Saturn V stage recovery... there wasn't any?

[Nibb31]

I think that it was more of a problem about the reentry heatings that destroyed the camera than about the power. Also it would have to have a connection to mission control fast enough to livestream the camera footage and work at sea level while traveling with several hundred m/s through the air.

Livestream? We're talking about the 60's guys! There was no such thing as digital video, it was either broadcast TV or film.

That famous separation footage from Apollo 4 was parachuted down in film canisters.

[LordOfTheOrbits]

Livestream? We're talking about the 60's guys! There was no such thing as digital video, it was either broadcast TV or film.

That famous separation footage from Apollo 4 was parachuted down in film canisters.

That was exactly my point, I was trying to say why it was impossible to get on board camera footage of the stage splashing down.

[Nibb31]

How costly was it to retrieve the space shuttles, SRBs and fuel tank?

The external tanks weren't recovered. The SRBs were recovered and recycled, but they were basically just empty steel casings without much value. The Shuttle SSME engines are still the only rocket engines that have ever been recovered from orbit and reused.

[Camacha]

Livestream? We're talking about the 60's guys! There was no such thing as digital video, it was either broadcast TV or film.

Although technically different, I would not consider the practical side of sending video via an electronic sensor to earth very different from using a livestream. The GCTA that was used to film the takeoff of the LEM's could probably also be used to film the lower stages plummeting back to earth before they burned up or crashed. NASA actually considered both the analog and digital approach for the electronic cameras on board, but the former was deemed a more efficient option. Contrary to seemingly popular belief, the 60's were not the stone age.

Also contrary to popular belief, stone age people actually used some pretty clever technology.

[Camacha]

but they were basically just empty steel casings without much value.

They are really a tad more complex than that. Do not forget the vectoring capabilities, along with guidance and more.

[Motokid600]

The film was parachuted down? That I did not know. Was the reel in a canister that blew off before the stage reentered?

[Brotoro]

Yes, the camera pods were ejected shortly after second stage ignition and recovered in the ocean. Or some of them were recovered, anyway.

[MaverickSawyer]

The film was parachuted down? That I did not know. Was the reel in a canister that blew off before the stage reentered?

Yup, they took a page from the Corona Program, but they retrieved them after splashdown, not in midair.

The Shuttle SSME engines are still the only rocket engines that have ever been recovered from orbit and reused.

Not true. The SSMEs were reused to some extent, but the masters of this were the OMS engines. Only four flown engines are NOT around today: the two on Challenger and the two on Columbia. Those engines were described as "the Maytags of the Shuttle fleet", because they NEVER needed major overhauls, unlike the SSMEs, which were basically rebuilt after each flight. Aerojet is STILL highly proud of the OMS engines. They were true works of art.

As for the F-1 engines, even if they did recover the stage/engines, they would have to do some serious overhauls on the regenerative cooling system, if nothing else. Anyone familiar with the "coking" issue of LOX/RP-1 engines? Basically, what happens is that the immense heat causes some of the fuel flowing through the cooling channels of the engine to break down, leaving carbon deposits inside the coolant channels. The engines were designed with this in mind for only a single run. So, after every full-duration hot-fire test, they had to tear down the engines, clean out the carbon, then reassemble it again. They still do that with modern LOX/RP-1 engines, just not nearly as urgently.

[Rocketscience101]

A real big issue is money, plus it took a massive barge to transport each stage separately to the launch site. Taking those out into the middle of the ocean and bringing a massive crane with you to even get it out of the water, really it is a more difficult task than you think. Even though weight was an issue, that doesn't mean these things are light. What you see at Kennedy Space Center, Johnson Space Center and anywhere else they have a saturn V or model, was the bare minimum so the thing would stay together, without to much weight on them.

[rdfox]

Yup, they took a page from the Corona Program, but they retrieved them after splashdown, not in midair.

Also, unlike Corona, they ejected the entire camera, not just the film canister. (If you watch the *full* version of the famous S-IC/S-II separation sequence, or the S-I/S-IV sequence from one Saturn I mission, or the S-IB/S-II sequence from an unmanned Saturn IB mission, you'll see that the film actually kept running right up to the moment the camera left the booster and the power connections separated; you can see it suddenly rush forward out of the booster structure right before cutting off.)

Not true. The SSMEs were reused to some extent, but the masters of this were the OMS engines. Only four flown engines are NOT around today: the two on Challenger and the two on Columbia. Those engines were described as "the Maytags of the Shuttle fleet", because they NEVER needed major overhauls, unlike the SSMEs, which were basically rebuilt after each flight. Aerojet is STILL highly proud of the OMS engines. They were true works of art.

I would be willing to bet that NASA will find some future use for all the OMS engines, plus new-production ones, likely in some form of "space tug" where their durability and reliability would be immensely valuable. (There's a REASON that none of the Orbiters have real OMS pods on them in their display sites now; they have high-fidelity mockups NASA fabricated for the display duty, just like the SSMEs.)

As for the F-1 engines, even if they did recover the stage/engines, they would have to do some serious overhauls on the regenerative cooling system, if nothing else. Anyone familiar with the "coking" issue of LOX/RP-1 engines? Basically, what happens is that the immense heat causes some of the fuel flowing through the cooling channels of the engine to break down, leaving carbon deposits inside the coolant channels. The engines were designed with this in mind for only a single run. So, after every full-duration hot-fire test, they had to tear down the engines, clean out the carbon, then reassemble it again. They still do that with modern LOX/RP-1 engines, just not nearly as urgently.

...sort of. I don't think it was quite as bad as you suggest; the data I've seen indicated that, other than swapping out ignitors, the F-1 engines were designed to be fired full-duration up to four times without a teardown, due to the requirement that, since each engine was handmade and no two were exactly identical, each engine had to be run for a full-duration hot-fire test on the test stand *after* final assembly and *before* being mounted on the S-IC and flown. (The four-firing requirement was meant to give them two chances to fix any problems found in the testing before they'd have to do a teardown and rebuild.) This is actually a stiffer requirement than the SSME had; the SSMEs could only be hot-fired twice before needing a rebuild, and that was regardless of firing duration. With the static fire test requirement still in place, this is why a pad abort of a Shuttle mission after SSME ignition required the vehicle to be rolled back to the VAB; the engine had already been static-fired once, and the ignition on the pad meant it now would need a rebuild, so all three would have to be pulled and replaced. (This was also probably one of the biggest employment programs for the Stennis Space Center, since it meant pretty much constant static firings up until the end of the Shuttle program... firings that have resumed as part of development work for the SLS.)

Personally, I always thought it was a crime to not use J-2s as the mains on the Shuttle, or to use the "flyback" S-IC as a first stage instead of the SRBs, but whatcha gonna do?

[MaverickSawyer]

Because J-2s were not as powerful as SSMEs. You would need more of them to make the shuttle perform the same.

As for the OMS engines, they are not going to be reused for anything that I'm aware of. However, many of the technologies that were used in that were either reused or updated for use in the OME of the Lockheed SM for the Orion MPCV. My dad was working on that until the contract with Lockheed was cancelled.

[Tiberion]

The shuttle OMS engines are AJ-10s (The 190 variant) which is the same basic engine that the Apollo service module. It's also been used as an upper stage for a variety of other rockets, old and new. Probably one of the most flown engines in history since the Delta II uses it has its 2nd stage, which is another 150+ launches in addition to all of the shuttle launches, plus the older versions used in Vanguard, Thor, and the older Delta rockets.

[MaverickSawyer]

Yes, there is a lot of common heritage between them, but they are in fact VERY different engines. The Apollo SPS was a much more powerful version, and had that HUGE nozzle extension. The twin bipropellant valves from the SPS were carried over to the OMS engine, while the Delta chamber geometry (with a few tweaks) was chosen for the OMS. However, there is little in common other than propellants and some general specs.

[lajoswinkler]

I just thought of something... In KSP, after costs are implemented, it would be ok if recovering would be more expensive than recovering from the immediate oceanic vicinity of KSC.