OT Saturn V rocket facts - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Homer J Simpson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 28, 2014, 02:59:13 am
content: I think a lot of us here have a space interest. I have always been amazed by Apollo program and particularly the Saturn V.Here is the like to the original article I found the other day. Nothing new but well put together.http://aparanjape.wordpress.com/2009/07/16/10-fascinating-factoids-about-the-apollo-program%E2%80%99s-saturn-v-rocket/Here is a cut and paste summary;1. The Saturn V remains the largest and most powerful launch vehicle ever brought to operational status from a height, weight and payload standpoint. (In the 1980s, the Soviets designed and developed a rocket that was slightly more powerful, but it was never fully operationalized)2. The Saturn V rocket stood 363 ft [110 metres] (over 35 stories tall) 33 ft [10 metres] in diameter, and weighed around 3,000 Tons [2721 metric tonnes].The height was about 2 times that of the space shuttle.3. The power generated by the 5 F1 engines of its first stage was in excess of 150 GW (1 GW = 1,000 MW). That’s roughly equivalent to the entire installed power generation capacity in India! Or nearly 2.5 times of the power generation capacity in Texas.4. The fuel consumption of the first stage was a staggering 15 Tons [13 metric tonnes] / sec of Kerosene. The fuel pumps that fed the engines alone consumed 100s of MW of power, enough to light an entire city.5. The total lift capacity for putting a payload in a ‘low earth orbit’ (LEO) was about 120 Tons [109 metric tonnes]. And the capacity for putting a payload in a lunar orbit was around 47 Tons [42.6 metric tonnes] . For comparison imagine putting an entire fully loaded Boeing 757 into a low earth orbit, or a Boeing 737 into a lunar orbit!6. The thrust generated by each of the first stage’s F1 engine was around 7.6 Million lb ft [10 million Nm]. Again compare that with a supersonic fighter jet, F16: 23,000 lb ft [31, 183 Nm] and an engine of the Boeing 747: 60,000 lb ft [81,3500 Nm]7. The noise levels and vibrations/shockwaves generated during lift-off (or ‘blast-off’ as it is often and more appropriately referred to…) were so high that spectators were kept at least 3 miles[4.8 kms] away.8. The 1st stage of the Saturn V rocket consumed kerosene and liquid oxygen. The 2nd and 3rd stages consumed liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. Unlike the space shuttle, or any of the rockets in the Indian Space Program, there were no solid fuel boosters. A majority of the 3000 tons [2721 metric tonnes] lift off weight of the Saturn V comprised of the propellant and liquid oxygen.9. The 1st stage could power the rocket to a height of around 42 miles [67 kms] and speeds of around 2.5km/sec. The 2nd stage took it to over 100 miles [160 kms] in height and achieved near orbital velocity. The 3rd stage was used in 2 steps: first to insert the Apollo spacecraft into an earth orbit. And then it was fired again to get it to the ‘escape velocity’ of around 11.2 km/sec, and onwards towards the moon.10. The costing of the Saturn V program is also quite staggering. It was one of the biggest chunks of the overall Apollo Program. Across the 1960s and early 1970s, the Saturn V program cost around US $ 6.5 B – this figure adjusted for today’s prices comes at around US $ 35- 40 B !Get your head around some of those numbers.First stage 15 tons of fuel per second and 150 GW of power. 120 tones to earth orbit ! 50 years ago !I encourage any one who has not studied Apollo, especially the younger folk to do so and appreciate what was accomplished.Not just the Saturn V but the Suits, Command Module, Lunar Module, Navigation and electronics.The first launch of a Saturn VAdded metric conversion of imperial units so the rest of the world can understand

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 28, 2014, 04:01:10 am
content: Quote from: Homer J Simpson on August 28, 2014, 02:59:13 amThe fuel pump is probably the most interesting thing about a liquid fueled rocket. It is under extreme stress, and its lifetime is inevitably very short. This needs to be combined with a very low failure rate during its 20 minute lifetime. An interesting set of design constraints. One of the biggest challenges in the early days of the space shuttle was trying to achieve a fuel pump with enough hours of lifetime to be considered genuinely reusable.

author: kg4arn
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 31, 2014, 02:07:11 am
content: Watched the launches as a boy from 40 miles away.The Kennedy Space center has one lying on its side, indoors at the Apollo exhibit.My wife had to drag me out of there after 2.5 hours.

author: sacherjj
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 31, 2014, 03:22:46 am
content: Just standing next to the nozzle is amazing. I was in DC a little over a year ago and really enjoyed the Air and Space. I hadn't been there since I was a 4th grader. They had the front of one of the shuttles in there. It was amazing how small it was. I was expecting larger.If anyone hasn't seen the "From the Earth to the Moon" HBO miniseries, it is worth the time. I especially like the one on designing the lunar lander.

author: rs20
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 31, 2014, 03:50:37 am
content: <grumpy> Oh geez, yet another person using an aircraft as a standard mass that's "familiar to everyone", even though an aircraft is specifically designed to be as light as possible... </grumpy>

author: German_EE
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 31, 2014, 08:59:20 am
content: Thank you for this. At school I was so keen on the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo stuff that my nickname was 'spaceman' but by the time I left high school it was all over and all NASA had left was the Space Shuttle.

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 31, 2014, 09:30:08 am
content: Quote from: Homer J Simpson on August 28, 2014, 02:59:13 amWhich is not really very much. It has always saddened me that the space effort gets so little money compared to stupid wastes of time and money such as the F35 fighter plane.Quoting fromhttp://www.gizmodo.com.au/2014/06/the-f-35-fighter-plane-is-even-more-of-a-mess-than-you-thought/"Not only did the Pentagon spend almost $US400 billion to buy 2,400 aircraft — about twice as much as it cost to put a man on the moon — the F-35 program is 7 years behind schedule and $US163 billion over budget. This at a time when cuts in the defence budget are forcing the Pentagon to shrink the size of the military. Australia is buying a total of 72 of the next-generation aircraft, with the most recent order of 58 F-35s projected to cost over $12 billion."Google F35 fighter useless lemonIt seems unlikely the US government (in it's present form) will ever again be capable of pursuing an idealistic goal such as space exploration, in any effective way. So sad.I hope to see those space museum exhibits someday.

author: HighVoltage
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 31, 2014, 09:38:01 am
content: Quote from: German_EE on August 31, 2014, 08:59:20 amAnd now they do not even have a Space Shuttle anymore?Unbelievable to think that NASA has to ask other countries to lift their astronauts to space.I also went to the Kennedy Space center to walk the Apollo exhibition.This was in the early 90sWalking next to the Saturn V rocket was probably the most amazing part.The size of this rocket is so unreal. I had such a respect for all the engineers that worked on this project.

author: george graves
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 31, 2014, 09:53:03 am
content: It's amazing...and it was all done on slide rulers (Dave....do a vid on slider rulers!)Quote from: coppice on August 28, 2014, 04:01:10 amYes, the pumps - The pumps needed to empty a swimming pool of fluid in no short time..QuoteNot to mention the nozzles. If you though a lot of math went into airfoil design...Much more when into, the shape and cooling of a nozzles.Another problem was the connections between the tanks and all the fittings to get the fluid to the nozzles, and pumps. How do you make a mechanical fitting for liquids that can handle that wide range of temps and pressures not to mention vibrations, side loads, etc...That's what my father worked on. Here is a report (de-classified) on flared fittings he designed and tested with the full report on performance.http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/882231.pdf

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 31, 2014, 10:23:14 am
content: For those who don't know there is a mini-series about the engineering that went into the Apollo space program:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_MachinesIt is very interesting how NASA invited all kinds of companies to design parts even if the company was not technology related at all. For example: a manufacturer of women's bras ended up making the space suits.I think both the Apollo program and the Space Shuttle where major achievements. Unfortunately just like the Egyptians stopped building pyramids the US stopped doing these kind of ambitious space programs.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 31, 2014, 01:36:30 pm
content: Quote from: TerraHertz on August 31, 2014, 09:30:08 amApollo was not idealistic. It was a cold war program. Kennedy said so when he set the program off, and I don't remember anyone in the 60s ever doubting it.