The Saturn 1B rocket used for this launch was intended only to boost the payload into earth orbit. The CSM, LM housing, and SIVB (here used as a second stage) are all full-size. The first stage, however, was a money-saving compromise-- eight Redstone rockets lashed together . . .
Man these Saturn Rockets were unbelievably impressive, almost as impressive as the landings. When I was a kid, I never missed a televised transmission of most of the Gemini and Apollo. I miss you Jules Bergman !
seeing the difference between launches of the 1b vs. the V really makes me wish we could have at least managed to have seen one test of the big Ares....
although i do prefer the look of liquid fueled rockets to the solid rocket boosters they use now, i still bet the big ares would have been a sight
You know there is a book by Stephen Baxter called Voyage, This book is one of those What if books, in which instead of going with the shuttle, NASA pursues a Mars Landing in 1986 using Apollo Technology. A 2nd book he wrote is called Titan, in which a manned mission is sent to Jupiter's moon Titan using the Shuttle Discovery along with 2 Apollo Command Modules. Both are good books you might find intresting to read. Especially Voyage for all you Apollo fans :)
This clip has by far the most visible tower jettison I've ever seen in a Saturn launch. For some reason, it is generally almost imperceptible in the Saturn V launches I've seen.
these missions before AP11 are interesting... what happened to the crew? did they photograph the moon or film it with these missions? anyways cool, brave chaps, amazing technology, but i feel something just doesn't add up...
In addition to cutting NASA'a budget in 1970, which I remember, I was 9, he also instituted for-profit healthcare, with the disastrous results we've seen.
I know the Apollo 7 crew was the backup crew for the ill fated Apollo 1, however, I've wondered if Wally Schirra would have stayed in if he'd been offerred Command of Apollo 10 or a landing mission? For that matter, Gordo Cooper flying Apollo 7 ( I know he was not on the best of terms of senior Mgmt- but he may have been a good fit for the mission). Any thoughts?
The fact that the crew of 7 argued with mission control is not entirely their fault; one could also blame the people responsible for designing the mission for giving them too much work to do. Blaming the crew of 7 doesn't seem quite right and I think Schirra made a fine commander.
BTW, anyone interested in the "first war in space" concerning the flight of Apollo 7, read Gene Kranz's book, "Failure Is Not An Option." It is described in detail there.
@willease. No what you saw was the escape tower being jettisoned. Prior to that was the 1st to 2nd stage staging. I remember seeing this like it was yesterday...all of 7 years old in 2nd grade! This started my keen interest in the space program and as a direct result of my interest, I am now an Electrical Engineer!
I was staying a month at my Aunt's house in s. Ponte Vedra Bch., FL (7 mi. n. of St. Augustine) where she lived right on the ocean and A-1-A and as a 6 yr. old playing on the beach, I remember my mom yelling out to me and my brothers that a 'rocket' was taking off and we should look south. I remember it was late morning (not sure exactly what time) but sure enough...we saw the clouds turn red to the south, then the rocket climbing. My Aunt took us to KSC for a tour later. It ROCKED!
The Saturn V and Saturn 1B (shown here), were the safest manned-launchers ever. Developed by former Nazi Werner von Braun, who with his German Rocket Group in the 1930s, improved upon the 1920s pioneering work of American Robert Goddard. Unlike the Germans, Goddard found it hard to get funding from the American government. Germany started making films about manned trips to the moon lke DER FRAU IM DER LUNE, in the 1930s.
I think the STS has served and served well, however there is some truth to Apollo...
However, the Shuttle did things no Apollo could. It is tremendously difficult to automatically dock a spacecraft with another. The Shuttle can carry large loads. It can carry huge science modules. It can carry crews 2x larger than Apollo in a far more spacious environment.
The ideal solution would have been to have both a capsule and a shuttle. It would not have been that much more expensive.
Don't they dock the Shuttle with the ISS manually, with computer guidance?
Don't forget the Saturn V had a payload capacity of 118,000 kg if it were unmanned and just used to lift cargo.
NASA should remake the CSM/LM stack and dock that to the ISS, then ferry astronauts to and from the moon. And use the shuttle or a BDB (maybe Soyuz - cheaper) for crew launch.
@dave46563 the Saturn SIVB was used for TLI (Trans Lunar Injection) So this rocket is just for low earth orbit as you say, i'm not sure about apollo 9 however, due to having to lift the LEM up there.
@Doctor699 Apollo 9 used a Saturn V. Your probably aware of an Apollo flight profile so i wont go into too much detail. The SIVB was unique at the time because it could be re-fired a second time. On lunar bound flights it was used for TLI as you mentioned. On Apollo 9 it was 'safed' when earth orbit was achieved. All the crew had to do was dock with the LEM and extract it from the SIVB. I think it later burned up in the atmosphere.
S-IVB stage was the 2nd stage on the Saturn 1B and the 3rd stage on the Saturn V. The S-IVB had 1 J-2 engine that delivered 200-220K lbs of trust using LOX and liquid hydrogen.
@Chuckjagermeister Sorry - but that's basically wrong in every aspect. It's a Saturn 1B. Apollo 1 was planned to be on a Saturn 1B. Apollo 7 and three Skylab missions where the only manned Saturn 1B launches. The Saturn V replaced the first stage with two larger diameter stages. The upper stages were the same on the Apollo missions, the SIVB and the CSM (Command Service Module). The LM (9-17) was in the tapered area between the SIVB and the CSM. This may still be my favorite launch.
They're designing new technology because the shuttle is considered "old". Waste of time? maybe. But it never hurts to have new technology. Besides, so far nasa has gone from simple designs (mercury, apollo, ect.) to very complicated (space shuttle) and now they're going back to a simple conventional rocket that will have new technology in it but way less complicated than the shuttle.
The biggest waste of time has been the shuttle. A terrible white elephant military failure. If they'd have kept the Saturn V active, they could've lifted the ISS in many fewer launches. Orion/Ares harks back to Apollo, even way back in the 60's with much more primitive technology Apollo worked, had they stuck with it, and the Saturn V, they most probably could've had a moonbase by now, and they'd be preparing for Mars, and not back at the drawing board for lunar missions.
Shuttle launches now are still not as expensive as the old Saturn V-Apollo lunar launches.
The STS could be adapted to an unmanned cargo capability with a cargo carrier instead of the Orbiter. A new manned craft and re-designed booster is all that would be needed.
They're using entirely NEW designs that will mean Orion probably not be flown until years after the Shuttle is retired.
I don't know if shuttle launches cost less than Apollo launches!! lol.
I don't know if the shuttle could be adapted to carry unmanned payload!!
All i do know is, the shuttle can't go to the moon!!
The shuttle can't lift anywhere near what the Saturn V lifted, all i was saying was, if they'd have continued to develop the Saturn/Apollo concept, they'd probably be well ahead of where they are now.
Well, I read that STS launches cost $500M, whereas Apollo-Saturn V cost $1B each.
All an 'unmanned' STS would be is the ET, SRBs, and an aerodynmaic cargo carrier with avionics atop. You'll probably find stuff at the Astronautix website and Wikipedia.
Well, it was Nixon who canned Apollo and asked for the Shuttle! It DID keep Americans in space, though, and proved that spacecraft could be launched, orbited, and flown. It's still a valid concept.
I don't propose to continue this debate much longer.
Shuttle Block II? Well NASA obviously don't think so, i think abandoning Apollo displayed a certain lack of perspicacity on NASA's part, especially when it was in favour of a vehicle with such serious inherent problems(heat tiles and ET insulation), a vehicle which could only ever achieve LEO, and one which has cost many more lives than Apollo did.
Also, let's face it, they've got to design a new lander, like i said STS ain't moonbound!!
Does the cost of the Apollo launch include all the inherent costs of landing a man on the moon? If it does then it's bound to be more expensive than a shuttle launch. As much as i think the Shuttle is impressive...(NASA will be so relieved LOL) i can't help but agree with 'bro70'. There have been alot of problems with the Shuttle and it's original concept of being relatively cheap and routine have been lost owing to the complexity of the system. Excuse me for butting in.
The point was, would the launch of a Saturn V be as expensive if like the Shuttle it was delivering hardware just to Earth orbit. The Shuttle has never left Earth orbit so naturally its cost will be lower in that respect, but it's hardly a fair comparison.
Keep in mind an LEO-bound Saturn V would not have an SIVB, as there's no need to carry the fuel for TLI. An LEO-bound Saturn V would basically be what they used to launch Skylab.
They could have used a better design, e.g. crew deck on top of the ET, rather than adjacent too. Max Faget designed a smaller version of the shuttle which would really have only launched crewmembers (4, IIRC), but it would have been cheaper to operate.
Right. Because of the cutting of NASAs budget by Rifhard Nixon in 1970, we are 40-years behind. But behind closed doors, the technology has moved 50-years ahead. We went to the moon with the technology of 1963. I was 2 years old in 1963. It is 2010, and we have had out in the 4-corners desert, "Craft that would make George Lucas drool". But it is still classified 2-points higher than the H-bomb, according to Canadian Scientist Wilbert Smith (PROJECT MAGNET).
The video evidence shows that the actual moon landings were faked. Here's a partial summary of it.
3W's (dot) rushlimbaughforum (dot) com/never-went-the-moon-t2782 (dot) html
(check link for gaps)
They probably never got higher than low earth orbit due to space radiation. In the second half of the link above there's some stuff about space radiation.
When NASA started giving the crew way too many tasks (such as new experiments not on the original flight plan) than they had time for after they were in orbit, Wally Schirra (who also developed a cold while in orbit, which didn't help his mood) started vetoing requests he though were pointless or unimportant. Since had announced before the mission his plans to retire after that mission, NASA couldn't punish him, so they made examples out of Don Eisele and Walt Cunningham instead.
Basically because they had a "mutiny" with mission control. They all 3 had bad colds while in space and Wally decided there would be no "Mickey Mouse/Larry Lightbulb" type experiments while he was commanding the mission. They really got into some heated exchanges with mission control and Chris Kraft grounded them; Wally had announced his retirement anyway. Regardless of how they behaved in space, they made Apollo 8 possible!
Thanks. I'd known there was friction, due in part to Schirra's becoming ill during the flight, but I didn't know NASA had gone so far as to ground the rest of the crew.
I remember this one going up as a kid. One of my earliest memories. NASA had a lot of work to do on this mission after the Apollo 1 disaster and the crew was worked hard. Wally Schirra was the captain and he had some heated discussions with CapCom over the comlink. I believe they had colds too.
Sometimes I wish they would bring the old launch vehicles back. The shuttle will be retired in 2010. NASA's new manned space programme is Constellation and is looking to return humans to the Moon, and later, Mars. One of Constellation's launch vehicles is Ares V which will be in a similar class to the Saturn V.
The problem with that idea is that the Saturn V cost about $3 billion per launch in today's dollars. All the old machinery, tooling, and support facilities used to construct and operate it are long since gone and would have to be rebuilt as well.
Glassoul - I think you figures are a little high, but they do make the correct point. The Saturn V was an incredibly expensive vehicle to manufacture and fly. I believe a more accurate number would $1 billion per launch in today's dollars. This compares with approx $500 million per launch with the Space Shuttle.
And actually, the prints and the scheme I've seen are quite promising. Maybe it will be safer and more powerful than Saturn 5, but we don't really know until they make a prototype.
Yeah I heard that they would be using the SRB's in some way for the new launch vehicle. I'm in the middle of making a video about the Constellation program. I think NASA has already started updating one of the shuttle launch pads ready. It will be sad to see the shuttle go though.
As far as I have seen, they are gathering tools around one of the launch pads. Next week, they're going to take us to the launch pads and explain about the EEP. Then I will know exactly which one. About the shuttle - truly it is sad. It is one of the most amazing technological marvels I have ever seen.
The people who knew how to "do it" are gone. There were somethings that were done that are lost art. Hell NASA even admitted they goofed up and taped OVER the Apollo 11 video!
@mashamorgan Unfortunately its going nowhere, Since Apollo NASA have had s series of space 'non-events'. The Shuttle only stayed in low earth orbit and didn't reduce the cost of taking payload into space and is now finished and the Space Station? Don't really understand what that was about. I guess NASA just lost its bottle. It wasn't costs (after all Apollo cost $30billion...but the US were spending that annually on Vietnam). I think we missed the boat
@TennisUK11 In the beginning, the space station project called "Freedom" was another US "race" with the Soviets. They had Salyut and Mir, and planned to ultimately go to Mars. When Soviet disintegrated USA wanted to involve the Russians in the station, so their rocket scientists shouldn't go to work for potential enemies. So, it became an international project, the "ISS", without any real goal. If ESA, Canada, Japan and Russia hadn't protested, USA had already cancelled the station.
I agree the ISS has no real goal. I suspect the Americans involved the Russians early on because they knew they were already in trouble with the Shuttle. It clearly was not going to be capable of servicing the construction and running of the ISS and they needed the production line made and more reliable Russian launch system to deliver crews and supplies.
Shame they scrapped the Saturn before they built the ISS
@TheSpiritof1969 Anyhow, if USA had built the "Freedom" all by themselves without Russia, they had planned to build unmanned, wingless, expendable "shuttles" with the same engines, tanks and boosters, to launch the really heavy parts.
Simply amazing! The Apollo program is the finest example of human intelligence to date.
It is very cool to see how the red-orange exhaust flame reduces in size as the air pressure decreases. This is due to an increase in altitude and lower air PSI levels.
@XmegaPresident Yes Apollo was amazing I agree. But it has a bad taste when we realise its creator, Werner Von Braun was a nazi who designed and built the V2 rocket using slave labour where many worked to death in inhuman underground caves. Von Braun was a genius but at what cost. But..............yes it was incredible even by todays standards
Interestingly enough, this was the only manned Apollo launch from the Launch Pad 34 complex. By the time the Saturn 1B was used again during the Skylab missions, NASA had dismantled the Launch Pad 34 complex and had to use a special adapter tower so the Saturn 1B could be launch from the Launch Pad 39 complex.
Contrails, like any other aircraft produces at high alititudes. The first stage burnes kerosene and oxygen which produces water. This water condensates in the cold air. They disappear within a few seconds, because the rocket passes the altitude where contrails are visible very fast.
who else is here from watching appollo 18?
22flowerlady 5 months ago
I remember the Apollo program as a kid, and I still get awestruck watching just the launches. That was a time when men dared to dream.
reneecalling 7 months ago
The Saturn 1B rocket used for this launch was intended only to boost the payload into earth orbit. The CSM, LM housing, and SIVB (here used as a second stage) are all full-size. The first stage, however, was a money-saving compromise-- eight Redstone rockets lashed together . . .
atsf1920 10 months ago
@atsf1920 Actually it was one Jupiter tank-section in the middle and 8 Redstone tank-sections around it. 8 H-1 rocket engines propelled the craft.
YDDES 7 months ago
Man these Saturn Rockets were unbelievably impressive, almost as impressive as the landings. When I was a kid, I never missed a televised transmission of most of the Gemini and Apollo. I miss you Jules Bergman !
Gotta luv the Y-Tube, thxs
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
seeing the difference between launches of the 1b vs. the V really makes me wish we could have at least managed to have seen one test of the big Ares....
although i do prefer the look of liquid fueled rockets to the solid rocket boosters they use now, i still bet the big ares would have been a sight
dopefish250 1 year ago
You know there is a book by Stephen Baxter called Voyage, This book is one of those What if books, in which instead of going with the shuttle, NASA pursues a Mars Landing in 1986 using Apollo Technology. A 2nd book he wrote is called Titan, in which a manned mission is sent to Jupiter's moon Titan using the Shuttle Discovery along with 2 Apollo Command Modules. Both are good books you might find intresting to read. Especially Voyage for all you Apollo fans :)
Starwing1272 1 year ago
The bravest men who ever lived. And God bless Grissom, White, and Chaffee. I hope God revealed to them in Heaven that the mission was accomplished.
noacronym 1 year ago
This clip has by far the most visible tower jettison I've ever seen in a Saturn launch. For some reason, it is generally almost imperceptible in the Saturn V launches I've seen.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
these missions before AP11 are interesting... what happened to the crew? did they photograph the moon or film it with these missions? anyways cool, brave chaps, amazing technology, but i feel something just doesn't add up...
b4gm4n 1 year ago
In addition to cutting NASA'a budget in 1970, which I remember, I was 9, he also instituted for-profit healthcare, with the disastrous results we've seen.
Beamshipcaptain 1 year ago
I know the Apollo 7 crew was the backup crew for the ill fated Apollo 1, however, I've wondered if Wally Schirra would have stayed in if he'd been offerred Command of Apollo 10 or a landing mission? For that matter, Gordo Cooper flying Apollo 7 ( I know he was not on the best of terms of senior Mgmt- but he may have been a good fit for the mission). Any thoughts?
paratrooper629 2 years ago
The fact that the crew of 7 argued with mission control is not entirely their fault; one could also blame the people responsible for designing the mission for giving them too much work to do. Blaming the crew of 7 doesn't seem quite right and I think Schirra made a fine commander.
youvebeenthunderstru 2 years ago
BTW, anyone interested in the "first war in space" concerning the flight of Apollo 7, read Gene Kranz's book, "Failure Is Not An Option." It is described in detail there.
knobdikker 2 years ago
looked like it blew up at the end there...?
willease 2 years ago
@willease. No what you saw was the escape tower being jettisoned. Prior to that was the 1st to 2nd stage staging. I remember seeing this like it was yesterday...all of 7 years old in 2nd grade! This started my keen interest in the space program and as a direct result of my interest, I am now an Electrical Engineer!
knobdikker 2 years ago
Thank You NASA
duduvenom 2 years ago
I was staying a month at my Aunt's house in s. Ponte Vedra Bch., FL (7 mi. n. of St. Augustine) where she lived right on the ocean and A-1-A and as a 6 yr. old playing on the beach, I remember my mom yelling out to me and my brothers that a 'rocket' was taking off and we should look south. I remember it was late morning (not sure exactly what time) but sure enough...we saw the clouds turn red to the south, then the rocket climbing. My Aunt took us to KSC for a tour later. It ROCKED!
camomule 2 years ago 2
The Saturn V and Saturn 1B (shown here), were the safest manned-launchers ever. Developed by former Nazi Werner von Braun, who with his German Rocket Group in the 1930s, improved upon the 1920s pioneering work of American Robert Goddard. Unlike the Germans, Goddard found it hard to get funding from the American government. Germany started making films about manned trips to the moon lke DER FRAU IM DER LUNE, in the 1930s.
Beamshipcaptain 2 years ago
do you know that they might extent the shuttle for five years? read on the internet and I heard on the radio. im soooo siked if they do!
Blabist 2 years ago
I think the STS has served and served well, however there is some truth to Apollo...
However, the Shuttle did things no Apollo could. It is tremendously difficult to automatically dock a spacecraft with another. The Shuttle can carry large loads. It can carry huge science modules. It can carry crews 2x larger than Apollo in a far more spacious environment.
The ideal solution would have been to have both a capsule and a shuttle. It would not have been that much more expensive.
krazygrrrl 2 years ago
True, and Apollo was so expensive. The budget was so huge back then.
BroadwayDivo 2 years ago
Don't they dock the Shuttle with the ISS manually, with computer guidance?
Don't forget the Saturn V had a payload capacity of 118,000 kg if it were unmanned and just used to lift cargo.
NASA should remake the CSM/LM stack and dock that to the ISS, then ferry astronauts to and from the moon. And use the shuttle or a BDB (maybe Soyuz - cheaper) for crew launch.
joshatkins94 2 years ago
building 7
jazzmaster1972 2 years ago
this is so awesome, the way the exhaust changes as it speeds and goes through the different layers of the atmosphere.
Foxx1981 2 years ago
That's the Saturn IV. For simple Earth orbital testing of Lunar equipment. The Saturn 5 added two more stages for a trans-lunar burn.
Chuckjagermeister 2 years ago
do you mean Saturn IB?
dave46563 2 years ago 5
Most definitely Saturn 1B, since letters next to each other on the keyboard, must have been a typo.
djb0110 2 years ago
@dave46563 the Saturn SIVB was used for TLI (Trans Lunar Injection) So this rocket is just for low earth orbit as you say, i'm not sure about apollo 9 however, due to having to lift the LEM up there.
Doctor699 11 months ago
@Doctor699 Apollo 9 used a Saturn V. Your probably aware of an Apollo flight profile so i wont go into too much detail. The SIVB was unique at the time because it could be re-fired a second time. On lunar bound flights it was used for TLI as you mentioned. On Apollo 9 it was 'safed' when earth orbit was achieved. All the crew had to do was dock with the LEM and extract it from the SIVB. I think it later burned up in the atmosphere.
dave46563 11 months ago
I'm thinking of the S-IVB stage (engine). Yes, that's the IB. Thank you.
Chuckjagermeister 2 years ago
S-IVB stage was the 2nd stage on the Saturn 1B and the 3rd stage on the Saturn V. The S-IVB had 1 J-2 engine that delivered 200-220K lbs of trust using LOX and liquid hydrogen.
knobdikker 2 years ago
@Chuckjagermeister Sorry - but that's basically wrong in every aspect. It's a Saturn 1B. Apollo 1 was planned to be on a Saturn 1B. Apollo 7 and three Skylab missions where the only manned Saturn 1B launches. The Saturn V replaced the first stage with two larger diameter stages. The upper stages were the same on the Apollo missions, the SIVB and the CSM (Command Service Module). The LM (9-17) was in the tapered area between the SIVB and the CSM. This may still be my favorite launch.
jawknee06 5 months ago
Why isn't NASA simply adapting proven Shuttle technology for Orion/Ares? Why are they redesigning everything and simply wasting time?
El135o 2 years ago
They're designing new technology because the shuttle is considered "old". Waste of time? maybe. But it never hurts to have new technology. Besides, so far nasa has gone from simple designs (mercury, apollo, ect.) to very complicated (space shuttle) and now they're going back to a simple conventional rocket that will have new technology in it but way less complicated than the shuttle.
HarrisonsChannel 2 years ago
The biggest waste of time has been the shuttle. A terrible white elephant military failure. If they'd have kept the Saturn V active, they could've lifted the ISS in many fewer launches. Orion/Ares harks back to Apollo, even way back in the 60's with much more primitive technology Apollo worked, had they stuck with it, and the Saturn V, they most probably could've had a moonbase by now, and they'd be preparing for Mars, and not back at the drawing board for lunar missions.
bro70 2 years ago
Shuttle launches now are still not as expensive as the old Saturn V-Apollo lunar launches.
The STS could be adapted to an unmanned cargo capability with a cargo carrier instead of the Orbiter. A new manned craft and re-designed booster is all that would be needed.
They're using entirely NEW designs that will mean Orion probably not be flown until years after the Shuttle is retired.
El135o 2 years ago
I don't know if shuttle launches cost less than Apollo launches!! lol.
I don't know if the shuttle could be adapted to carry unmanned payload!!
All i do know is, the shuttle can't go to the moon!!
The shuttle can't lift anywhere near what the Saturn V lifted, all i was saying was, if they'd have continued to develop the Saturn/Apollo concept, they'd probably be well ahead of where they are now.
bro70 2 years ago
Well, I read that STS launches cost $500M, whereas Apollo-Saturn V cost $1B each.
All an 'unmanned' STS would be is the ET, SRBs, and an aerodynmaic cargo carrier with avionics atop. You'll probably find stuff at the Astronautix website and Wikipedia.
Well, it was Nixon who canned Apollo and asked for the Shuttle! It DID keep Americans in space, though, and proved that spacecraft could be launched, orbited, and flown. It's still a valid concept.
Shuttle Block II?
El135o 2 years ago
I don't propose to continue this debate much longer.
Shuttle Block II? Well NASA obviously don't think so, i think abandoning Apollo displayed a certain lack of perspicacity on NASA's part, especially when it was in favour of a vehicle with such serious inherent problems(heat tiles and ET insulation), a vehicle which could only ever achieve LEO, and one which has cost many more lives than Apollo did.
Also, let's face it, they've got to design a new lander, like i said STS ain't moonbound!!
bro70 2 years ago
Does the cost of the Apollo launch include all the inherent costs of landing a man on the moon? If it does then it's bound to be more expensive than a shuttle launch. As much as i think the Shuttle is impressive...(NASA will be so relieved LOL) i can't help but agree with 'bro70'. There have been alot of problems with the Shuttle and it's original concept of being relatively cheap and routine have been lost owing to the complexity of the system. Excuse me for butting in.
Eltoniobonio 2 years ago
"Does the cost of the Apollo launch include all the inherent costs of landing a man on the moon?"
Yes.
El135o 2 years ago
The point was, would the launch of a Saturn V be as expensive if like the Shuttle it was delivering hardware just to Earth orbit. The Shuttle has never left Earth orbit so naturally its cost will be lower in that respect, but it's hardly a fair comparison.
Eltoniobonio 2 years ago
Keep in mind an LEO-bound Saturn V would not have an SIVB, as there's no need to carry the fuel for TLI. An LEO-bound Saturn V would basically be what they used to launch Skylab.
joshatkins94 2 years ago
They could have used a better design, e.g. crew deck on top of the ET, rather than adjacent too. Max Faget designed a smaller version of the shuttle which would really have only launched crewmembers (4, IIRC), but it would have been cheaper to operate.
joshatkins94 2 years ago
History will mark that when we were at the pinnacle of space exploration, we simply QUIT!
knobdikker 2 years ago 2
Right. Because of the cutting of NASAs budget by Rifhard Nixon in 1970, we are 40-years behind. But behind closed doors, the technology has moved 50-years ahead. We went to the moon with the technology of 1963. I was 2 years old in 1963. It is 2010, and we have had out in the 4-corners desert, "Craft that would make George Lucas drool". But it is still classified 2-points higher than the H-bomb, according to Canadian Scientist Wilbert Smith (PROJECT MAGNET).
Beamshipcaptain 2 years ago
um..Nixon was for Nasa, you need to read history.
Beamshipcaptain it was Congress that cut the budget as it was congress that cut many budgets and has always been the killer of things.
Dogmeat1950 1 year ago
That is INCREDIBLE!! I've never seen footage all the way into orbit with stage separation like that
sbentjies 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The video evidence shows that the actual moon landings were faked. Here's a partial summary of it.
3W's (dot) rushlimbaughforum (dot) com/never-went-the-moon-t2782 (dot) html
(check link for gaps)
They probably never got higher than low earth orbit due to space radiation. In the second half of the link above there's some stuff about space radiation.
Cosmored 3 years ago
Stop smoking the weed dude...Doesn't suit you.
dave46563 3 years ago
kill yourself
whatthehellbrosef 3 years ago
People who say that man did not go to the Moon should consult a psychiatrist.
ipsos2007 2 years ago 18
When NASA started giving the crew way too many tasks (such as new experiments not on the original flight plan) than they had time for after they were in orbit, Wally Schirra (who also developed a cold while in orbit, which didn't help his mood) started vetoing requests he though were pointless or unimportant. Since had announced before the mission his plans to retire after that mission, NASA couldn't punish him, so they made examples out of Don Eisele and Walt Cunningham instead.
Jim9199 3 years ago 2
Oops -- I need to correct an omitted word: "Since Wally had announced..."
Jim9199 3 years ago
Anyone know why Don Eisele and Walt Cunningham never flew again? Please, no "Apollo was a hoax" BS.
mpgingdl 3 years ago
Basically because they had a "mutiny" with mission control. They all 3 had bad colds while in space and Wally decided there would be no "Mickey Mouse/Larry Lightbulb" type experiments while he was commanding the mission. They really got into some heated exchanges with mission control and Chris Kraft grounded them; Wally had announced his retirement anyway. Regardless of how they behaved in space, they made Apollo 8 possible!
knobdikker 2 years ago
Thanks. I'd known there was friction, due in part to Schirra's becoming ill during the flight, but I didn't know NASA had gone so far as to ground the rest of the crew.
mpgingdl 2 years ago
I remember this one going up as a kid. One of my earliest memories. NASA had a lot of work to do on this mission after the Apollo 1 disaster and the crew was worked hard. Wally Schirra was the captain and he had some heated discussions with CapCom over the comlink. I believe they had colds too.
Arcmate 3 years ago 2
@Arcmate Being born in 1970, I envy anyone old enough to actually remember this, or any other early Apollo launches. :-)
IsawaMitaka 1 year ago
It would be great to bring the Saturn V out of retirement, obioously not going to happen though. Where is manned spaceflight going these days??
mashamorgan 3 years ago 4
Sometimes I wish they would bring the old launch vehicles back. The shuttle will be retired in 2010. NASA's new manned space programme is Constellation and is looking to return humans to the Moon, and later, Mars. One of Constellation's launch vehicles is Ares V which will be in a similar class to the Saturn V.
dave46563 3 years ago
The problem with that idea is that the Saturn V cost about $3 billion per launch in today's dollars. All the old machinery, tooling, and support facilities used to construct and operate it are long since gone and would have to be rebuilt as well.
glassoul 3 years ago
Glassoul - I think you figures are a little high, but they do make the correct point. The Saturn V was an incredibly expensive vehicle to manufacture and fly. I believe a more accurate number would $1 billion per launch in today's dollars. This compares with approx $500 million per launch with the Space Shuttle.
jimflane 2 years ago
US$6.5 billion was appropriated for the Saturn .
Allowing for inflation this is equivalent to roughly $32-45 billion. This works out at a cost of $2.4-3.5 billion per launch.
wmoore998 2 years ago
That figure is for the entire Apollo program, not the launches.
MegaShaft2000 2 years ago
Like I said This works out at a cost of $2.4-3.5 billion PER launch.
wmoore998 2 years ago
Right, but that's the cost for the whole program, which really doesn't show the "per vehicle" costs.
By using the same measures since the programs inception, the Space Shuttle program would come out almost as expensive!
jimflane 2 years ago
The new one is actually a cool vehicle. I've seen it. The lower stage is made out of an SRB rocket and is going to be very powerful. Let's see.
Andybucker 3 years ago
And actually, the prints and the scheme I've seen are quite promising. Maybe it will be safer and more powerful than Saturn 5, but we don't really know until they make a prototype.
Andybucker 3 years ago
Yeah I heard that they would be using the SRB's in some way for the new launch vehicle. I'm in the middle of making a video about the Constellation program. I think NASA has already started updating one of the shuttle launch pads ready. It will be sad to see the shuttle go though.
dave46563 3 years ago
As far as I have seen, they are gathering tools around one of the launch pads. Next week, they're going to take us to the launch pads and explain about the EEP. Then I will know exactly which one. About the shuttle - truly it is sad. It is one of the most amazing technological marvels I have ever seen.
Andybucker 3 years ago
The people who knew how to "do it" are gone. There were somethings that were done that are lost art. Hell NASA even admitted they goofed up and taped OVER the Apollo 11 video!
knobdikker 2 years ago
@mashamorgan Unfortunately its going nowhere, Since Apollo NASA have had s series of space 'non-events'. The Shuttle only stayed in low earth orbit and didn't reduce the cost of taking payload into space and is now finished and the Space Station? Don't really understand what that was about. I guess NASA just lost its bottle. It wasn't costs (after all Apollo cost $30billion...but the US were spending that annually on Vietnam). I think we missed the boat
TennisUK11 1 year ago
@TennisUK11 In the beginning, the space station project called "Freedom" was another US "race" with the Soviets. They had Salyut and Mir, and planned to ultimately go to Mars. When Soviet disintegrated USA wanted to involve the Russians in the station, so their rocket scientists shouldn't go to work for potential enemies. So, it became an international project, the "ISS", without any real goal. If ESA, Canada, Japan and Russia hadn't protested, USA had already cancelled the station.
YDDES 1 year ago
@YDDES
I agree the ISS has no real goal. I suspect the Americans involved the Russians early on because they knew they were already in trouble with the Shuttle. It clearly was not going to be capable of servicing the construction and running of the ISS and they needed the production line made and more reliable Russian launch system to deliver crews and supplies.
Shame they scrapped the Saturn before they built the ISS
TheSpiritof1969 7 months ago
@TheSpiritof1969 Anyhow, if USA had built the "Freedom" all by themselves without Russia, they had planned to build unmanned, wingless, expendable "shuttles" with the same engines, tanks and boosters, to launch the really heavy parts.
YDDES 7 months ago
@mashamorgan Manned spaceflight is going away from NASA to lean commercial carriers plus Russia, China and maybe Europe.
USA will soon be out of business, in both spaceflight and economy.
Your time's over, Uncle Sam.
lolle18 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
(FAKE) APOLLO PROGRAME
Connecticut2009 3 years ago
Simply amazing! The Apollo program is the finest example of human intelligence to date.
It is very cool to see how the red-orange exhaust flame reduces in size as the air pressure decreases. This is due to an increase in altitude and lower air PSI levels.
XmegaPresident 3 years ago 11
@XmegaPresident Yes Apollo was amazing I agree. But it has a bad taste when we realise its creator, Werner Von Braun was a nazi who designed and built the V2 rocket using slave labour where many worked to death in inhuman underground caves. Von Braun was a genius but at what cost. But..............yes it was incredible even by todays standards
TennisUK11 1 year ago
@TennisUK11 Yes, and USA has a bad taste, when one nows that it's first president, George Washington, was a slave owner...
YDDES 1 year ago
Awesome !
AMGRULEZ 3 years ago
John Young has actually flown four spacecraft
1 Gemini
2 Apollo C.M.
3 Apollo L.M.
4 Space Shuttle
DeejayDREAM 3 years ago
Alan Shepard flew the smallest (Redstone) to the largest
(Saturn 5). Only 2 flights but what a jump in power and size.
artwleb 3 years ago
Interestingly, it's still only Wally Schirra and John Young who have flown three different types of manned spacecraft.
El135o 3 years ago
Interestingly enough, this was the only manned Apollo launch from the Launch Pad 34 complex. By the time the Saturn 1B was used again during the Skylab missions, NASA had dismantled the Launch Pad 34 complex and had to use a special adapter tower so the Saturn 1B could be launch from the Launch Pad 39 complex.
Sacto1654 3 years ago
This is a saturn 4 i suppose since it looks a lot smaller then that infernal beast saturn 5.
EpoBot 3 years ago
Saturn IB. Enough to take a partially fueled Apollo CSM to low earth orbit.
blablubb12345 3 years ago
Sorry if you mind,EpoBot,but there is no Saturn IV in existence. This rocket is the Saturn 1B.
Luisvaldez989 3 years ago
Sorry if you mind,EpoBot,but there is no Saturn IV in existence. This rocket is the Saturn 1B.
Luisvaldez989 3 years ago
Nice. Does anyone know why at 2:22 the rocket leaves a trace in the atmosphere?
getoffmybozack 3 years ago
Contrails, like any other aircraft produces at high alititudes. The first stage burnes kerosene and oxygen which produces water. This water condensates in the cold air. They disappear within a few seconds, because the rocket passes the altitude where contrails are visible very fast.
blablubb12345 3 years ago
Very nice video; I have the Centuri 1/100 scale Saturn 1B and waiting to build the Estes
1/70 model. The Saturn's (both the 1B and V)
are my favorites.
dwmzmm 3 years ago
did it explode?
FormulaStrutters555 4 years ago
No mate, this one did not explode..it's the first manned launch of the Apollo moon landing program.
dave46563 4 years ago
Thanks Dave
SavannahR8 4 years ago
No problem...Always happy to help lol.
dave46563 4 years ago