04-10-2019, 09:52 AM
|
 |
Master Modeler
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Fairbanks, Alaska
Posts: 6,507
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by blackshire
I like it for that reason as well. The Saturn IB-Centaur, without the Centaur third stage, could have--with some parts and/or tools stored in the nose section--been a "Wet Workshop" space station vehicle. The S-IVB (as was proposed in the AAP plans) could have had the grid floors of each "story" of the space station pre-installed. Once it was in orbit, and a second Saturn IB--after having orbited an Apollo CSM with some more equipment stashed in the SLA adapter section (as the docking module was during the Apollo-Soyuz mission)--brought a 3-astronaut crew up, they could go about converting the first S-IVB into a space station. The ATM (Apollo Telescope Mount, used for observing the Sun) could have been brought up by the second Saturn IB in its SLA adapter. While the Saturn V-based "Dry Workshop" was logistically simpler, the Saturn IB-based (quite possibly a Saturn IB-Centaur, minus the Centaur) "Wet Workshop" might have been cheaper.
|
Also, since the SpaceX Falcon 9 is equivalent to the Saturn IB (having a liftoff thrust of ~1.7 million pounds), it could utilize a single-engine or dual-engine Centaur third stage. Its second (kerolox, Vaccum Merlin [MVAC]-powered) second stage could possibly be replaced with a 14' diameter Centaur G, originally designed for use aboard the Space Shuttle for lofting deep space probes (later called Centaur T, for use with the Titan IV), using either two RL-10 engines or one or more RS-68 engines. While such a vehicle wouldn't look much like a Saturn IB-Centaur, it could have similar--perhaps even better--performance, and its recoverable & reusable first stage would (as was planned for later Saturn I vehicles' first stages) reduce the vehicle's operating cost. |