Could the Russians build their own Apollo/Saturn V?

[willpittenger]

If the US government and the various companies that had Saturn V/Apollo patents were to give all appropriate information to the Russians, would they be able to build their own version? If so, it could be a good international gesture. Since the CEV upper stages were apparently going to use Saturn V engines, it might help NASA get the experience level up to date. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[edkyle98]

"If the US government and the various companies that had Saturn V/Apollo patents were to give all appropriate information to the Russians, would they be able to build their own version?"<br /><br />If Russia wanted a Saturn V class booster, I think it would be easier (tho not easy) for them to resurrect their own Energia launch vehicle than to try to restart F-1 and J-2 production, etc. The RD-170 booster engines are still in production for all practical purposes, for example, for Zenit.<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[baktothemoon]

They already tried to build a moon rocket, remember the N1? The thing was a collossal failure because they had a problem with their first stage booster. They tried to use 30 small rocket engines and they couldn't handle it. Every time they launched it the rocket exploded. That was the best that Soviet engineering could do with their ammount of resources, which was way more than they have now. They couldn't design their own version of the Saturn V then, so what makes you think that giving them the patents for the Saturn V would help? Copying the Saturn V wouldn't help because they don't have the budget for that kind of a project. Remember our budget for the Apollo program?If you want to learn more about what happened when Russia last tried to build a moon rocket then go here:<br />http://www.russianspaceweb.com/n1.html<br /><br />Besides, NASA isn't going to dig up the Saturn V engines for use on the CEV. It's using hardware from the shuttle program. Unless I'm wrong, in that case can someone like shuttle_guy correct me.<br /><br /><br />"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" John F. Kennedy

 

[edkyle98]

"Besides, NASA isn't going to dig up the Saturn V engines for use on the CEV. It's using hardware from the shuttle program. Unless I'm wrong, in that case can someone like shuttle_guy correct me. "<br /><br />There are reports floating around that NASA is shifting the Crew Launch Vehicle design to a 5-segment SRB booster, which will make the second stage smaller and relieve the need to use costly SSMEs (the dropping of which has been aided by the spreading of rumors that their were problems with the use of SSME in this application). The stage could be powered by a J-2S (an updated Saturn J-2 engine) or by a cluster of RL-60 engines (which have not yet been fully developed). Either approach will take time, because neither engine is currently in production. But the shuttle budget crunch is forcing the issue. It will be cheaper in the long run to develop just one SRB design instead of two, etc. The J-2S or equivalent will be needed for the heavy launcher too, etc. <br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[CalliArcale]

The N-1 could've been an engineering masterpiece. It was very clever, and also very ambitious. Unfortunately, it's ambition exceeded their engineering capability. One of the main problems was the lack of a full-up test stand. The only way they could test the first stage was by launching the rocket. It's no surprise that it failed given that, really. It perished due to inadequate preflight testing.<br /><br />The main obstacle to the Russians restarting N1 or Energia (or Saturn, which would be a lot more expensive for them) is money. Their space program does an amazing job of scrounging up funding, but it's just not enough for that. The budget monster ate Energia; I doubt it will cough it back up anytime soon.<br /><br />Not to worry, though; they have a plan for getting to the Moon with more modest rockets. Circumlunar missions only, of course. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

I know all about the N1. In fact, I suggested the Saturn <b>because</b> the N1 was such a huge failure. NASA had the engineering work done. 90% of what the Russians would need to do would be in figuring out their own version.<br /><br />As for the number of engines in the N1's first stage: That was probably why it failed. It was too complex. The Saturn V needed fewer engines and was far simpler. Don't we have a rule of thumb about keeping things simple? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[trailrider]

"I've often thought that they could have made the N-1 work if they had better computers, ...that came along only a few years later.<br /><br />There still may have been other show-stoppers that they never flew far enough to run afoul of, but a couple of the problems that resulted in loss of vehicle could have been avoided."<br /><br />The biggest problem the Soviets faced was lack of funds and bureaucratic interference from the Politbureau, et al! The Soviets were in a race with the U.S., don't forget, and they had too many problems and not enough time to straighten them out. I don't have the exact story in front of me, but at least one of the disasters was due to a Soviet general trying to fix a stuck valve with a wrench, or some such. Whole thing blew up and took the whole launch pad and a bunch of engineers and launch crewmen with it!<br /><br />What would it take if we "gave the Russians the plans for a Saturn V"? More money than we've got to spend, much less what the Russians can afford. There are a couple of stories about whether the plans were destroyed, but much of the tooling was. It could be reverse-engineered from the display vehicles, but what's the point? The launch infrastructure doesn't exist anymore. That would have to be rebuilt. And you'd be dealing with 40 year-old technology.<br /><br />Dispite all the snivling and whining about the configuration of Artemis, etc., and the similarities to Apollo and Shuttle hardware, the new equipment is going to be a sight more up-to-date than Saturn V.<br /><br />Let's look forward, not backward!<br /><br />Ad Luna! Ad Ares! Ad Astra!

 

[stephentracey]

Saturn V vs Energia HLLV<br /><br />The Energia HLLV had the capacity to place around 100 metric tons in Low Earth orbit (LEO), although it could have been (but never was) upgraded for heavier payloads comparable to (or even greater than) the LEO capacity of the Saturn V. <br /><br />It was first test-launched in 1987 with the Polyus spacecraft (UKSS military payload), where the Energia itself functioned well, but the Polyus failed to reach orbit due to a malfunction of its own attitude control system after separation from Energia. The only other flight to orbit has been the successful mission in which the unmanned Buran orbiter (space shuttle) was brought to orbit, in 1988.<br /><br />Does this answer your question ?<br /><br />Regards<br />steve

 

[rybanis]

That reminds me, I keep meaning to look for some high-res Energia launch photos, but I keep forgetting. Anyone know of some? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[publiusr]

www.russianspaceweb.com<br />www.buran.ru<br />www.k26.com/buran<br />www.nasaspaceflight.com (historical spaceflight section)