🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <23DEC199220530775@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:
>>...The third stage (S-V) was to have been powered by 2 RL-10
>>engines. The S-V was NOT Centaur...
>
>I can buy the four engines and 6 engine bit, but according to document I
>have found here and the Book "Rocket Scientist" and Medaris's " Cound down
>to Decision" These were desginated the Centaur, although I will go back and
>look and make sure of this just in case.

Stages To Saturn, NASA SP-4206, says specifically that the original S-V
stage was to be a Centaur.  It was slated to be the third stage of the
Saturn C-1 and the fourth stage of Saturn C-2 (which used the S-IV as
its third stage and was to have a new second stage).  (The Saturn C-3
moved things up one more stage, with the S-IV as fourth stage, the
C-2's second stage as third stage, and another new second stage.)

Incidentally, it's important to understand that (a) there were a lot
of Saturn designs proposed -- the same study that nailed down the C-1-2-3
scheme also recomended against proceeding with the Saturn A-1, A-2, and
B-1, and those were only the most promising survivors from a longer list --
and (b) the same name sometimes got re-used (there were at least three
different vehicles named "Saturn C-3" at various times).

>>The 'C' designation was dropped somewhere along the way, with the Saturn C-1
>>becoming simply Saturn 1...
>
>According to Dr. Sthulinger and Konrad Dannenburg the C-1 designation was
>dropped when the CSM was put on the stack...

The C designation was dropped in Feb 1963 when terminology was tidied up.
Before then, it was a C-1 whether or not it had Apollo hardware on top.
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry