With all the talk of the Shuttle, the Ares, and Cassini on this blog, it’s easy to forget an older rocket, also a Saturn…
If you have a few minutes on your hands, soak in this ultra-slow motion video of a Saturn V launch, set to music (that is apparently) from Battlestar Galactica.
And while you watch, bear in mind: every one of those five F1 engines on the rocket’s first stage generated 1.5 million pounds of thrust. That’s what took us to the Moon. That, and human will.
via videosift.com
Tip o’ the re-entry shield to Dan DiFlavis.
October 15th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Now that’s a launch!
ah, well– some day.
October 15th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
I think they should have used Sigur Ros for the music. All their videos are slo-mo anyway.
October 15th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Fantastic
October 15th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Forget Ares, go back to the Saturn 5! That was one awesome machine!
October 15th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Didn’t they develop a even more powerfull version of the F1 engine, but never flew it for real?
That would be a show…
October 15th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
WOW.
October 15th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Wow. The last bit of footage sent tingles down my spine, truly awesome. The shockwave was amazing too.
October 15th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
The Saturn V is still the most powerful rocket ever made. I agree with MichaelL: Instead of developing the Ares rocket, the Saturn V could be modernized for less money and it’s a proven design.
October 15th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
During Apollo, everytime we watched one of those babies go up he were aware of the power and the latches that held it to the pad asthe power built up. The music I always wanted to set it to, but never had the time, was the “Wabash Cannon Ball:” “Listen to the rumble and the rattle and the roar….”
October 15th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
[…] De Saturnus VHet is al weer een poosje geleden dat die dingen de lucht in gingen, maar het filmpje hieronder laat op een geweldige manier zien hoe majestueus ruim drie miljoen kilogram Saturnus V-metaal zich van de Aarde kon verheffen. Er zit prachtige muziek op de achtergrond en de eerste beelden van de video zijn slow-motion. Bij elkaar héél mooi om naar te kijken. De raket, ontworpen door Werner von Braun, bracht zoals bekend een zooitje Amerikanen op de Maan, middels het Apolloprogramma. Het is de zwaarste raket die succesvol gevlogen heeft en geen enkele Saturnusraket heeft ooit gefaald. In het begin van de video zie je de vijf F1-motoren ontbranden, die samen 15 m3 vloeistof (zuurstof en brandstof) per seconde gebruikten. Dat leverde een stuwkracht per F1-motor van 700.000 kilogram, net zoveel als de stuwkracht van de drie hoofdmotoren van een Space Shuttle bij elkaar. Beloof me dat je ‘t filmpje bekijkt. Luidsprekers en thrusts full power! Bron: Bad Astronomy. […]
October 15th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Vernon, sadly, I don’t believe any of the manufacturing base was actually retained to make the Saturn V, so it would be just like starting from scratch.
It’s a nice idea, but the way the whole acquisition process works, even a proven design doesn’t make it through the Federal Acquisition Regulations, DoD 5000.2, etc.
October 15th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Here are some more interesting facts extracted from Wikipedia:
Click on the link for more information.
October 15th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Cool!
The Saturn V is my all time favorite rocket.
The part that always amazed me was the ability to hold it down until all five engines were up to thrust.
October 15th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Well, at least they didn’t use Phillip Glass…
i would have preferred something by Steve Joblonsky… maybe something from “Steamboy.”
I think my favorite moment is when, just after ignition, you see the fireball explode outward, then you see it being sucked down into the launch pad’s pit, by the sheer downward thrust of the engines creating a partial vaccuum above.
October 15th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
The Saturn V will always be the king of rockets, but the Ares should at the very least, rekindle public interest when it’s back the good old days of launching rockets bigger than a 30 story building.
That first Ares V launch is going to be nothing short of epic!
October 15th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Phil - what causes the fireball to “suck” back down at about 29 seconds in?
October 15th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Vernon Balbert:
[Pantomime mode] Oh, no it isn’t! [/Pantomime mode]
The Russian RD-170 rocket engine is the world’s most powerful multi-nozzle, multi-chamber liquid bi-propellant rocket engine. It burns the Russian equivalent of RP-1 fuel and LOX oxidizer in four combustion chambers supplied by a single turbo pump according to a staged combustion cycle. Designed and produced by NPO Energomash, it was originally used with the Energia launch vehicle.
Click on the link for more information.
October 15th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
That video kind of reminds me of the old documentary Koyaanisqatsi which ended with a launch of an Atlas rocket where you got to follow the flaming wreck in slow motion for several minutes without only music as commentary.
Search for “Koyaanisqatsi Final Part” on youtube is you want to see it.
October 15th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Awesome, and well edited.
Two interesting phenomena are clearly observable in this video. The first is what I call the “dark plume”, a region of the F1 engine’s exhaust plume that is so dim it’s often mistaken for an extension of the engine bell. It extends for a couple meters below the actual nozzle. It was due to the very sooty coolant (relatively cool turbine exhaust) that was expelled along the inside surface of the nozzle to protect it from the extremely high temperature of its own main plume. This effect is clearly visible in both liftoff segments of this vid.
The second interesting thing to note is the way the first stage’s exhaust plume varies with altitude. At sea level it spreads only slightly, staying almost within the diameter of the S-I stage. At lower atmospheric pressure (high altitude) the plume spreads out to many times the rocket’s diameter. This is not an optical illusion, it’s a real effect due to the interaction between the hot exhaust gasses and the ambient air.
Ah, now I’m getting nostalgic for those glory days.
October 15th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Denver Astronomer: When the engines initially light, there is no real “draft” and the exhaust plume is basically pushed up from the ambient air and tunnel ducting mechanics beneath the rocket. Once the engines are running however, a VERY strong “downdraft” - much like a venturi effect - is created. This is “sucking” the exhaust back down with the rest of the gasses and expelling things out the flame tunnel.
I think.
JC
October 15th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Phil Plait, why do you permit those automated ‘bot’ comments from other people’s blogs to clutter up these pages? They are bloody annoying!
October 15th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Thank you Phil I really enjoyed that, with the music it inspires awe and I really love that. One thing is certain we will keep on Keeping on.
October 15th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Wow, that was an awesome video Phil!
Those were the glory days indeed! A testament to human ingenuity and the achievements of our society. I kinda miss this nowadways. People seem much less willing to do something that requires risk and a lot of effort. Nowadays it all seems to play safe and no risk and then we often fail anyways (like AresI and AreasV which - if you ask me- will never go anywhere).
October 15th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Hehe, you think we went to the Moon…
j/k, humans are aweXome.
October 15th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
I’ll never forget my only visit to Kennedy - nearly a year ago now. Sitting eating lunch under that Saturn V suspended horizontally from the ceiling… you cannot appreciate the size of those things unless you stand next to one - the photos just can’t capture it.
I feel very proud of my species sometimes.
October 15th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
I wonder what mission it is?
October 15th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Ivan, those are called Trackbacks, and they indicate when someone offsite links to a particular post. It gives readers (and me) a chance to see when others link here. They are common on blogs.
October 15th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
and for all the cyclists…. and I gotta have one of these!!!
http://elevengear.com/satv.html (SFW)
October 15th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Well, Phil Plait, at least make it a condition that they plug your book Death From The Skies! on their blog.
October 15th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
So unspeakably beautiful.
(FRAKKING HAWESOME for the locals.)
October 15th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
QUESTION: In terms of raw lifting power, how do today’s rockets stack up to the Saturn V?
October 15th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
My earliest childhood memories are of the Gemini missions. My father always got me out of bed to watch them. He was a Missileman with the Strategic Air Command, and I suppose it just tickled him to death to see one of “his” rockets (Titan II) used in such a manner.
I remember the Apollo missions very well, by that time I was hooked, and wanted desperately to be an astronaut - along with every other kid my age. Each televised launch boosted my excitement and enthusiasm. My father explained what our goal was, and to to me, there could be no finer objective than to land people on the moon. I particularly remember Apollo 8, and the very moving Christmas Eve broadcast from lunar orbit. Best Christmas present EVER. I’m not even close to being religious, but I still tear up thinking about that.
Once Apollo 11 launched, I don’t think I ever got more than ten feet from the (black and white) television. Watching those clips is still very moving for me, due both to childhood memories, and sheer awe at what we were able to accomplish.
October 15th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
“And while you watch, bear in mind: every one of those five F1 engines on the rocket’s first stage generated 1.5 million pounds of thrust. That’s what took us to the Moon. That, and human will.”
And we threw it away.
Sometimes, when considering our space program following the Apollo project, I feel like Charlton Heston, staring at a half-buried and half-melted Statue of Liberty.
October 15th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
I used to wonder if a Saturn V with the first stage redesigned around the shuttle main engines would be practical. Now, thanks to IVAN3MAN and the Wikipedia entry he quoted, I know it wouldn’t be. Perhaps a little off-topic - when a car company releases its latest model, R&D is usually already underway as to what the next new model will look like, and engineering work for the next major model change starts at the time of the major cosmetic upgrade. By contrast, there was a sizeable gap between the end of Apollo and the first flight of the shuttle, during which time we lost Skylab. NASA should have started looking at what would follow the shuttle at least once STS-4 was back on the ground, and certainly after Challenger exploded. I feel experience with the shuttle has taught us that re-usable spacecraft are only really useful for bringing stuff back to Earth, and everything else can be done more economically with single-use rockets.
October 15th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
@ Some Canadian Skeptic
Comparison of Heavy Lift Launch Systems (click on it).
October 15th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Amazing, stunning footage. When I watched the Apollo missions back in the 70’s I really thought it was going to be the start of something. How utterly dreadful to be sitting here, 30 years later, seeing it now as the end of an era. Beyond tragic.
October 15th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
@ Some Canadian Skeptic:
ERRATUM: Check this out: Comparison of Heavy Lift Launch Systems.
October 15th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Thank you. That has made me really happy.
And I’m with Gazz on the tragedy of it,.
October 15th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Thank you, that has made me incredibly happy.
And I’m with Gazz, it is terribly tragic that that is where it ended for the most part.
October 15th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
I tried that whole human will thing to get to the moon a while back. It turns out you really do need the rockets.
October 15th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Yea, I found out about the necessity of wings and propulsion for flight. I did fly, but it was only in one direction, and the ground was there.
October 15th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Vernon Balbert:
ADDENDUM: Further to my above post at RD-170 rocket engine, the Russian N-1 Moon rocket was the most powerful rocket ever built: a cluster of 30 NK-15 engines — known as the NK-33 — produced a thrust of 4620 metric tons (10 million lbf) of thrust. This far exceeded the 3469 metric ton (7.65 million lbf) thrust of the Saturn V.
October 16th, 2008 at 2:18 am
@ Donnie B.,
I always wondered about that dark plume. Thanks!
October 16th, 2008 at 2:35 am
IVAN3MAN: The N-1 may have had greater liftoff thrust, but it doesn’t necessarily translate to greater payload to moon. Even Energiya I believe had slightly greater thrust at liftoff that Saturn V, but a lower payload to low Earth orbit.
Also, the Saturn V is still the most powerful OPERATIONAL rocket ever made, the N-1 never even made it past 1st stage flight.
IMHO, it will remain the most powerful rocket for quite some time yet as the Ares V program collapses under it’s own ludicrous statements of “safer, simpler, sooner”. Even now, about the only thing Ares V baseline has actually GOT in common with the Shuttle technology is the orange foam of the external tank. How’s that for Shuttle-derived? That thing just keeps mounting technical and infrastructure problems (height issues, weight issues, performance issues, etc.) and it’s headed straight for cancellation. NASA would be wise to switch to DIRECT alternative A.S.A.P. which basically has just one vehicle design and so it wouldn’t be at risk of cancellation as the puny Ares I might be the only thing left after Ares V is axed. Can you say “goodbye, Moon”?
October 16th, 2008 at 2:39 am
Regarding the *real* Shuttle-derived DIRECT alternative - can you say “Apollo 8-style circumlunar flight in as early as 2013″? Compare to when Ares I is actually scheduled to be ready to even bring Orion to the ISS.
October 16th, 2008 at 5:44 am
The video is really cool
The N-1 had just one maiden flight, I think…. the explosion (moments after lift-off) must have been very “magnificent”
October 16th, 2008 at 7:17 am
Earlier this year I had the chance to visit the Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville, AL. I know it was just a replica, but standing under the sheer size of theSaturn V out front was still incredibly awe inspiring!
October 16th, 2008 at 7:31 am
What was the real time of the burn? Wasn’t it closer to one minute, not two?
October 16th, 2008 at 8:18 am
[…] Vía Bad Astronomy […]
October 16th, 2008 at 8:24 am
Gordan: “Also, the Saturn V is still the most powerful OPERATIONAL rocket ever made, the N-1 never even made it past 1st stage flight.”
I am not denying that fact; the Saturn V article that I linked at my above post stated: “It remains the largest and most powerful launch vehicle ever brought to operational status from a height, weight and payload standpoint.”
What I was trying to point out was the fact that the Saturn V rocket was not the most powerful rocket ever made — there is a difference in definition.
Extract from the N-1 rocket article (link above):
You see, one of the problems of the N-1 was the heavy kerosene fuel — because it was cheap and plentiful — that it carried in the second and third stages, which meant that there was less available payload weight for it to carry.
The second and major problem of the N-1 was its complex plumbing: 30 NK-33 engines — of a radical ‘closed cycle’ design — which had to be supplied with fuel and oxidizer. Whereas the Saturn V only had 5 very large ‘open cycle’ engines — less efficient, but more reliable.
Also, the N1’s Baikonur launch complex could not be reached by heavy barge. To allow transport by rail, all the stages had to be broken down and re-assembled. As a result, the complex and destructive vibrational modes (which ripped apart propellant lines and turbines) as well as exhaust plume fluid dynamic problems (causing vehicle roll, vacuum cavitation, and other problems) were not discovered and worked out before flight. These problems, coupled with lack of funding for proper testing, the N-1’s 30-engine cluster was a recipe for disaster.
Yes, DrFlimmer, there was a “magnificent” explosion on the launch pad!
October 16th, 2008 at 8:53 am
An ultra-slow motion video of immensely powerful rocket engines to the music of Bear McCreary from Season 3 of Battelstar Galactica… YES PLZ MOAR KTHX!
October 16th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Jeeves: you’re welcome. I only learned the details of that phenomenon a few years ago (thanks, fellow BAUTers!). Those smoky F-1 engines were far different from the clean-burning Titan engines (which used hypergolic fuels) or the upper-stage, hydrogen-burning J1 engines. But they really packed a wallop.
Edward: the first stage of the Saturn V (aka the S-IC) burned for two and a half minutes. Then the whole glorious machine was cut loose and fell into the Atlantic Ocean. One of the awesome statistics about the Saturn V is that each of the F1 engines burned one ton of kerosene fuel and two tons of liquid oxygen… per second.
October 16th, 2008 at 9:38 am
And I shall ride unto heaven upon a pillar of fire.
October 16th, 2008 at 9:42 am
IVAN3MAN: I guess it depends on how you define “powerful”. I personally like to define it as payload capacity as that’s what really matters with a rocket, not how much noise it makes on the way up.
Although… given the specifics of Saturn’s five huge F-1 engine bells and the corresponding acoustics, I believe it’s more earth shattering than 30 smaller engines, even for a smaller amount of thrust. It’s not ranked the loudest man-made object after a nuclear detonation for nothing, after all.
Also, didn’t one N-1 go some 80 seconds into the flight before failing? Not exactly an on-the-pad explosion (western) people like to joke about. Given more time I’m sure the russian designers would have worked out the problems, even though I don’t personally like the concept of that many engines and stages. That’s why the Falcon 9 Heavy makes me uneasy as well - 27 engines!
October 16th, 2008 at 9:48 am
This clip and many (many many MANY) more can be seen on a DVD release from Spacecraft Films called “The Mighty Saturns: Saturn V” which seems to be out of print. I’m not sure which mission this clip is from; I’ll have to check when I get home.
Regarding the “fireball suckback” phenomenon: I believe that the initial fireball seen is the exhaust from the gas generators which drive the turbine pumps for the fuel and oxidizer. The exhaust from these generators is vented out through the exhaust bell; on Atlas launches it can be seen coming out of a separate exhaust below and to the side of the main engines.
Once there is enough speed in the turbopumps and the engines ignite, there is sufficient downdraft to draw down the initial fireball.
October 16th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Hoo yeah!!!
Nice video. Saturn V is my favorite rocket, they don’t make them like they used to.
…and the Saturn never killed anyone either!
Ares V will be a big sucker, but still won’t be a Saturn V.
Tom
October 16th, 2008 at 10:38 am
I think this video was actually grabbed from YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rXtG3vfAlA
The video description has info on which segment corresponds to which mission.
October 16th, 2008 at 11:42 am
I got to say it; the Saturn V was made of AWESOME.
We should never have gotten rid of it.
Can you imagine what today’s space program would be like if we didn’t scrap the Saturn V, and it’s smaller cousin, the Saturn 1B?
I heard of designs of the Saturn V to have solid boosters added. Imagine what THAT could’ve done!
October 16th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
The Saturn V is still the most powerful rocket ever made.
That won’t last another decade. Ares V will toss 188,000 Kg into orbit vs. 118,000 Kg for the Saturn-V.
Cool (for me): I saw every single Saturn launch, I-B or V, in person. Closest was 5 NM on the Banana River Causeway. Some mission called Apollo 11 — maybe you’ve heard of it?
Cooler: My grandfather was MIS at KSC during Apollo. They had a wee bit of data and telemetry to obtain and manage.
Best part: My uncle was the Lead Engineer for the S-I-C project for Boeing/Huntsville. That’s what you’re watching in action in the video.
When I say space is the family business, I am not kidding.
October 16th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
I heard of designs of the Saturn V to have solid boosters added. Imagine what THAT could’ve done
You’re thinking of the Nova system which was never an actual rocket design. It was a mission feasibility study concept and code-name that was used 1959-1964 and later for potential Mars missions that would have been follow-ons to Apollo. During the early days, Saturn was called Juno and Nova was its much more powerful cousin. Ultimately Juno and Nova’s elements were merged into the Saturn design.
In 1963 NASA considered using strap-on solids to be able to loft one million pounds into orbit. That idea was discarded due to the uncontrollable nature of solid rocket boosters. See: Challenger Incident.
The idea was revived, albeit not very seriously, when Nova was resurrected and considered as a delivery system for Mars whenb Apollo’s missions ended.
We got the Space Transportation System instead because Nixon chose not to go to Mars and decided to merge NRO and NASA interests and provide the NRO with a way to service Keyhole satellites in orbit…and do other stuff too.
The Lunex Project in the 1950’s also considered solids. Lunex was an Air Force initiative to go to the moon which never got off of the drawing board.
October 16th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
This actually made me sad. A few days ago we had a fabulous full moon, or close to it. I was talking to my little boy about it, sitting out on the front porch and got to the “a long time ago, when I was about your age, men walked on the moon” portion of the story about the moon and I just got bummed. Then I got to tell him that there were no men on the moon today and that the ones who did go there were older than his grandpa.
The last men who did this are now eligible for Medicare and Social Security. That, folks, is just pathetic.
October 17th, 2008 at 2:44 am
Gordan: “Also, didn’t one N-1 go some 80 seconds into the flight before failing?”
Yes, three in fact: 69 seconds for the first N-1 rocket after reaching an altitude of over 12 km; 51 seconds for the third rocket after reaching an altitude of 1 km; 107 seconds for the fourth rocket after reaching an altitude of 40 km. Extract from Wikipedia — N-1 rocket:
October 18th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Hey, Charles - sorry the family’s not in that business any more. Mine owned the marina on the N side of 520 opposite Cocoa. We got packed with yachts for 8 - 11, and then the quantity dropped off. It got to be “normal” somehow.
One of our regulars was a sound engineer for Technicolor. They put a microphone, covered with ablative, somewhere near the flame. When they played what it got for others, they weren’t believed, even though they modeled for the enclosure and corrected for that - “it sounds like radio static”. Then one of the engine guys said no, shut up, that’s what it should sound like in there - “you’re listening to the thunderstorm.” It turns out there’s really lightning in there among all the ionized gases.
If any of you get the chance, see the Saturn V Exhibit at KSC. They’ve actually dragged the real flight equipment out of warehouses and set up Mission Control at KSC for a simulation of the night launch of Apollo 17.
I saw them all, and cheered them on. Here was something we could do that was all positive.
Don’t forget to look Apollo up elsewhere, and try not to be bummed that 47 years will have passed between 17 and the next American landing.
October 19th, 2008 at 6:04 am
[…] I have to shamelessly (re)link to this fantastic video that the Bad Astronomer mentioned on his blog a week or so. If you haven’t already taken the time to watch, it is truly a beautiful thing: […]
October 19th, 2008 at 11:38 am
I’ve had this video in the corner of my screen for the last four days, running again and again. This morning I’ve a tall black cup of tea steaming right next to it.
I was in grade school when Apollo flew. We had no TV, so videos have some extra thrill. At last I see it fly.
Apollo was truly a most magnificent achievement. We built that rocket, and rode it to the moon. The gods that we once imagined are pale in comparison.