SATURN HISTORY DOcuvENT

University of Alabame Research I~tcjtit~k~ History of Science G. Technology G~PUQ Date

----- ----- Doc.No. --------

Saturn V Derivatives
Ronald D. Scott and William L. Corcoran
Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA

THE M S A , IN ASSOCIATION WITH INDUSTRY, has developed a launch v e h i c l e sys tern t h a t s u r p a s s e s the c a p a b i l i t y and u t i l i t y of any known system i n the world today. Success of Saturn f l i g h t s has demonstrated v e h i c l e dependability and established a high l e v e l of confidence. Evidence t o support the s t a t e m e n t is r e f l e c t e d i n Figure 2 , ''The S u c c e s s f u l Launch of SA-501! " A v a s t i n d u s t r i a l complex geared t o the f a b r i c a t i o n , assembly, t r a n g p o r t a t i o n , and launch of the Saturn V has been assembled. It i s of utiwst importance t h a t any d e r i v a t i v e launch vehicle concept maximize t h e u t i l i z a t i o n of t h e s e f a c i l i t i e s and management c a p a b i l i t i e s . For the meaningful e x p l o i t a t i o n and e x p l o r a t i o n of space t o continue a t a reasonable pace, i t is imperative t h a t launch v e h i c l e concepts o f f e r maximum r e t u r n s i n c a p a b i l i t y a d u t i l i t y a t minimum . t o t a l program c o s t . Therefore, i t is d e s i r a b l e t o determine the s u i t a b i l i t y of e x i s t i n g v e h i c l e s and . s t a g e s t o accomplish projected missions when compared with p o t e n t i a l ney launch systems, and t o conserve our nearer- term development funds f o r expanding the rrrarket f o r these sys terns. This paper presents f o u r e s s e n t i a l items : (1) t h e c a p a b i l i t y of t h e s t a n d a r d opera tiona 1 Saturn V; 0 ) s e v e r a l d e r i v a t i v e launch v e h i c l e concepts r e s u l t i n g from the many

Fig. 1 Saturn V derivatives

in-house .and contracted improvement s t u d i e s ; (3) i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a near-term, low R&D c o s t , intermediate d e r i v a t i v e launch v e h i c l e ; (4) development of a hypothesized evolutionary Saturn V family concept t h a t spans t h e e a r t h

ABSTRACT This paper desciibes an e v o l u t i o n a r y f a m i l y concept of ! turn V d e r i v a t i v e launch h v e h i c l e systems, discusses t h e i r performance c a p a b i l i t i e s , and o u t l i n e s t h e i r a b i l i t y t o perform o r b i t a 1 and hlgh-energy miss ions a t minimum t o t a l program c o s t . The v e r s a t i l i t y and u t i l i t y of t h e Saturn V Launch v e h i c l e s y s t e m have been well pubLicized with r e s p e c t t o its a b i l i t y t o i n j e c t s i z e a b l e exploratory payloads throughout the S o l a r Sys tem and with r e s p e c t t o fts e a r t h o r b i t a l c a p a b i l i t y t o e x p l o i t near e a r t h by u t i l i z i n g a manned space s t a t i w derived from t h e t h i r d s t a g e . The complete f l e x i b i l i t y of t h e evolutionary S a t u r n V system is i d e n t i f i e d through d e r i v a t i v e launch v e h i c l e concept which u t i l i z e a "common core" design. These vehicles demonstrate p o t e n t i a l a b i l i t y t o span t h e e a r t h o r b i t a l and p l a n e t a r y payload spectrum. The v a l i d i t y of t h i s evolutionary concept i s analyzed and d e r i v a t i v e candidates a r e evaluated i n terms of design commonality and t r a f f i c l e v e l s . Resources and schedule informa t i o n is provided f o r an evolutionary development plan t h a t could s a t i s f y c i v i l i a n space e x p l o i t a t i o n requirements f o r t h e foreseeable future. The theme i s maximum u t i l i z a t i o n of present equipment, f a c i l i t i e s , Saturn V hardware items and engineering techniques t o ensure c o m p a t i b i l i t y of p r e s e n t and f u t u r e designs.

Fig. 2

- AS-501 launch

comparison o u t of context w i t h r e s p e c t to resources and/or launch r a t e s or, perhaps, a comparison of e x i s t i n g o r e a r l y modified configurations with merely publicized f u t u r e concepts. To a r r i v e a t a t r u e program cost comparison f o r d e r i v a t i v e v e h i c l e s , t h e c o s t of intraducing and producing each new vehicle over and abow t h a t f o r t h e b a s i c Saturn- V xmst be determined. A t h r e e - o r four-per-year production r a t e is below t h e design production r a t e f o r Saturn V f a c i l i t i e s . When d e r i v a t i v e vehicles using Saturn V elements a r e produced i n addition t o Saturn V , t h e i r program costs a r e minimized because Saturn V f a c i l i t i e s a r e then used, more e f f e c t i v e l y . For comparisons of Saturn d e r i v a t i v e s , e i t h e r upra ted or derated con igura t i o n s , t h e candidate should be s e l e c t e d with r e s p e c t t o a vehicle evolutionary concept where an assumed three-stage Saturn V b a s e l i n e production program e x i s t s and the complete mission spectrum requirements are evaluated with r e s p e c t t o this open-ended development concept. In this paper the v a l i d i t y of t h i s evollltionary concept is analyzed and Saturn V d e ~ i v a t i v ecandidates a r e evaluated i n terms of performance, design commonality, c o s t and traffic levels, The philosophy expressed throughout t h i s paper i s t h e c m s i d e r e d opinion of t h e r authors and does n o t ~ l e r e s s a r i l y e f l e c t MSFC o r NASA management approved d i r e c t i o n f o r any f u t u r e program.

o r b i t a l payload spectrum from 50,000 pounds t o over 500,000 pounds. The paper d e s c r i b e s t h e Saturn V and its e v o l u t i o n a r y family of two- and three-s tage d e r i v a t i v e launch v e h i c l e s , discusses t h e i r performance c a p a b i l i t i e s , and o u t l i n e s t h e i r a b i l i t y t o perform, c o s t e f f e c t i v e l y , o r b i t a l missions programs and p o t e n t i a l high-energy missions. These d e r i v a t i v e coni g u r a t i o n s have a payload c a p a b i l i t y range extending from t h a t of t h e Saturn I B t o t h e postulated manned p l a n e t a r y v e h i c l e requirements which might i n c l u d e p l a c i n g l a r g e r nuclear modules/ s t a g e s i n rendezvous compatible o r b i t s about the earth. Basic information on launch v e h i c l e configurations, i.e., technical descriptions, performance d a t a , and resources d a t a , was e x t r a c t e d from r e c e n t MSA-funded s t u d y documentation. Mission and c o s t - d a t a were prepared a t MSFC. Many, a l t e r n a t i v e methods of providing launch t a p a b i l i t y f o r t h e complete payload spectrum have been conceived, evaluated and a g g r e s s i v e l y compared w i t h r e s p e c t t o design, schedules, and resources. As a r e s u l t , t h e authors contend t h a t t h e present n a t i o n a l inventory of launch v e h i c l e s does n o t provide any overwhelming d i r e c t i o n f o r the, u t i l i z a t i o n of 'present systems t o s a t i s f y f u t u r e r e q u i r e ments. However, when one compares competitive launch v e h i c l e systems i n a s i n g l e o r s e l e c t range (e. g. , i n t e r m e d i a t e payload range of 110,000 pounds i n LEO) t h e danger e x i s t s f o r

THE SATURN V
The f o c a l p o i n t o r key t o t h e evolutionary comon core concept, which w i l l - b e developed w i t h i n t h i s paper, is fie "Standard s a t u r n V. " Designed f o r t h e Apollo missions, the Saturn V has t h e c a p a b i l i ~ y i n j e c t i n g sizeable of exploratory payloads throughout the s o l a r system by housing t h e payload within a shroud of s e l e c t e d length t o remain within the design c a p a b i l i t i e s of t h e current vehicle. The upper r i g h t h a l f of Figure 3 shows t h e Saturn V with a v a r i a b l e payload height depicted by t h e dashed l i n e and the n e t i n j e c t e d payload c a p a b i l i t y a s a function of t h e energy parameter C3 i shown in t h e lower s right The mission p r o f i l e assumes threes t a g e a s c e n t t o a 100 n. mi, parking o r b i t with r e s t a r t of t h e S-IW s t a g e t o inject t h e payload t o a range of energy levels. The Saturn V high-energy i n j e c t i o n c a p a b i l i t y does n o t ap roach z e r o u n t i l a G3 of approximately 150 km /sec2 (Ref. 2),* For reference, l o c a l escape i s C3 = 0, and a M r t r a n s f e r is as approximately C3 = 18 &/see2. The curve l a b e l e d '5-25" r e f e r s t o t h e performance o b t a i n a b l e by incorporating an improved propulsion system in t h e second and t h i r d s t a g e s . The J-2S is a simplified

'

*Numbers i n parentheses designated ReEerences a t end of paper.

R. D. Scott and W . L . Corcoran

FLEXIBILITY I UTILITY

POST APOUO TIME FRAME

EMPHASIS ON h1lSSION FLEXIBILITY MAX!MUM UTIlJZATION OF EXISTING CAPABILITIES AND RESOURCES

I
m0 STAGE TO EMIR ORBIT
mr PATLOMI
(I$

DERIVATIVE CONCEPTS DO NOT REPRESENT APPROVED PROGRAMS

LEI

m E STAGE TO HIGH IN1XCY PE 1 s ~ i 0 N S ( 1 0 0 N MI PARXING ORBIT)COST

2h5 =. (DEC)

Fig. 4. Guidelines

a
' TAW W S I I STACE

101

1%

I S

3ca

W U L M ORB1 A T T I N D E R ) W l

Fig. 3

- ~ k d a r Saturn V capability d

version of t h e present 5-2 engine used on the S-IZ and S-IVB stages. The engine w i l l have a n increased s p e c i f i c impulse of 5.5 seconds and w i l l be capable of o p e r a t i n g a t an increased t h r u s t l e v e l of approximately 35,000 pounds a s compared t o the standard 5-2 engine. This simplified system w i l l be incorporated a s i t becomes a v a i l a b l e through normal product improvement. The dashed curve d e p i c t s t h e performance increase achieved when t h e Centaur is used a s an a d d i t i o n a l propulsive s t a g e on t h e Saturn V. For example, t h e s t a g e might be integrated within the e x i s t i n g LEM a d a p t e r s e c t i o n (SIX) of the standard Saturn V/Apollo vehicle. This configuration is shown i n the upper r i g h t corner of Figure LO. I h e Saturn V has a tremendous p o t e n t i a l for e a r t h o r b i t a l a p p l i c a t i o n s , By u t i l i z i n g the f i r s t two s t a g e s t o achieve o r b i t , t h e t h i r d s t a g e "derivative" becomes a groundf i t t e d , prelaunch-checked-out, manned space station. This concept r e t a i n s t h e e x t e r n a l configuration of the standard S a t u r n V/Apollo vehicle. Qnce e a r t h o r b i t has been achieved, the p o s s i b i l i t y e x i s t s t o d e r i v e from t h e second s t a g e a hangar, a d d i t i o n a l s t o r a g e a r e a , counter weight f o r "g" simulation o r o t h e r possible applications. The e a r t h o r b i t performance c a p a b i l i t y of t h e Saturn V-and an a r t i s t ' s concept of a d e r i v a t i v e manned s p a c e a s t a t i o n a r e displayed i n t h e l e f t h a l f of Figure 3. The e a r t h o r b i t a l payload c a p a b i l i t y is

shown a s a function of c i r c u l a r e a r t h o r b i t a l t i t u d e . The family of curves r e s u l t s by varying launch azimuth and t h e i n i t i a t i o n of yaw s t e e r i n g t o achieve various i n c l i n a t i o n s of the f i n a l o r b i t . Selection of t h e azimuth and time t o i n i t i a t e the yaw maneuver was based on range s a f e t y l i m i t a t i o n s ; the i n c l i n a t i o n s were chosen according t o p o s s i b l e experimentor requirements. The b a s i c Saturn V and the "orb j t a l core d e r i v a t i v e s " a r e presented only t o emphasize t h e v e r s a t i l i t y and u t i l i t y of the Saturn V a s an evolutionary base. This now permits us t o undertake t h e primary d i s c u s s i o n of t h e paper, i.e., Saturn V d e r i v a t i v e s a s an evolutionary launch vehicle sys tem concept

GUIDELINES F R DERIVATIVE CONCEPTS O The s p e c i f i c guidelines shown i n Figure 4 were used t o i d e n t i f y con igura tions p e c u l i a r t o the s t a t e d philosophy and r a t i o n a l e . Not only i s the Saturn V t h e means t o send American Astronauts t o the moon, i t i s a l s o a v e r s a t i l e machine t o l i f t g i g a n t i c . space s t a t i o n s i n t o e a r t h o r b i t o r t o launch instrument Laden spacecraft t o the p l a n e t s ; however, we must appreciate the n e c e s s i t y f o r no advanced program i n t e r f e r i n g with the timely execution of the n a t i o n a l l y committed Apollo p r o j e c t Therefore, a non-interf erence policy s e t s the i n i t i a l guideline of an assumed pos t-Apollo time frame f o r i n i t i a t i n g a Saturn d e r i v a t i v e program t o encompass the foreseeable 'payload spectrum. A 1 1 vehicles must meet Apollo design s p e c i f i c a t i o n s and r e l i a b i l i t y s t a n d a r d s , &ereby encompassing the spectrum of manned and unmanned f l i g h t s t o give the g r e a t e s t p o t e n t i a l mission f l e x i b i l i t y .

Saturn V Derivatives
#TERM D l A T E PAYLOAD R U S E UPRATED PAYLO4D RANGE

i
Fig. 5

- Saturn V deriva-

SAT

tive, payload flexibility and hardware utility

..&" DERIVATIVE DERIVATIVE (SIUS-IYBI S I D SIYGLE STAGE TO ORBIT

DERIVATIVE tStD/S IVBI

'3'' DERIVATIVE

CDvvOll CORE VlTM 2 OR 4

sau clan.IS-.

With t h e v a s t t e c h n o l o g i c a l a b i l i t i e s developed, i t i s o n l y f i t t i n g t o assume t h a t f o r d e r i v a t i v e concepts a l l hardware items and e n g i n e e r i n g techniques developed under p r e s e n t programs w i l l be u t i l i z i e d t o t h e maximum e x t e n t p e r m i s s i b l e . This philosophy extends t o a l l t e c h n i c a l and management a r e a s , i n c l u d i n g d e s i g n , f a b r i c a t i o n , assembly, t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , launch, and u t i l i z a t i o n of l i l a b l e manpower and funding resources. l-fieref o r e , one of t h e most important g u i d e l i n e s '-t h e maximum u s e of a v a i l a b l e equipment and aw-how, t h e r e b y i n s u r i n g e x p l o i t a t i o n of ' t h e Apollo investment. Because t h e S a t u r n V d e r i v a t i v e concepts, encompassing both upra t e d and dera t e d candidate v e h i c l e s , a r e under c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r planning purposes o n l y , t h e y do n o t r e e r e s e n t o r r e q u i r e approved hardware programs. This allows a v a r i e t y of concepts t o b e considered and evaluated a s possible candidates f o r the next genera t i o n of S a t u r n launch v e h i c l e s .

'

SATURN V DERIVATIVE FAMILY Two of t h e major problems f a c i n g space program p l a n n e r s a r e (1) t h e payload gap between S a t u r n I B and S a t u r n V low e a r t h o r b i t c a p a b i l i t i e s , and (2) t h e probable requirement f o r a c a p a b i l i t y beyond t h a t of Saturn V f o r t h e more ambitious manned p l a n e t a r y programs of t h e f u t u r e . Cost a n a l y s e s have i n d i c a t e d t h a t o n l y .a s i n g l e , modest R&D expenditure i s r e q u i r e d ' t o implement t h e c o n f i g u r a t i o n s n e c e s s a r y t o encompass t h i s payload spectrum w i t h a S a t u r n V e v o l u t i o n a r y v e h i c l e family. is s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e program planner would zn have t h e f l e x i b i l i t y of s e l e c t i n g the v e h i c l e t h a t matches each of the numerous yloads which could m a t e r i a l i z e i n t h i s nge i n a most c o s t - e f f e c t i v e marine?. This b e i n g t h e c a s e , t h e concept of a S a t u r n V d e r i v a t i v e f l e e t of v e h i c l e s is evolved t o

...

serve as a possible solution t o the space program planners I predicament. The S a t u r n V d e r i v a f i v e concepts t h a t demonstrate t h e payload f l e x i b i l i t y and h a r d w a r e u t i l i t y of proven systems a r e presented i n F i g u r e 5. These launch v e h i c l e s can s u c c e s s f u l l y s u p p o r t both plane'tary m i s s ions and e a r t h o r b i t a l m i s s ions f o r t h e payload ranges i n d i c a t e d , These f u t u r e c o n f i g u r a t i o n s a r e a r r a n g e d chronologically with respect t o a v a i l a b i l i t y d a t e s and could e s s e n t i a l l y be d i v i d e d i n t o the following c a t e g o r i e s : (1) The near-term "A1' d e r i v a t i v e comprised of Saturn f i r s t and t h i r d s t a g e s ; and (2) t h e f a r - term d e r i v a t i v e s I%'', "Cll and 'Dl' comprised of a lengthened and strengthened S a t u r n v common c o r e w i t h o r w i t h o u t s o l i d p r o p e l l a n t r o c k e t motor s t r a p - o n s and accompanying c o r e d e r i v a t i v e s a s i n d i c a t e d . The economic cormnon c o r e concept i s dependent upon a requirement f o r u p r a t i n g t h e p r e s e n t S a t u r n c a p a b i l i t i e s ; whereas, the n e a r e r - t e r m I I I' A d e r i v a t i v e i s independently a v a i l a b l e by combining e x i s t i n g s ys terns without l a r g e R&L) expenditures. When t h e d e c i s i o n i s made t o u p r a t e t h e p r e s e n t Saturn V f a m i l y , one d e r i v a t i v e t h a t should be given c a r e f u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n is .the S-ID s i n g l e s t a g e t o o r b i t . This d e r i v ' a t i v e , designated I % " , i s a s t a g e and one-ha.lf v e r s i o n of t h e . p r e s e n t S-IC s t a g e and would become, t h e f i r s t s t a g e i n a n e f f e c t i v e and economical assembly of upper s t a g e s of the e v o l u t i o n a r y S a t u r n family. These two- and t h r e e - s t a g e v e h i c l e s would form a n impressive f a m i l y o f v e h i c l e s t h a t range from t h e S-LD w i t h its s t a g e d t h r u s t s t r u c t u r e t o the t h r e e - s t a g e (S-IDIS-111s-IVB) v e h i c l e w i t h s o l i d r d c k e t motors - f o r a u x i l i a r y b o o s t e r t h r u s t . Only low e a r t h o r b i t (LEO) payload c a p a b i l i t i e s a r e p o r t r a y e d by t h e payload b a r s adjacent to the d e r i v a t i v e vehicles f o r t h e 100-n. m i . c i r c u l a r o r b i t . Synchronous equat o r i a l o r b i t (SEO) and e a r t h g r a v i t a t i o n a l escape c a p a b i l i t i e s w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n

---

---

LL~

. R; D.

Scott and W. L . Corcoran

'

detai_l w i t h t h e major c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of each d e r i v a t i v e . Incremental payload f l e x i b i l i t y i s achieved by v a r y i n g t h e number of s t a g e engines o r SRM s t r a p - o n s The economical g a i n s achieved by s imultaneous l y developing t h e e n t i r e f l e e t of v e h i c l e s a r e s i g n i f i c a n t . The combined development of t h e v e h i c l e f a m i l y n o t only provides payload f l e x i b i l i t y and more r e l i a b l e v e h i c l e s , b u t a l s o reduces t h e development c o s t by a l m o s t 40 p e r c e n t from t h a t r e q u i r e d t o develop such v e h i c l e s s e p a r a t e l y . This l a r g e economy r e s u l t s from reduced DDT&E c o s t s and fewer R&D f l i g h t s because of v e h i c l e element commonality. The d e s i g n commonality and impact a s p e c t s of common c o r e f l e e t . development w i l l be p r e s e n t e d l a t e r i n Figure 13.

PAYLOADS

LEO 132,000 SEO 15,000 ESCAPE 32,000

MAJOR CHARACTERISTICS

STANDARD SATURN V STAGES WITH MINOR ADAPTIONS CENTER F-1 ENGINE REMOVED WITH 2-2 SHUTDOWN SEQUENCE.
AVAILABILITY

EAD 12 MONTHS AFTER ATP

Fig. 6

- "A" derivative (S-IC/S-IVB)

The most d i r e c t approach t o providing a low-cos t , low-risk, n e a r - t e r m i n t e r m e d i a t e payload launch c a p a b i l i t y i s t o combine t h e f i r s t and t h i r d s t a g e s of t h e S a t u r n V. The . r e s u l t i n g S-IC/S-IVB v e h i c l e i s shown i n F i g u r e 6. This *'AA" d e r i v a t i v e v e h i c l e Can be b u i l t by a d a p t i n g e x i s t i n g equipment and i s p a r t i c u l a r l y v e r s a t i l e because i t c a n be t a i l o r e d f o r a range o f payload c a p a b i l i t i e s . This t a i l o r i n g is accomplished by i n s t a l l i n g o n l y those F-1 Gngines t h a t a r e r e q u i r e d t o meet m i s s i o n demands and by v a r y i n g t h e f i r s t s t a g e p r o p e l l a n t loading t o match launch t h r u s t - to-weight requirements. Four f e a s i b l e v e h i c l e s a r e t h u s o b t a i n e d . The 100-n, m i . o r b i t payload r a n g e a v a i l a b l e f o r t h e f o u r F-1 engine c o n f i g u r a t i o n i n d i c a t e s a maximum LEO c a p a b i l i t y of 132,000 pounds when o p e r a t i n g w i t h i n t h e p r e s e n t 4.68-g d e s i g n a c c e l e r a t i o n l i m i t of t h e S a t u r n V. With minor changes i n t h e S-IC and S-IVB p r o p e l l a n t t a n k a f t bulkheads a n i n c r e a s e in t h e a c c e l e r a t i o n limi't t o 6.0 g can be achieved, r e s u l t i n g i n l a r g e r payload v a l u e s up t o 158,000 pounds i n LEO. SEO and escape c a p a b i l i t i e s of 15,000 and 32,000 pounds, r e s p e c t i v e l y , a r e shown The nominal payload c a p a b i l i t i e s obtained u s i n g v a r i o u s engine combinations f o r a 100-n. m i . c i r c u l a r e a r t h o r b i t mission launched due e a s t from ,KSC a r e shown i n t h e following table :

No. of F-1 on S-IC

~dceleration Limit

The m o d i f i c a t i o n k i t i s comprised of cover p l a t e s , s e a l s , plugs, c a p s , h e a t s h i e l d p a n e l s , s u p p o r t , and e l e c t r i c a l and plumbing a d a p t e r s . Cover p l a t e s and s e a l s c l o s e t h e LOX. and f u e l bulkheads where l i n e s a r e removed. Heat s h i e l d panels a r e i n s t a l l e d where engines have been removed. It-should be noted t h $ t t h e S-IC s t a g e a d a p t a t i o n s a r e r e v e r s i b l e ; t h a t is, a Saturn V c o n f i g u r a t i o n can be o b t a i n e d . by r e v e r s i n g t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n procedure. The changes t o t h e S-ITJB s t a g e a r e even simpler. A c a b l i n g a d a p t e r i s needed between t h e S-IC c a b l e i n t e r f a c e and t h e S-IVB c a b l e i n t e r f a c e ; and t h e number, s i z e , and l o c a t i o n of b o l t holes i n the a f t i n t e r f a c e frame must be changed t o correspond w i t h t h e S-IC forward i n t e r f a c e frame b o l t h o l e p a t t e r n . The Instrument U n i t w i l l r e q u i r e minor i n t e r n a l changes f o r a l l i n t e r m e d i a r e v e h i c l e applications These changes i n c l u d e reprogramming the launch v e h i c l e d i g i t a l computer and changing t h e gains i n t h e f l i g h t c o n t r o l computer. For t h e "A1' D e r i v a t i v e i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g u r e 6, t h e c e n t e r F-1 engine i s removed from the S-IC s t a g e t o remain w i t h i n e x i s t i n g d e s i g n t o l e r a n c e s and a 2-2 engine shutdown Two F-1 engines w i l l sequence is programed. t h e r e f o r e experience a 61-second extended o p e r a t i o n over p r e s e n t S a t u r n V burntime. Extended burntime i s n o t a problem, b u t would r e q u i r e demonstration. The e a r L i e s t a v a i l a b i l i t y d a t e (EAD) f o r d e l i v e r y of t h e i n i t i a l o p e r a t i o n a l u n i t i s 12 months a f t e r t h e a u t h o r i t y t o proceed (ATP) d a t e , which follows a complete program d e f i n i t i o n phase.

1%11

DERIVATIVE

(s-m)*

The e x i s t i n g S a t u r n V s t a g e s - can b e e a s i l y a d a p t e d t o t h e S-IC/S-IVB c o n f i g u r a t i o n . The S-IC s t a g e i s adapted by removing (or n o t i n s t a l l i n g ) one o r more of t h e F - 1 engines and a s s o c i a t e d components. Lsls t a l l a t i o n of a m o d i f i c a t i o n k i t w i l l complete t h e a d a p t a t i o n .

A stage-and-one-half t o o r b i t v e r s i o n of t h e S-IC, shown i n Figures .7 and 8 and designated S-ID, is worthy of cons i d e r a t i o n

*The S-ID s i n g l e stage' t o o r b i t concept r e s u l t e d from a Boeing Company in-house study.

Saturn V Derivatives

Fig. 7

- S-ID single s t a g e to orbit

PAY LOAD

1u-

O PAYLOAD LEO 50,030

6 hlAJOR CHARACTERlSTICS
S-IC STAGE WITH JEITISONA5l.E THRUST STRUCNRE GIMBAL CENTER SUSTAIKER ENGINE WITH EXTENDED BURN TIME OUTBOARD ENG~RES AND STRUCTURE STAGED AT 7CV7 PROPELLANT DEPLETION.

LID

8 AVAlLABltlTY

Fig. 8

- "B"

derivative

(S-IDsinglestage t o orbit)

s i n c e i t could e f f i c i e n t l y round o u t t h e f l e x i b i l i t y of t h e S a t u r n V system i n t h e 50,000 pound payload range. The S-Dl e n g i n e s t a g i n g c?ncep.t o p e r a t e s by dropping f o u r engines and t h e t h r u s t s t r u c t u r e c y l i n d e r . The p r e s e n t S-IC t h r u s t s t r u c t u r e c e n t e r e n g i n e s u p p o r t c r o s s beam i s e l i m i n a t e d f o r t h e S-ID concept e x c e p t f o r a s m a l l c r u c i f o r m n e a r t h e i n b ~ a r dengine. A c y l i n d e r i s .used t o a d a p t t h e remaining c r o s s beam t o a c o n i c a l s u p p o r t which t r a n s f e r s r e n t e r ' e n g i n e loads t o t h e s t a g e c y l i n d r i c a l 3 1 1 . . T h i s e f . f e c t i v e l y s e p a r a t e s t h e inboard e n g i n e from t h e f o u r . outboard - engines and ' h e i r s u p p o r t i n g s t r u c t u r e . At approximately p e r c e n t of p r o p e l l a n t d e p l e t i o n t h e four outboard e n g i n e s a r e shut. down and t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e preva l v e s c l o s e , s e a l i n g t h e lox

and f u e l d u c t s from t h e engines. On s e p a r a t i o n command, t h e t h r u s t s t r u c t u r e i s separated a t t h e forward t h r u s t r i n g p e r m i t t i n g the fourengine pod t o f a l l away from t h e mainstage and i t s s i n g l e F-1 s u s t a i n e r engine, LEO payload of 50,000 pounds is obtained w i t h a s t a n d a r d S-IC s t a g e length of 138 f e e t ; however, i t should be nored t h a t a n i n c r e a s e i n s t a g e l e n g t h , dependent upon t h e p r o p e l l a n t c a p a c i t y r e q u i r e d f o r the s e l e c t e d u p r a t i n g s t e p , w i l l s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n c r e a s e this c a p a b i l i t y . For example, a 20-foot extension r e s u l t s i n t o t a l l i f t - o f f weight of 6.01 m i l l i o n pounds,including t h e S-IC p r o p e l l a n t weight of 5.60 m i l l i o n pounds. With a t h r u s t to-weight r a t i o a t l i f t - o f f of 1.266, t h i s - v e h i c l e can p l a c e i n LEO a payload .weighing 65,000 pounds. The c e n t e r F-1 e n g i n e t h a t is used t o achieve o r b i t , a f t e r t h e four outboard F-1 engines and t h r u s t s t r u c r u r e a r e staged , must have an extended o p e r a t i o n a l d u r a t i o n of 192 seconds, over t h a t of S a t u r n V, f o r the s t a n d a r d l e n g t h S-IC and 217 seconds f o r t h e 20-00 t-extended-length S-IC. Extended burntime i s n o t considered t o be a problem, b u t would r e q u i r e demonstration. The e a r l i e s t a v a i l a b i l i t y d a t e f o r t h i s c o n f i g u r a t i o n i s 36 months a f t e r ATP. This schedule i s paced b y d e s i g n , manufacture, and t e s t of t h e n e c e s s a r y t e s t s t a g e s -and components. Brief s t u d i e s i n d i c a t e t h a t recovery of the t h r u s t s t r u c t u r e and engines is f e a s i b l e . The four outboard e n g i n e s and t h r u s t s t r u c t u r e , when s e p a r a t e d , r e p r e s e n t a package of highc o s t items. Moreover, s i n c e the payload-toi n e r t - w e i g h t r a t i o of r h e one-half s t a g e is on t h e o r d e r of 1 t o 10 ( 1 l b payload l o s s t o 10 l b i n e r t weight added), necessary recovery equipment may be added w i t h minimum payload d e g r a d a t i o n . However, f o r purposes of t h i s paper, no c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s given to t h e economics of r e c o v e r y concepts,

R. D. Scott and W. L. Corcoran

of reference, t h e e q u i v a l e n t a e r g y l e v e l required f o r s e v e r a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e missions is indicated a t t h e top of the f i g u r e . The mission p r o f i l e used i n achieving t h e high-energy missions assunes d i r e c t a s c e n t t o a 100-n. m i . c i r c u l a r parking o r b i t w i t h r e s t a r t of t h e S-IVB s t a g e t o i n j e c t t h e payload t o t h e various energy l e v e l s (C3). The dashed l i n e s i n d i c a t e t h e a d d i t i o n a l performance expected with a Centaur s t a g e i n t e g r a t e d i n t o conf i g u r a t t o n s a s an additions 1 propulsive stage. A concept showing how, t h e Centaur might b e i n t e g r a t e d within the Saturn LEM Adapter (SLA) p o r t i o n is displayed i n the c o n f i g u r a t i o n "blow up" t o t h e r i g h t of t h e performance plots. The "A" d e r i v a t i v e e f f e c t i v e l y f i l l s t h e intermediate payload regime (20,000 l b ) f o r t h e lower-snergy missions t o Mars and Venus. A Centaur v e r s i o n , designated '!AA"/ Centaur on t h e graph (Figure l o ) , can extend t h e payload i n j e c t i o n c a p a b i l i t y t o t h e more demanding energy l e v e l s (C-j = 150 km2/sec2) and become competitive w i t h the Saturn V. The "C" d e r i v a t i v e i n c r e a s e s the Mars/Venus type payload c a p a b i l i t y , a s coinpared with "A", by approximately 50 percent. In order t o f u l l y appreciate the capab i l i t i e s of t h e d e r i v a t i v e vehicles, t h e Saturn V and Saturn VICentaur performance .has been included on t h e chart. Depending upon t h e requirements, i.e., l a r g e r payloads, s h o r t e r t r i p times, etc., t h e Saturn V d e r i v a t i v e s and Saturn V/Centaur can encompass t h e t o t a l pay load and energy spectrum.
I'D D"

PAROADS

-LEO 180,000 SEO 28,000 ESCAPE 45.031

MAJOR CHARACTERISTICS
STANDARD S-IVB UPPER STAGE S-IC STAGE WITH JETlISONABCE THRUST STRUCTURE. CENTER F - I SUSTAINER ENGINE. AVAlLABlLllY EAD 36 hlONTHS AFTER ATP

Fig. 9

- "C" derivative (S-ID/S-IVB)

"Cfl DERIVATIVE (S-ID /S-IVBf An a d d i t i o n a l degree of f l e x i b i l i t y accrues t o t h e Saturn V d e r i v a t i v e v e h i c l e system i n t h e intermediate payload range-when t h e S-IC s t a g e i s replaced by t h e S-ID s t a g e d on t h e "AA" e r i v a t i v e (S-IC/S-IVB) launch v e h i c l e , a s i n d i c a t e d i n Figure 9. The payload i n c r e a s e and f l e x i b i l i t y of such a n arrangement was demonstrated i n Figure 5. The concept mist be used on configurations with e i t h e r three o r f i v e F-1 engines, s i n c e t h e c e n t e r engine i s r e q u i r e d a s a s u s t a i n e r - f t e r s t a g i n g t h e outboard engines and t h r u s t t r u c t u r e . Note t h a t t h e 180,000-pound c a p a b i l i t y of the f i v e F-1 engine v e h i c l e i s pproaching t h e 275,000-pound range of the NO-s a g e Saturn V. The SEO of 28,000 pounds t achieved without t h e u s e of a t h i r d s t a g e , e.g., Centaur, is s i g n i f i c a n t . This d e r i v a t i v e a l s o i n j e c t s 46,000 pounds t o a lunar t r a n s f e r trajectory. The major c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h i s d e r i v a t i v e v e h i c l e a r e t h e u t i l i z a t i o n of t h e standard S-IVEi upper s t a g e of t h e Saturn V with minor adaptations and t h e S-IC s t a g e with t h e j e t t i s o n a b l e t h r u s t s t r u c t u r e . The c e n t e r F-1 engine i s once again used a s t h e s u s t a i n e r engine a f t e r s t a g i n g and i s r e q u i r e d t o burn approximately 190 seconds longer than- t h e p r e s e n t Saturn V engines. The e a r l i e s t a v a i l a b i l i t y d a t e f o r an o p e r a t i o n a l "C" d e r i v a t i v e , paced by the S-ID s t a g e development, i s 36 months a f t e r ATP.

DERIVATIVE

THE UPRATING STEP

'!A" AND '%" P E ~ O R M A N C E CONPARISON It is Tnteres t i n g t o compare t h e highenergy performance c a p a b i l i t i e s of d e r i v a t i v e s I t I! A and '%". Figure 10 shows t h e increased high-energy mission payload c a p a b i l i t y of a f i v e F-1' engine "C" d e r i v a t i v e (s-ID/S-IVB) compared w i t h . t h e f o u r F-1 engine "AA" - * r i v a t i v e (S-IC/S-IVB). The d i f f e r e n c e betweeri these vehicles is t h e a b i l i t y of t h e :" v e h i c l e t o s t a g e the t h r u s t s t r u c t u r e d i t h t h e f o u r outboard engines. As a p o i n t

The u l t i m a t e i n Saturn V evolutionary concepts, with r e s p e c t t o f l e x i b i l i t y and c a p a b i l i t y , i s achieved when some f u t u r e requirement d i c t a t e s development of the '9" d e r i v a t i v e shown i n Figure 1 . This v e h i c l e 1 f a l l s i n t o a category i d e n t i f i e d by the authors a s the u p r a t i n g s t e p . It w i l l come about when more ambitious missions a r e undertaken o r when e x i s t i n g programs d e s i r e s i z e a b l e expans ion. Theref o r e , t h e forcing functions w i l l be a requirement f o r a ground-fitted lunar base, manned p l a n e t a r y m h s i o n s , nuclear module f l i g h t s and/or o t h e r forecasted r e q u i r e men ts The u p r a t i n g s t e p should be viewed i n terms of using evolutionary systems development with emphasis on incorporating t h e following design goals i n t o t h e '9" d e r i v a t i v e design: The core 1. Maximum payload envelope s t a g e s should be designed t o a 33-foot-diameter pay load, with maximum v e h i c l e height a t t a i n a b l e under reasonable launch f a c i l i t y c o n s t r a i n t s 2. A common c o r e should be introduced t o encompass t h e previously discussed d e r i v a t i v e s IQII IICII The v e r s a t i l i t y of 0 , 2 , and 4 S M s trap-ons should b e incorporated t o R provide payload/cos t f l e x i b i l i t y . The e f f e c t of the S-ID a p p l i c a t i o n must be considered

--

saturn V Derivatives

27

(idt u
YETPAYLOAD

HYPERBOLIC EXCESS SPEED SQUARED

C~(K~%-?

Fig. 1 0 - Derivative "A" and "C" performance comparison

PAY-LOAD S l V B FOR HIGH ENERGY MISSIONS LUNAR BASE

s

LEO.
CORE 144.000
W W W

(Two STAGE) IU

q I

NUCLEAR MODULES PLANETARY LANDING

IM" SRM 380.000

1%" SRM 495,000

160" SRM 7IC 004

MAJOR CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON DESIGN GOALS COMMOMCORECOMCEPT. CORE VEHICLE ALONEOR WITH TWOOR FOUR SRM AS REQUIRED FOR THRUST AUGMEMTATION EMCOMP&SSES DERIVATIVES ''A" "8" AND " C

SRU

S.IC ONLY STACE WITW IMCREASEO PROPELLANT CAPACITY.

'o AVAILABILITY

(COMMON OR INDEPENDENT DEVELOPMENT)

Fig. 1 llD1l derivative, 1 the uprating step

EAO 40 MONTHS A F T E R A T P

when m o d i f i c a t i o n s a r e i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e . common c o r e elements. 3; The payload i n c r e a s e o v e r t h e p r e s e n t S a t u r n V c a p a b i l i t y should b e l a r g e . MSFC c o n t r a c t e d and in-house s t u d i d s have demonstrated t h e f e a s i b i l i t y of u p r a t i n g t h e S a t u r n V v e h i c l e by u s i n g s o l i d r o c k e t motor (SRM) s t r a p - o n s f o r b o o s t a s s i s t . The

s i g n i f i c a n t LEO c a p a b i l i t i e s i n d i c a t e d i n F i g u r e 11 a r e a c h i e v a b l e w i t h moderate changes t o t h e s t a n d a r d v e h i c l e , c o n s i s t i n g of a lengthened f i r s t s t a g e , s t r u c t u r a l s t r e n g t h e n i n g of a l l s t a g e s , and attachments f o r t h e SRMs. The tremendous c a p a b i l i t y of t h e s e c o n f i g u r a t i o n s (using a t h r e e - s t a g e c o r e ) i s a p p r e c i a t e d when one c o n s i d e r s a payload of 190,000 pounds -

R . D. Scott and W . L . Corcoran

CORE ENGINES

CORE LENGTH (PROPELLANT

100

"

I
0

'. ..
\
\

\ \

100

200

400 500 600 700 1 N M PAYLOAD WEIGHT 1CCQ LBS W

300

800

900

1MX)

Fig. 12 - Launch vehicle/payload matching c h a r t , uprated Saturn V 2-stage ("D" derivative with SRM) Ref. 10
F i g u r e 12 then r e p r e s e n t s a map of t h e t o t a l s p e c t r u n of S a t u r n V u p r a t i n g u s i n g s t r a p - o n s o l i d r o c k e t motoys. Many s p e c i f i c p o i n t s on t h i s map have been s t u d i e d i n d e t a i l by s t a g e c o n t r a c t o r s under MSFC c o n t r a c t s ; however, t h e f e a s i b i l i t y of an u p r a t i n g program u t i l i z i n g a common c o r e and minimizing lauzch f a c i l i t i e s impacts ( e v o l u t i o n a r y systems development) has n o t been f u l l y explored. I f t h e f l e e t of S a t u r n V e v o l u t i o n a r y launch v e h i c l e s u t i l i z i n g common c o r e elements i s determined f e a s i b l e , then t h i s f l e e t , i t s launch f a c i l i t y r e q u i r e m e n t s , m i s s i o n a p p l i c a t i o n s , and t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n s should be studied a s an integrated a c t i v i t y . The second d e s i g n g o a l - a common c o r e would open t h e door t o t h e e v o l u t i o n a r y combined development of a f a m i l y of d e r i v a t i v e v e h i c l e . For upra t e d v e h i c l e s , a n e v o l u t i o n a r y system development should be used where a l l d e r i v a t i v e v e h i c l e s of t h e f a m i l y a r e designed and developed s i m u l t a n e o u s l y t o w i t h s t a n d t h e most demanding m i s s i o n requirements f o r e c a s t e d . The e n t i r e f a m i l y i s designed t o u s e common s t a g e s . With t h e e v o l u t i o n a r y development approach, t h e b a s e l i n e v e h i c l e should be a strengthened Saturn V core with increased p r o p e l l a n t c a p a c i t y and f o u r s t r a p - o n motors f o r boost a s s i s t . The S-ID s i n g l e - s t a g e - t o o r b i t mode of o p e r a t i o n f o r t h e f i r s t s t a g e ("B" d e r i v a t i v e ) would be i n c o r p o r a t e d simultaneously with the core uprating t o i n c r e a s e t h e launch system f l e x i b i l i t y . The e v o l u t i o n a r y d e r i v a t i v e f l e e t would c o n s i s t of t h e S-ID s i n g l e - s t a g e - t c - o r b i t v e h i c l e , and S-ID/s-IVB, t h e common c o r e (two and t h r e e ) s t a g e v e h i c l e , and t h e common c o r e w i t h two and f o u r s t r a p - o n s o l i d r o c k e t motors. The payload r a n g e of such a f l e e t could extend from 50,000 pounds t o over 700,000 pounds t o ' low e a r t h o r b i t , depending upon t h e d e g r e e of uprating required. I n j e c t i o n s t a g e s could be used w i t h t h e d e r i v a t i v e v e h i c l e s t o i n c r e a s e t h e i r high-energy payload c a p a b i l i t y . -The t h i r d d e s i g n g o a l - a l a r g e payload i n c r e a s e - must be tempered somewhat t o s a t i s f y the other design objectives. A r e c e n t l y completed s t u d y i n d i c a t e d t h e

i n j e c t e d i n t o a 72 hour l u n a r t r a n s f e r t r a j e c t o r y b y t h e v e h i c l e w i t h f o u r 3-segment 156-inchd i a m e t e r S M s trap-ons R The f i r s t d e s i g n g o a l - maximum payload envelope - should be given c a r e f u l cons i d e r a t i o n . T r a d e - o f f s between t h e launch v e h i c l e payload weight.and l e n g t h c o n s t r a i n t s f o r t h e u p r a t e d two-stage S a t u r n V a r e shown on t h e launch v e h i c l e / p a y l o a d matching c h a r t i n F i g u r e 12. The d a t a a r e based on m a i n t a i n i n g a t o t a l v e h i c l e h e i g h t of 410 f e e t imposed by t h e KSC VAB r e s t r a i n t . The a l l o w a b l e u p r a t e d S a t u r n V payload l e n g t h c a p a b i l i t y i s p l o t t e d a s a f u n c t i o n of payload c a p a b i l i t y obtained w i t h s t r a p - o n s o l i d r o c k e t motor (SRM) s i z e and core vehicle propellant capacity. I f the core vehicle length is n o t increased f o r the u p r a t i n g s t e p , 192 f e e t a r e a v a i l a b l e For payload w i t h o u t exceeding t h e 410-foot l i m i t of t h e VAB. Payload t o t h e r i g h t of t h e twos t a g e S a t u r n V p o i n t r e s u l t s from i n c r e a s e d S M p r o p e l l a n t weight w i t h two o r f o u r 120R i n c h , 156-inch or'260-inch-diameter s t r a p - o n s o l i d r o c k e t motors. Other p o i n t s on t h e l i n e would r e p r e s e n t d e s i g n v a r i a t i o n s i n S M R c o n f i g u r a t i o n parameters such a s burntime. For a n y s t r a p - o n motor w e i g h t , t h e payload can be i n c r e a s e d by i n c r e a s i n g b a s i c S a t u r n V o r common c o r e p r o p e l l a n t c a p a c i t y . For example, when f o u r 120-inch-diameter SRMs a r e s t r a p p e d on t o t h e c o r e v e h i c l e , t h e payload weight can be f u r t h e r i n c r e a s e d by adding c o r e l e n g t h up t o 42 f e e t where a c o n s t r a i n e d optimum occurs. Any a d d i t i o n a l c o r e l e n g t h beyond t h a t p o i n t would show no i n c r e a s e i n payload. The locus of t h e s e optimums f o r each S M forms t h e lower boundary of t h e R enclosed a r e a . Payload c a p a b i l i t y of t h e v e h i c l e can be f u r t h e r i n c r e a s e d by u p r a t i n g t h e l i q u i d e n g i n e ( s ) i n t h e c o m o n c o r e v e h i c l e . The dashed l i n e s shown on t h e c h a r t r e p r e s e n t payload c a p a b i l i t y w i t h 1.8-million-pound-thrust F-1 engines i n t h e S-IC f i r s t s t a g e and J - 2 s engines i n t h e S - I 1 second s t a g e . The a r e a between t h e dashed and t h e s o l i d l i n e s f o r a given S M s t r a p - o n weight r e p r e s e n t s p a r t i a l R core engine uprating.

Saturn V Derivatives

29

DESISN IMPACT

DESIGN SUSTAINER ENGINE THRUST STRUCTURE AND T V C SY4TEM DESIGN SEPARATION SYSTEM FOR FOUR ENGINE POD

FACILITY IMPACT

s MODIFY MOBILE L A U N C H E R AND M O B I L E SERVICE STRUCTURE FOR SINGLE STAGE

DESIGN SUSTAINER ENGINE THRUST STRUCTURE A N D T V C SYSTEM DESIGN SEPARATION SYSTEM FOR FOUR ENGINE POD MINOR ADAPTIONS T O S.ID 6 S-IVB STAGES MODIFY MOBILE LAUNCHER A N 0 MOB!LE SERVICE STRUCTURE FOR VEHICLE LEHGTH

SFPARATE DEVELOPMENT

L E N G T H E N AND STRENGTHEN STRUCTURE

,
e L E N G T H E 4 AND STRENGTHEN STRUCTURE D E S I G N SOLID R O C K E T MOTORS ATTACHMENT

LENGTHEN AND STRENGTHEN STRUCTURE

LENI,TYEN AND STRENGTHEN STRUCTURE l GESIGN SOLID ROCKET MOTORS ATTACHMENT l D E V E L D P IMLSRM'S

MODIFY MOBILE LAUNCHER AND MOBILE SERVICE STRUCTURE FOR LONGER V E H I C L E

MOOIFY MOBILE LAUNCHER AND MOBILE SERVICE STRUCTURE FOR LONGER VEHICLE

MODIFY MOBILE L A U N C H E R AND MOBILE SERVICE STRUCTURE FOR LONGER VEHICLE

MODIFY L\OBILE LAUNCHER AND MOBI-E SERVICE STRUCTURE FOR LONGER VEHICLE AMD A T T A C H E D

T V C SYSTEM SYSTEM FOR FOUR ENGlHE P O 0 LENGTHEN AND STRENGTHEN STRUCTURE DESIGN SOLID ROCKET MOTORS ATTACHMENT lDEVE-OP SRM I F FACILITY IMPACT

Fig. 13

--

I UNIVERSAL MOBILE LAUNCHER UNIVERSAL MOBILE SERVICE STRUCTURE <OUBlNED DYNAMIC TEST COMBINED STRUCTURAL TESTS

. -

7 PROCESSIHG

NEW MOBILE ERECTION 6 STRUCTURE

- Vehicle design commonality and impact

concept, t h e e a r l i e s t a v a i l a b i l i t y d a t e is 40 months a f t e r ATP d a t e .

f e a s i b i l i t y o f i n c r e a s i n g t h e S a t u r n V capab i l i t y b y u s i n g f o u r s t r a p - o n 260-inch-diameter s o l i d r o c k e t motors, both i n a z e r o - s t a g e and boos t - a s s is t mode ; however, t h e s t u d y f u r t h e r emphasized t h e requirements f o r l a r g e launch f a c i l i t y and v e h i c l e impacts. Manned i n t e r p l a n e t a r y mission s t d d i e s have i n d i c a t e d a LEO payload requirement i n t h e 500,000-pound range. This c a p a b i l i t y i s demonstrated i n F i g u r e 12 a s b e i n g a c h i e v a b l e by a S a t u r n V w i t h o r w i t h o u t i n c r e a s e d p r o p e l l a n t c a p a c i t y p l u s f o u r 156-inch-diameter s trap-on SRMs This requirement, in conjunction w i t h t h e minimal launch f a c i l i t y and Vehicle impact a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e common c o r e d e s i g n concept f o r u p r a t i n g t o t h i s payload range, s u p p l i e s t h e r a t i o n a l e f o r n o t extending Saturn V derivatives past the presently p r o j e c t e d requirements. I f t h e " D l ' d e r i v a t i v e development i s approached with' t h e s e d e s i g n g o a l s i n mind, a n "open-ended" e v o l u t i o n a r y f l e e t of f u t u r e v e h i c l e s can b e developed f o r minimum t o t a l program c o s t . Whether t h e above u p r a t e d c o n f i g u r a t i o n i s developed independently o r a s i n t h e p r e f e r r e d e v o l u t i o n a r y comon c o r e

DESIGN COMMONALITY AND INFACT SUMNARY

Figure 13 summarizes t h e v e h i c l e and f a c i l i t i e s d e s i g n commonality and impact. The c h a r t i s arranged i n terms of s e p a r a t e systems development (upper h a l f ) and combined o r common systems development (lower h a l f ) , w i t h each of t h e d e r i v a t i v e v e h i c l e s occupying s e p a r a t e columns. Each d e r i v a t i v e v e h i c l e d i s p l a y s v a r y i n g degrees of d e s i g n and f a c i l i t y impact. The s i m i l a r i t y of impact t h a t e x i s t s throughout t h e v e h i c l e f l e e t should be noted. The connnonality a s p e c t s of t h e s e required modifications l e a d one t o pursue t h e common systems development. By developing common core stages t h a t r e f l e c t the derivative v e h i c l e - p e c u l i a r d e s i g n impacts, a s i n g l e common systems development can proceed t h a t encompasses t h e t o t a l e v o l u t i o n a r y f l e e t of v e h i c l e s . A s i m i l a r philosophy would b e pursued with r e s p e c t t o t h e f a c i l i t i e s . D e t a i l s f o r each v e h i c l e a r e given in t h e a p p r o p r i a t e column of t h e -chart.

30.

R.-D. Scott and W. L. Corcoran

year f o r t h e n e x t s e v e r a l y e a r s , t h e t o t a l c o s t d r i v i n g f a c t o r i s how many a d d i t i o a n l vehicles w i l l be launched. With t h e below . optimum Saturn V annual r a t e t h e l e a s t a d d i t i o n a l c o s t i s incurred by .adding Saturn V d e r i v a t i v e v e h i c l e s . This avoids additiona 1 annual f i x e d c o s t s a s would be incurred i f a non-related v e h i c l e were s e l e c t e d with s e p a r a t e below-optimum production f a c i l i t i e s and a s e p a r a t e below-optimum launch complex. I n b r i e f , pay one annual f i x e d production f a c i l i t y c o s t and one annual f i x e d launch complex c o s t , n o t two of each. E f f e c r i v e u s e of production and launch f a c i l i t i e s and personnel ensures very economical d e r i v a t i v e v e h i c l e s . The low production r a t e p e n a l t y f o r t h r e e Saturn Vs per year adds about 20 percent t o t h e hardware c o s t . I n c r e a s i n g t h e number of S-IC, S-I1 and S-IVB s t a g e s t o s i x per year eliminates production p e n a l i t i e s . Annual fixed costs f o r Saturn V production f a c i l i t i e s a r e incurred t o maintain t h e production c a p a b i l i t y . Therefore, f o r example, t h e S-IC/S-IVB vehicle praduction can be added through s i x per year t o t a l by paying only t h e a d d i t i o n a l r e c u r r i n g c o s t s Similar economy i s obtained i n launch c o s t s , i n t h a t Saturn V has paid t h e f i x e d annual c o s t and t h e S-IC/S-IVBs add o n l y t h e r e c u r r i n g c o s t s , i . e . , p r o p e l l a n t s and pad refurbishment. The Saturn V and d e r i v a t i v e v e h i c l e mix should be considered w i t h r e s p e c t t o r e l a t i v e t o t a l c o s t and t o t a l number of launches per year. Keeping w i t h i n t h e e s t a b l i s h e d baseline, t h e t o t a l c o s t s l o r t h e s i n g l e - and two-stage d e r i v a t i v e v e h i c l e s w i l l be incremental u n i t c o s t s a f t e r f i x e d annual c o s t s a r e absorbed by t h e three-s t a g e vehicles. When v e h i c l e s a r e upra ted OT when s e v e r a l new v e h i c l e s a r e added, t h e whole development should be done simultaneously. Considering t h e c o s t of DDTdE f o r t h e l a r g e s t vehicles a s u n i t y , each a d d i t i o n a l v e h i c l e D D T S w i l l add'about 10 percent t o t h e cost. The savings from combined s t r u c t u r a l t e s t s , f o r example, becomes q u i t e obvious. A major saving is obtained by proportioning t h e R&D f l i g h t s f o r t h e group of v e h i c l e s under simultaneous development, r a t h e r than s p e c i f y i n g R6d) f l i g h t s f o r each s e p a r a t e version. R e l a t i v e c o s t s of production u n i t s and v e h i c l e support a c t i v i t i e s a s a function of required t r a f f i c r a t e s a r e i l l u s t r a t e d in Figure 15. The l e f t c h a r t on production r a t e p e n a l t i e s demonstrates t h e u n i t c o s t increase t h a t r e s u l t s when t h e production r a t e decreases below optimum. A s p r e v i o u s l y s t a t e d , the production r a t e of s i x Saturn V v e h i c l e s p e r year is considered optimum. The example shows t h a t when the y e a r l y r a t e i n c r e a s e s by one v e h i c l e from 3 u n i t s / year t o 4 u n i t s / ~ e a r , t h e t o t a l c o s t increases by 8 0 percent of t h e optimum u n i t cost. Conv e r s e l y , when the r a t e decreases t h e penalty i s 20 percent of t h e 6/year u n i t cost. Vehicle support c o n s i s t s of operating t h e physical p l a n t , c o m u n i c a t i o n s , inspection,

SATURN V CONTINUOUS PROGRAM AT LESS THAN DESIGN OF61YR

ECONOM ADDITIONAL COSTS OF LEAST

@

EFFECTIVE USE OF FACILITIES AND PERSONNEL PRODUCTION PENALTIES

ANNUAL FIXED COSTS SATURN V AND DERIVATIVEVEHICLE M I X . LAUNCH RATE OF EACH VEHICLE CLASS

COSTS hlUST CONSIDER

WHEN UPRATING, DEVELOP AUMHICLES SIMULTANEOUSLY

Fig. 14 - The cost picture

THE COST PICTLTRF:

Many of t h e functions required t o produce and launch t h e Saturn V o r d e r i v a t i v e vehicles a r e fixed on an annual b a s i s (plant maintenance, e t c . ) o r fixed by t h e need t o complete a task i n a given time (launch crew s i z e , e t c . ). When t h e Saturn V production r a t e i s varied and when d e r i v a t i v e type vehicles a r e produced i n a d d i t i o n t o Saturn V ' s , the change i n u n i t c o s t must be appreciated. There i s no argument t o t h e economy of making a d d i t i o n a l use of Saturn V equipment and f a c i l i t i e s . For purposes of t h i s paper, we a r e n o t assuming any program f o r any d e f i n i t e period of time f o r determining c o s t s i n order t o amortize inves b e n t c o s t s over t h a t period. W a r e , i n s t e a d , a l l o c a t i n g e R&D c o s t s a s a p p l i c a b l e t o each d e r i v a t i v e configuration based on t h e economy of commonality i n design r e v i s i o n s . The magnitude of t h e payload c a p a b i l i t i e s f o r a l l candidates tends to discount t h e s l i g h t performance degradation s u f f e r e d f o r t h i s concept of openended development. The Saturn V and near-term d e r i v a t i v e m i x of v e h i c l e s w i l l u t i l i z e Saturn f a c i l i t i e s ; no a d d i t i o n a l launch f a c i l i t i e s a r e required f o r a. t r a f f i c r a t e of six o r l e s s d e r i v a t i v e v e h i c l e s per year. To provide a reasonable b a s i s f o r c o s t comparison of evolutionary d e r i v a t i v e s , we have e s t a b l i s h e d a b a s e l i n e program f o r d e l i v e r y and launch a t K C of t h r e e Saturn V vehicles S p e r year. This three-per-jear production r a t e i s based p a r t i a l l y on t h e January 11, 1967 PSAC Report which s t a t e s i n p a r t : "At l e a s t two Saturn V/Apollo s ys tems per year w i l l be required f o r cbntinued lunar exploration during t h e immediate post-Apollo period. W b e l i e v e a t h i r d e complete system should a l s o be b u i l t annually a s a backup, I' (Ref. 11) Total c o s t analyses must consider a l l t h e v e n i c l e s t o be produced and launched t o s a t i s f y t o t a l o b j e c t i v e s . Since c u r r e n t planning s t r o n g l y i n d i c a t e s the production and launch of some q u a n t i t y af Saturn V each s

........

Saturn V Derivatives
PRODUCTION RATE PEXALTY VfHlCLE SUPPORT

Fig. 1 5

- Cost factors
3 SATURN Vs
+

PRODUCTION RATE (UNITSIYEAR)

PRODUCTION RATE (UNITSIYEAR)

3 " A DERIVATIVES

'

ADDITIONAL " A VEHICLES

w
0 0
1

COST OF ONE ADDITIONAL SATURN V BENEFITS OF NEAR ?ERM DERIVATIVES VERY LOW R&D COST LOW RISK EARLY AVAILABILITY LOW RECURRING COST

Fig. 16

- Saturn V and "A"

derivative

1
. 2

.
3 4 5 - 6 7 TOTALNUMBER LAUNCHFS PFR YFAR OF

(s-IC/S-IVB) vefii~les, o t d cost oftypit cal 1 0 program

yr

t r a n s p o r t a t i o . n , s y s tem i n t e g r a t i o n , and t e s t complexes. Most of t h e s e c o s t s a r e i n c u r r e d a t an annual f i x e d r a t e . The annual f i x e d c o s t m a i n t a i n s t h e c a p a b i l i t y - t o produce and i s independent of production r a t e . Some c o s t s , such a s i n s p e c t i o n and s y s tem i n t e g r a t i o n t a s k s , a r e i n c u r r e d a s a f u n c t i o n of t h e q u a n t i t y of u n i t s produced. The r i g h t - h a n d c h a r t shows t h a t a f t e r t h e annual f i x e d c o s t i s i n c u r r e d f o r t h e S a t u r n V program, d e r i v a t i v e v e h i c l e s can be added f o r a s m a l l a d d i t i o n a l c o s t . For example, each a d d i t i o n a l v e h i c l e adds l e s s than f i v e p e r c e n t t o t h e t o t a l v e h i c l e s u p p o r t c o s t . Although n o t i n c l u d e d , launch c o s t s show a S i m i l a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c . The t o t a l c o s t v a r i a t i o n of a t y p i c a l t e n - y e a r program of S a t u r n V and "A" d e r i v a t i v e 'S-ICIS-IVB) v e h i c l e s is i l l u s t r a t e d i n . i g u r e 16. The d i f f e r e n t s l o p e s of t h e " A l l S a t u r n VII l i n e and t h e "Saturn V p l u s a number yf 'RA"v e h i c l e l i n e demonstrate t h i s v a r i a t i o n ~ i t h e h i c l e mix and t r a f f i c r a t e . The u n i t v c o s t of S a t u r n Vs d e c r e a s e s a s t h e launch r a t e increases. The c h a r t p r i m a r i l y shows t h a t f o r f o u r . o r fewer S a t u r n Vs per y e a r . a s u a n t i t v of

could be added c o s t . For example, with a Saturn Vs per y e a r , olve t o be added f o r a s i x - p e r c e n t f o r each S-IC/S-IVB. DEVELOPMENT OF THE FLEET

S-IC/S-IVBS

f o r small a d d i t i o n a l program o f t h r e e s i x S-IC/S-IVBs could increase i n cost

The Saturn V e v o l u t i o n a r y f a m i l y , w i t h development c o s t s f o r t h e u p r a t e d S a t u r n V d e r i v a t i v e s , i s depicted i n F i g u r e 17. The various s t a g e s a r e color coded t o emphasize the commonality a s p e c t s of t h e s e v e h i c l e s . The requirement f o r combined development becomes obvious when we s e e t h e u t i l i z a t i o n of common hardware throughout t h e e n t i r e family. The f i r s t s t a g e , now d e s i g n a t e d S-ID, i s common t o a l l c o n f i g u r a t i o n s and t h e upper s t a g e s of the t h r e e s t a g e '7)" common core a r e combined s e p a r a t e l y with t h i s s t a g e t o form t h e "C" and I'D" d e r i v a t i v e s . The S o l i d Rocket Motors a r e a l s o s t r a p p e d t o t h e S-ID s t a g e f o r t h r u s t augmentation w i t h a r e s u l t i n g s c a r weight from t h e s t r u c t u r a l attachments causing n e g l i g i b l e payload degradation i n t h e o t h e r a p p l i c a t i o n s .

R. D. Scott and W. L. Corcoran

5 ID 5 14
SATURN V DERIUATIVE VEMICLE
'r)" CORE

I-ID. 5.1115 I v B h R w
"0" CORE O STAGE) '9"

(2 STAGE
SEP4RATE DEVELOPMENT DDThE RhDFLlGHTS

.
OCTLE

COMSlNEO DEVELOPMENT (I60 FLIGHTS TOTAL

TOTAL

Fig. 1 7 Development c o s t . f o r uprated Saturn V and d e ~ ivatives

UDRlVI S-ID
TOTAL

-.
as 1.13

.15

.I5

&
t . ~

-.IS

. 1

33

.M

.I1

2.w

m u

.of I*

R8
1.46

PZ

DERIVATIVE "0" (S-IDIS-I I I S - I V B I S RM)

"D"

CORE

3 STAGE

"D" CORE 2 STAGE

"C' 6 - 1 WS-IVBI

"0" (5-101

NOTE: INCREhlENTAL COSTS FOR 1 AND 2 STAGE VEHICLES AFTER 3 STAGE VEHICLES INCUR T E H FIXED COSTS.

Fig. 18 Operational cost comparison of Saturn V derivative vehicles

.-

The combined' development o f a f a m i l y of s i m i l a r launch v e h i c l e s i s more economica 1 i n many r e s p e c t s than s e p a r a t e developments. Econotily i s o b t a i n e d p r i m a r i l y by u n i f i e d DDT&E, fewer R&D f l i g h t s , and c o m o n a l i t y of hardware. When developing t h e e v o l u t i o n a r y f a m i l y , the three-stage vehicle with s o l i d rocket motors would b e t h e b a s e l i n e . * d a p t a t i o n s and accessory .parts k i t s f o r the smaller derivative v e h i c l e s would be i n c o r p o r a t e d d u r i n g t h e core d e s ign. Drawings would c o n t a i n n o t a t i o n s of v e h i c l e a p p l i c a b i l i t y . Designs would i n c o r p o r a t e t h e c a p a b i l i t y f o r q u i c k a d a p t a t i o n of s t a g e s t o any of t h e f i v e c o n f i g u r a t i o n s . When a new launch v e h i c l e is i n t r o d u c e d ,

two o r more R&D o r man-rating f l i g h t s a r e needed t o e s t a b l i s h confidence. I f t h e f i v e v e h i c l e s shown, o r any o t h e r f l v e d i f f e r e n t v e h i c l e s , were developed independently, a t l e a s t 10 development f l i g h t s would be needed t o prove t h e d e s i g n and system i n t e g r a t i o n . A major s a v i n g is obtained by p r o p o r t i o n i n g t h e RED f l i g h t s f o r t h e group of v e h i c l e s under simultaneous development r a t h e r than - s p e c i f y i n g R&D f l i g h t s f o r each s e p a r a t e v e r s i o n . The e v o l u t i o n a r y - f a m i l y of v e h i c l e s would be designed t o withstand t h e most demanding requirements of t h e group and, w i t h many conunon components, each t e s t b u i l d s confidence i n t h e e n t i r e group. The three-s tage v e h i c l e w i t h

Saturn V Derivatives

Fig. 19 Saturn V Derivatives: c a p abilities, r e s o u r c e s , schedule

s t r a p - o n s o l i d r o c k e t motors would need two R&D frights t o t e s t each component and each i n t e r f a c e under t h e most r i g o r o u s c o n d i t i o n s . A f t e r s u c c e s s f u l R&D f l i g h t s o f t h e l a r g e s t v e h i c l e , t h e s m a l l e r d e r i v a t i v e v e h i c l e s would need one R&D f l i g h t each t o check d i f f e r e n t i n t e r f a c e s and p o s s i b l e anomalies. I f the three-stage vehicle without s o l i d rocket motors is t e s t e d second, t h e two-s t a g e v e r s i o n s h o u l d n o t r e q u i r e a n R&D f l i g h t because t h e ,nly change is a much l i g h t e r payload. By . simultaneous d e s i g n and development of a l l & v e h i c l e s i n t h e common c o r e f a m i l y , F D f l i g h t s can s a f e l y b e reduced by approximately 50 percent. The primary message of t h i s c h a r t i s t h e r e d u c t i o n of' t o t a l r e l a t i v e development c'os ts from 2.50 t o 1.46, o r 42 p e r c e n t , by simultaneous development achieved through t h e common c o r e concept f o r S a t u r n V d e r i v a t i v e v e h i c l e s . A f t e r t h e e v o l u t i o n a r y f a m i l y becomes o p e r a t i o n a l t h e average u n i t r e c u r r i n g c o s t s t h a t would b e i n c u r r e d a r e shown on F i g u r e 18. ?he l a r g e t h r e e - s t a g e v e h i c l e s per form t h e most demanding t a s k s and i n c u r t h e annual f i x e d c o s t s f o r m a i n t a i n i n g t h e launch capab i l i t y . For missions of l e s s e r payloads t h e s m a l l e r v e h ~ c l e senjoy t h e economies o f ' commonality and span t h e payload spectrum, A s shown, t h e s i n g l e - s t a g e S-ID c o s t s o n l y 18 p e r c e n t a s much a s t h e b a s e l i n e v e h i c l e , t h e S-ID/S-IVB c o s t s 23 p e r c e n t a s much, and t h e two-s t a g e c o r e - v e h i c l e 26 p e r c e n t . CONCLUSIONS I f t h e assumption t h a t a three-per-year r o d u c t i o n r a t e f o r S a t u r n V appears t o be r e a s o n a b l e f o r planning p u r p o s e s , then, qbviously, S a t u r n V f a c i l i t i e s and o p e r a t i o n s esi-gned f o r a s i x - p e r - y e a r production r a t e a r e used i n e f f i c i e n t l y a t t h i s lower production r a t e . When S a t u r n V elements a r e u t i l i z e d a s

d e r i v a t i v e v e h i c l e s t o complete t h e payload spectrum between t h e S a t u r n IB and m i s s i o n requirements beyond t h e S a t u r n V, more e f f i c i e n t u s e of t h e s e f a c i l i t i e s and o p e r a t i o n s r e s u l t s . Because t h i s approach i s v e r y economical, t h e d e r i v a t i v e v e h i c l e program c o s t s become h i g h l y competitive f o r any s e l e c t e d payload r e q u i r e men t Using t h e S-ID b p t h a s a s t a g e and oneh a l f t o o r b i t and, a s i t becomes a v a i l a b l e , a replacement' f o r t h e S-IC i n t h e s t a b l e of Saturn V derivative vehicles increases the f l e x i b i l i t y and c a p a b i l i t y i n t h e i n t e r m e d i a t e payload range. The pay Wad f l e x i b i1.it y o b t a i n e d by i n s t a l l i n g e n g i n e s , s o l i d r o c k e t motors, o r p r o p e l l a n t s p e c u l i a r t o each pay load and m i s s i o n requirement i s a d i s t i n c t advantage of t h e e v o l u t i o n a r y scheme ; however, t h e major advantage of t h e e v o l u t i o n a r y concept i s . t h e c o m n a l i t y of d e s i g n r e v i s i o n f o r a l l suggested d e r i v a t i v e s y s tems. A redesigned t h r u s t s t r u c t u r e w i t h s c a r attachments f o r S M s t r a p - o n s and a s t r e n g t h e n e d S a t u r n V R c o r e e s s e n t i a l l y implement t h e d e r i v a t i v e s y s tems t h a t evolve from o u r p r e s e n t man: r a t e d system. The s i n g l e R D e x p e n d i t u r e , & amortized over t h i s s t a b l e of v e h i c l e s , p l a c e s each d e r i v a t i v e i n a f a v o r a b l e c o m p e t i t i v e p o s i t i o n f o r i t s p o i n t on t h e complete payload spectrum. The c a p a b i l i t y f o r t h e s e S a t u r n D e r i v a t i v e . e v o l u t i o n a r y v e h i c l e s t o span t h e e a r t h o r b i t a l payload spectrum from 50,000 t o 500;OOO pounds i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g u r e 19. S t a r t i n g w i t h t h e . p r e s e n t ' opera t i o n a 1 v e h i c l e , i t is p o s s i b l e t o a c q u i r e a near-term e a r t h o r b i t . l o g i s t i c s system i f we pursue t h e path of t h e The r o u t e of s e p a r a t e develop-11 o d e r i v a t i v e . A ment of d e r i v a t i v e 'Dl1 i s n o t recommended f o r . t h e l a r g e payload c a p a b i l i t y r e q u i r e d of manned p l a n e t a r y e x p l o r a t i o n . The most econornica 1 and s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d e v o l u t i o n a r y cdmmon systems

..

R. -D. Scott and W. L Corcoran

de-,elopment i s t h e recommended p a t h of advancement f o r v e r s a t i l i t y , e f f i c i e n c y , and a b i l i t y t o meet a l l t h e p o t e n t i a l m i s s i o n requirements. This e x p l o i t a t i o n of t h e commona l i t y concept i s portrayed by d e r i v a t i v e s "BB", "C", and 'DD" covering t h e payload spectrum f o r minimum t o t a 1 development c o s t . W have d e s c r i b e d t h e c a p a b i l i t y and e v e r s a t i l i t y o f t h e S a t u r n V launch v e h i c l e system t o perform e a r t h o r b i t a l and high energy missions. In a d d i t i o n , we have i d e n t i f i e d a n e a r term, low R&D c o s t , h i g h l y r e l i a b l e , low r e c u r r i n g / c o s t "A'' d e r i v a t i v e launch v e h i c l e . F i n a l l y , we- have developed an e v o l u t i o n a r y common c o r e concept t h a t can be i n i t i a t e d through t h e 9'' d e r i v a t i v e development program. This concept demonstrates t h e economy of choosing proper des i g n goa 1s and . u t i l i z i n g combined developments t o a c h i e v e a n open-ended evolutiona r y f l e e t o f f u t u r e launch v e h i c l e s . Zn t h e long r u n , t h e v e r s a t i l i t y and u t i l i t y o f t h e S a t u r n V launch v e h i c l e may prove t o be of even g r e a t e r s i g n i f i c a n c e t o t h e - u n i t e d S t a t e s t h a n i t s r o l e a s t h e 'boon r o c k e t ,*I o r a s a competitor w i t h S o v i e t launch v e h i c l e s ; and, t h e e w l u t i o n a r y f a m i l y of S a t u r n V d e r i v a t i v e s presented h e r e i n would t r u l y comprise an a l l purpose f a m i l y of s p a c e launch v e h i c l e s . Sec SLA VB A REFERENCES Second . S a t u r n L M Adapter E V e r t i c a l Assembly B u i l d i n g

- ABBREVIATIONS
Std Sat S-IC S-I1 S-Iv3 Standard Saturn F i r s t S t a g e of S a t u r n V Second S t a g e of S a t u r n V Third S t a g e o f S a t u r n V Instrument Unit LOWB a r t h O r b i t (100 n. m i . circular) Synchronous k r t h O r b i t S o l i d Rocket Motor E a r l i e s t A v a i l a b i l i t y Date A u t h o r i t y t o Proceed N a u t i c a l Mile Energy Parameter ( h 2 / s e c 2 ) Research and Development Design Development Test and Engineering Pound Kilometer

IU
LEO SEO SM R

EAD
ATP N. M i .
'

R&D DDT&E
lb

c3

Km

1. A. G. O r i l l i o n and R. D . S c o t t , "Selected Methods f o r Uprating. S a t u r n V e h i c l e s , " paper presented a t SAE Advanced Launch Vehicle and Propulsion Sys tem Conference, k n t s v i l l e , Alabama, June 1966. 2 . R. G. T o e l l e , 'A Performance Study f o r t h e A p p l i c a t i o n of t h e S a t u r n V t o High AA Energy E a r t h Escape Mission, " N S Technical Memorandum X-53639, J u l y 31', 1967. 3. J. Martin, "Saturn V Growth and F l e x i b i l i t y , " Document Number D5-13352, The Boeing Company, March 3 1 , 1967. 4. L. Lane, "Orbital Launch Vehicles f o r t h e 1970's , I 1 Document Number D-13366, The Boeing Company, J u l y 12, 1967. 5. NASAIGeorge C. Marshall Space F l i g h t Center, Contract NAS8-20265, S t u d i e s of "Improved S a t u r n V Vehicles and I n t e r m e d i a t e Payload S a t u r n Vehicles (P-115) F i n a l Report, " North American A v i a t i o n , Inc. S&ID, October 1966. 6. NASAIGeorge (3. Marshall Space F l i g h t Center, C o n t r a c t NAS8-20266, "Studies of Improved S a t u r n V Vehicles and I n t e r m e d i a t e Payload S a t u r n Vehicles (P-115) F i n a l Report ," The Boeing Company, October 1966. 7. I?ASA/George C. Marshall Space F l i g h t Center, C o n t r a c t NAS8 -21105, " F i n a l ReportS a t u r n V Vehicle w i t h 260" Diameter S o l i d Motor Study," The Boeing Company, December 18, 1967. 8 . WSAIJohn F. Kennedy Space C e n t e r , Contract NAS10-3547, "Study of Launch F a c i l i t i e s Phase I11 F i n a l Report, " f o r Improved S a t u r n Martin Company Documeht CR-66-41 (Volume 111) , December 1966. 9. NASAIGeorge 'C. Marshall Space F l i g h t Center, C o n t r a c t NAS8-18025, "Manned P l a n e t a r y Flyby Missions Based on Saturn/Apollo Sys terns Fina 1 Report ," North American A v i a t i o n , I n c S&ID, August 1967. 10. J. D o l l a r d , "Common Nuclear P r o p u l s i o n Module Approach t o Space E x p l o r a t i o n , " Document Number D5-13425, The Boeing Company, January 1968. 11. P r e s i d e n t ' s ' S c i e n t i f i c Advispry Committee (PSAC) Report, January 11, 1967. .