Saturn V, STS, Energia, N-1.

qso1 · Mar 26, 2006

Just a comparison of the four most powerful LVs ever built. Which launch vehicle had the most liftoff thrust? Which was the most powerful in terms of thrust and payload? I got interested in this when the only rocket with this kind of thrust known to exist for sure was the Saturn-V. As I got into writing technical information on rockets. I often referred to various sources and one handy source was the Guiness Book Of World Records. It was the only source in which a horsepower rating was documented for the Saturn-V (175,600,000 hp). BTW, the Saturn-V horsepower rating is a little more than an L-88 powered Corvette car (425 hp). I'd see some variation in data among different source material but mostly the data was pretty close. From what I recall when I examined this question. Most of the data I could find indicated a toss up between shuttle (STS) and Saturn-V. I'd see the shuttle thrust data reported vary from 6.9 million lbs to 7.7 million lbs. The Saturn-V generally rated at 7.5 million lbs thrust. Energia as high as 8.8 million and the N-1 something on the order of 11.7 million lbs. That would seem to make the N-1 the most powerful in terms of liftoff thrust. However, the N-1 did not use cryogenic propellants. It used hypergols for the most part which has an ISP of a little over half to two thirds that of cryogens. An example of this can be seen in the Titan-IV (3.4 million lbs thrust, about 40,000 lbs payload to LEO) vs Saturn 1B (1.5 million lbs thrust, about 40,000 lbs payload to LEO) payload and thrust. Both have roughly the same payload capacity but the Titan-IV has significantly greater thrust. Saturn-V: Liftoff thrust = 7,500,000 lbs. Payload capacity on the order of 125 tons to LEO although the heaviest actual payload weighed in at 85 tons (Skylab). In that role, Saturn-V was underutilized as it was on Apollo 9 as well. Energia: Liftoff thrust = 8,900,000 lbs. Payload c <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

davf · Mar 26, 2006

Nice 3D renderings. Did you do those yourself? What did you use to do them? One possible source for the variations you are seeing in thrust is whether they are quoting the vacuum thrust or the thrust at sea level. One small correction, though: N-1 used LOx / Kerosene throughout. In fact, one of the biggest hurdles to it's development was the fact that Korolev didn't want to use the hypergolics that their most experienced engine designer (Glushko) wanted to use. Korolev refused and as a result, the resulting engines were designed by a 'first time' rocket engine designer. Although they were eventually developed into an exceptional series of engines, they certainly had their teething troubles that most agree would have been avoided had Glushko built them instead. Incidentally, Glushko went on to put his hypergolic N1 engine into the first stage of Proton. The payload to LEO of the four that flew and failed was 75 tons. The requirement was for 95 tons and presumably, later developments of the booster should have achieved that. Probably the best free source of information, if you haven't found it already, is Astronautix.Com. Saturn V: http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/saturnv.htm Shuttle: http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/shuttle.htm N-1: http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/n1.htm Energia: http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/energia.htm

qso1 · Mar 27, 2006

At the time I did the thrust figures, I believe they are all sea level. In the shuttles case, I recall a vacuum thrust of 470,000 lbs. I stand corrected on the N-1, thanks. I did the 3D render using Lightwave 3D. Except for the T-bird, I did the models as well. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

baktothemoon · Mar 27, 2006

Has anyone found any launch video of the N1 or Energia? I have looked all over the web and haven't found any video of either of them launching, just stills. It's getting really frustrating because I want to see what these things looked like in action.

davf · Mar 28, 2006

I've seen launch video of Energia with Buran. Try http://www.buran.ru ... I am pretty sure I found some there.

vogon13 · Mar 28, 2006

History channel or Discovery channel runs a show on space disasters once in a while. Some interesting footage of the Nedelin Catastrophe and at least 2 launch attempts of the N1. Set your Tivo . . . . <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

baktothemoon · Mar 28, 2006

Too bad I don't have the discovery channel or history channel, guess I'm out of luck for that. "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." John F. Kennedy

nacnud · Mar 28, 2006

Has anyone found any launch video of the N1 or Energia? Try searching www.nasaspaceflight.com IIRC there are some vids on there that are good.

qso1 · Mar 29, 2006

Thanks shuttle_guy. I can update my database. At 7.1 million lbs, the shuttle is just under the Saturn-V in liftoff thrust. BTW, I thought this thread died a premature death which is why I haven't looked in on it the last couple days. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

qso1 · Mar 29, 2006

As for N-1 launch vids, I saw a liftoff of the N-1 on the Discovery channel and may have taped it. All it basically showed was the liftoff. Cutting off I think just prior to tower clear. It was a night launch as well. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

barrykirk · Mar 29, 2006

And yet the Saturn V usable payload to space is so much higher. If we were still building Saturn V today, would it be cheaper or more expensive or about the same cost as the shuttle? And I'm referring to cost per launch... I suspect cost per pound to orbit, it would be far cheaper. Also, if still being built today, could the first stage be made re-usable?

qso1 · Mar 30, 2006

The shuttle lifts very nearly as much as the Saturn-V did. The difference is the shuttle itself is part of its LVs lift capacity. The cost of each flight according to Astronautix.com was 391.5 million dollars or roughly comparable to shuttle costs in the same time period (1985). Neither vehicle has been a bargain but the Saturn-V was not designed with cheap operation in mind. Cost to orbit may well be more expensive because there are no hundred plus ton payloads for heavy lift launchers to even exist which is the reason you don't see Saturn class vehicles operating now. Its also the reason the Energia got canned for being too expensive for the Soviet economy to bear. Hundred plus ton payloads are generally manned, even Skylab was only 85 tons. There were studies for reusing Saturn-V first stages as well as other plans for partially reusable 1st stages. Even the Russians claimed they would reuse the first stage of Energia rockets. Since non ever became operational, it was probably determined that reusing first stages involved more complexity and expense than planners may have initially realized. I believe the Kistler Corporation is planning to reuse the first stages of there rocket but there rocket is on a far smaller scale than a Saturn-V. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

qso1 · Mar 30, 2006

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/saturnv.htm $: 431.00 million. in 1967 price dollars. I posted this info because this is what I recall when I was researching the Apollo program as a late teen shortly after it ended. The figure I heard in 1972 was $450 million dollars per launch or mission. I found no distinguishing between them at that time and assumed the mission cost was the lions share of the $450 million figure. Only in recent years did I find the quotes at Astronautix which is one of the few reliable sources which I could find cost data on. If you calculate the cost of the Saturn-V in 1967 dollars and convert to 2005 dollars, the Saturn V would cost $2.45 billion in 2005 dollars. However, I assume for now that included the particular mission as well. http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi I also recall the shuttle estimated mission cost in the 1970s was $10 million per mission which of course,was far exceeded in actual cost. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

webtaz99 · Mar 30, 2006

Cost figures for spaceflight are (in my Oh-so-humble opinion) a bunch of bunk. I have never seen one that broke down actual flight hardware costs vs. development costs vs. fuel vs. whatever. I think the anti-space guys count stuff like the toilet paper used by the reporters on launch day. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

mlorrey · Mar 30, 2006

The reason the cost per lb is little different from the space shuttle program is that they haven't really changed their operating procedures or attempted to reduce workforce between the programs, and won't do so between STS and ESAS. Ergo it is safe to assume that ESAS CLV, while it may be safer, will not be one dollar cheaper per lb in orbit.

qso1 · Mar 30, 2006

They sometimes have to be broken down by researchers, as an example. I know the NASA budget is about $16B dollars, the ISS shuttle share of that is roughly $5B dollars. Each orbiter was $2.7B dollars last I checked a few years back. Items such as facilities, I think the ISS facility was around $150M dollars. Generally speaking its true that budget figures for individual systems, components are hard to come by but the overall budgets tell a pretty good part of the story. The vast amount of any dollar goes towards the management, engineering and technical expertise required to support the program in question. As far as the anti-space crowd, they miss the big picture. That is, NASAs budget is dwarfed by the budget deficit. In fact, the budget deficit for just one year wiped out not only anything that could have been saved by cutting NASA budgets, it is also anywhere from 2 to 3 times NASA spending since its inception. Cutting NASAs budget will not help the noble causes often brought up as suffering because of NASA. This because the Government has already shown it is a dismal failure with social programs. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

publiusr · Apr 21, 2006

I miss Tom Delay already.

mlorrey · Apr 21, 2006

I don't care about the budget deficit. I do care that NASA squanders most of what little it does get, spending 20 times more than it has to. I do care that they could be doing so much more than they are if they got off their bureaucratic asses and actually worked at operating on a lean and mean basis. Government is a dismal failure, period. They can't even fight an effective war anymore, but that is another topic. Once again, I caution you against categorizing the anti-NASA crowd as anti-space. It is inaccurately and unfairly demonizing the folks who could do you the most good, if only NASA got off its fat a$$.

CalliArcale · Apr 21, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> I do care that NASA squanders most of what little it does get, spending 20 times more than it has to.<hr /></blockquote> Out of curiosity, is that a real figure or off-the-cuff hyperbole? Hyperbole is fine if you know it's hypebole, but I'd be very surprised at such a high rate of waste. I suspect you simply aren't factoring in the real costs in this business. A lot of people want space to be cheap, but the fact of the matter is that it simply isn't. Not even SpaceShipOne (which was a suborbital spacecraft) could be described as "cheap", and it was a labor of love. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "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." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

qso1 · Apr 21, 2006

I cannot recall ever characterizing the anti-NASA crowd as anti-space. I refer to the criticisms of NASA or human spaceflight as critics in general. One of the reasons I sometimes respond to the anti-whatevers...especially where negative commentary on NASA is concerned. Too much criticism of NASA while missing the bigger picture. IMO, the bigger picture is continually missed by critics and media. That picture is the public. A percentage of which is anti-human spaceflight and when they complain about NASA, they miss the mark and the media simply criticizes because thats whats deemed newsworthy. I agree NASA wastes some money although I don't know that its 20 times as much as need be. I've mentioned a couple areas where they may be able to do better. Still, compared to other government agencies, NASA is still a bargain and despite all the glowing talk of mavericks and private enterprise doing human space flight cheaper, it has yet to be proven that P.E. can do LEO access any cheaper than NASA. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

Saturn V, STS, Energia, N-1.

qso1

Guest

davf

Guest

qso1

Guest

baktothemoon

Guest

davf

Guest

vogon13

Guest

baktothemoon

Guest

nacnud

Guest

qso1

Guest

qso1

Guest

barrykirk

Guest

qso1

Guest

qso1

Guest

webtaz99

Guest

mlorrey

Guest

qso1

Guest

publiusr

Guest

mlorrey

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

qso1

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page