Could the museum Saturn V's be refitted for one more flight?Why not build Saturn V's again?Do we still have all the blueprints to go to the Moon?Were the Saturn V construction plans destroyed?What will be NASA's successor to the Saturn V rocket?Launch roll program for the Saturn five rocketWhy not build Saturn V's again?What would be the configuration and performance for Saturn V with all stages RP-1/LOX?How had the Saturn V lifting capacity changed throughout the Apollo program?Was 39A built with a rocket much larger than the Saturn V in mind?Saturn launch precautions for clearing tower?Did the Saturn V rocket have any purely aesthetic features that didn't serve an actual function?Vented interstage for the final stage of Saturn VUse of different fuels for stages of Saturn V

How do I write bicross product symbols in latex?

In Romance of the Three Kingdoms why do people still use bamboo sticks when paper had already been invented?

How to model explosives?

Is it unprofessional to ask if a job posting on GlassDoor is real?

Took a trip to a parallel universe, need help deciphering

1960's book about a plague that kills all white people

Do I have a twin with permutated remainders?

Is it canonical bit space?

Memorizing the Keyboard

What reasons are there for a Capitalist to oppose a 100% inheritance tax?

Emailing HOD to enhance faculty application

Is "remove commented out code" correct English?

Why does Kotter return in Welcome Back Kotter

Is the Joker left-handed?

How can I tell someone that I want to be his or her friend?

What about the virus in 12 Monkeys?

What's the point of deactivating Num Lock on login screens?

Should I tell management that I intend to leave due to bad software development practices?

Can a virus destroy the BIOS of a modern computer?

What is going on with Captain Marvel's blood colour?

I would say: "You are another teacher", but she is a woman and I am a man

Is it legal for company to use my work email to pretend I still work there?

Twin primes whose sum is a cube

What killed these X2 caps?



Could the museum Saturn V's be refitted for one more flight?


Why not build Saturn V's again?Do we still have all the blueprints to go to the Moon?Were the Saturn V construction plans destroyed?What will be NASA's successor to the Saturn V rocket?Launch roll program for the Saturn five rocketWhy not build Saturn V's again?What would be the configuration and performance for Saturn V with all stages RP-1/LOX?How had the Saturn V lifting capacity changed throughout the Apollo program?Was 39A built with a rocket much larger than the Saturn V in mind?Saturn launch precautions for clearing tower?Did the Saturn V rocket have any purely aesthetic features that didn't serve an actual function?Vented interstage for the final stage of Saturn VUse of different fuels for stages of Saturn V













31












$begingroup$


Even though we will not build new Saturn Vs, there currently exist three Saturn Vs in museums. Could any of these rockets be refitted for flight? If not, what specific component would prevent the program from going forward?



This question is meant to address the rocket itself. I understand that the VAB, crawlers, and launch infrastructure would need retrofitting as well, not to mention finding and training crews.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You expect a rocket stored in the open for more than two decades to be refittable for flight? See wikipedia. Only one consist of stages intended for launch.
    $endgroup$
    – Uwe
    2 days ago






  • 6




    $begingroup$
    @Uwe: Thank you for chiming in! I'm not expecting, I'm asking. This Mustang had been stored in the open for four and a half decades, and then was restarted recently. I'm sure that it is not a matter of simply filling up the H2, O2, and RP-1. What are the bottlenecks, and are they surmountable? As you mention, we do have a complete rocket consisting of flight stages.
    $endgroup$
    – Happy Phantom
    2 days ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Won't this raise the ship of Theseus problem? If too many parts have to be replaced in order to make it functional, can we still call it the original one? If yes, even then it will be much much cheaper to design and build a completely new rocket from scratch, then to repair or rebuild the original one.
    $endgroup$
    – vsz
    2 days ago






  • 6




    $begingroup$
    Basically, other than fusion reactors and perpetual motion machines, the question of can we do it is answered by how many zeros you have in your check book.
    $endgroup$
    – Mazura
    2 days ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I was in Cape Canaveral recently, and the staff mentioned that if a Saturn V is needed, the one in the Kennedy space center is the one in the best condition...
    $endgroup$
    – Miguel
    yesterday















31












$begingroup$


Even though we will not build new Saturn Vs, there currently exist three Saturn Vs in museums. Could any of these rockets be refitted for flight? If not, what specific component would prevent the program from going forward?



This question is meant to address the rocket itself. I understand that the VAB, crawlers, and launch infrastructure would need retrofitting as well, not to mention finding and training crews.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You expect a rocket stored in the open for more than two decades to be refittable for flight? See wikipedia. Only one consist of stages intended for launch.
    $endgroup$
    – Uwe
    2 days ago






  • 6




    $begingroup$
    @Uwe: Thank you for chiming in! I'm not expecting, I'm asking. This Mustang had been stored in the open for four and a half decades, and then was restarted recently. I'm sure that it is not a matter of simply filling up the H2, O2, and RP-1. What are the bottlenecks, and are they surmountable? As you mention, we do have a complete rocket consisting of flight stages.
    $endgroup$
    – Happy Phantom
    2 days ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Won't this raise the ship of Theseus problem? If too many parts have to be replaced in order to make it functional, can we still call it the original one? If yes, even then it will be much much cheaper to design and build a completely new rocket from scratch, then to repair or rebuild the original one.
    $endgroup$
    – vsz
    2 days ago






  • 6




    $begingroup$
    Basically, other than fusion reactors and perpetual motion machines, the question of can we do it is answered by how many zeros you have in your check book.
    $endgroup$
    – Mazura
    2 days ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I was in Cape Canaveral recently, and the staff mentioned that if a Saturn V is needed, the one in the Kennedy space center is the one in the best condition...
    $endgroup$
    – Miguel
    yesterday













31












31








31





$begingroup$


Even though we will not build new Saturn Vs, there currently exist three Saturn Vs in museums. Could any of these rockets be refitted for flight? If not, what specific component would prevent the program from going forward?



This question is meant to address the rocket itself. I understand that the VAB, crawlers, and launch infrastructure would need retrofitting as well, not to mention finding and training crews.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$




Even though we will not build new Saturn Vs, there currently exist three Saturn Vs in museums. Could any of these rockets be refitted for flight? If not, what specific component would prevent the program from going forward?



This question is meant to address the rocket itself. I understand that the VAB, crawlers, and launch infrastructure would need retrofitting as well, not to mention finding and training crews.







nasa saturn-v






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 2 days ago









Michael Seifert

50327




50327










asked 2 days ago









Happy PhantomHappy Phantom

433410




433410







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You expect a rocket stored in the open for more than two decades to be refittable for flight? See wikipedia. Only one consist of stages intended for launch.
    $endgroup$
    – Uwe
    2 days ago






  • 6




    $begingroup$
    @Uwe: Thank you for chiming in! I'm not expecting, I'm asking. This Mustang had been stored in the open for four and a half decades, and then was restarted recently. I'm sure that it is not a matter of simply filling up the H2, O2, and RP-1. What are the bottlenecks, and are they surmountable? As you mention, we do have a complete rocket consisting of flight stages.
    $endgroup$
    – Happy Phantom
    2 days ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Won't this raise the ship of Theseus problem? If too many parts have to be replaced in order to make it functional, can we still call it the original one? If yes, even then it will be much much cheaper to design and build a completely new rocket from scratch, then to repair or rebuild the original one.
    $endgroup$
    – vsz
    2 days ago






  • 6




    $begingroup$
    Basically, other than fusion reactors and perpetual motion machines, the question of can we do it is answered by how many zeros you have in your check book.
    $endgroup$
    – Mazura
    2 days ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I was in Cape Canaveral recently, and the staff mentioned that if a Saturn V is needed, the one in the Kennedy space center is the one in the best condition...
    $endgroup$
    – Miguel
    yesterday












  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You expect a rocket stored in the open for more than two decades to be refittable for flight? See wikipedia. Only one consist of stages intended for launch.
    $endgroup$
    – Uwe
    2 days ago






  • 6




    $begingroup$
    @Uwe: Thank you for chiming in! I'm not expecting, I'm asking. This Mustang had been stored in the open for four and a half decades, and then was restarted recently. I'm sure that it is not a matter of simply filling up the H2, O2, and RP-1. What are the bottlenecks, and are they surmountable? As you mention, we do have a complete rocket consisting of flight stages.
    $endgroup$
    – Happy Phantom
    2 days ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Won't this raise the ship of Theseus problem? If too many parts have to be replaced in order to make it functional, can we still call it the original one? If yes, even then it will be much much cheaper to design and build a completely new rocket from scratch, then to repair or rebuild the original one.
    $endgroup$
    – vsz
    2 days ago






  • 6




    $begingroup$
    Basically, other than fusion reactors and perpetual motion machines, the question of can we do it is answered by how many zeros you have in your check book.
    $endgroup$
    – Mazura
    2 days ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I was in Cape Canaveral recently, and the staff mentioned that if a Saturn V is needed, the one in the Kennedy space center is the one in the best condition...
    $endgroup$
    – Miguel
    yesterday







1




1




$begingroup$
You expect a rocket stored in the open for more than two decades to be refittable for flight? See wikipedia. Only one consist of stages intended for launch.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
2 days ago




$begingroup$
You expect a rocket stored in the open for more than two decades to be refittable for flight? See wikipedia. Only one consist of stages intended for launch.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
2 days ago




6




6




$begingroup$
@Uwe: Thank you for chiming in! I'm not expecting, I'm asking. This Mustang had been stored in the open for four and a half decades, and then was restarted recently. I'm sure that it is not a matter of simply filling up the H2, O2, and RP-1. What are the bottlenecks, and are they surmountable? As you mention, we do have a complete rocket consisting of flight stages.
$endgroup$
– Happy Phantom
2 days ago





$begingroup$
@Uwe: Thank you for chiming in! I'm not expecting, I'm asking. This Mustang had been stored in the open for four and a half decades, and then was restarted recently. I'm sure that it is not a matter of simply filling up the H2, O2, and RP-1. What are the bottlenecks, and are they surmountable? As you mention, we do have a complete rocket consisting of flight stages.
$endgroup$
– Happy Phantom
2 days ago





1




1




$begingroup$
Won't this raise the ship of Theseus problem? If too many parts have to be replaced in order to make it functional, can we still call it the original one? If yes, even then it will be much much cheaper to design and build a completely new rocket from scratch, then to repair or rebuild the original one.
$endgroup$
– vsz
2 days ago




$begingroup$
Won't this raise the ship of Theseus problem? If too many parts have to be replaced in order to make it functional, can we still call it the original one? If yes, even then it will be much much cheaper to design and build a completely new rocket from scratch, then to repair or rebuild the original one.
$endgroup$
– vsz
2 days ago




6




6




$begingroup$
Basically, other than fusion reactors and perpetual motion machines, the question of can we do it is answered by how many zeros you have in your check book.
$endgroup$
– Mazura
2 days ago




$begingroup$
Basically, other than fusion reactors and perpetual motion machines, the question of can we do it is answered by how many zeros you have in your check book.
$endgroup$
– Mazura
2 days ago




1




1




$begingroup$
I was in Cape Canaveral recently, and the staff mentioned that if a Saturn V is needed, the one in the Kennedy space center is the one in the best condition...
$endgroup$
– Miguel
yesterday




$begingroup$
I was in Cape Canaveral recently, and the staff mentioned that if a Saturn V is needed, the one in the Kennedy space center is the one in the best condition...
$endgroup$
– Miguel
yesterday










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















33












$begingroup$

The one at the Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville has been stored outside so it wasn't in good shape.




Displayed outdoors and on its side since 1969, the rocket was exhibiting widespread paint failure, moisture infiltration, an overall accumulation of atmospheric and biological soiling, and corrosion of its complex system of metal alloys, including aluminum. Non-metal materials such as polyurethane foam, various types of plastics including Tedlar®, phenolic resin, and fiberglass composites, had significantly deteriorated. The spacecraft portion of the Saturn V display (Lunar Adapter, Service Module, Command Module and Launch Escape System) were full scale 1970s era mock-ups constructed of sheet aluminum and fiberglass. The Command Module, constructed almost completely out of plywood and fiberglass, was is very poor condition




The others have been indoors so should be a bit better. The Huntsville rocket was incomplete. It's been restored from the above condition, but that's to 'museum exhibit' state, not 'functional rocket' state.



They'd need significant amount of work to be usable again:



  • complete inspection of the metalwork, with replacement of any corroded parts. That alone is years of work. To do an inspection to the standard you want for spaceflight, you may have to disassemble most of the rocket (to make sure you get to all the corners that become inaccessible after assembly).

  • replacement of all seals and other materials that can deteriorate. This may include the wiring.

  • replacement of all the electronics

  • new turbopumps

  • new LOX tanks, maybe (LOX reacts with lots of things, there's no way to guarantee the tanks are clean)

  • the Huntsville one was missing its CM, SM an LEM, so they'd have to be built.

  • other parts may have been cannibalized, no way to know until you strip the rocket.

IOW, you're better off building new Saturn Vs.



I'm tempted to compare it to building vs restoring cars. A thorough restoration can easily take a year. Handbuilt cars are built in weeks...






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 5




    $begingroup$
    @HappyPhantom: Is it obvious that your "inspection, repair and proper cleaning" can be done without doing that first too? There are plenty of "replacement" and "new parts" in Hobbes's list.
    $endgroup$
    – Henning Makholm
    2 days ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    New electronics, new guidance software and new turbopumps would require a new man rating of the rocket. But before man rating is finished, all museum Saturn V rockets are used,
    $endgroup$
    – Uwe
    2 days ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @HenningMakholm: No, I am not sure. That is why Inspection is the first step.
    $endgroup$
    – Happy Phantom
    2 days ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @HappyPhantom, the inspection isn't too bad -- it's basically the rocket equivalent of an aviation D-check. The problem is the repair -- for example, if one of the gyroscopes in the ST-124-M3 guidance platform has gone bad, where are you going to find a replacement?
    $endgroup$
    – Mark
    2 days ago






  • 6




    $begingroup$
    Also worth noting that when a restored vintage car breaks down because you missed something, it doesn't disintegrate traveling on a trans-lunar trajectory with you in it.
    $endgroup$
    – Seth R
    2 days ago


















24












$begingroup$

I carefully examined the Saturn V in Houston (in particular the instrumentation unit) few months ago. There's no way this Saturn V would fly for a couple reasons:



  1. It was stored outside and suffered lots of corrosion and damage. It was restored enough to be exhibited but the metal still has lots of corrosion covered by paint.


  2. The instrumentation unit is missing many components. In particular, I noticed it is missing the LVDC (launch vehicle digital computer), other important electronics, some large tanks, covers on much of the electronics, a lot of wiring, and various random parts. The parts that remained were very dirty and corroded and I wouldn't expect them to work.


I agree with what @Hobbes concluded, you'd be better off building a new Saturn V.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Ken Shirriff is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Apparently there is an instrument unit in good condition at National Air & Space Museum, Udvar-Hazy Center, Dulles, Virginia.
    $endgroup$
    – dotancohen
    yesterday


















9












$begingroup$

In addition to the other answers talking about the condition of the rocket itself, you have to realize it takes a lot more than just having the rocket to launch it. There is a whole mess of support infrastructure required to make the Saturn V, or any spacecraft, actually work.



Launch Center 39 hasn't been outfitted for a Saturn V since 1973 and has been reconfigured many times since. The machinery in the VAB used for prepping the Saturn V is gone; the building is being used by SpaceX now for its rockets. All the hardware in the control centers that worked with the Saturn V telemetry systems was dismantled a long time ago. You would have to rebuild the fueling systems to fill its massive tanks (not to mention, actually refind a way to get that much fuel to the launch pad). Every last one of the people who helped build it and understood how it worked are either long retired or dead. No one has even thought about launching a Saturn V since Skylab was put in orbit; the institutional knowledge at NASA on how to make it happen is forgotten.



Even if the museum pieces were flightworthy, you would have to rebuild and relearn so much of the support infrastructure and logistics that made it possible, you'd still be better off starting over with something new.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Thank you Seth. In fact, I mention in the OP that I understand that the VAB, crawlers, and launch infrastructure would need retrofitting as well. But thank you for the details!
    $endgroup$
    – Happy Phantom
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @mgarey, no , but as an engineer I can tell you there is a huge difference between someone reading a 50-year old document on how something works and having someone who is actively wrist-deep in solving the challenges on a day-to-day basis. I'm sure NASA has reams of documentation on the Saturn V, but no one will understand a system that complex as well as the engineers who actually designed and built it.
    $endgroup$
    – Seth R
    yesterday






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @mgarey, I didn't mean to imply there was no documentation, but after 50 years I can't imagine anyone alive knows where it all is. Important to remember, too, that the Saturn V wasn't just built by NASA. It was a joint effort between hundreds of contractors and subcontractors who each had their own process documents and schematics. Who knows where all that is, if it is even still around. Trying to piece it all together is probably a bigger effort than just ordering a BFR from SpaceX.
    $endgroup$
    – Seth R
    yesterday






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @mgarey Even if documents "exist" that doesn't mean they are usable. Try making sense of poor-quality microfilm copies of thousands of pages of engineering drawings, which were originally only made as a "box ticking" backup measure by the company with the lowest price, and most likely never looked at by anyone to check their quality even when they were new. It's bad enough trying to read photocopies of reports from the 1960s originally written on manual typewriters with hand-drawn graphs and diagrams!
    $endgroup$
    – alephzero
    yesterday







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I was really just curious about the state of documentation on the Saturn V. To satisfy my own and others' curiosity on the subject: here here and here
    $endgroup$
    – mgarey
    yesterday












Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "508"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35239%2fcould-the-museum-saturn-vs-be-refitted-for-one-more-flight%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes








3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









33












$begingroup$

The one at the Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville has been stored outside so it wasn't in good shape.




Displayed outdoors and on its side since 1969, the rocket was exhibiting widespread paint failure, moisture infiltration, an overall accumulation of atmospheric and biological soiling, and corrosion of its complex system of metal alloys, including aluminum. Non-metal materials such as polyurethane foam, various types of plastics including Tedlar®, phenolic resin, and fiberglass composites, had significantly deteriorated. The spacecraft portion of the Saturn V display (Lunar Adapter, Service Module, Command Module and Launch Escape System) were full scale 1970s era mock-ups constructed of sheet aluminum and fiberglass. The Command Module, constructed almost completely out of plywood and fiberglass, was is very poor condition




The others have been indoors so should be a bit better. The Huntsville rocket was incomplete. It's been restored from the above condition, but that's to 'museum exhibit' state, not 'functional rocket' state.



They'd need significant amount of work to be usable again:



  • complete inspection of the metalwork, with replacement of any corroded parts. That alone is years of work. To do an inspection to the standard you want for spaceflight, you may have to disassemble most of the rocket (to make sure you get to all the corners that become inaccessible after assembly).

  • replacement of all seals and other materials that can deteriorate. This may include the wiring.

  • replacement of all the electronics

  • new turbopumps

  • new LOX tanks, maybe (LOX reacts with lots of things, there's no way to guarantee the tanks are clean)

  • the Huntsville one was missing its CM, SM an LEM, so they'd have to be built.

  • other parts may have been cannibalized, no way to know until you strip the rocket.

IOW, you're better off building new Saturn Vs.



I'm tempted to compare it to building vs restoring cars. A thorough restoration can easily take a year. Handbuilt cars are built in weeks...






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 5




    $begingroup$
    @HappyPhantom: Is it obvious that your "inspection, repair and proper cleaning" can be done without doing that first too? There are plenty of "replacement" and "new parts" in Hobbes's list.
    $endgroup$
    – Henning Makholm
    2 days ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    New electronics, new guidance software and new turbopumps would require a new man rating of the rocket. But before man rating is finished, all museum Saturn V rockets are used,
    $endgroup$
    – Uwe
    2 days ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @HenningMakholm: No, I am not sure. That is why Inspection is the first step.
    $endgroup$
    – Happy Phantom
    2 days ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @HappyPhantom, the inspection isn't too bad -- it's basically the rocket equivalent of an aviation D-check. The problem is the repair -- for example, if one of the gyroscopes in the ST-124-M3 guidance platform has gone bad, where are you going to find a replacement?
    $endgroup$
    – Mark
    2 days ago






  • 6




    $begingroup$
    Also worth noting that when a restored vintage car breaks down because you missed something, it doesn't disintegrate traveling on a trans-lunar trajectory with you in it.
    $endgroup$
    – Seth R
    2 days ago















33












$begingroup$

The one at the Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville has been stored outside so it wasn't in good shape.




Displayed outdoors and on its side since 1969, the rocket was exhibiting widespread paint failure, moisture infiltration, an overall accumulation of atmospheric and biological soiling, and corrosion of its complex system of metal alloys, including aluminum. Non-metal materials such as polyurethane foam, various types of plastics including Tedlar®, phenolic resin, and fiberglass composites, had significantly deteriorated. The spacecraft portion of the Saturn V display (Lunar Adapter, Service Module, Command Module and Launch Escape System) were full scale 1970s era mock-ups constructed of sheet aluminum and fiberglass. The Command Module, constructed almost completely out of plywood and fiberglass, was is very poor condition




The others have been indoors so should be a bit better. The Huntsville rocket was incomplete. It's been restored from the above condition, but that's to 'museum exhibit' state, not 'functional rocket' state.



They'd need significant amount of work to be usable again:



  • complete inspection of the metalwork, with replacement of any corroded parts. That alone is years of work. To do an inspection to the standard you want for spaceflight, you may have to disassemble most of the rocket (to make sure you get to all the corners that become inaccessible after assembly).

  • replacement of all seals and other materials that can deteriorate. This may include the wiring.

  • replacement of all the electronics

  • new turbopumps

  • new LOX tanks, maybe (LOX reacts with lots of things, there's no way to guarantee the tanks are clean)

  • the Huntsville one was missing its CM, SM an LEM, so they'd have to be built.

  • other parts may have been cannibalized, no way to know until you strip the rocket.

IOW, you're better off building new Saturn Vs.



I'm tempted to compare it to building vs restoring cars. A thorough restoration can easily take a year. Handbuilt cars are built in weeks...






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 5




    $begingroup$
    @HappyPhantom: Is it obvious that your "inspection, repair and proper cleaning" can be done without doing that first too? There are plenty of "replacement" and "new parts" in Hobbes's list.
    $endgroup$
    – Henning Makholm
    2 days ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    New electronics, new guidance software and new turbopumps would require a new man rating of the rocket. But before man rating is finished, all museum Saturn V rockets are used,
    $endgroup$
    – Uwe
    2 days ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @HenningMakholm: No, I am not sure. That is why Inspection is the first step.
    $endgroup$
    – Happy Phantom
    2 days ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @HappyPhantom, the inspection isn't too bad -- it's basically the rocket equivalent of an aviation D-check. The problem is the repair -- for example, if one of the gyroscopes in the ST-124-M3 guidance platform has gone bad, where are you going to find a replacement?
    $endgroup$
    – Mark
    2 days ago






  • 6




    $begingroup$
    Also worth noting that when a restored vintage car breaks down because you missed something, it doesn't disintegrate traveling on a trans-lunar trajectory with you in it.
    $endgroup$
    – Seth R
    2 days ago













33












33








33





$begingroup$

The one at the Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville has been stored outside so it wasn't in good shape.




Displayed outdoors and on its side since 1969, the rocket was exhibiting widespread paint failure, moisture infiltration, an overall accumulation of atmospheric and biological soiling, and corrosion of its complex system of metal alloys, including aluminum. Non-metal materials such as polyurethane foam, various types of plastics including Tedlar®, phenolic resin, and fiberglass composites, had significantly deteriorated. The spacecraft portion of the Saturn V display (Lunar Adapter, Service Module, Command Module and Launch Escape System) were full scale 1970s era mock-ups constructed of sheet aluminum and fiberglass. The Command Module, constructed almost completely out of plywood and fiberglass, was is very poor condition




The others have been indoors so should be a bit better. The Huntsville rocket was incomplete. It's been restored from the above condition, but that's to 'museum exhibit' state, not 'functional rocket' state.



They'd need significant amount of work to be usable again:



  • complete inspection of the metalwork, with replacement of any corroded parts. That alone is years of work. To do an inspection to the standard you want for spaceflight, you may have to disassemble most of the rocket (to make sure you get to all the corners that become inaccessible after assembly).

  • replacement of all seals and other materials that can deteriorate. This may include the wiring.

  • replacement of all the electronics

  • new turbopumps

  • new LOX tanks, maybe (LOX reacts with lots of things, there's no way to guarantee the tanks are clean)

  • the Huntsville one was missing its CM, SM an LEM, so they'd have to be built.

  • other parts may have been cannibalized, no way to know until you strip the rocket.

IOW, you're better off building new Saturn Vs.



I'm tempted to compare it to building vs restoring cars. A thorough restoration can easily take a year. Handbuilt cars are built in weeks...






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$



The one at the Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville has been stored outside so it wasn't in good shape.




Displayed outdoors and on its side since 1969, the rocket was exhibiting widespread paint failure, moisture infiltration, an overall accumulation of atmospheric and biological soiling, and corrosion of its complex system of metal alloys, including aluminum. Non-metal materials such as polyurethane foam, various types of plastics including Tedlar®, phenolic resin, and fiberglass composites, had significantly deteriorated. The spacecraft portion of the Saturn V display (Lunar Adapter, Service Module, Command Module and Launch Escape System) were full scale 1970s era mock-ups constructed of sheet aluminum and fiberglass. The Command Module, constructed almost completely out of plywood and fiberglass, was is very poor condition




The others have been indoors so should be a bit better. The Huntsville rocket was incomplete. It's been restored from the above condition, but that's to 'museum exhibit' state, not 'functional rocket' state.



They'd need significant amount of work to be usable again:



  • complete inspection of the metalwork, with replacement of any corroded parts. That alone is years of work. To do an inspection to the standard you want for spaceflight, you may have to disassemble most of the rocket (to make sure you get to all the corners that become inaccessible after assembly).

  • replacement of all seals and other materials that can deteriorate. This may include the wiring.

  • replacement of all the electronics

  • new turbopumps

  • new LOX tanks, maybe (LOX reacts with lots of things, there's no way to guarantee the tanks are clean)

  • the Huntsville one was missing its CM, SM an LEM, so they'd have to be built.

  • other parts may have been cannibalized, no way to know until you strip the rocket.

IOW, you're better off building new Saturn Vs.



I'm tempted to compare it to building vs restoring cars. A thorough restoration can easily take a year. Handbuilt cars are built in weeks...







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 2 days ago

























answered 2 days ago









HobbesHobbes

95.5k2272426




95.5k2272426







  • 5




    $begingroup$
    @HappyPhantom: Is it obvious that your "inspection, repair and proper cleaning" can be done without doing that first too? There are plenty of "replacement" and "new parts" in Hobbes's list.
    $endgroup$
    – Henning Makholm
    2 days ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    New electronics, new guidance software and new turbopumps would require a new man rating of the rocket. But before man rating is finished, all museum Saturn V rockets are used,
    $endgroup$
    – Uwe
    2 days ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @HenningMakholm: No, I am not sure. That is why Inspection is the first step.
    $endgroup$
    – Happy Phantom
    2 days ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @HappyPhantom, the inspection isn't too bad -- it's basically the rocket equivalent of an aviation D-check. The problem is the repair -- for example, if one of the gyroscopes in the ST-124-M3 guidance platform has gone bad, where are you going to find a replacement?
    $endgroup$
    – Mark
    2 days ago






  • 6




    $begingroup$
    Also worth noting that when a restored vintage car breaks down because you missed something, it doesn't disintegrate traveling on a trans-lunar trajectory with you in it.
    $endgroup$
    – Seth R
    2 days ago












  • 5




    $begingroup$
    @HappyPhantom: Is it obvious that your "inspection, repair and proper cleaning" can be done without doing that first too? There are plenty of "replacement" and "new parts" in Hobbes's list.
    $endgroup$
    – Henning Makholm
    2 days ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    New electronics, new guidance software and new turbopumps would require a new man rating of the rocket. But before man rating is finished, all museum Saturn V rockets are used,
    $endgroup$
    – Uwe
    2 days ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @HenningMakholm: No, I am not sure. That is why Inspection is the first step.
    $endgroup$
    – Happy Phantom
    2 days ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @HappyPhantom, the inspection isn't too bad -- it's basically the rocket equivalent of an aviation D-check. The problem is the repair -- for example, if one of the gyroscopes in the ST-124-M3 guidance platform has gone bad, where are you going to find a replacement?
    $endgroup$
    – Mark
    2 days ago






  • 6




    $begingroup$
    Also worth noting that when a restored vintage car breaks down because you missed something, it doesn't disintegrate traveling on a trans-lunar trajectory with you in it.
    $endgroup$
    – Seth R
    2 days ago







5




5




$begingroup$
@HappyPhantom: Is it obvious that your "inspection, repair and proper cleaning" can be done without doing that first too? There are plenty of "replacement" and "new parts" in Hobbes's list.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
2 days ago




$begingroup$
@HappyPhantom: Is it obvious that your "inspection, repair and proper cleaning" can be done without doing that first too? There are plenty of "replacement" and "new parts" in Hobbes's list.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
2 days ago




1




1




$begingroup$
New electronics, new guidance software and new turbopumps would require a new man rating of the rocket. But before man rating is finished, all museum Saturn V rockets are used,
$endgroup$
– Uwe
2 days ago




$begingroup$
New electronics, new guidance software and new turbopumps would require a new man rating of the rocket. But before man rating is finished, all museum Saturn V rockets are used,
$endgroup$
– Uwe
2 days ago




1




1




$begingroup$
@HenningMakholm: No, I am not sure. That is why Inspection is the first step.
$endgroup$
– Happy Phantom
2 days ago




$begingroup$
@HenningMakholm: No, I am not sure. That is why Inspection is the first step.
$endgroup$
– Happy Phantom
2 days ago




3




3




$begingroup$
@HappyPhantom, the inspection isn't too bad -- it's basically the rocket equivalent of an aviation D-check. The problem is the repair -- for example, if one of the gyroscopes in the ST-124-M3 guidance platform has gone bad, where are you going to find a replacement?
$endgroup$
– Mark
2 days ago




$begingroup$
@HappyPhantom, the inspection isn't too bad -- it's basically the rocket equivalent of an aviation D-check. The problem is the repair -- for example, if one of the gyroscopes in the ST-124-M3 guidance platform has gone bad, where are you going to find a replacement?
$endgroup$
– Mark
2 days ago




6




6




$begingroup$
Also worth noting that when a restored vintage car breaks down because you missed something, it doesn't disintegrate traveling on a trans-lunar trajectory with you in it.
$endgroup$
– Seth R
2 days ago




$begingroup$
Also worth noting that when a restored vintage car breaks down because you missed something, it doesn't disintegrate traveling on a trans-lunar trajectory with you in it.
$endgroup$
– Seth R
2 days ago











24












$begingroup$

I carefully examined the Saturn V in Houston (in particular the instrumentation unit) few months ago. There's no way this Saturn V would fly for a couple reasons:



  1. It was stored outside and suffered lots of corrosion and damage. It was restored enough to be exhibited but the metal still has lots of corrosion covered by paint.


  2. The instrumentation unit is missing many components. In particular, I noticed it is missing the LVDC (launch vehicle digital computer), other important electronics, some large tanks, covers on much of the electronics, a lot of wiring, and various random parts. The parts that remained were very dirty and corroded and I wouldn't expect them to work.


I agree with what @Hobbes concluded, you'd be better off building a new Saturn V.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Ken Shirriff is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Apparently there is an instrument unit in good condition at National Air & Space Museum, Udvar-Hazy Center, Dulles, Virginia.
    $endgroup$
    – dotancohen
    yesterday















24












$begingroup$

I carefully examined the Saturn V in Houston (in particular the instrumentation unit) few months ago. There's no way this Saturn V would fly for a couple reasons:



  1. It was stored outside and suffered lots of corrosion and damage. It was restored enough to be exhibited but the metal still has lots of corrosion covered by paint.


  2. The instrumentation unit is missing many components. In particular, I noticed it is missing the LVDC (launch vehicle digital computer), other important electronics, some large tanks, covers on much of the electronics, a lot of wiring, and various random parts. The parts that remained were very dirty and corroded and I wouldn't expect them to work.


I agree with what @Hobbes concluded, you'd be better off building a new Saturn V.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Ken Shirriff is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Apparently there is an instrument unit in good condition at National Air & Space Museum, Udvar-Hazy Center, Dulles, Virginia.
    $endgroup$
    – dotancohen
    yesterday













24












24








24





$begingroup$

I carefully examined the Saturn V in Houston (in particular the instrumentation unit) few months ago. There's no way this Saturn V would fly for a couple reasons:



  1. It was stored outside and suffered lots of corrosion and damage. It was restored enough to be exhibited but the metal still has lots of corrosion covered by paint.


  2. The instrumentation unit is missing many components. In particular, I noticed it is missing the LVDC (launch vehicle digital computer), other important electronics, some large tanks, covers on much of the electronics, a lot of wiring, and various random parts. The parts that remained were very dirty and corroded and I wouldn't expect them to work.


I agree with what @Hobbes concluded, you'd be better off building a new Saturn V.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Ken Shirriff is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$



I carefully examined the Saturn V in Houston (in particular the instrumentation unit) few months ago. There's no way this Saturn V would fly for a couple reasons:



  1. It was stored outside and suffered lots of corrosion and damage. It was restored enough to be exhibited but the metal still has lots of corrosion covered by paint.


  2. The instrumentation unit is missing many components. In particular, I noticed it is missing the LVDC (launch vehicle digital computer), other important electronics, some large tanks, covers on much of the electronics, a lot of wiring, and various random parts. The parts that remained were very dirty and corroded and I wouldn't expect them to work.


I agree with what @Hobbes concluded, you'd be better off building a new Saturn V.







share|improve this answer








New contributor




Ken Shirriff is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer






New contributor




Ken Shirriff is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









answered 2 days ago









Ken ShirriffKen Shirriff

3415




3415




New contributor




Ken Shirriff is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Ken Shirriff is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Ken Shirriff is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Apparently there is an instrument unit in good condition at National Air & Space Museum, Udvar-Hazy Center, Dulles, Virginia.
    $endgroup$
    – dotancohen
    yesterday












  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Apparently there is an instrument unit in good condition at National Air & Space Museum, Udvar-Hazy Center, Dulles, Virginia.
    $endgroup$
    – dotancohen
    yesterday







2




2




$begingroup$
Apparently there is an instrument unit in good condition at National Air & Space Museum, Udvar-Hazy Center, Dulles, Virginia.
$endgroup$
– dotancohen
yesterday




$begingroup$
Apparently there is an instrument unit in good condition at National Air & Space Museum, Udvar-Hazy Center, Dulles, Virginia.
$endgroup$
– dotancohen
yesterday











9












$begingroup$

In addition to the other answers talking about the condition of the rocket itself, you have to realize it takes a lot more than just having the rocket to launch it. There is a whole mess of support infrastructure required to make the Saturn V, or any spacecraft, actually work.



Launch Center 39 hasn't been outfitted for a Saturn V since 1973 and has been reconfigured many times since. The machinery in the VAB used for prepping the Saturn V is gone; the building is being used by SpaceX now for its rockets. All the hardware in the control centers that worked with the Saturn V telemetry systems was dismantled a long time ago. You would have to rebuild the fueling systems to fill its massive tanks (not to mention, actually refind a way to get that much fuel to the launch pad). Every last one of the people who helped build it and understood how it worked are either long retired or dead. No one has even thought about launching a Saturn V since Skylab was put in orbit; the institutional knowledge at NASA on how to make it happen is forgotten.



Even if the museum pieces were flightworthy, you would have to rebuild and relearn so much of the support infrastructure and logistics that made it possible, you'd still be better off starting over with something new.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Thank you Seth. In fact, I mention in the OP that I understand that the VAB, crawlers, and launch infrastructure would need retrofitting as well. But thank you for the details!
    $endgroup$
    – Happy Phantom
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @mgarey, no , but as an engineer I can tell you there is a huge difference between someone reading a 50-year old document on how something works and having someone who is actively wrist-deep in solving the challenges on a day-to-day basis. I'm sure NASA has reams of documentation on the Saturn V, but no one will understand a system that complex as well as the engineers who actually designed and built it.
    $endgroup$
    – Seth R
    yesterday






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @mgarey, I didn't mean to imply there was no documentation, but after 50 years I can't imagine anyone alive knows where it all is. Important to remember, too, that the Saturn V wasn't just built by NASA. It was a joint effort between hundreds of contractors and subcontractors who each had their own process documents and schematics. Who knows where all that is, if it is even still around. Trying to piece it all together is probably a bigger effort than just ordering a BFR from SpaceX.
    $endgroup$
    – Seth R
    yesterday






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @mgarey Even if documents "exist" that doesn't mean they are usable. Try making sense of poor-quality microfilm copies of thousands of pages of engineering drawings, which were originally only made as a "box ticking" backup measure by the company with the lowest price, and most likely never looked at by anyone to check their quality even when they were new. It's bad enough trying to read photocopies of reports from the 1960s originally written on manual typewriters with hand-drawn graphs and diagrams!
    $endgroup$
    – alephzero
    yesterday







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I was really just curious about the state of documentation on the Saturn V. To satisfy my own and others' curiosity on the subject: here here and here
    $endgroup$
    – mgarey
    yesterday
















9












$begingroup$

In addition to the other answers talking about the condition of the rocket itself, you have to realize it takes a lot more than just having the rocket to launch it. There is a whole mess of support infrastructure required to make the Saturn V, or any spacecraft, actually work.



Launch Center 39 hasn't been outfitted for a Saturn V since 1973 and has been reconfigured many times since. The machinery in the VAB used for prepping the Saturn V is gone; the building is being used by SpaceX now for its rockets. All the hardware in the control centers that worked with the Saturn V telemetry systems was dismantled a long time ago. You would have to rebuild the fueling systems to fill its massive tanks (not to mention, actually refind a way to get that much fuel to the launch pad). Every last one of the people who helped build it and understood how it worked are either long retired or dead. No one has even thought about launching a Saturn V since Skylab was put in orbit; the institutional knowledge at NASA on how to make it happen is forgotten.



Even if the museum pieces were flightworthy, you would have to rebuild and relearn so much of the support infrastructure and logistics that made it possible, you'd still be better off starting over with something new.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Thank you Seth. In fact, I mention in the OP that I understand that the VAB, crawlers, and launch infrastructure would need retrofitting as well. But thank you for the details!
    $endgroup$
    – Happy Phantom
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @mgarey, no , but as an engineer I can tell you there is a huge difference between someone reading a 50-year old document on how something works and having someone who is actively wrist-deep in solving the challenges on a day-to-day basis. I'm sure NASA has reams of documentation on the Saturn V, but no one will understand a system that complex as well as the engineers who actually designed and built it.
    $endgroup$
    – Seth R
    yesterday






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @mgarey, I didn't mean to imply there was no documentation, but after 50 years I can't imagine anyone alive knows where it all is. Important to remember, too, that the Saturn V wasn't just built by NASA. It was a joint effort between hundreds of contractors and subcontractors who each had their own process documents and schematics. Who knows where all that is, if it is even still around. Trying to piece it all together is probably a bigger effort than just ordering a BFR from SpaceX.
    $endgroup$
    – Seth R
    yesterday






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @mgarey Even if documents "exist" that doesn't mean they are usable. Try making sense of poor-quality microfilm copies of thousands of pages of engineering drawings, which were originally only made as a "box ticking" backup measure by the company with the lowest price, and most likely never looked at by anyone to check their quality even when they were new. It's bad enough trying to read photocopies of reports from the 1960s originally written on manual typewriters with hand-drawn graphs and diagrams!
    $endgroup$
    – alephzero
    yesterday







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I was really just curious about the state of documentation on the Saturn V. To satisfy my own and others' curiosity on the subject: here here and here
    $endgroup$
    – mgarey
    yesterday














9












9








9





$begingroup$

In addition to the other answers talking about the condition of the rocket itself, you have to realize it takes a lot more than just having the rocket to launch it. There is a whole mess of support infrastructure required to make the Saturn V, or any spacecraft, actually work.



Launch Center 39 hasn't been outfitted for a Saturn V since 1973 and has been reconfigured many times since. The machinery in the VAB used for prepping the Saturn V is gone; the building is being used by SpaceX now for its rockets. All the hardware in the control centers that worked with the Saturn V telemetry systems was dismantled a long time ago. You would have to rebuild the fueling systems to fill its massive tanks (not to mention, actually refind a way to get that much fuel to the launch pad). Every last one of the people who helped build it and understood how it worked are either long retired or dead. No one has even thought about launching a Saturn V since Skylab was put in orbit; the institutional knowledge at NASA on how to make it happen is forgotten.



Even if the museum pieces were flightworthy, you would have to rebuild and relearn so much of the support infrastructure and logistics that made it possible, you'd still be better off starting over with something new.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$



In addition to the other answers talking about the condition of the rocket itself, you have to realize it takes a lot more than just having the rocket to launch it. There is a whole mess of support infrastructure required to make the Saturn V, or any spacecraft, actually work.



Launch Center 39 hasn't been outfitted for a Saturn V since 1973 and has been reconfigured many times since. The machinery in the VAB used for prepping the Saturn V is gone; the building is being used by SpaceX now for its rockets. All the hardware in the control centers that worked with the Saturn V telemetry systems was dismantled a long time ago. You would have to rebuild the fueling systems to fill its massive tanks (not to mention, actually refind a way to get that much fuel to the launch pad). Every last one of the people who helped build it and understood how it worked are either long retired or dead. No one has even thought about launching a Saturn V since Skylab was put in orbit; the institutional knowledge at NASA on how to make it happen is forgotten.



Even if the museum pieces were flightworthy, you would have to rebuild and relearn so much of the support infrastructure and logistics that made it possible, you'd still be better off starting over with something new.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered yesterday









Seth RSeth R

23913




23913







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Thank you Seth. In fact, I mention in the OP that I understand that the VAB, crawlers, and launch infrastructure would need retrofitting as well. But thank you for the details!
    $endgroup$
    – Happy Phantom
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @mgarey, no , but as an engineer I can tell you there is a huge difference between someone reading a 50-year old document on how something works and having someone who is actively wrist-deep in solving the challenges on a day-to-day basis. I'm sure NASA has reams of documentation on the Saturn V, but no one will understand a system that complex as well as the engineers who actually designed and built it.
    $endgroup$
    – Seth R
    yesterday






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @mgarey, I didn't mean to imply there was no documentation, but after 50 years I can't imagine anyone alive knows where it all is. Important to remember, too, that the Saturn V wasn't just built by NASA. It was a joint effort between hundreds of contractors and subcontractors who each had their own process documents and schematics. Who knows where all that is, if it is even still around. Trying to piece it all together is probably a bigger effort than just ordering a BFR from SpaceX.
    $endgroup$
    – Seth R
    yesterday






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @mgarey Even if documents "exist" that doesn't mean they are usable. Try making sense of poor-quality microfilm copies of thousands of pages of engineering drawings, which were originally only made as a "box ticking" backup measure by the company with the lowest price, and most likely never looked at by anyone to check their quality even when they were new. It's bad enough trying to read photocopies of reports from the 1960s originally written on manual typewriters with hand-drawn graphs and diagrams!
    $endgroup$
    – alephzero
    yesterday







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I was really just curious about the state of documentation on the Saturn V. To satisfy my own and others' curiosity on the subject: here here and here
    $endgroup$
    – mgarey
    yesterday













  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Thank you Seth. In fact, I mention in the OP that I understand that the VAB, crawlers, and launch infrastructure would need retrofitting as well. But thank you for the details!
    $endgroup$
    – Happy Phantom
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @mgarey, no , but as an engineer I can tell you there is a huge difference between someone reading a 50-year old document on how something works and having someone who is actively wrist-deep in solving the challenges on a day-to-day basis. I'm sure NASA has reams of documentation on the Saturn V, but no one will understand a system that complex as well as the engineers who actually designed and built it.
    $endgroup$
    – Seth R
    yesterday






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @mgarey, I didn't mean to imply there was no documentation, but after 50 years I can't imagine anyone alive knows where it all is. Important to remember, too, that the Saturn V wasn't just built by NASA. It was a joint effort between hundreds of contractors and subcontractors who each had their own process documents and schematics. Who knows where all that is, if it is even still around. Trying to piece it all together is probably a bigger effort than just ordering a BFR from SpaceX.
    $endgroup$
    – Seth R
    yesterday






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @mgarey Even if documents "exist" that doesn't mean they are usable. Try making sense of poor-quality microfilm copies of thousands of pages of engineering drawings, which were originally only made as a "box ticking" backup measure by the company with the lowest price, and most likely never looked at by anyone to check their quality even when they were new. It's bad enough trying to read photocopies of reports from the 1960s originally written on manual typewriters with hand-drawn graphs and diagrams!
    $endgroup$
    – alephzero
    yesterday







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I was really just curious about the state of documentation on the Saturn V. To satisfy my own and others' curiosity on the subject: here here and here
    $endgroup$
    – mgarey
    yesterday








2




2




$begingroup$
Thank you Seth. In fact, I mention in the OP that I understand that the VAB, crawlers, and launch infrastructure would need retrofitting as well. But thank you for the details!
$endgroup$
– Happy Phantom
yesterday




$begingroup$
Thank you Seth. In fact, I mention in the OP that I understand that the VAB, crawlers, and launch infrastructure would need retrofitting as well. But thank you for the details!
$endgroup$
– Happy Phantom
yesterday




1




1




$begingroup$
@mgarey, no , but as an engineer I can tell you there is a huge difference between someone reading a 50-year old document on how something works and having someone who is actively wrist-deep in solving the challenges on a day-to-day basis. I'm sure NASA has reams of documentation on the Saturn V, but no one will understand a system that complex as well as the engineers who actually designed and built it.
$endgroup$
– Seth R
yesterday




$begingroup$
@mgarey, no , but as an engineer I can tell you there is a huge difference between someone reading a 50-year old document on how something works and having someone who is actively wrist-deep in solving the challenges on a day-to-day basis. I'm sure NASA has reams of documentation on the Saturn V, but no one will understand a system that complex as well as the engineers who actually designed and built it.
$endgroup$
– Seth R
yesterday




4




4




$begingroup$
@mgarey, I didn't mean to imply there was no documentation, but after 50 years I can't imagine anyone alive knows where it all is. Important to remember, too, that the Saturn V wasn't just built by NASA. It was a joint effort between hundreds of contractors and subcontractors who each had their own process documents and schematics. Who knows where all that is, if it is even still around. Trying to piece it all together is probably a bigger effort than just ordering a BFR from SpaceX.
$endgroup$
– Seth R
yesterday




$begingroup$
@mgarey, I didn't mean to imply there was no documentation, but after 50 years I can't imagine anyone alive knows where it all is. Important to remember, too, that the Saturn V wasn't just built by NASA. It was a joint effort between hundreds of contractors and subcontractors who each had their own process documents and schematics. Who knows where all that is, if it is even still around. Trying to piece it all together is probably a bigger effort than just ordering a BFR from SpaceX.
$endgroup$
– Seth R
yesterday




3




3




$begingroup$
@mgarey Even if documents "exist" that doesn't mean they are usable. Try making sense of poor-quality microfilm copies of thousands of pages of engineering drawings, which were originally only made as a "box ticking" backup measure by the company with the lowest price, and most likely never looked at by anyone to check their quality even when they were new. It's bad enough trying to read photocopies of reports from the 1960s originally written on manual typewriters with hand-drawn graphs and diagrams!
$endgroup$
– alephzero
yesterday





$begingroup$
@mgarey Even if documents "exist" that doesn't mean they are usable. Try making sense of poor-quality microfilm copies of thousands of pages of engineering drawings, which were originally only made as a "box ticking" backup measure by the company with the lowest price, and most likely never looked at by anyone to check their quality even when they were new. It's bad enough trying to read photocopies of reports from the 1960s originally written on manual typewriters with hand-drawn graphs and diagrams!
$endgroup$
– alephzero
yesterday





1




1




$begingroup$
I was really just curious about the state of documentation on the Saturn V. To satisfy my own and others' curiosity on the subject: here here and here
$endgroup$
– mgarey
yesterday





$begingroup$
I was really just curious about the state of documentation on the Saturn V. To satisfy my own and others' curiosity on the subject: here here and here
$endgroup$
– mgarey
yesterday


















draft saved

draft discarded
















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Space Exploration Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35239%2fcould-the-museum-saturn-vs-be-refitted-for-one-more-flight%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Àrd-bhaile Cathair chruinne/Baile mòr cruinne | Artagailean ceangailte | Clàr-taice na seòladaireachd

Cannot Extend partition with GParted The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) 2019 Community Moderator Election ResultsCan't increase partition size with GParted?GParted doesn't recognize the unallocated space after my current partitionWhat is the best way to add unallocated space located before to Ubuntu 12.04 partition with GParted live?I can't figure out how to extend my Arch home partition into free spaceGparted Linux Mint 18.1 issueTrying to extend but swap partition is showing as Unknown in Gparted, shows proper from fdiskRearrange partitions in gparted to extend a partitionUnable to extend partition even though unallocated space is next to it using GPartedAllocate free space to root partitiongparted: how to merge unallocated space with a partition

대한민국 목차 국명 지리 역사 정치 국방 경제 사회 문화 국제 순위 관련 항목 각주 외부 링크 둘러보기 메뉴북위 37° 34′ 08″ 동경 126° 58′ 36″ / 북위 37.568889° 동경 126.976667°  / 37.568889; 126.976667ehThe Korean Repository문단을 편집문단을 편집추가해Clarkson PLC 사Report for Selected Countries and Subjects-Korea“Human Development Index and its components: P.198”“http://www.law.go.kr/%EB%B2%95%EB%A0%B9/%EB%8C%80%ED%95%9C%EB%AF%BC%EA%B5%AD%EA%B5%AD%EA%B8%B0%EB%B2%95”"한국은 국제법상 한반도 유일 합법정부 아니다" - 오마이뉴스 모바일Report for Selected Countries and Subjects: South Korea격동의 역사와 함께한 조선일보 90년 : 조선일보 인수해 혁신시킨 신석우, 임시정부 때는 '대한민국' 국호(國號) 정해《우리가 몰랐던 우리 역사: 나라 이름의 비밀을 찾아가는 역사 여행》“남북 공식호칭 ‘남한’‘북한’으로 쓴다”“Corea 대 Korea, 누가 이긴 거야?”국내기후자료 - 한국[김대중 前 대통령 서거] 과감한 구조개혁 'DJ노믹스'로 최단기간 환란극복 :: 네이버 뉴스“이라크 "韓-쿠르드 유전개발 MOU 승인 안해"(종합)”“해외 우리국민 추방사례 43%가 일본”차기전차 K2'흑표'의 세계 최고 전력 분석, 쿠키뉴스 엄기영, 2007-03-02두산인프라, 헬기잡는 장갑차 'K21'...내년부터 공급, 고뉴스 이대준, 2008-10-30과거 내용 찾기mk 뉴스 - 구매력 기준으로 보면 한국 1인당 소득 3만弗과거 내용 찾기"The N-11: More Than an Acronym"Archived조선일보 최우석, 2008-11-01Global 500 2008: Countries - South Korea“몇년째 '시한폭탄'... 가계부채, 올해는 터질까”가구당 부채 5000만원 처음 넘어서“‘빚’으로 내몰리는 사회.. 위기의 가계대출”“[경제365] 공공부문 부채 급증…800조 육박”“"소득 양극화 다소 완화...불평등은 여전"”“공정사회·공생발전 한참 멀었네”iSuppli,08年2QのDRAMシェア・ランキングを発表(08/8/11)South Korea dominates shipbuilding industry | Stock Market News & Stocks to Watch from StraightStocks한국 자동차 생산, 3년 연속 세계 5위자동차수출 '현대-삼성 웃고 기아-대우-쌍용은 울고' 과거 내용 찾기동반성장위 창립 1주년 맞아Archived"중기적합 3개업종 합의 무시한 채 선정"李대통령, 사업 무분별 확장 소상공인 생계 위협 질타삼성-LG, 서민업종인 빵·분식사업 잇따라 철수상생은 뒷전…SSM ‘몸집 불리기’ 혈안Archived“경부고속도에 '아시안하이웨이' 표지판”'철의 실크로드' 앞서 '말(言)의 실크로드'부터, 프레시안 정창현, 2008-10-01“'서울 지하철은 안전한가?'”“서울시 “올해 안에 모든 지하철역 스크린도어 설치””“부산지하철 1,2호선 승강장 안전펜스 설치 완료”“전교조, 정부 노조 통계서 처음 빠져”“[Weekly BIZ] 도요타 '제로 이사회'가 리콜 사태 불러들였다”“S Korea slams high tuition costs”““정치가 여론 양극화 부채질… 합리주의 절실””“〈"`촛불집회'는 민주주의의 질적 변화 상징"〉”““촛불집회가 민주주의 왜곡 초래””“국민 65%, "한국 노사관계 대립적"”“한국 국가경쟁력 27위‥노사관계 '꼴찌'”“제대로 형성되지 않은 대한민국 이념지형”“[신년기획-갈등의 시대] 갈등지수 OECD 4위…사회적 손실 GDP 27% 무려 300조”“2012 총선-대선의 키워드는 '국민과 소통'”“한국 삶의 질 27위, 2000년과 2008년 연속 하위권 머물러”“[해피 코리아] 행복점수 68점…해외 평가선 '낙제점'”“한국 어린이·청소년 행복지수 3년 연속 OECD ‘꼴찌’”“한국 이혼율 OECD중 8위”“[통계청] 한국 이혼율 OECD 4위”“오피니언 [이렇게 생각한다] `부부의 날` 에 돌아본 이혼율 1위 한국”“Suicide Rates by Country, Global Health Observatory Data Repository.”“1. 또 다른 차별”“오피니언 [편집자에게] '왕따'와 '패거리 정치' 심리는 닮은꼴”“[미래한국리포트] 무한경쟁에 빠진 대한민국”“대학생 98% "외모가 경쟁력이라는 말 동의"”“특급호텔 웨딩·200만원대 유모차… "남보다 더…" 호화病, 고질병 됐다”“[스트레스 공화국] ① 경쟁사회, 스트레스 쌓인다”““매일 30여명 자살 한국, 의사보다 무속인에…””“"자살 부르는 '우울증', 환자 중 85% 치료 안 받아"”“정신병원을 가다”“대한민국도 ‘묻지마 범죄’,안전지대 아니다”“유엔 "학생 '성적 지향'에 따른 차별 금지하라"”“유엔아동권리위원회 보고서 및 번역본 원문”“고졸 성공스토리 담은 '제빵왕 김탁구' 드라마 나온다”“‘빛 좋은 개살구’ 고졸 취업…실습 대신 착취”원본 문서“정신건강, 사회적 편견부터 고쳐드립니다”‘소통’과 ‘행복’에 목 마른 사회가 잠들어 있던 ‘심리학’ 깨웠다“[포토] 사유리-곽금주 교수의 유쾌한 심리상담”“"올해 한국인 평균 영화관람횟수 세계 1위"(종합)”“[게임연중기획] 게임은 문화다-여가활동 1순위 게임”“영화속 ‘영어 지상주의’ …“왠지 씁쓸한데””“2월 `신문 부수 인증기관` 지정..방송법 후속작업”“무료신문 성장동력 ‘차별성’과 ‘갈등해소’”대한민국 국회 법률지식정보시스템"Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project: South Korea"“amp;vwcd=MT_ZTITLE&path=인구·가구%20>%20인구총조사%20>%20인구부문%20>%20 총조사인구(2005)%20>%20전수부문&oper_YN=Y&item=&keyword=종교별%20인구& amp;lang_mode=kor&list_id= 2005년 통계청 인구 총조사”원본 문서“한국인이 좋아하는 취미와 운동 (2004-2009)”“한국인이 좋아하는 취미와 운동 (2004-2014)”Archived“한국, `부분적 언론자유국' 강등〈프리덤하우스〉”“국경없는기자회 "한국, 인터넷감시 대상국"”“한국, 조선산업 1위 유지(S. Korea Stays Top Shipbuilding Nation) RZD-Partner Portal”원본 문서“한국, 4년 만에 ‘선박건조 1위’”“옛 마산시,인터넷속도 세계 1위”“"한국 초고속 인터넷망 세계1위"”“인터넷·휴대폰 요금, 외국보다 훨씬 비싸”“한국 관세행정 6년 연속 세계 '1위'”“한국 교통사고 사망자 수 OECD 회원국 중 2위”“결핵 후진국' 한국, 환자가 급증한 이유는”“수술은 신중해야… 자칫하면 생명 위협”대한민국분류대한민국의 지도대한민국 정부대표 다국어포털대한민국 전자정부대한민국 국회한국방송공사about korea and information korea브리태니커 백과사전(한국편)론리플래닛의 정보(한국편)CIA의 세계 정보(한국편)마리암 부디아 (Mariam Budia),『한국: 하늘이 내린 한 폭의 그림』, 서울: 트랜스라틴 19호 (2012년 3월)대한민국ehehehehehehehehehehehehehehWorldCat132441370n791268020000 0001 2308 81034078029-6026373548cb11863345f(데이터)00573706ge128495