6 ms·

If you're ever in the Houston area, I highly recommend going to see NASA Johnson Space Center. They have a full-size replica (?) Saturn V rocket on its side, yo

If you're ever in the Houston area, I highly recommend going to see NASA Johnson Space Center. They have a full-size replica (?) Saturn V rocket on its side, you can see. You simply can't grasp how big these rockets are until you see it up close. It's like a tall building blasting off into space. They're humongous. I hope to one day see Starship up close in person as it takes off to space.

sidewndr46 5y ago
Not a replica, that one was actually flight certified but never used.
CamperBob2 5y ago
I found it depressing. Ships aren't built to stay in the harbor, and rockets aren't built to lie on their side rusting. They say we couldn't build another Saturn V if we tried. Apparently that old saw is true enough, at least for the original contractors.
- tjchear 5y ago
  For lack of a political will or the technical know how?
  - MPSimmons 5y ago
    In order to make a vehicle like that, you need the tools to make it. That doesn't just include wrenches and hammers - it includes the tooling used to form the curve of the skin and the area you assemble the pieces into. Almost all of that is gone, disassembled or misplaced.
  - CamperBob2 5y ago
    The popular wisdom is that we literally lost some of the technical specs and drawings. A lot of the R&D would have to be redone from scratch... not that it wouldn't make sense to do that anyway, 50+ years later.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - tjchear 5y ago
      Not exactly related, but this reminds me of this triple nuclear plant project that ran into trouble by the time they're on their third, because it took so long, people with the requisite knowledge was gone and the remaining people had no idea how to fill the gap.
    - ebruchez 5y ago
      The CuriousMarc YouTube channel [1] features a current series where they work on some Saturn transmission equipment (Apollo Comms). They also also restored an AGC (Apollo Guidance Computer). Those were incredible designs for the time, but you wouldn't build (and probably couldn't even if you tried) these modules this way today. I'd say the loss is more one of history than actual utility. The only way would have been to keep the Saturn V going during the whole time, and upgrade its technology as time went. [1] https://www.youtube.com/c/CuriousMarc https://www.youtube.com/c/CuriousMarc
  - pacetherace 5y ago
    1. Lost records 2. Many companies that help build those rockets have ceased to exists 3. Technology and tooling have changed substantially 4. Standards to deem a rocket flight worthy for human space flight have changed
    - adastra22 5y ago
      > Lost records This is actually a myth FYI. No records were ever lost, and you can go see all the original blueprints and relevant memos and technical reports in the archives at Marshall or DC if you want. It's all there. Where the myth comes from, and the kernel of truth underlying it is that the Saturn V was a hand-crafted machine made by experts. NASA and their contractors did their damndest to record every aspect of its production, but undoubtably there is some things that slipped through the cracks and were never written down. Those were lost not because records were lost, but because the individual workers went on to other jobs, and have since retired. EDIT: Also the tooling has been dismantled and recycled. The blueprints for the tooling exist and it all could be recreated, how sure are we that the specified tolerances matched the actual article? Uncertainty over this would probably invalidate all the testing that had been done.
      - adolph 5y ago
        Reminds me of the Fogbank story: In a bizarre twist, the new production facility and reverse-engineered production process yielded a version of Fogbank that was of a higher purity than it had been in the past, according to the article. The problem, however, was that for Fogbank to work as intended in existing warhead designs, that previous level of impurity was actually essential. NNSA had to revise the process to ensure the final product was just as impure. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/32867/fogbank-is-mysterious-material-used-in-nukes-thats-so-secret-nobody-can-say-what-it-is https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/32867/fogbank-is-myste...
      - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
        "undoubtably there is some things that slipped through the cracks and were never written down." I dont think they slip through the cracks as much as people today have different skils. It's like trying to get. Bunch of Node-JS developers to get a mainframe-based system from the 80s working.
  - CountSessine 5y ago
    Technical know how, mostly. But in expected ways. Machining and engineering skills as they relate to manufacturing are different now. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ovD0aLdRUs0 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ovD0aLdRUs0
  - edgyquant 5y ago
    The phrase, “we couldn’t build one if we wanted to,” is misleading. We could build the exact vehicle but we could build one that looks similar and does the same thing.
    - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
      We could not get it working in 5 years, maybe in 10. At that point you are not building, you are reverse engineering and re-engineering
      - stjohnswarts 5y ago
        With money and political will they absolutely could build one in 5 years. I'm not sure why people are stuck on this "we just can't accomplish what they did in the good ol' days"
        ClumsyPilot 5y ago
        Because they look at how uk or california take 20 years to build a railway or any other infrastructure project and draw conclusions
- renewiltord 5y ago
  Nah, it's historic. We have better stuff now. It's like a Model T. The best place for it is in the museum.
  - lmm 5y ago
    The difference is we see better versions of the Model T in use every day, whereas we don't currently have a rocket that can take people the moon.
- jiggawatts 5y ago
  The design is now thoroughly outdated. It wouldn't be cost-effective to reproduce a Saturn V as-is. The equivalent rocket is the Starship, which clearly can be built. Technologies like 3D printing, new alloys, better fuels, modern computers, etc... have made dramatic differences to the design and construction of these rockets. Have a look at the circuitry used on the Saturn V: http://www.righto.com/2020/04/a-circuit-board-from-saturn-v-rocket.html http://www.righto.com/2020/04/a-circuit-board-from-saturn-v-... Especially the "instrument unit": http://static.righto.com/images/lvda/IU-labeled.jpg http://static.righto.com/images/lvda/IU-labeled.jpg It's huuuuuuge! The computer power of that entire thing could fit into a single chip these days. Trying to reproduce something like that 1:1 in the modern age would be just absurd. Note that the Saturn V design isn't just cost-inefficient because technology has moved on. It wasn't cost effective back then either! The per-launch costs were over $1B in inflation adjusted dollars, putting it squarely into the same ballpark has the SLS, which is a monstrously expensive pork-barrel project designed primarily to burn money, not rocket fuel.
  - garaetjjte 5y ago
    >The design is now thoroughly outdated. Not really, fundamentals doesn't change that much. Starship is not equivalent, it is entirely new, different category. >better fuels, modern computers, etc... have made dramatic differences to the design and construction of these rockets. Saturn V used RP1 and LH2 fuels, both are still widely used. Gas generator cycles are also used in modern engines. You can have smaller computers now but I don't think this would change costs significantly. Really only thing that changed significantly are manufacturing processes, but that doesn't invalidate the entire design, that you cannot make 1:1 copy doesn't mean you cannot port it to modern manufacturing methods, like this proposal for F-1B: https://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/new-f-1b-rocket-engine-upgrades-apollo-era-deisgn-with-1-8m-lbs-of-thrust/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/new-f-1b-rocket-engi...
    - NickNameNick 5y ago
      Gas generator cycle engines are definitely still in use, but a lot of next generation engines use a staged-combustion cycle. The effiency improvements seem to be good enough to be worth the engineering challenges, especially for larger rockets.
- mlyle 5y ago
  > They say we couldn't build another Saturn V if we tried. Apparently that old saw is true enough, at least for the original contractors. We can't build an authentic Great Pyramid, 1950s supercar, or 1970's minicomputer, either. At least, not for anything resembling cost-effectiveness compared to the current way to do things.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  >They say Who are "they", and how can that opinion hold true when we are in fact building something comparable to it?
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  lol of course we could build another Saturn V. It would be practically from scratch and require a congress which is a bit less polarized, but that's just a silly statement.
- Someone 5y ago
  The engine was extensively scanned recently (https://www.3dsystems.com/learning-center/case-studies/reigniting-f-1-apollo-engine-geomagic-solutions https://www.3dsystems.com/learning-center/case-studies/reign...), so plans of what was actually built exist. If we don’t have plans for the rest, we could use that technique on the other parts. That doesn’t mean we can build a 100% copy, though. Apparently, some of the welding requires techniques that have been replaced by better methods, and welders who can replicate the original do not exist. I guess that’s solvable by using robots, but if, e.g., 3D printing or even glueing works better, and the goal would be to get a rocket that size again, why bother?
danavar 5y ago
In Huntsville AL they have one stood up outside a museum right off the highway - it’s insane to see
- CamperBob2 5y ago
  Good view of it at https://goo.gl/maps/ikR6xaxmTkmoqTSt8 https://goo.gl/maps/ikR6xaxmTkmoqTSt8
  - CamperBob2 5y ago
    Also https://goo.gl/maps/Cz1qTmS8gh4eEdZe6 https://goo.gl/maps/Cz1qTmS8gh4eEdZe6 , which lets you walk around in the building next door.
- JshWright 5y ago
  They have two there. The other one is hanging on its side in the large building next to the vertical rocket.
- edgyquant 5y ago
  Yup I’ve been to that one a bunch and always stop by there when I travel with anyone who’s never been
- Mountain_Skies 5y ago
  Though not as large, there's also a standing Saturn 1B at the Alabama Welcome Center in Elkmont on Interstate 65.
- pwr-electronics 5y ago
  It's the US Space and Rocket Center for anyone looking it up. The vertical rocket is a replica. The sideways one is real, or mostly real. It's suspended pretty high up so you can walk below it. They host a weekly Oktoberfest event under it for a few months a year. In addition to the museum, they also give bus tours of NASA MSFC. There's a planetarium nearby with a cool history made from the dome of an oxygen tank. UAH has a special collections room dedicated to the Apollo program. There are some other rockets on the side of the interstate near the outskirts to let you know you're entering rocket city. If you plan carefully, you can see everything in a day.
tjchear 5y ago
Saw the first falcon that landed that was put up at SpaceX HQ. It's not as big as Saturn V, but it's still humongous up close. I also went down to Vanderberg AFB on a whim with a friend of mine to see a Falcon launch. That supersonic boom as the landing booster punched through the atmosphere, followed by smell of rocket exhaust in the cold dusk air is something I'll never forget.
tootie 5y ago
There's an upright Saturn class ship in Queens at the NY Hall of Science
- nickff 5y ago
  >" There's an upright Saturn class ship in Queens at the NY Hall of Science" They have nothing near the size of a Saturn V. NY HoS has: Gemini-Titan II Mercury-Atlas D Rocket Mercury-Atlas D “Friendship 7” Replica Capsule Mercury Capsule Saturn V F-1 Engine For perspective, the Saturn V is about 20 times the size of Titan II (by mass), and could almost deliver the whole Titan II into low Earth orbit (LEO).
mensetmanusman 5y ago
13 stories tall! Size of a football field on its side :)
- anon_123g987 5y ago
  Wow, that's at least a dozen bananas long!
metadat 5y ago
I loved visiting the Kennedy Space Center at Cape Canaveral in Florida. There is a REAL Saturn-V on display! Not to mention the VAB.. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_Assembly_Building https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_Assembly_Building Pretty much everything about the place makes you feel real small ;)
- jballer 5y ago
  Make sure to talk to the docents - many (all?) of them are engineers who worked on the hardware! Last time I was there I spoke with someone who had worked on an IMU mounted in the interstage.
  - trothamel 5y ago
    That matches my experience. I spent a wonderful time talking to a docent who diagnosed some of the failures on the Skylab booster. (Which came very close to not making it.)
- rileyphone 5y ago
  I got to go up in, and on top of it once - an unreal experience. It is also the tallest exurban building in the country IIRC. From across the river, you can see it from over 10 miles away quite distinctly.
- panick21_ 5y ago
  They are both real.
russellbeattie 5y ago
As you're driving along the 105 near Hawthorne, CA, you can see what looks like a smoke stack rising above some large industrial buildings in the distance. That's the Falcon 9 First Stage standing upright outside the SpaceX factory. https://maps.app.goo.gl/oGKEa5vht2HUNLai6 https://maps.app.goo.gl/oGKEa5vht2HUNLai6
vasili111 5y ago
>I hope to one day see Starship up close in person as it takes off to space. You never know when you think/speak about tech progress. One day you can even fly on it.
14 5y ago
This is a fact a lot of people don’t realize. The Saturn V was 363 feet long. I tell my kids to look at the highest building in town we have it is 12 stories and about 150 feet tall. The rocket was well over double that. That is insane! I would do anything to go back in time to watch that thing launch. Absolutely incredible in size.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  A good number of people who watched it go to the moon would have been around to hear about the Wright brothers' first powered flight (which only covered 1/3 the distance of the rocket's length). Technological progress from 1900 to 1970 would have just been mindblowing.
sidcool 5y ago
I have been there a decade ago and was fascinated. Space travel is literally rocket science. Can't comprehend the science and engineering behind it.
beefield 5y ago
I wonder if someone is maintaining a non-SEO-spam bucketlist of things to do/see/experience before you die for a typical hacker/STEM/bookish geek?
- SenHeng 5y ago
  Seeing a rocket launch live is definitely on my list, but it's a bit difficult living in an entirely different continent and all.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
masswerk 5y ago
> I hope to one day see Starship up close in person as it takes off to space. That would probably kill you. Better keep a safe distance of at least 20 miles.

sidewndr46 5y ago

Not a replica, that one was actually flight certified but never used.

CamperBob2 5y ago

I found it depressing. Ships aren't built to stay in the harbor, and rockets aren't built to lie on their side rusting. They say we couldn't build another Saturn V if we tried. Apparently that old saw is true enough, at least for the original contractors.

tjchear 5y ago
For lack of a political will or the technical know how?
- MPSimmons 5y ago
  In order to make a vehicle like that, you need the tools to make it. That doesn't just include wrenches and hammers - it includes the tooling used to form the curve of the skin and the area you assemble the pieces into. Almost all of that is gone, disassembled or misplaced.
- CamperBob2 5y ago
  The popular wisdom is that we literally lost some of the technical specs and drawings. A lot of the R&D would have to be redone from scratch... not that it wouldn't make sense to do that anyway, 50+ years later.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - tjchear 5y ago
    Not exactly related, but this reminds me of this triple nuclear plant project that ran into trouble by the time they're on their third, because it took so long, people with the requisite knowledge was gone and the remaining people had no idea how to fill the gap.
  - ebruchez 5y ago
    The CuriousMarc YouTube channel [1] features a current series where they work on some Saturn transmission equipment (Apollo Comms). They also also restored an AGC (Apollo Guidance Computer). Those were incredible designs for the time, but you wouldn't build (and probably couldn't even if you tried) these modules this way today. I'd say the loss is more one of history than actual utility. The only way would have been to keep the Saturn V going during the whole time, and upgrade its technology as time went. [1] https://www.youtube.com/c/CuriousMarc https://www.youtube.com/c/CuriousMarc
- pacetherace 5y ago
  1. Lost records 2. Many companies that help build those rockets have ceased to exists 3. Technology and tooling have changed substantially 4. Standards to deem a rocket flight worthy for human space flight have changed
  - adastra22 5y ago
    > Lost records This is actually a myth FYI. No records were ever lost, and you can go see all the original blueprints and relevant memos and technical reports in the archives at Marshall or DC if you want. It's all there. Where the myth comes from, and the kernel of truth underlying it is that the Saturn V was a hand-crafted machine made by experts. NASA and their contractors did their damndest to record every aspect of its production, but undoubtably there is some things that slipped through the cracks and were never written down. Those were lost not because records were lost, but because the individual workers went on to other jobs, and have since retired. EDIT: Also the tooling has been dismantled and recycled. The blueprints for the tooling exist and it all could be recreated, how sure are we that the specified tolerances matched the actual article? Uncertainty over this would probably invalidate all the testing that had been done.
    - adolph 5y ago
      Reminds me of the Fogbank story: In a bizarre twist, the new production facility and reverse-engineered production process yielded a version of Fogbank that was of a higher purity than it had been in the past, according to the article. The problem, however, was that for Fogbank to work as intended in existing warhead designs, that previous level of impurity was actually essential. NNSA had to revise the process to ensure the final product was just as impure. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/32867/fogbank-is-mysterious-material-used-in-nukes-thats-so-secret-nobody-can-say-what-it-is https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/32867/fogbank-is-myste...
    - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
      "undoubtably there is some things that slipped through the cracks and were never written down." I dont think they slip through the cracks as much as people today have different skils. It's like trying to get. Bunch of Node-JS developers to get a mainframe-based system from the 80s working.
- CountSessine 5y ago
  Technical know how, mostly. But in expected ways. Machining and engineering skills as they relate to manufacturing are different now. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ovD0aLdRUs0 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ovD0aLdRUs0
- edgyquant 5y ago
  The phrase, “we couldn’t build one if we wanted to,” is misleading. We could build the exact vehicle but we could build one that looks similar and does the same thing.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    We could not get it working in 5 years, maybe in 10. At that point you are not building, you are reverse engineering and re-engineering
    - stjohnswarts 5y ago
      With money and political will they absolutely could build one in 5 years. I'm not sure why people are stuck on this "we just can't accomplish what they did in the good ol' days"
      - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
        Because they look at how uk or california take 20 years to build a railway or any other infrastructure project and draw conclusions
renewiltord 5y ago
Nah, it's historic. We have better stuff now. It's like a Model T. The best place for it is in the museum.
- lmm 5y ago
  The difference is we see better versions of the Model T in use every day, whereas we don't currently have a rocket that can take people the moon.
jiggawatts 5y ago
The design is now thoroughly outdated. It wouldn't be cost-effective to reproduce a Saturn V as-is. The equivalent rocket is the Starship, which clearly can be built. Technologies like 3D printing, new alloys, better fuels, modern computers, etc... have made dramatic differences to the design and construction of these rockets. Have a look at the circuitry used on the Saturn V: http://www.righto.com/2020/04/a-circuit-board-from-saturn-v-rocket.html http://www.righto.com/2020/04/a-circuit-board-from-saturn-v-... Especially the "instrument unit": http://static.righto.com/images/lvda/IU-labeled.jpg http://static.righto.com/images/lvda/IU-labeled.jpg It's huuuuuuge! The computer power of that entire thing could fit into a single chip these days. Trying to reproduce something like that 1:1 in the modern age would be just absurd. Note that the Saturn V design isn't just cost-inefficient because technology has moved on. It wasn't cost effective back then either! The per-launch costs were over $1B in inflation adjusted dollars, putting it squarely into the same ballpark has the SLS, which is a monstrously expensive pork-barrel project designed primarily to burn money, not rocket fuel.
- garaetjjte 5y ago
  >The design is now thoroughly outdated. Not really, fundamentals doesn't change that much. Starship is not equivalent, it is entirely new, different category. >better fuels, modern computers, etc... have made dramatic differences to the design and construction of these rockets. Saturn V used RP1 and LH2 fuels, both are still widely used. Gas generator cycles are also used in modern engines. You can have smaller computers now but I don't think this would change costs significantly. Really only thing that changed significantly are manufacturing processes, but that doesn't invalidate the entire design, that you cannot make 1:1 copy doesn't mean you cannot port it to modern manufacturing methods, like this proposal for F-1B: https://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/new-f-1b-rocket-engine-upgrades-apollo-era-deisgn-with-1-8m-lbs-of-thrust/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/new-f-1b-rocket-engi...
  - NickNameNick 5y ago
    Gas generator cycle engines are definitely still in use, but a lot of next generation engines use a staged-combustion cycle. The effiency improvements seem to be good enough to be worth the engineering challenges, especially for larger rockets.
mlyle 5y ago
> They say we couldn't build another Saturn V if we tried. Apparently that old saw is true enough, at least for the original contractors. We can't build an authentic Great Pyramid, 1950s supercar, or 1970's minicomputer, either. At least, not for anything resembling cost-effectiveness compared to the current way to do things.
ineedasername 5y ago
>They say Who are "they", and how can that opinion hold true when we are in fact building something comparable to it?
stjohnswarts 5y ago
lol of course we could build another Saturn V. It would be practically from scratch and require a congress which is a bit less polarized, but that's just a silly statement.
Someone 5y ago
The engine was extensively scanned recently (https://www.3dsystems.com/learning-center/case-studies/reigniting-f-1-apollo-engine-geomagic-solutions https://www.3dsystems.com/learning-center/case-studies/reign...), so plans of what was actually built exist. If we don’t have plans for the rest, we could use that technique on the other parts. That doesn’t mean we can build a 100% copy, though. Apparently, some of the welding requires techniques that have been replaced by better methods, and welders who can replicate the original do not exist. I guess that’s solvable by using robots, but if, e.g., 3D printing or even glueing works better, and the goal would be to get a rocket that size again, why bother?

danavar 5y ago

In Huntsville AL they have one stood up outside a museum right off the highway - it’s insane to see

CamperBob2 5y ago
Good view of it at https://goo.gl/maps/ikR6xaxmTkmoqTSt8 https://goo.gl/maps/ikR6xaxmTkmoqTSt8
- CamperBob2 5y ago
  Also https://goo.gl/maps/Cz1qTmS8gh4eEdZe6 https://goo.gl/maps/Cz1qTmS8gh4eEdZe6 , which lets you walk around in the building next door.
JshWright 5y ago
They have two there. The other one is hanging on its side in the large building next to the vertical rocket.
edgyquant 5y ago
Yup I’ve been to that one a bunch and always stop by there when I travel with anyone who’s never been
Mountain_Skies 5y ago
Though not as large, there's also a standing Saturn 1B at the Alabama Welcome Center in Elkmont on Interstate 65.
pwr-electronics 5y ago
It's the US Space and Rocket Center for anyone looking it up. The vertical rocket is a replica. The sideways one is real, or mostly real. It's suspended pretty high up so you can walk below it. They host a weekly Oktoberfest event under it for a few months a year. In addition to the museum, they also give bus tours of NASA MSFC. There's a planetarium nearby with a cool history made from the dome of an oxygen tank. UAH has a special collections room dedicated to the Apollo program. There are some other rockets on the side of the interstate near the outskirts to let you know you're entering rocket city. If you plan carefully, you can see everything in a day.

tjchear 5y ago

Saw the first falcon that landed that was put up at SpaceX HQ. It's not as big as Saturn V, but it's still humongous up close. I also went down to Vanderberg AFB on a whim with a friend of mine to see a Falcon launch. That supersonic boom as the landing booster punched through the atmosphere, followed by smell of rocket exhaust in the cold dusk air is something I'll never forget.

tootie 5y ago

There's an upright Saturn class ship in Queens at the NY Hall of Science

nickff 5y ago
>" There's an upright Saturn class ship in Queens at the NY Hall of Science" They have nothing near the size of a Saturn V. NY HoS has: Gemini-Titan II Mercury-Atlas D Rocket Mercury-Atlas D “Friendship 7” Replica Capsule Mercury Capsule Saturn V F-1 Engine For perspective, the Saturn V is about 20 times the size of Titan II (by mass), and could almost deliver the whole Titan II into low Earth orbit (LEO).

mensetmanusman 5y ago

13 stories tall! Size of a football field on its side :)

anon_123g987 5y ago
Wow, that's at least a dozen bananas long!

metadat 5y ago

I loved visiting the Kennedy Space Center at Cape Canaveral in Florida. There is a REAL Saturn-V on display! Not to mention the VAB.. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_Assembly_Building https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_Assembly_Building Pretty much everything about the place makes you feel real small ;)

jballer 5y ago
Make sure to talk to the docents - many (all?) of them are engineers who worked on the hardware! Last time I was there I spoke with someone who had worked on an IMU mounted in the interstage.
- trothamel 5y ago
  That matches my experience. I spent a wonderful time talking to a docent who diagnosed some of the failures on the Skylab booster. (Which came very close to not making it.)
rileyphone 5y ago
I got to go up in, and on top of it once - an unreal experience. It is also the tallest exurban building in the country IIRC. From across the river, you can see it from over 10 miles away quite distinctly.
panick21_ 5y ago
They are both real.

russellbeattie 5y ago

As you're driving along the 105 near Hawthorne, CA, you can see what looks like a smoke stack rising above some large industrial buildings in the distance. That's the Falcon 9 First Stage standing upright outside the SpaceX factory. https://maps.app.goo.gl/oGKEa5vht2HUNLai6 https://maps.app.goo.gl/oGKEa5vht2HUNLai6

vasili111 5y ago

>I hope to one day see Starship up close in person as it takes off to space. You never know when you think/speak about tech progress. One day you can even fly on it.

14 5y ago

This is a fact a lot of people don’t realize. The Saturn V was 363 feet long. I tell my kids to look at the highest building in town we have it is 12 stories and about 150 feet tall. The rocket was well over double that. That is insane! I would do anything to go back in time to watch that thing launch. Absolutely incredible in size.

throwawaylinux 5y ago
A good number of people who watched it go to the moon would have been around to hear about the Wright brothers' first powered flight (which only covered 1/3 the distance of the rocket's length). Technological progress from 1900 to 1970 would have just been mindblowing.

sidcool 5y ago

I have been there a decade ago and was fascinated. Space travel is literally rocket science. Can't comprehend the science and engineering behind it.

beefield 5y ago

I wonder if someone is maintaining a non-SEO-spam bucketlist of things to do/see/experience before you die for a typical hacker/STEM/bookish geek?

SenHeng 5y ago
Seeing a rocket launch live is definitely on my list, but it's a bit difficult living in an entirely different continent and all.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

masswerk 5y ago

> I hope to one day see Starship up close in person as it takes off to space. That would probably kill you. Better keep a safe distance of at least 20 miles.