Saturn V

Last updated

1+14 g, i.e., the astronauts felt 1+14 g while the rocket accelerated vertically at 14 g. As the rocket rapidly lost mass, total acceleration including gravity increased to nearly 4 g at T+135 seconds. At this point, the inboard (center) engine was shut down to prevent acceleration from increasing beyond 4 g. [9]

When oxidizer or fuel depletion was sensed in the suction assemblies, the remaining four outboard engines were shut down. First stage separation occurred a little less than one second after this to allow for F-1 thrust tail-off. Eight small solid fuel separation motors backed the S-IC from the rest of the vehicle at an altitude of about 42 miles (67 km). The first stage continued on a ballistic trajectory to an altitude of about 68 miles (109 km) and then fell in the Atlantic Ocean about 350 miles (560 km) downrange. [9]

The engine shutdown procedure was changed for the launch of Skylab to avoid damage to the Apollo Telescope Mount. Rather than shutting down all four outboard engines at once, they were shut down two at a time with a delay to reduce peak acceleration further. [9]

S-II sequence

Apollo 4 interstage falling away. The engine exhaust from the S-II stage glows as it impacts the interstage.

After S-IC separation, the S-II second stage burned for 6 minutes and propelled the craft to 109 miles (175 km) and 15,647 mph (25,181 km/h), close to orbital velocity. [35]

For the first two uncrewed launches, eight solid-fuel ullage motors ignited for four seconds to accelerate the S-II stage, followed by the ignition of the five J-2 engines. For the first seven crewed Apollo missions, only four ullage motors were used on the S-II, and they were eliminated for the final four launches. About 30 seconds after first stage separation, the interstage ring dropped from the second stage. This was done with an inertially fixed attitude—orientation around its center of gravity—so that the interstage, only 3 feet 3 inches (1 m) from the outboard J-2 engines, would fall cleanly without hitting them, as the interstage could have potentially damaged two of the J-2 engines if it was attached to the S-IC. Shortly after interstage separation the Launch Escape System was also jettisoned. [35]

About 38 seconds after the second stage ignition, the Saturn V switched from a preprogrammed trajectory to a "closed loop" or Iterative Guidance Mode. The instrument unit now computed in real time the most fuel-efficient trajectory toward its target orbit. If the instrument unit failed, the crew could switch control of the Saturn to the command module's computer, take manual control, or abort the flight. [35]

About 90 seconds before the second stage cutoff, the center engine shut down to reduce longitudinal pogo oscillations. At around this time, the LOX flow rate decreased, changing the mix ratio of the two propellants and ensuring that there would be as little propellant as possible left in the tanks at the end of second stage flight. This was done at a predetermined delta-v. [35]

Five level sensors in the bottom of each S-II propellant tank were armed during S-II flight, allowing any two to trigger S-II cutoff and staging when they were uncovered. One second after the second stage cut off it separated and several seconds later the third stage ignited. Solid fuel retro-rockets mounted on the interstage at the top of the S-II fired to back it away from the S-IVB. The S-II impacted about 2,600 miles (4,200 km) from the launch site. [35]

On the Apollo 13 mission, the inboard engine suffered major pogo oscillation, resulting in an early automatic cutoff. To ensure sufficient velocity was reached, the remaining four engines were kept active for longer than planned. A pogo suppressor was fitted to later Apollo missions to avoid this, though the early fifth engine's cutoff remained to reduce g-forces. [73]

S-IVB sequence

Apollo 17 S-IVB rocket stage, shortly after transposition and docking with the Lunar Module. AS17-148-22714 crop.jpg
Apollo 17 S-IVB rocket stage, shortly after transposition and docking with the Lunar Module.

Unlike the two-plane separation of the S-IC and S-II, the S-II and S-IVB stages separated with a single step. Although it was constructed as part of the third stage, the interstage remained attached to the second stage. The third stage did not use much fuel to get into LEO (Low Earth Orbit), because the second stage had done most of the job. [11]

During Apollo 11, a typical lunar mission, the third stage burned for about 2.5 minutes until first cutoff at 11 minutes 40 seconds. At this point it was 1,645.61 miles (2,648.35 km) downrange and in a parking orbit at an altitude of 118 miles (190 km) and velocity of 17,432 miles per hour (28,054 km/h). The third stage remained attached to the spacecraft while it orbited the Earth one and a half times while astronauts and mission controllers prepared for translunar injection (TLI). [11]

For the final three Apollo flights, the temporary parking orbit was even lower (approximately 107 miles or 172 kilometers), to increase payload for these missions. The Apollo 9 Earth orbit mission was launched into the nominal orbit consistent with Apollo 11, but the spacecraft were able to use their own engines to raise the perigee high enough to sustain the 10-day mission. The Skylab was launched into a quite different orbit, with a 270-mile (434 km) perigee which sustained it for six years, and also a higher inclination to the equator (50 degrees versus 32.5 degrees for Apollo). [11]

Lunar Module sequence

On Apollo 11, TLI came at 2 hours and 44 minutes after launch. The S-IVB burned for almost six minutes, giving the spacecraft a velocity close to the Earth's escape velocity of 25,053 mph (40,319 km/h). This gave an energy-efficient transfer to lunar orbit, with the Moon helping to capture the spacecraft with a minimum of CSM fuel consumption. [11]

About 40 minutes after TLI, the Apollo command and service module (CSM) separated from the third stage, turned 180 degrees, and docked with the Lunar Module (LM) that rode below the CSM during launch. The CSM and LM separated from the spent third stage 50 minutes later, in a maneuver known as transposition, docking, and extraction. [11]

If it were to remain on the same trajectory as the spacecraft, the S-IVB could have presented a collision hazard, so its remaining propellants were vented and the auxiliary propulsion system fired to move it away. For lunar missions before Apollo 13, the S-IVB was directed toward the Moon's trailing edge in its orbit so that the Moon would slingshot it beyond earth escape velocity and into solar orbit. From Apollo 13 onwards, controllers directed the S-IVB to hit the Moon. [77] Seismometers left behind by previous missions detected the impacts, and the information helped map the internal structure of the Moon. [78]

Skylab sequence

In 1965, the Apollo Applications Program (AAP) was created to look into science missions that could be performed using Apollo hardware. Much of the planning centered on the idea of a space station. Wernher von Braun's earlier (1964) plans employed a "wet workshop" concept, with a spent S-II Saturn V second stage being launched into orbit and outfitted in space. The next year AAP studied a smaller station using the Saturn IB second stage. By 1969, Apollo funding cuts eliminated the possibility of procuring more Apollo hardware and forced the cancellation of some later Moon landing flights. This freed up at least one Saturn V, allowing the wet workshop to be replaced with the "dry workshop" concept: the station (now known as Skylab) would be built on the ground from a surplus Saturn IB second stage and launched atop the first two live stages of a Saturn V. [79] A backup station, constructed from a Saturn V third stage, was built and is now on display at the National Air and Space Museum. [80]

Skylab was the only launch not directly related to the Apollo lunar landing program. The only significant changes to the Saturn V from the Apollo configurations involved some modification to the S-II to act as the terminal stage for inserting the Skylab payload into Earth orbit, and to vent excess propellant after engine cutoff so the spent stage would not rupture in orbit. The S-II remained in orbit for almost two years, and made an uncontrolled re-entry on January 11, 1975. [81]

Three crews lived aboard Skylab from May 25, 1973, to February 8, 1974. [82] Skylab remained in orbit until July 11, 1979. [83]

Post-Apollo proposal

The Saturn-Shuttle concept Saturn-Shuttle model at Udvar-Hazy Center.jpg
The Saturn-Shuttle concept

After Apollo, the Saturn V was planned to be the prime launch vehicle for Prospector to be launched to the Moon. Prospector was a proposed 330-kilogram (730 lb) robotic rover, similar to the Soviet Lunokhod rovers Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2, [84] the Voyager Mars probes, and a scaled-up version of the Voyager interplanetary probes. [85] Saturn V was also to have been the launch vehicle for the nuclear rocket stage RIFT test program and for some versions of the upcoming NERVA project. [86] All of these planned uses of the Saturn V were cancelled, with cost being a major factor. Edgar Cortright, who had been the director of NASA Langley, stated decades later that "JPL never liked the big approach. They always argued against it. I probably was the leading proponent in using the Saturn V, and I lost. Probably very wise that I lost." [85]

The canceled second production run of Saturn Vs would very likely have used the F-1A engine in its first stage, providing a substantial performance boost. Other likely changes would have been the removal of the fins (which turned out to provide little benefit when compared to their weight), a stretched S-IC first stage to support the more powerful F-1As, and uprated J-2s or an M-1 for the upper stages. [87]

A number of alternate Saturn vehicles were proposed based on the Saturn V, ranging from the Saturn INT-20 with an S-IVB stage and interstage mounted directly onto an S-IC stage, through to the Saturn V-23(L) which would not only have five F-1 engines in the first stage, but also four strap-on boosters with two F-1 engines each, giving a total of thirteen F-1 engines firing at launch. [88]

Lack of a second Saturn V production run killed these plans and left the United States without a super heavy-lift launch vehicle. Some in the U.S. space community came to lament this situation, [89] as continued production could have allowed the International Space Station, using a Skylab or Mir configuration with both U.S. and Russian docking ports, to be lifted with just a handful of launches. The Saturn-Shuttle concept also could have eliminated the Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters that ultimately precipitated the Challenger accident in 1986. [90]

Proposed successors

Post-Apollo

Comparison of Saturn V, Shuttle, Ares I, Ares V, Ares IV, and SLS Block 1 Saturn V-Shuttle-Ares I-Ares V-Ares IV-SLS Block 1 comparison (2019).png
Comparison of Saturn V, Shuttle, Ares I, Ares V, Ares IV, and SLS Block 1

U.S. proposals for a rocket larger than the Saturn V from the late 1950s through the early 1980s were generally called Nova. Over thirty different large rocket proposals carried the Nova name, but none were developed. [91]

Wernher von Braun and others also had plans for a rocket that would have featured eight F-1 engines in its first stage, like the Saturn C-8, allowing a direct ascent flight to the Moon. Other plans for the Saturn V called for using a Centaur as an upper stage or adding strap-on boosters. These enhancements would have enabled the launch of large robotic spacecraft to the outer planets or the sending of astronauts to Mars. Other Saturn V derivatives analyzed included the Saturn MLV family of "Modified Launch Vehicles", which would have almost doubled the payload lift capability of the standard Saturn V and were intended for use in a proposed mission to Mars by 1980. [92]

In 1968, Boeing studied another Saturn-V derivative, the Saturn C-5N, which included a nuclear thermal rocket engine for the third stage of the vehicle. [93] The Saturn C-5N would carry a considerably greater payload for interplanetary spaceflight. Work on the nuclear engines, along with all Saturn V ELVs, ended in 1973. [94]

The Comet HLLV was a massive heavy lift launch vehicle designed for the First Lunar Outpost program, which was in the design phase from 1992 to 1993 under the Space Exploration Initiative. It was a Saturn V derived launch vehicle with over twice the payload capability and would have relied completely on existing technology. All of the Comet HLLV engines were modernized versions of their Apollo counterparts and the fuel tanks would be stretched. Its main goal was to support the First Lunar Outpost program and future crewed Mars missions. It was designed to be as cheap and easy to operate as possible. [95]

Ares family

In 2006, as part of the proposed Constellation program, NASA unveiled plans to construct two Shuttle Derived Launch Vehicles, the Ares I and Ares V, which would use some existing Space Shuttle and Saturn V hardware and infrastructure. The two rockets were intended to increase safety by specializing each vehicle for different tasks, Ares I for crew launches and Ares V for cargo launches. [96] The original design of the heavy-lift Ares V, named in homage to the Saturn V, was 360 feet (110 m) in height and featured a core stage based on the Space Shuttle External Tank, with a diameter of 28 feet (8.4 m). It was to be powered by five RS-25 engines and two five-segment Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs). As the design evolved, the RS-25 engines were replaced with five RS-68 engines, the same engines used on the Delta IV. The switch from the RS-25 to the RS-68 was intended to reduce cost, as the latter was cheaper, simpler to manufacture, and more powerful than the RS-25, though the lower efficiency of the RS-68 required an increase in core stage diameter to 33 ft (10 m), the same diameter as the Saturn V's S-IC and S-II stages. [96]

In 2008, NASA again redesigned the Ares V, lengthening the core stage, adding a sixth RS-68 engine, and increasing the SRBs to 5.5 segments each. [97] This vehicle would have been 381 feet (116 m) tall and would have produced a total thrust of approximately 8,900,000  lbf (40  MN ) at liftoff, more than the Saturn V or the Soviet Energia, but less than the Soviet N-1. Projected to place approximately 400,000 pounds (180 t) into orbit, the Ares V would have surpassed the Saturn V in payload capability. An upper stage, the Earth Departure Stage, would have utilized a more advanced version of the J-2 engine, the J-2X. Ares V would have placed the Altair lunar landing vehicle into low Earth orbit. An Orion crew vehicle launched on Ares I would have docked with Altair, and the Earth Departure Stage would then send the combined stack to the Moon. [98]

Space Launch System

After the cancellation of the Constellation program – and hence Ares I and Ares V – NASA announced the Space Launch System (SLS) heavy-lift launch vehicle for beyond low Earth orbit space exploration. [99] The SLS, similar to the original Ares V concept, is powered by four RS-25 engines and two five-segment SRBs. Its Block 1 configuration can lift approximately 209,000 pounds (95 t) to LEO. The Block 1B configuration will add the Exploration Upper Stage, powered by four RL10 engines, to increase payload capacity. An eventual Block 2 variant will upgrade to advanced boosters, increasing LEO payload to at least 290,000 pounds (130 t). [100]

One proposal for advanced boosters would use a derivative of the Saturn V's F-1, the F-1B, and increase SLS payload to around 330,000 pounds (150 t) to LEO. [101] The F-1B is to have better specific impulse and be cheaper than the F-1, with a simplified combustion chamber and fewer engine parts, while producing 1,800,000 lbf (8.0 MN) of thrust at sea level, an increase over the approximate 1,550,000 lbf (6.9 MN) achieved by the mature Apollo 15 F-1 engine, [102]

Saturn V displays

The Saturn V depicted on the reverse of the 2024 Alabama American Innovation dollar 2024 Alabama American Innovation Dollar.jpg
The Saturn V depicted on the reverse of the 2024 Alabama American Innovation dollar

Discarded stages

On September 3, 2002, astronomer Bill Yeung discovered a suspected asteroid, which was given the discovery designation J002E3. It appeared to be in orbit around the Earth, and was soon discovered from spectral analysis to be covered in white titanium dioxide, which was a major constituent of the paint used on the Saturn V. Calculation of orbital parameters led to tentative identification as being the Apollo 12 S-IVB stage. [109] Mission controllers had planned to send Apollo 12's S-IVB into solar orbit after separation from the Apollo spacecraft, but it is believed the burn lasted too long, and hence did not send it close enough to the Moon, so it remained in a barely stable orbit around the Earth and Moon. In 1971, through a series of gravitational perturbations, it is believed to have entered in a solar orbit and then returned into weakly captured Earth orbit 31 years later. It left Earth orbit again in June 2003. [110]

See also

Notes

  1. Pronounced "Saturn five". "V" is the roman numeral for 5.
  1. Includes mass of Apollo command module, Apollo service module, Apollo Lunar Module, Spacecraft/LM Adapter, Saturn V Instrument Unit, S-IVB stage, and propellant for translunar injection
  2. 1 2 Serial numbers were initially assigned by the Marshall Space Flight Center in the format "SA-5xx" (for Saturn-Apollo). By the time the rockets achieved flight, the Manned Spacecraft Center started using the format "AS-5xx" (for Apollo-Saturn).
  3. 1 2 Includes S-II/S-IVB interstage
  4. 1 2 Includes Instrument Unit

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Apollo program</span> 1961–1972 American crewed lunar exploration program

The Apollo program, also known as Project Apollo, was the United States human spaceflight program carried out by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), which succeeded in preparing and landing the first men on the Moon from 1968 to 1972. It was first conceived in 1960 during President Dwight D. Eisenhower's administration as a three-person spacecraft to follow the one-person Project Mercury, which put the first Americans in space. Apollo was later dedicated to President John F. Kennedy's national goal for the 1960s of "landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth" in an address to Congress on May 25, 1961. It was the third US human spaceflight program to fly, preceded by the two-person Project Gemini conceived in 1961 to extend spaceflight capability in support of Apollo.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Skylab</span> First space station launched and operated by NASA

Skylab was the United States' first space station, launched by NASA, occupied for about 24 weeks between May 1973 and February 1974. It was operated by three trios of astronaut crews: Skylab 2, Skylab 3, and Skylab 4. Operations included an orbital workshop, a solar observatory, Earth observation and hundreds of experiments. Skylab's orbit eventually decayed and it disintegrated in the atmosphere on July 11, 1979, scattering debris across the Indian Ocean and Western Australia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Apollo 4</span> First test flight of the Apollo Saturn V rocket

Apollo 4, also known as SA-501, was the uncrewed first test flight of the Saturn V launch vehicle, the rocket that eventually took astronauts to the Moon. The space vehicle was assembled in the Vehicle Assembly Building, and was the first to be launched from Kennedy Space Center (KSC) in Florida, ascending from Launch Complex 39, where facilities built specially for the Saturn V had been constructed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Apollo 5</span> Uncrewed first test flight of the Apollo Lunar Module

Apollo 5, also known as AS-204, was the uncrewed first flight of the Apollo Lunar Module (LM) that would later carry astronauts to the surface of the Moon. The Saturn IB rocket bearing the LM lifted off from Cape Kennedy on January 22, 1968. The mission was successful, though due to programming problems an alternate mission to that originally planned was executed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Apollo 6</span> Second test flight of the Apollo Saturn V rocket

Apollo 6, also known as AS-502, was the third and final uncrewed flight in the United States' Apollo Program and the second test of the Saturn V launch vehicle. It qualified the Saturn V for use on crewed missions, and it was used beginning with Apollo 8 in December 1968.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">S-IVB</span> Third stage on the Saturn V and second stage on the Saturn IB

The S-IVB was the third stage on the Saturn V and second stage on the Saturn IB launch vehicles. Built by the Douglas Aircraft Company, it had one J-2 rocket engine. For lunar missions it was fired twice: first for Earth orbit insertion after second stage cutoff, and then for translunar injection (TLI).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">AS-201</span> 1966 uncrewed, suborbital test flight within the Apollo program

AS-201, flown February 26, 1966, was the first uncrewed test flight of an entire production Block I Apollo command and service module and the Saturn IB launch vehicle. The spacecraft consisted of the second Block I command module and the first Block I service module. The suborbital flight was a partially successful demonstration of the service propulsion system and the reaction control systems of both modules, and successfully demonstrated the capability of the command module's heat shield to survive re-entry from low Earth orbit.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">AS-203</span> Uncrewed flight of the Saturn IB rocket, July 5, 1966

AS-203 was an uncrewed flight of the Saturn IB rocket on July 5, 1966. It carried no command and service module, as its purpose was to verify the design of the S-IVB rocket stage restart capability that would later be used in the Apollo program to boost astronauts from Earth orbit to a trajectory towards the Moon. It achieved its objectives, but the stage was inadvertently destroyed after four orbits.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Apollo (spacecraft)</span> Saturn V-launched payload that took men to the Moon

The Apollo spacecraft was composed of three parts designed to accomplish the American Apollo program's goal of landing astronauts on the Moon by the end of the 1960s and returning them safely to Earth. The expendable (single-use) spacecraft consisted of a combined command and service module (CSM) and an Apollo Lunar Module (LM). Two additional components complemented the spacecraft stack for space vehicle assembly: a spacecraft–LM adapter (SLA) designed to shield the LM from the aerodynamic stress of launch and to connect the CSM to the Saturn launch vehicle and a launch escape system (LES) to carry the crew in the command module safely away from the launch vehicle in the event of a launch emergency.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Saturn IB</span> American rocket used in the Apollo program during the 1960s and 70s

The Saturn IB(also known as the uprated Saturn I) was an American launch vehicle commissioned by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for the Apollo program. It uprated the Saturn I by replacing the S-IV second stage, with the S-IVB. The S-IB first stage also increased the S-I baseline's thrust from 1,500,000 pounds-force (6,700,000 N) to 1,600,000 pounds-force (7,100,000 N) and propellant load by 3.1%. This increased the Saturn I's low Earth orbit payload capability from 20,000 pounds (9,100 kg) to 46,000 pounds (21,000 kg), enough for early flight tests of a half-fueled Apollo command and service module (CSM) or a fully fueled Apollo Lunar Module (LM), before the larger Saturn V needed for lunar flight was ready.

The Apollo Applications Program (AAP) was created as early as 1966 by NASA headquarters to develop science-based human spaceflight missions using hardware developed for the Apollo program. AAP was the ultimate development of a number of official and unofficial Apollo follow-on projects studied at various NASA labs. However, the AAP's ambitious initial plans became an early casualty when the Johnson Administration declined to support it adequately, partly in order to implement its Great Society set of domestic programs while remaining within a $100 billion budget. Thus, Fiscal Year 1967 ultimately allocated $80 million to the AAP, compared to NASA's preliminary estimates of $450 million necessary to fund a full-scale AAP program for that year, with over $1 billion being required for FY 1968. The AAP eventually led to Skylab, which absorbed much of what had been developed under Apollo Applications.

<i>Voyage</i> (novel) 1996 novel by Stephen Baxter

Voyage is a 1996 hard science fiction novel by British author Stephen Baxter. The book depicts a crewed mission to Mars as it might have been in another timeline, one where John F. Kennedy survived the assassination attempt on him on 22 November 1963. Voyage won a Sidewise Award for Alternate History, and was nominated for the Arthur C. Clarke Award in 1997.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wet workshop</span> Space station made from a spent rocket stage

A wet workshop is a space station made from a spent liquid-propellant rocket stage. Such a rocket stage contains two large, airtight propellant tanks; it was realized that the larger tank could be retrofitted into the living quarters of a space station, while the smaller one could be used for the storage of waste. A large rocket stage would reach a low Earth orbit and undergo later modification. This would make for a cost-effective reuse of hardware that would otherwise have no further purpose, but the in-orbit modification of the rocket stage could prove difficult and expensive. As of April 2024, no wet-workshop space station has been built or flown.

Several planned missions of the Apollo crewed Moon landing program of the 1960s and 1970s were canceled, for reasons which included changes in technical direction, the Apollo 1 fire, hardware delays, and budget limitations. After the landing by Apollo 12, Apollo 20, which would have been the final crewed mission to the Moon, was canceled to allow Skylab to launch as a "dry workshop". The next two missions, Apollos 18 and 19, were later canceled after the Apollo 13 incident and further budget cuts. Two Skylab missions also ended up being canceled. Two complete Saturn V rockets remained unused and were put on display in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ares V</span> Canceled NASA rocket key to Project Constellation

The Ares V was the planned cargo launch component of the cancelled NASA Constellation program, which was to have replaced the Space Shuttle after its retirement in 2011. Ares V was also planned to carry supplies for a human presence on Mars. Ares V and the smaller Ares I were named after Ares, the Greek god of war.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Saturn C-4</span> Proposed NASA super-heavy-lift rocket

The Saturn C-4 was the fourth rocket in the Saturn C series studied from 1959 to 1962. The C-4 design was proposed in 1960 for a three-stage launch vehicle that could launch 99,000 kg (218,000 lb) to low Earth orbit and send 32,000 kg (70,000 lb) to the Moon via trans-lunar injection. It met the initial requirements for a lunar orbit rendezvous and lunar landing mission.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Saturn C-3</span> Third rocket in the Saturn C series studied from 1959 to 1962

The Saturn C-3 was the third rocket in the Saturn C series studied from 1959 to 1962. The design was for a three-stage launch vehicle that could launch 45,000 kilograms (99,000 lb) to low Earth orbit and send 18,000 kilograms (40,000 lb) to the Moon via trans-lunar injection.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Skylab B</span> Proposed second US space station similar to Skylab

Skylab B was a proposed second US space station similar to Skylab that was planned to be launched by NASA for different purposes, mostly involving the Apollo–Soyuz Test Project, but was canceled due to lack of funding. Two Skylab modules were built in 1970 by McDonnell Douglas for the Skylab program, originally the Apollo Applications Program. The first was launched in 1973 and the other put in storage, while NASA considered how to use the remaining assets from Apollo.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Saturn V dynamic test vehicle</span> Moon rocket test article in Huntsville, Alabama

The Saturn V dynamic test vehicle, designated SA-500D, is a prototype Saturn V rocket used by NASA to test the performance of the rocket when vibrated to simulate the shaking which subsequent rockets would experience during launch. It was the first full-scale Saturn V completed by the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC). Though SA-500D never flew, it was instrumental in the development of the Saturn V rocket which propelled the first men to the Moon as part of the Apollo program. Built under the direction of Dr. Wernher von Braun, it served as the test vehicle for all of the Saturn support facilities at MSFC.

References

  1. 1 2 3 "Apollo Program Budget Appropriations". NASA. Archived from the original on January 15, 2012. Retrieved January 16, 2008.
  2. 1 2 "SP-4221 The Space Shuttle Decision- Chapter 6: Economics and the Shuttle". NASA. Archived from the original on December 24, 2018. Retrieved January 15, 2011.
  3. 1 2 "Ground Ignition Weights". NASA.gov. Archived from the original on October 7, 2018. Retrieved November 8, 2014.
  4. Alternatives for Future U.S. Space-Launch Capabilities (PDF), The Congress of the United States. Congressional Budget Office, October 2006, p. 4 9, archived from the original on October 1, 2021, retrieved August 13, 2015
  5. Stafford 1991, p. 36
  6. 1 2 Bongat, Orlando (September 16, 2011). "NASA - Saturn V". www.nasa.gov. Retrieved January 14, 2022.
  7. "Apollo Launches". airandspace.si.edu. Archived from the original on October 16, 2020. Retrieved July 24, 2020.
  8. "Saturn V Launch Evaluation Report –SA-513 Skylab 1" (PDF). nasa.gov. NASA. August 1, 1973. p. 3. Archived (PDF) from the original on September 24, 2020. Retrieved July 21, 2020.
  9. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 "First Stage Fact Sheet" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on December 21, 2005. Retrieved July 7, 2020.
  10. 1 2 Thorne, Muriel, ed. (May 1983). NASA, The First 25 Years: 1958-1983 (PDF). Washington, D.C.: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. p. 69.
  11. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 "Third stage fact sheet" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on December 21, 2005. Retrieved July 7, 2020.
  12. 1 2 "Wernher von Braun". earthobservatory.nasa.gov. May 2, 2001. Archived from the original on April 3, 2019. Retrieved April 2, 2019.
  13. Jacobsen 2014 , p. Prologue, ix
  14. "Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency". U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. Archived from the original on June 16, 2012. Retrieved October 9, 2008.
  15. "Memorandum". Letter to Members of the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments.{{cite press release}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
  16. Neufeld, Michael J. (May 20, 2019). "Wernher von Braun and the Nazis". PBS . Archived from the original on September 3, 2020. Retrieved July 23, 2020.
  17. Harbaugh, Jennifer (February 18, 2016). "Biography of Wernher Von Braun". nasa.gov. NASA. Archived from the original on July 25, 2020. Retrieved July 24, 2020.
  18. Huntress & Marov 2011 , p. 36
  19. "The Dawn of the Space Age". cia.gov. Archived from the original on September 28, 2013. Retrieved May 15, 2012.
  20. Bilstein & Lucas 1980 , p. 18
  21. "Reach for the Stars". Time Magazine. February 17, 1958. Archived from the original on December 21, 2007.
  22. Boehm, J.; Fichtner, H.J.; Hoberg, Otto A. "Exlplorer Satellites Launched by Juno 1 and Juno 2 Vehicles" (PDF). Astrionics Division George C. Marshall Space Flight Center National Aeronautics and Space Administration Huntsville, Alabama. p. 163. Archived (PDF) from the original on May 10, 2020. Retrieved July 24, 2020.
  23. Bilstein & Lucas 1980 , pp. 28
  24. von Braun, Wernher (1975). "Chapter 3: Saturn the Giant". In Cortright, Edgar (ed.). Apollo Expeditions to the Moon. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. p. 41. ISBN   978-99973-982-7-7.
  25. Dunar & Waring 1999 , p. 54
  26. Benson & Faherty 1978 , p. 4–8
  27. Space Flight: History, Technology, and Operations, By Lance K. Erickson, page 319
  28. Bilstein & Lucas 1980 , p. 106
  29. Bilstein & Lucas 1980 , p. 143
  30. Cortright 1975 , pp. 50
  31. "SP-4402 Origins of NASA Names". history.nasa.gov. NASA. Retrieved March 12, 2022.
  32. 1 2 Akens, David S. (January 20, 1971). "Saturn Illustrated Chronology" (PDF). NASA . Archived from the original (PDF) on October 31, 2005. Retrieved August 7, 2020.
  33. Bilstein & Lucas 1980 , p. 61
  34. Bilstein & Lucas 1980 , p. 105–106
  35. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 "Second Stage Fact Sheet" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on March 26, 2015. Retrieved September 23, 2014.
  36. 1 2 "Saturn V Moon Rocket". Boeing. Archived from the original on November 20, 2010. Retrieved November 14, 2010.
  37. Edgar M. Cortright, ed. (1975). "3.2". Apollo Expeditions to the Moon. NASA Langley Research Center. ISBN   978-9997398277. Archived from the original on February 14, 2008. Retrieved February 11, 2008.
  38. Bilstein & Lucas 1980 , pp. 63–65
  39. Bilstein & Lucas 1980 , pp. 68
  40. "Man in the News: Saturn 5 Coordinator". The New York Times. November 11, 1967
  41. "Saturn Chief Leaving Post". The New York Times. May 15, 1968
  42. Loff, Sarah (April 17, 2015). "Apollo 11 Mission Overview". nasa.gov. NASA. Archived from the original on February 9, 2018. Retrieved June 26, 2020.
  43. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Wright, Mike. "Three Saturn Vs on Display Teach Lessons in Space History". NASA. Archived from the original on November 15, 2005. Retrieved February 10, 2011.
  44. "Saturn V SA-514 S-IC First Stage". www.johnweeks.com. Retrieved May 13, 2022.
  45. 1 2 "Skylab B". Archived from the original on October 1, 2016.
  46. "A Field Guide to American Spacecraft". Archived from the original on January 6, 2020.
  47. "Saturn V Rocket Payload Planners Guide". Douglas Aircraft Company. November 11, 1965. p. 5.
  48. "Saturn V Rocket: America's Moon Rocket | Kennedy Space Center". www.kennedyspacecenter.com. Retrieved January 14, 2022.
  49. "Bong! Big Ben rings in its 150th anniversary". Associated Press. May 29, 2009. Archived from the original on April 19, 2013. Retrieved June 1, 2009.
  50. 1 2 "Mercury-Redstone Launch Vehicle". NASA . September 16, 2016. Archived from the original on December 11, 2020. Retrieved October 7, 2020.
  51. 1 2 "Launch escape subsystem" (PDF). NASA . Archived (PDF) from the original on February 20, 2021. Retrieved October 7, 2020.
  52. "Stennis Space Center Celebrates 40 Years of Rocket Engine Testing". NASA. April 20, 2006. Archived from the original on November 26, 2020. Retrieved January 16, 2008.
  53. "SP-4206 Stages to Saturn". History.nasa.gov. Archived from the original on October 15, 2012. Retrieved July 6, 2020.
  54. Streigel, Mary (July 1, 2015). "The Space Age In Construction". National Park Service. Archived from the original on June 19, 2020. Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  55. Paine, Michael (March 13, 2000). "Saturn 5 Blueprints Safely in Storage". Space.com. Archived from the original on August 18, 2010. Retrieved November 9, 2011.
  56. Bilstein & Lucas 1980 , p. 192
  57. "Rocket Motor, Solid Fuel, Ullage, Also Designated TX-280". Smithsonian. Archived from the original on December 5, 2018. Retrieved December 4, 2018.
  58. Lennick 2006 , p. 46
  59. NASA (1968). "Saturn V Flight Manual – SA-503" (PDF). NASA – George C. Marshall Space Flight Center. Archived (PDF) from the original on December 25, 2017. Retrieved March 28, 2015. § 4.
  60. "AJ-260X". www.astronautix.com. Retrieved May 1, 2023.
  61. Walker, Joel. "Saturn V Second Stage". nasa.gov. NASA. Archived from the original on November 12, 2020. Retrieved July 6, 2020.
  62. 1 2 "Second Stage, S-II-F/D, Saturn V Launch Vehicle, Dynamic Test Version". airandspace.si.edu. Smithsonian air and space museum. Archived from the original on July 7, 2020. Retrieved July 6, 2020.
  63. 1 2 "SP-4206 Stages to Saturn". history.nasa.gov. NASA. Archived from the original on June 9, 2021. Retrieved July 7, 2020.
  64. "Saturn S-IVB". apollosaturn. Archived from the original on September 19, 2011. Retrieved November 4, 2011.
  65. "NASA SPACE VEHICLE DESIGN CRITERIA (GUIDANCE AND CONTROL)" (PDF). ntrs.nasa.gov. NASA. March 1971. Archived (PDF) from the original on July 6, 2021. Retrieved July 7, 2020.
  66. 1 2 3 4 Lawrie 2016.
  67. 1 2 3 Johnston, Louis; Williamson, Samuel H. (2023). "What Was the U.S. GDP Then?". MeasuringWorth . Retrieved November 30, 2023. United States Gross Domestic Product deflator figures follow the MeasuringWorth series.
  68. "sp4206". Archived from the original on October 15, 2004. Retrieved July 12, 2017.
  69. Dunbar, Brian (June 2, 2015). "What Was the Saturn V?". nasa.gov. Archived from the original on July 10, 2020. Retrieved July 7, 2020.
  70. "Launch Complex 39". nasa.gov. NASA. Archived from the original on May 28, 2020. Retrieved July 7, 2020.
  71. "JSC History". nasa.gov. NASA. Archived from the original on July 14, 2019. Retrieved July 7, 2020.
  72. 1 2 "Saturn V Launch Vehicle Evaluation Report—AS-502 Apollo 6 Mission" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on February 14, 2020. Retrieved January 18, 2013.
  73. 1 2 "NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)" (PDF). nasa.gov. Archived (PDF) from the original on August 7, 2020. Retrieved July 7, 2017.
  74. "Skylab Saturn IB Flight Manual" (PDF). NASA Marshall Spaceflight Center. Archived (PDF) from the original on August 11, 2007. Retrieved January 16, 2008.
  75. "Boeing History, Saturn V Moon Rocket". boeing.com. Archived from the original on March 1, 2012.
  76. "The Space Review: Saturn's fury: effects of a Saturn 5 launch pad explosion". www.thespacereview.com. Retrieved January 18, 2022.
  77. "NASA GSFC – Lunar Impact Sites". NASA. Archived from the original on July 24, 2020. Retrieved January 16, 2008.
  78. "Apollo 11 Seismic Experiment". moon.nasa.gov. September 22, 2017. Archived from the original on September 28, 2020. Retrieved July 7, 2020.
  79. Young 2008 , p. 245
  80. Shayler 2001 , p. 301
  81. "Skylab rocket debris falls in Indian Ocean". Chicago Tribune. January 11, 1975. Archived from the original on October 23, 2014. Retrieved October 22, 2014.
  82. "Skylab: First U.S. Space Station". Space.com . July 11, 2018. Archived from the original on July 8, 2020. Retrieved July 7, 2020.
  83. Long, Tony. "July 11, 1979: Look Out Below! Here Comes Skylab!". Wired. Archived from the original on July 7, 2020. Retrieved July 7, 2020.
  84. Ulivi 2004 , p. 40
  85. 1 2 "Cortright Oral History (p31)" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on September 10, 2012. Retrieved January 26, 2012.
  86. Wade, Mark. "Nerva". Encyclopedia Astronautica . Archived from the original on July 29, 2021. Retrieved July 29, 2021.
  87. Wade, Mark. "Saturn Genealogy". Encyclopedia Astronautica. Archived from the original on August 19, 2016. Retrieved January 17, 2008.
  88. Wade, Mark. "Saturn V-23(L)". Encyclopedia Astronautica. Archived from the original on March 18, 2022. Retrieved April 22, 2022.
  89. "Human Space Exploration:The Next 50 Years". Aviation Week. March 14, 2007. Archived from the original on July 9, 2011. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
  90. "Challenger STS 51-L Accident January 28, 1986". history.nasa.gov. NASA. Archived from the original on March 3, 2020. Retrieved July 7, 2020.
  91. "Nova". astronautix.com. Archived from the original on June 7, 2020. Retrieved July 7, 2020.
  92. NASA.gov Archived November 10, 2020, at the Wayback Machine "Modified Launch Vehicle (MLV) Saturn V Improvement Study Composite Summary Report", NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), July 1965, p. 76.
  93. "Saturn S-N V-25(S)U". Astronautix.com. Archived from the original on January 8, 2013. Retrieved October 14, 2013.
  94. NASA's Nuclear Frontier Archived December 25, 2017, at the Wayback Machine The Plum Brook Reactor Facility, pp. 68, 73, 76, 101, 116, 129.
  95. "First Lunar Outpost". www.astronautix.com. Archived from the original on January 14, 2020. Retrieved January 10, 2020.
  96. 1 2 John P. Sumrall A New Heavy-Lift Capability for Space Exploration: NASA's Ares V Cargo Launch Vehicle. NASA Through years of triumph and tragedy, direct experience and engineering risk analyses have concluded that separating the crew from the cargo during launch reduces safety risks and improves safety statistics.
  97. Phil Sumrall (August 15, 2008). "Ares V Overview" (PDF). p. 4 – Launch Vehicle Comparisons. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 31, 2009.
  98. "NASA's Ares Projects Ares V Cargo Launch Vehicle" (PDF). nasa.gov. Archived (PDF) from the original on July 6, 2021. Retrieved July 8, 2020.
  99. David S. Weaver (September 14, 2011). "NASA SLS Announcement". Archived from the original on February 7, 2019. Retrieved September 15, 2011.
  100. "Space Launch System Core Stage" (PDF). nasa.gov. Archived (PDF) from the original on November 8, 2020. Retrieved July 8, 2020.
  101. Chris Bergin (November 9, 2012). "Dynetics and PWR aiming to liquidize SLS booster competition with F-1 power". NASASpaceFlight.com. Archived from the original on September 27, 2013. Retrieved October 14, 2013.
  102. Lee Hutchinson (April 15, 2013). "New F-1B rocket engine upgrades Apollo-era design with 1.8M lbs of thrust". Ars Technica. Archived from the original on December 2, 2017. Retrieved April 15, 2013.
  103. "U.S space and rocket center". rocketcenter.com. March 3, 2014. Archived from the original on September 12, 2017. Retrieved July 8, 2020.
  104. "Saturn V at Rocket Park". spacecenter.org. Archived from the original on July 8, 2020. Retrieved July 8, 2020.
  105. Bilstein & Lucas 1980 , p. 439
  106. "Saturn V Rocket". www.kennedyspacecenter.com. Archived from the original on July 8, 2020. Retrieved July 8, 2020.
  107. "About the S-IC". www.visitinfinity.com. Archived from the original on July 8, 2020. Retrieved July 8, 2020.
  108. "S-IVB-D Dynamic Test Stage, Or Third Stage, Saturn V Launch Vehicle". airandspace.si.edu. Archived from the original on July 10, 2020. Retrieved July 8, 2020.
  109. Chodas, Paul; Chesley, Steve (October 9, 2002). "J002E3: An Update". NASA. Archived from the original on May 3, 2003. Retrieved September 18, 2013.
  110. Jorgensen et al. 2003 , p. 981

Sources

Books

Journal articles

Saturn V
Apollo 11 Launch - GPN-2000-000630.jpg
The launch of Apollo 11 on Saturn V SA-506, July 16, 1969
Function
Manufacturer
Country of originUnited States
Project cost$6.417 billion in 1964–1973 dollars [1] (~$49.9 billion in 2020 dollars)
Cost per launch$185 million in 1969–1971 dollars [2] ($1.23 billion in 2019 value).
Size
Height110.6 m (363.0 ft)
Diameter10.1 m (33.0 ft)
Mass2,822,000 kg (6,221,000 lb) to 2,965,000 kg (6,537,000 lb) [3]
Stages3
Capacity
Payload to LEO
Altitude170 km (90 nmi)
Orbital inclination30°
Mass141,136 kg (311,152 lb) [4] [5] [note 1]
Launch history
StatusRetired
Launch sites LC-39, Kennedy Space Center
Total launches13
Success(es)12
Failure(s)0
Partial failure(s)1 (Apollo 6)
First flightNovember 9, 1967 (AS-501 [note 2] Apollo 4) [7]
Last flightMay 14, 1973 (AS-513 Skylab) [8]
First stage – S-IC
Height42.1 m (138.0 ft)
Diameter10.1 m (33.0 ft)
Empty mass137,000 kg (303,000 lb) [9]
Gross mass2,214,000 kg (4,881,000 lb) [9]
Powered by5 Rocketdyne F-1
Maximum thrust34,500 kN (7,750,000 lbf) sea level [10]
Specific impulse 263 seconds (2.58 km/s) sea level
Burn time168 seconds
Propellant RP-1 / LOX