon > Nit pic.... Apollo had 3 POSSIBLE engines on way to moon. till the LM commited to lunar landing The service module engine:) Plus the TWO LM engines! Descent and ascent. as the apollo 13 astronauts knew well the LM descent engine was powerful enough to get the LM CM stack back to earth. i dont remember if the LM ascent stage had enough thrust.... getting old used to remember this stuff >>apollo depended on single engine for return from moon > > Apollo depended on a single engine for escape velocity, lunar orbit > insertion, LM descent stage, LM ascent stage as well as return from moon And at least one of those was non-restartable! Damn, they lived dangerously back in the 60's! Space is a dangerous place. NASA and the government and the public needs to recognise that. The astronauts already do. And they still volunteer to do it. >>> apollo depended on single engine for return from moon >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > to recognise that. The astronauts already do. And they still volunteer > to do it. What I find startling are statements that, by Apollo 13, the public had become *complacent*! I know I hadn't, but I noticed, to my chagrin, that the networks had. I think maybe the press tries to tell us when we're complacent. It irritates the tar out of me when even CNN only pops in seconds before a launch and doesn't even cover it until MECO. George Evans George Evans <georgee3@earthlink.net> wrote: >What I find startling are statements that, by Apollo 13, the public had >become *complacent*! I know I hadn't, but I noticed, to my chagrin, that the >networks had. I think maybe the press tries to tell us when we're >complacent. It irritates the tar out of me when even CNN only pops in >seconds before a launch and doesn't even cover it until MECO. Let's see, two possibilities here... which is it? Large news organizations (which live or die by their ratings) and their large advertisers (which spend large sums on ratings, focus groups, and a dozen other ways to find out how many eyeballs track which topics) have for 30+ years failed to detect a vast, under-served public fascination with space... OR Some members of a rather small population of space enthusiasts wish that the news organizations would cater more to *their* ineterests. Jeez -- that's a tough one. >> What I find startling are statements that, by Apollo 13, the public had >> become *complacent*! I know I hadn't, but I noticed, to my chagrin, that the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Some members of a rather small population of space enthusiasts wish > that the news organizations would cater more to *their* ineterests. I think you hit the nail on the head, but maybe a different nail than you thought. Researchers are discovering that what catches our eye isn't necessarily what we are interested in. Thanks to Howard Stern and Jerry Springer, my eye has been caught a number of times by fuzzy boobs only to be upset hours later that I have wasted so much time on trash. In contrast to flames and explosions, what NASA brings our way isn't very eye catching and yet a surprising percentage of the population supports such endeavors. Do you really think that the average person is *interested* in standard TV fare? Is that why they change channels so much? George Evans George Evans :And at least one of those was non-restartable! Damn, they lived :dangerously back in the 60's! Face it. Life is hazardous to your health. :Space is a dangerous place. NASA and the government and the public needs :to recognise that. The astronauts already do. And they still volunteer :to do it. The public is very poor at risk analysis. So is Congress. Some of us have known better for a long time. Signature"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden <:And at least one of those was non-restartable! Damn, they lived :dangerously back in the 60's! Face it. Life is hazardous to your health. > What was acceptable risk wise 30 years ago is WAY different today... Just think of airbags and car safety systems, plus grounded outlets, GFCI and arc fault breakers etc... I think its wonderful we have come so far. Not everyone dies cleanly from say a fire, and the hardships live thru another generation, till all involved die being safe is being smart..... > apollo depended on single engine for return from moon I may be mistaken, but if I remember correctly everything except the actual nozzle of the SPS was duplicated: so the odds of it being unable to fire were small... if one component failed the backup should do the job instead. Mark mmaker@my-deja.com wrote in news:1129982139.436064.109890 @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: >> apollo depended on single engine for return from moon > > I may be mistaken, but if I remember correctly everything except the > actual nozzle of the SPS was duplicated: so the odds of it being unable > to fire were small... if one component failed the backup should do the > job instead. Dual redundant valves, but a single injector, combustion chamber and nozzle as I recall. Pressure fed design with transpiration cooling of the combustion chamber, I think. Not a hot, high performance engine, by design. The New Apollo will use modified versions of the RL10, it appears; that's a rather more complicated design than Old Apollo used, but expander cycle engines are mature technology and have been reasonably reliable thanks to their relative simplicity. Long-term management of cryos will be interesting. The only failure of an RL10 in the past couple of decades was due to an egregious manufacturing flaw that wouldn't have gotten past inspection for man-rated useage. But it does have more potential for malfunction than a simple pressure fed hypergolic engine. --Damon >mmaker@my-deja.com wrote in news:1129982139.436064.109890 >@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Dual redundant valves, but a single injector, combustion >chamber and nozzle as I recall. I expect to be corrected, but don't rocket motors have a single combustion chamber and nozzle almost by definition? If there were two it would make a second motor, and presumably there were good reasons for not doing that. BTW, am I right in thinking Apollo 8 could have looped round the Moon and come back if the motor hadn't fired for insertion? If so, it's one thing the recent "Space Race" series got wrong. Not that viewers of BBC coverage of the event would have known - they dropped live coverage in favour of a children's show called "Jackanory". SignatureBoycott Yahoo! Remove spam and invalid from address to reply. > > Is this true? And if so, wasn't it called something, like the 80/20 > > solution or some such? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > If it has only one shuttle booster engine it is going to be a difficult > task. Why? > I wonder how they are going to build inertia guiding system to this new > "stick" rocket ? > If it has only one shuttle booster engine it is going to be a difficult > task. No, it will be either "easy" (if roll thrusters are added, as is done on other single-engine rockets), or "impossible" (if no roll thrusters are added). There is no "difficult" in-between. As a wise Jedi master once said, "Do, or do not. There is no try." :-) SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. >I read somewhere, that the Saturn V was powerful enough to reach orbit > with only four engines, running at 100%. But they added an extra engine > and ran all five at 80%, in case an engine failed, they've have an extra > one. Saturn needed eleven engines to reach orbit. The S-1C and S-II stages both had five engines and could cope with the loss of a single engine and still maintain sufficient velocity to allow the upper stages to take the payload into orbit. > Is this true? And if so, wasn't it called something, like the 80/20 > solution or some such? The Saturn C-1 & Saturn V were designed with five F-1 first stage engines from a very early stage of the program - 1961 (or earlier). It's not impossible that design studies looked at different numbers of engines in the late 1950s. The scenario you suggest isn't impossible but it's not recorded in any Saturn history I've seen. > I'm trying to win a bet, so if anyone knows that would be great. I think you lose. SignatureBrian Lawrence Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com Wantage, Oxfordshire, UK |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.