PTK Posted September 20, 2015 Report Posted September 20, 2015 (edited) I came across a useless but fascinating factoid: Fuel burn of the Saturn 5 first stage was an astounding 13.5 tons/sec kerosene! Wow! Edited September 20, 2015 by PTK Quote
gsengle Posted September 20, 2015 Report Posted September 20, 2015 Easier to digest this way, that's over 14,000,000gph Yes a mooney is more efficient... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2 Quote
Jeff_S Posted September 20, 2015 Report Posted September 20, 2015 What's even cooler is to get up close and personal with one of these bad boys and really see the level of engineering that went into their design and success. If you're ever in Huntsville AL you should go to the NASA rocket center and see what it's all about. From the amazingly dinky Redstone rocket to the massive Saturn V, it's quite something to realize that all that innovation occurred within just 10 years. We sort of take these things for granted, but I find that when I get up close and personal with any feat of massive engineering such as this I am in awe of the power of the human mind. (Heck, even a jet engine gives me goose bumps.) 5 Quote
Piloto Posted September 20, 2015 Report Posted September 20, 2015 It is indeed a marvel of engineering of rocket propulsion. But rocket propulsion in itself is very inefficient. The weight of the vehicle increases exponentially in comparison to the payload. Propellant/fuel amounts to 90% of the weight of the rocket. It is analog to having an airplane propelled by a coal steam engine. Until a propellantles propulsion (space drive) method is developed human space travel will be limited to lunar distances. José 1 Quote
N201MKTurbo Posted September 20, 2015 Report Posted September 20, 2015 The turbo pump (fuel pump) on the SSME is about one foot in diameter and about 18 Inches long. It produces a shaft power of about 25000 HP! AFAK it is the most powerful piece of turbo machinery by volume ever produced. 1 Quote
flyboy0681 Posted September 20, 2015 Report Posted September 20, 2015 Fuel burn of the Saturn 5 first stage was an astounding 13.5 tons/sec kerosene! What powers the Jupiter II? Quote
Guest Posted September 20, 2015 Report Posted September 20, 2015 What's even cooler is to get up close and personal with one of these bad boys and really see the level of engineering that went into their design and success. If you're ever in Huntsville AL you should go to the NASA rocket center and see what it's all about. From the amazingly dinky Redstone rocket to the massive Saturn V, it's quite something to realize that all that innovation occurred within just 10 years. We sort of take these things for granted, but I find that when I get up close and personal with any feat of massive engineering such as this I am in awe of the power of the human mind. (Heck, even a jet engine gives me goose bumps.) And it was designed with a slide ruler and a pencil. Clarence Quote
flyboy0681 Posted September 20, 2015 Report Posted September 20, 2015 And it was designed with a slide ruler and a pencil. Clarence And the only rocket to not have a single failure. 1 Quote
bonal Posted September 20, 2015 Report Posted September 20, 2015 Saturn 5 truly amazing. Computer aided engineering will only be as good as the translation from the real engineer. My cousin worked as an engineer mostly on the Atlas booster and he retired mostly because they were turning his job into button pushing and away from real engineering. I know lots of things made today are better than ever but I wonder as we become more dependent on computers if the fundamentals will be lost 2 Quote
Yetti Posted September 20, 2015 Report Posted September 20, 2015 There is some stuff going on with the old design and training new rocket engineers. Each one was custom made and revised as they learned. They started up a fuel pump on one of the spares. http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/how-nasa-brought-the-monstrous-f-1-moon-rocket-back-to-life/ 1 Quote
N201MKTurbo Posted September 21, 2015 Report Posted September 21, 2015 Saturn 5 truly amazing. Computer aided engineering will only be as good as the translation from the real engineer. My cousin worked as an engineer mostly on the Atlas booster and he retired mostly because they were turning his job into button pushing and away from real engineering. I know lots of things made today are better than ever but I wonder as we become more dependent on computers if the fundamentals will be lost The people writing the engineering software fully understand the engineering fundamentals. Quote
mooniac15u Posted September 21, 2015 Report Posted September 21, 2015 It is indeed a marvel of engineering of rocket propulsion. But rocket propulsion in itself is very inefficient. The weight of the vehicle increases exponentially in comparison to the payload. Propellant/fuel amounts to 90% of the weight of the rocket. It is analog to having an airplane propelled by a coal steam engine. Until a propellantles propulsion (space drive) method is developed human space travel will be limited to lunar distances. José Achieving escape velocity and traveling great distances through space are really different problems. Getting into space requires a ridiculous amount of fuel but once free of Earth orbit you only need to burn enough fuel to accelerate to your cruise velocity. After that distance is largely irrelevant. Quote
M20F Posted September 21, 2015 Report Posted September 21, 2015 If ever there was a need for LOP ;-) 3 Quote
bonal Posted September 21, 2015 Report Posted September 21, 2015 The people writing the engineering software fully understand the engineering fundamentals. I would hope so but with each generation we get fewer doing the math I know in the 20 years since I started engineering distribution systems I have gone from hand calculated to using progrms that do most of the calculations for me still have to hit the books though as there are some things the program's can't handle Quote
Piloto Posted September 21, 2015 Report Posted September 21, 2015 (edited) Achieving escape velocity and traveling great distances through space are really different problems. Getting into space requires a ridiculous amount of fuel but once free of Earth orbit you only need to burn enough fuel to accelerate to your cruise velocity. After that distance is largely irrelevant. Distance may be irrelevant for an unmanned vehicle but not for people onboard breathing and eating. The shorter the ETE the less food and water needed. Not to mention the psychological effects of years of total isolation and lack of gravity. The higher the cruise velocity the more propellant is required to decelerate to orbital velocity. The Saturn V weight was 6.5 millions pounds total to get three guys for a one week round trip to the Moon. Now imagine for 6 guys a one year round trip to Mars. Some may say is similar to a nuclear sub mission. But is totally different. In a sub in an emergency you can surface and be rescued. José Edited September 21, 2015 by Piloto Quote
Guest Posted September 21, 2015 Report Posted September 21, 2015 There were some other folks during the Sixties who had it figured out. It was NCC-1701, led by a crazy Canadian named Shatner. Clarence Quote
mooniac15u Posted September 21, 2015 Report Posted September 21, 2015 Distance may be irrelevant for an unmanned vehicle but not for people onboard breathing and eating. The shorter the ETE the less food and water needed. Not to mention the psychological effects of years of total isolation and lack of gravity. The higher the cruise velocity the more propellant is required to decelerate to orbital velocity. The Saturn V weight was 6.5 millions pounds total to get three guys for a one week round trip to the Moon. Now imagine for 6 guys a one year round trip to Mars. Some may say is similar to a nuclear sub mission. But is totally different. In a sub in an emergency you can surface and be rescued. José It does require more fuel but you are assuming that everything (crew, fuel, mission vehicle) all need to be launched together as a single unit. That was a viable approach for lunar missions in the 60s and 70s. Fortunately we have come a long way since then. Orbital assembly and fueling of the mission vehicle is now feasible. Quote
Piloto Posted September 21, 2015 Report Posted September 21, 2015 (edited) It does require more fuel but you are assuming that everything (crew, fuel, mission vehicle) all need to be launched together as a single unit. That was a viable approach for lunar missions in the 60s and 70s. Fortunately we have come a long way since then. Orbital assembly and fueling of the mission vehicle is now feasible. It would be a much bigger feat than the space station assembly. Since it will require three times the amount of food and water storage, rocket engines, landing vehicles, ground vehicles and a nuclear power plant. And the pictures will get from Mars here on Earth will be no different than the ones we get now. I love Star Trek but I think the only aliens we are going to find are just south of the border and they don't speak English and neither have pointed ears. They just have a big sombrero. But don't worry about an alien invasion, Donald Trump will be in command of the Star fleet. José Edited September 21, 2015 by Piloto Quote
N201MKTurbo Posted September 21, 2015 Report Posted September 21, 2015 Just think about landing on Mars... You have to bring a fully fueled Saturn 5 with you to get back! Quote
1964-M20E Posted September 21, 2015 Report Posted September 21, 2015 Nice article on the Saturn V engines. I'm glad to see they are at least looking back to see what problems they had. Beside at this stage of the game getting to Mars is just logistics. Given enough determination, motivation, time and money almost anything is possible. Quote
aviatoreb Posted September 22, 2015 Report Posted September 22, 2015 Easier to digest this way, that's over 14,000,000gph Yes a mooney is more efficient... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Hold on - give the Saturn V a chance...its not so bad. I just looked up....the Saturn V missions to the Moon took 529,000 gallons fuel in 3 stages - and they went to the Moon and back. Thats 2 x 250,000 miles. So we get about... 1 mpg. Not great but better than that initial 14,000,000gph take off fuel burn sounds. They must be burning LOP in cruise - wait they are doing better than that - they are coasting at 18,000 mph at 0 gph (LOP of course). Quote
Hank Posted September 22, 2015 Report Posted September 22, 2015 18,000 mph sounds really fast, but isn't Mars something like 45,000,000 miles away at it's point of nearest approach? That's 2500 hours, or 104+ days, allowing for instantaneous acceleration and deceleration. Except launch must be well before aphelion, which will make for a longer flight . . . Then it's what, 3 years until the same trip can be made in reverse? Or launch across the sun and travel ~7X as far . . . the big problem is acceleration. If one could accelerate the whole way (flip over in the middle), a simple 1/10 G reduces trip time by almost an order of magnitude. But the fuel required by current technology for that much acceleration in both directions is far beyond impractical. but the Saturn V is still an impressive feat! The new crop of engineers need to learn how it works, and what problems were overcome, if we are ever to take this not-small Next Step. Quote
aviatoreb Posted September 22, 2015 Report Posted September 22, 2015 18,000 mph sounds really fast, but isn't Mars something like 45,000,000 miles away at it's point of nearest approach? That's 2500 hours, or 104+ days, allowing for instantaneous acceleration and deceleration. Except launch must be well before aphelion, which will make for a longer flight . . . Then it's what, 3 years until the same trip can be made in reverse? Or launch across the sun and travel ~7X as far . . . the big problem is acceleration. If one could accelerate the whole way (flip over in the middle), a simple 1/10 G reduces trip time by almost an order of magnitude. But the fuel required by current technology for that much acceleration in both directions is far beyond impractical. but the Saturn V is still an impressive feat! The new crop of engineers need to learn how it works, and what problems were overcome, if we are ever to take this not-small Next Step. Plasma Drive is what you want. Quote
N201MKTurbo Posted September 22, 2015 Report Posted September 22, 2015 You can't run a liquid fueled rocket LOP! If there isn't excess fuel the LOX will consume the engine! Quote
carusoam Posted September 22, 2015 Report Posted September 22, 2015 You can't throttle a solid fuel rocket booster either... twin screw extruders were used to continuously produce the single fuel load. Replacing the multiple batches that had a tendency to break and burn unevenly. Ever see that little flame burst through the side of the booster rocket and contact the large center fuel tank? they blamed the O-ring and cold temperatures. There might have been some more engineering detail with that... Go new engineers! -a- Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.