I seem to recall that in the wake of the Challenger accident, Hughes was working on something called a Jarvis launcher http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/jarvis.htm , which used components from the Saturn V. this would be very difficult if the tooling and blueprints were destroyed.
Michael Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> > > We've been down this road before. Even if the folklore (?) about the
> > > blueprints being stored in a trailer that burned is true, there is at
> > least
> > > one Saturn V left--on display at Johnson Space Center in Houston,
possibly
> > > yet another in Huntley, Alabama--that could be reverse-engineered.
They
> > > were marvelous, flawless craft. That we have to go through so many
> > > contortions now to justify a probe to Europa is ample testimony that
the
> > > technology they represented is sorely missed. Blame Nixon--he's the
one
> > > that cancelled Apollo in favor of the Shuttle, on the dubious claim
that
> > > they would make great launch vehicles for spy satellites, etc. Maybe
they
> > > have, but I don't think s! o. Recall that Apollo was a JFK project, and
> > > Nixon was not one of his biggest fans. We all suffer now for the
> > > short-sighted views of a single, powerful man.
> > >
> > > Gary
> > >
> > > At 10:58 PM 9/5/2003 -0600, you wrote:
> > >
> > > >Robert,
> > > >
> > > >The biggest problem is that even if you had the blueprints it still
> > > >wouldn't work right. The techniques used in manufacturing the Saturn
> > > >are forever lost. We have newer (and supposedly better) ways of
> > > >building things. A lot of things have just changed too much.
> > > >
> > > >Now with that said, if the Rocketdyne people kept anything about how
the
> > > >engines were built, then we could design a HLLV (heavy lift launch
> > > >vehicle) that could lift significant! ly more than the Saturn did. We
now
> > > >have lightweight and strong composites. Even if the craft were not
> > > >reusable, at $250 Million a launch the craft would be cheap.
> > > >
> > > >Joe L.
> > > >
> > > >On Fri, 2003-09-05 at 16:55, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> > > > > The recent release of the CAIB report has caused both
> > > > > hearings in Congress as well as lots of speculations,
> > > > > e.g.:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/05/1731237&mode=thread&tid=
> > 134&tid=160&tid=98&tid=99
> > > > >
> > > > > I have heard that the Saturn 5 blueprints were destroyed -- does
> > anyone
> > > > > know if this claim is valid or an u! rban legend?
> > > > >
> > > > > If these claims are true, does anyone know who is most directly
> > > > > responsible for the termination of the knowledge of how to build
> > > > > a Saturn 5 -- and whether they are still alive -- because I'd
> > > > > certainly like to contact them and give them a piece of my mind.
> > > > >
> > > > > (A related but slightly different conversation vector is whether
or
> > > > > not Russia still has the ability to build the Energia since it is
> > > > > the most recently flown rocket that might be considered to have
> > > > > heavy lift capacity.)
> > > > >
> > > > > Robert
> > > > >
>


Sincerely

 

James McEnanly


Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

Reply via email to