6 ms·

The guts these folks had to fly such tiny primitive compared-to-today spaceships is still amazing to me. Sadly back then I always thought I'd be able to walk on

The guts these folks had to fly such tiny primitive compared-to-today spaceships is still amazing to me. Sadly back then I always thought I'd be able to walk on the moon in my lifetime but clearly that will not happen. I still think watching a Saturn V launch was more impressive than the Space Shuttle was.

Aloha 10y ago
I've read enough about space technology to have a bit of disbelief in your statement. The technology to launch someone skyward is basically identical, the technology in the craft, while benefited by more modern computing (as well as enhanced material science), also largely identical.
- boredinballard 10y ago
  It may be close, but back then we didn't "know". They were still exploring and figuring out what works. Pretty brave.
- hoorayimhelping 10y ago
  >The technology to launch someone skyward is basically identical, the technology in the craft, while benefited by more modern computing (as well as enhanced material science), also largely identical. I really don't get your statement. The Saturn V is the most powerful machine humans have ever made. No rocket has since come anywhere close to it, despite the benefits of modern computing and material science. The Space Shuttle program killed 14 astronauts, in spite of the more modern technology and the huge steps that were taken in the decades prior. The Saturn V sent 24 men to the moon, and launched America's first space station with technology built by people using slide rules. 13 successful launches without casualties - indeed it handled situations like lightning strikes and violent POGO oscillations. It's the only machine that has ever taken humans past LEO.
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    Didn't a crew die in a pad fire?
    - grzm 10y ago
      A cabin fire during a launch rehearsal test on January 27 at Cape Kennedy Air Force Station Launch Complex 34 killed all three crew members—Command Pilot Virgil I. "Gus" Grissom, Senior Pilot Edward H. White II, and Pilot Roger B. Chaffee—and destroyed the Command Module (CM). The name Apollo 1, chosen by the crew, was officially retired by NASA in commemoration of them on April 24, 1967. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1 Arguably not a launch, as it was a rehearsal.
    - detaro 10y ago
      You probably are thinking of Apollo 1? That was a fire in the capsule during a test, not a launch situation, and unrelated to the rocket -> might not be fair to attach those deaths to the Saturn V, only to the moon program. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1
  - eltoozero 10y ago
    True enough, and new info to me! Saturn V remains the tallest, heaviest, and most powerful (highest total impulse) rocket ever brought to operational status, and holds records for the heaviest payload launched and largest payload capacity to low Earth orbit (LEO) of 140,000 kg (310,000 lb). To date, the Saturn V remains the only launch vehicle to launch missions to carry humans beyond low Earth orbit. A total of 15 flight-capable vehicles were built, but only 13 were flown. An additional three vehicles were built for ground testing purposes. [0] So why aren't we just building more of these damn things and iterating on the (proven!) design? While we're at it let's un-mothball the SR-71 and those wicked Buick start carts! [1] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V [1]: http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/startercart.php http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/startercart.php
    - Aloha 10y ago
      I'd have to dig around to find the source - but honestly, its because we dont have good drawings, or even partially complete understanding on how to build the pieces. The Saturn V was not mass produced, and was built on something less then an assembly line - it was semi-bespoke basically.
      - Gracana 10y ago
        On a related note, ars technica has an absolutely fantastic article on reverse engineering and re-building the Saturn V. http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/how-nasa-brought-the-monstrous-f-1-moon-rocket-back-to-life/ http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/how-nasa-brought-the-...
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - jahnu 10y ago
      Perhaps it would be orders of magnitude more expensive to make it now? At least compared to the rockets we currently need and build regularly for LEO and so on.
  - Aloha 10y ago
    And the technology we used today to launch skyward today, is substantively identical in form and type to the Saturn V. The CSM and LM are substantively similar to what Russia is still using to put people in low earth orbit. The shuttle arguably was a much more complex platform with very little return. Comparing 13 missions to 135 missions, and trying to extrapolate from those 13 missions is disingenuous (slide rules or not) - the fact is Apollo 1 did kill 3 people (on the ground) - and almost killed another 3 in Apollo 13. As much as I disliked the STS - it only had one launch failure (Challenger), due to operating the launcher out of design parameters (which was quite arguably a faulty design) - it had one other failure (Columbia) on reentry which is in some ways is similar to the defect that hit Apollo 13, it was basically a manufacturing defect. The reason I say technology has not greatly changed is to compare it Orion Spacecraft - which is essentially a modern implementation of the Apollo CSM. Same technology, but with better and more advanced materials. This is no different than comparing a 1929 Model A to a 1969 Ford Galaxie 500. If the political will was present, we could build another Saturn V Class launcher today - we choose not to, but even the replacements for the Shuttle (SLS and Constellation) have proposed reusing literal technology from the Saturn Era.
swegg 10y ago
Being drunk off their ass [1] might help them having the guts. Can't blame them, they are sitting on a 2000 metric ton bomb. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/jul/27/spaceexploration.usa https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/jul/27/spaceexplorati...

Aloha 10y ago

I've read enough about space technology to have a bit of disbelief in your statement. The technology to launch someone skyward is basically identical, the technology in the craft, while benefited by more modern computing (as well as enhanced material science), also largely identical.

boredinballard 10y ago
It may be close, but back then we didn't "know". They were still exploring and figuring out what works. Pretty brave.
hoorayimhelping 10y ago
>The technology to launch someone skyward is basically identical, the technology in the craft, while benefited by more modern computing (as well as enhanced material science), also largely identical. I really don't get your statement. The Saturn V is the most powerful machine humans have ever made. No rocket has since come anywhere close to it, despite the benefits of modern computing and material science. The Space Shuttle program killed 14 astronauts, in spite of the more modern technology and the huge steps that were taken in the decades prior. The Saturn V sent 24 men to the moon, and launched America's first space station with technology built by people using slide rules. 13 successful launches without casualties - indeed it handled situations like lightning strikes and violent POGO oscillations. It's the only machine that has ever taken humans past LEO.
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  Didn't a crew die in a pad fire?
  - grzm 10y ago
    A cabin fire during a launch rehearsal test on January 27 at Cape Kennedy Air Force Station Launch Complex 34 killed all three crew members—Command Pilot Virgil I. "Gus" Grissom, Senior Pilot Edward H. White II, and Pilot Roger B. Chaffee—and destroyed the Command Module (CM). The name Apollo 1, chosen by the crew, was officially retired by NASA in commemoration of them on April 24, 1967. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1 Arguably not a launch, as it was a rehearsal.
  - detaro 10y ago
    You probably are thinking of Apollo 1? That was a fire in the capsule during a test, not a launch situation, and unrelated to the rocket -> might not be fair to attach those deaths to the Saturn V, only to the moon program. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1
- eltoozero 10y ago
  True enough, and new info to me! Saturn V remains the tallest, heaviest, and most powerful (highest total impulse) rocket ever brought to operational status, and holds records for the heaviest payload launched and largest payload capacity to low Earth orbit (LEO) of 140,000 kg (310,000 lb). To date, the Saturn V remains the only launch vehicle to launch missions to carry humans beyond low Earth orbit. A total of 15 flight-capable vehicles were built, but only 13 were flown. An additional three vehicles were built for ground testing purposes. [0] So why aren't we just building more of these damn things and iterating on the (proven!) design? While we're at it let's un-mothball the SR-71 and those wicked Buick start carts! [1] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V [1]: http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/startercart.php http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/startercart.php
  - Aloha 10y ago
    I'd have to dig around to find the source - but honestly, its because we dont have good drawings, or even partially complete understanding on how to build the pieces. The Saturn V was not mass produced, and was built on something less then an assembly line - it was semi-bespoke basically.
    - Gracana 10y ago
      On a related note, ars technica has an absolutely fantastic article on reverse engineering and re-building the Saturn V. http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/how-nasa-brought-the-monstrous-f-1-moon-rocket-back-to-life/ http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/how-nasa-brought-the-...
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - jahnu 10y ago
    Perhaps it would be orders of magnitude more expensive to make it now? At least compared to the rockets we currently need and build regularly for LEO and so on.
- Aloha 10y ago
  And the technology we used today to launch skyward today, is substantively identical in form and type to the Saturn V. The CSM and LM are substantively similar to what Russia is still using to put people in low earth orbit. The shuttle arguably was a much more complex platform with very little return. Comparing 13 missions to 135 missions, and trying to extrapolate from those 13 missions is disingenuous (slide rules or not) - the fact is Apollo 1 did kill 3 people (on the ground) - and almost killed another 3 in Apollo 13. As much as I disliked the STS - it only had one launch failure (Challenger), due to operating the launcher out of design parameters (which was quite arguably a faulty design) - it had one other failure (Columbia) on reentry which is in some ways is similar to the defect that hit Apollo 13, it was basically a manufacturing defect. The reason I say technology has not greatly changed is to compare it Orion Spacecraft - which is essentially a modern implementation of the Apollo CSM. Same technology, but with better and more advanced materials. This is no different than comparing a 1929 Model A to a 1969 Ford Galaxie 500. If the political will was present, we could build another Saturn V Class launcher today - we choose not to, but even the replacements for the Shuttle (SLS and Constellation) have proposed reusing literal technology from the Saturn Era.

swegg 10y ago

Being drunk off their ass [1] might help them having the guts. Can't blame them, they are sitting on a 2000 metric ton bomb. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/jul/27/spaceexploration.usa https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/jul/27/spaceexplorati...