Saturn V launch

[Rob.Wilson]

Hi any of you lads over the pond ever get the chance to witness  a Saturn V launch ?



Rob

[Dean W]

Only on TV, Rob, but I'll bet there are a few guys my age here who saw them in the 60's and 70's.  Maybe someone will
pop in and tell you about it.  It was quite a little motor.  ; )
Are you planning on building  a scale model?

Dean

[Pete.]

I walked under the one at the Space Center. Was impressed

[sbwhart]

Hi any of you lads over the pond ever get the chance to witness  a Saturn V launch ?



Rob

RU thinking of building one Rob

Cool

 

 


 


 

Stew

[Dave G]

Hi Rob, I grew up in the sixties and we lived about eight miles from a NASA research facility. This place started out as a munitions dump during WW2. It was transfered over to NASA after the war and rockets engines were tested there. I remember playing in the yard as a youngster and a loud roar would come from the direction of this facility occasionally. Dad told us they were testing rocket engines again. Some of these tests were quite loud and I always wondered if maybe they were the saturn five rockets. This facility has the largest vacuum chamber in the world. It is a dome structure that is probably 50 feet in dia at the base and made all from aluminum. From the inside picture an igloo made out of aluminum with the panels all formed and then tig welded together. I mention this because I got a chance to tour the place a couple of years ago and was awestruck by the size of the all aluminum structure and the quality of the welds. Thanks for the question as this brought back some good memories from my youth. I also remember where I was and what I was doing the day Neil Armstrong walked on the moon for the first time.
Dave

[Lew_Merrick_PE]

Rob,

I never saw a V launch up close and personal, but I helped build up three in the Vehicle Assembly Building at the Cape.  Does that count?

I spent more of my time working on the STS (Space Transportation System -- aka Space Shuttle) and various "payloads" than working on the V.  There is a Mars Lander System that has been on "launch hold" since August of 2010 (the "window" was missed) that has a set of hypergolic fuel pumps that feed the steering (vector) motors on it that I designed (as part of a team, of course) on it.  I have heard (and heard contradicted) several times that the program will be "scrubbed," but nothing official one way or the other.

I spent a good deal of time in the 1971-1974 time frame working on Apollo projects.  I spent a large minority of my time 1982-1994 working on STS and various supporting parts of STS.  And I spent about half of my time 2004-2007 working on various other things for orbital testing.  It is really too bad that the U.S. is no longer a space power.

[Rob.Wilson]

Hi Lads  

Dean , Stew ,,,, not planning to build one ,,,, back yard is a tad small    ,, i have seen some cracking models of the Saturn rocket , what amazes me are the  engines  

Pete ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, i hope to get over there to have a look myself one day ,,,i bet its a cracking  day out    any photos  


Dave ,,,,,,,,,, I am pleased you had a trip down memory lane    ,,,,,, i bet the noise was awesome from the testing ,, sadly just to young to remember the moon landings    ,, i am reading Neil's biography at the moment ,very interesting .  ,,,,,,,, The USA has always been up at the sharp end when it comes to welding practices and processes , i think i saw that vacuum chamber on TV ,, NASA's Greatest missions .


Lew ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,  it dose count    wow sounds like you have a cool job .
                      " It is really too bad that the U.S. is no longer a space power."  Dam sad i would say Lew     , its a real shame that the Shuttle missions  have come to an end .


I am just trying to imagine what the atmosphere would have been  like on launch day standing there as the count down starts ,,, then the noise as the engines rip into life  


Rob    

[75Plus]

One of my nephews is the Project Manager for testing the rocket engine for the next generation heavy lift vehicle. He tells me that he can understand shutting down the STS program so the funds can be applied to the new vehicle. (We cannot fund both.) Now, however, he is concerned that the funding may be cut leaving the US Government out of the space arena. The link is to an article about this engine,

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nasas-new-upper-stage-rocket-engine-ready-for-testing-123740339.html

Scroll down to Marcus A. Neely in this link for information on his duties.

http://sfa.nasa.gov/STS135Honorees.cfm

Joe

[Lew_Merrick_PE]

Rob & Joe,

Space work comes and goes.  Except for idiotic orbital weapons systems, it has been "gone" for three decades now.  I worked on three different iterations of PowerSat over the years.  Solar energy strikes Earth at 1 kW/m².  Move out of Earth's atmosphere, but not out of Earth's magnetosphere and that flux increases to 1.37 MW/m².  Move outside of Earth's magnetosphere and that flux increases to (approximately) 15 MW/m².  Which "well" should we be "digging."  Instead, we spent more than 200 million tax dollars funding a study of a sodium-hydride generation system based on the moon what microwaves power back to Earth at a maximum power density (set by international law) at 235 W/m².

We demonstrated using particle beams to send power from orbit to Earth as part of SkyLab.  We were able to deliver 5 MW in a ø150 mm beam at 48% overall efficiency -- in 1976 (you can look this up in August-November 1977 issues of Aviation Week & Space Technology under the title Chair Heritage -- if you can find them).  (The Wikipedia rendition of Chair Heritage appears to be the official cover story that was the denial issued by DoD in 1977.)  The last time I was involved in microwave->electricity conversion it was about 40% efficient.  That means that 235 W/m² of input equals 94 W/m² output.  5 MW/m² in a ø150 mm beam equals 282.9 MW/m² of power density.  At 48% efficient, 282.9 MW/m² input equals 135.8 MW/m² output.  I suspect (but do not know) that these values were "improved upon" through the SDI program research of the 1980's.

And we are now using a "rebranded" Soviet/Russian Energia system to loft our payloads into orbit.  It is hard not to interpret this as a complete abandonment of the place where the future will happen...

[AdeV]

Lew - one of the increasing problems with low-Earth orbit is, as I understand it, the ever increasing amount of "space junk"; apparently, the recent Chinese satellite-killer experiment plus an accident where a live satellite crashed into a dead one, has increased the number of small particles beyond NASA's ability to track them all?

It seems to me, the next thing we need to be inventing, is a big orbital broom to sweep up the cr*p before it becomes deadly... it'd be a bit stupid if we got to the point where launching anything into orbit was impossible...

[Lew_Merrick_PE]

Lew - one of the increasing problems with low-Earth orbit is, as I understand it, the ever increasing amount of "space junk"; apparently, the recent Chinese satellite-killer experiment plus an accident where a live satellite crashed into a dead one, has increased the number of small particles beyond NASA's ability to track them all?

It seems to me, the next thing we need to be inventing, is a big orbital broom to sweep up the cr*p before it becomes deadly... it'd be a bit stupid if we got to the point where launching anything into orbit was impossible...

Ade -- and don't forget our (the US's) own "tests" of aircraft-launched anti-satellite missiles.  Do you remember the mysterious "sonic booms" off the east coast of the U.S. in 1978 or how they stopped the two weeks before a Soviet satellite crashed in Canada (250 miles or so from the Alaskan border)?  Thank God for coincidence, right?

Yes, this is a major problem.  However, it is one that can only be solved with a real and constant (and functional) presence in orbit.  The International Space Station will, if it ever actually completed, have about 75% of the volume of a 747.  The External Tank of the Space Shuttle (ET-STS) had 160% the volume of a 747.  The only reason to have gone with the Shuttle was to use the ET's as building blocks for a space station!  Instead, we spent more than $2,500,000 in fuel each and every Shuttle launch to crash them to Earth (burning them up).  Seven of them in a polygonal "ring" were to be a "unit" (with a central "axis" for stacking them).  I oversaw the tests of cutting and installing the "hatches" at the ends of the tanks in the pool at Houston in 1977.

The gelatin that solidified in urine was developed as neutron shielding for that part of the program.  (It is now dower property of Kimberly-Clark.)  The "joke" about it was that the assembly crews would get free beer so long as they would pee where they were told.

Yeah, tell me about it...

[AdeV]

Lew,

In 1978, I was still in short trousers & IIRC starting school.... I didn't have much interest in the space programme at that time (the last moon-walk finished before I was born).

It always did seem to be a shame that the big Shuttle fuel tanks were just thrown away, how much extra fuel would they have needed to drag them into a stable orbit? I guess it can't be much, as the Shuttle itself didn't carry any main engine fuel did it?

I guess we can only hope now that the private sector (e.g. Branson & his pals) develop to the point where they can take over the "drudge" work of getting stuff into LEO. Sad to say, I think the first man (or woman) on Mars will either be Chinese or Indian, at the rate the "western" world is going.

[DMIOM]

....... The link is to an article about this engine,
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nasas-new-upper-stage-rocket-engine-ready-for-testing-123740339.html

Joe,

If the story is to be taken literally, I hope there aren't too many folk living within earshot of the test range! and they must have some seriously large fuel supplies, as it says:

"... Beginning in mid-June, the engine will undergo a series of 10 test firings that will last several months...."

Dave 

[75Plus]

....... The link is to an article about this engine,
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nasas-new-upper-stage-rocket-engine-ready-for-testing-123740339.html

Joe,

If the story is to be taken literally, I hope there aren't too many folk living within earshot of the test range! and they must have some seriously large fuel supplies, as it says:

"... Beginning in mid-June, the engine will undergo a series of 10 test firings that will last several months...."

Dave 

David,

I think you can take the story literally. The full load testing has to be done before any thought of lift off. This is the same test facility that was used in the development of the original Saturn V engine.

I once asked Marc how they simulated the vacuum of space and was told that they used water to maintain a constant vacuum. The quantities needed were mind boggling. Here is another link to pictures of the engine,

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/j2x/

Joe

[DMIOM]

so they actually run the engine, without stopping it, for two months  

I would have thought some components at 'the hot end' would have significantly lower life. Burns into orbit, I would have thought, would have been 10's of minutes. A couple of months is of the order of 90,000 minutes.

I can understand stress testing and accelerated testing for components, and the need for margins of safety - but if the engine is capable of running for that length of time, then I would have though it might be somewhat over-"strong" and hence over-weight.  I remember looking at calcs (when doing my physics degree in the 1970s) on the extra weight of fuel needed to lift each extra pound of payload; and because you were in turn lifting that extra fuel, and the bigger engine, off terra firma, I seem to recall it took maybe 5 or 10 lbs extra fuel to lift 1 lb of payload.

Anyway, the citation from NASA shows your nephew is a great guy who gets on with it and you can pass on our congrats too.

Dave

[75Plus]

Hi David,

I guess it is all in how you interpret the article. The way I read this excerpt "Beginning in mid-June, the engine will undergo a series of 10 test firings that will last several months." the series of tests not the test themselves will last several months.

I will give Marc a call and find out exactly how long a firing lasts and let you know.

Joe

[75Plus]

Below is an email I sent to Marc requesting testing info along with his reply. I think it will be of interest to our members.


Hi Marc,
On one of the Message Boards I frequent the question of the duration of a test burn for the J-2X came up.  I volunteered to find out so here I am. Could you please help me out??

Thanks,




Hi Uncle Joe! This is a very timely question. We’ve just gotten underway with development testing of the first J-2X. So far we’ve run a chill test (no ignition) and four hot-fires with durations of 1.9, 3.4, 7.0, and 32.2 seconds, progressively. (The 3.4 second test was cut early due to overshooting power level. This is a fixed-orifice engine which means it has no active control.) The J-2X was designed for a maximum single-burn, mission duration around 500 seconds. It is capable of a second, shorter burn to leave low earth orbit as the  main propulsion on an earth departure stage. During development testing, burn durations will vary with the nominal being around 500 seconds; However, we might run for as long as a thousand seconds on some tests. Flight acceptance testing will include a calibration test between 200 and 300 seconds and a mission simulation around 500 seconds.

 The following is a link to a J-2X blog:  http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/newui/blog/viewpostlist.jsp?blogname=J2X

[dickda1]

I was a NASA engineer (now retired) - worked on Skylab and the Shuttle.

Most all the engineers/scientists that designed and worked on the monster lift vehicles like Saturn 5 are now retired as well.  The U.S. will be hard pressed to build another like it I fear.

Dick