If you are pondering over this question, “how to get back with my ex girlfriend” please understand that this is a very delicate situation. Feelings may be badly hurt on both ends and anything that you may do now or not do may cause even more hurt.
Read more on How to Get Back With My Ex Girlfriend – 5 Steps That Will Not Fail You…
The fact that you are asking this question, “can I get my ex girlfriend back?” shows that the breakup probably was not serious enough to negate the chances of reconciliation altogether. You also probably have the hope that she feels the same way about the relationship. If you have hurt her intentionally or unintentionally and you know it, it is time to say you are sorry. Being sorry and sincerely showing it is a very good first step to get back together with your ex girlfriend.
Read more on Can I Get My Ex Girlfriend Back By Being Sensitive Or By Making Her Jealous?…
The fact that you are asking this question, “can I get my ex girlfriend back?” shows that the breakup probably was not serious enough to negate the chances of reconciliation altogether. You also probably have the hope that she feels the same way about the relationship. If you have hurt her intentionally or unintentionally and you know it, it is time to say you are sorry. Being sorry and sincerely showing it is a very good first step to get back together with your ex girlfriend.
Read more on Can I Get My Ex Girlfriend Back By Being Sensitive Or By Making Her Jealous?…
There are times when your relationship suddenly falls apart and either one or both of you may doubt whether it is all over especially if the relationship is new. Some men simply cannot reconcile to the fact that their girlfriend dumped them and so they hope to get back with their girlfriend again. If you are asking, “How can I get back together with my ex girlfriend”, it is important to plan your moves ahead.
Read more on How Can I Get Back Together With My Ex Girlfriend – Nothing Is Impossible…
Relationships are delicate and need to be nurtured with loving dedication to make them grow strong. Sadly, everything is not as rosy as we would like it to be. When relationships are broken, they drain us of all our emotions, feelings, ability to think clearly and in acute cases, even our physical well being.
Read more on Get Back at Your Ex – 5 Ideas…
Have you just gone through a break up? Are you thinking how to get an ex back? Many people experience some sort of a break up but most of them just concentrate on moving on rather than searching for a way to get an ex back. If you are not a part of that league and you want to work towards how to get an ex back, then here are some tips for you. Does a break up mean that there are no chances of getting back together with your ex?
Read more on How To Get An Ex Back – Know What You Are Doing…
As the current market stands, many day traders as well as amateur traders are opting to make their way into the CFD trading market. For anyone who is wondering what exactly that is, the abbreviations mean Contract for Difference. This sort of trading is an arrangement in between two individuals, whom wish to exchange the difference between the opening price and the closing price of the contract; it is then multiplied by the amount of shares, calculated at the close of the contract.
Read more on CFD Trading Becoming Popular…
As we get older, joint pain becomes more of an issue. This can mainly be due to the thinning of the cartilage and as a result arthitis begins to take a hold. Sure enough, we crave natural joint pain relief and strive to find that perfect solution that will allow us to carry on with our lives pain free. Below are some strategies to bring you that desired pain relief.
"51," the eve of the Mona Lisa tiles started in Beijing, "Mona Lisa energy-saving environmental protection products and the China Environmental Labeling Product Promotion Council", a ceramic plate has become the focus of the industry. As the country's first ceramic plates, ceramic plates Mona Lisa through innovative technology and specifications "downsizing" to achieve energy-saving environmental protection and access to a number of industry experts in their agreement.
    The relevant statistics show that last year the total capacity of ceramic products in China reached 5.1 billion square meters, the use of non-renewable raw materials for more than 150 million ton. "Despite our country's rich reserves of ceramic raw materials, but with the development of ceramics, raw material reserves less and less, which makes us feel duty-bound to develop environmentally friendly products is the responsibility of enterprises, but also in line with the future of the field of simple decorative style." Guangdong Mona Lisa Ceramics Limited, Zhang Qi-kang in the promotion was that, as China's real estate industry's sustained development, market demand for ceramic products is still very strong, how to maximize use of limited resources is a major issue for the whole development of the industry . Therefore, the Mona Lisa Group and South China University of Technology researchers put substantial financial and material resources to carry out research and development for several years to launch a new type of environmentally friendly energy-saving products. "This is not only the construction of a conservation-oriented society urgent requirements, but also reflects the corporate social responsibility."
    It is understood that, in addition to "national first" in the title, the Mona Lisa is also the launch of the ceramic plate in order to 800cm × 1800cm of the large size and the ultra-thin thickness of 3mm proud of, because such specifications and the thickness of the bending strength in the fight against , wind pressure and other issues have been a number of industry experts and peers questioned, but the national testing center testing a variety of data has eliminated this industry, "pancake-style" porcelain plates doubts.
    In this regard, China Light Industry Association, vice president of Young Self-peng said that the Mona Lisa's new products and new technologies, not only to promote conservation of resources, showing the self-innovation, but also by making the product "slim down", reducing energy consumption, reduce the the storage, transportation, and so the pressure of the building itself is also produced energy-saving and environmental benefits. "But a 'cut' the word, if there is no technological breakthroughs and innovation, not be easy. This has to a certain extent, reflects the awareness and strength of the enterprise itself." Yang Zi-peng think that this "diet" will become a building material new fashion within the industry, and this "lose weight" with a variety of advanced technology integration of promotion, will have a good social benefits. Huang, general manager of marketing, according to the Mona Lisa revealed that this new type of ceramic plate has been put into large-scale industrial production is expected later this year will be vigorously promoted.
China's plastics machinery industry over the past decade was rapid, sustained growth momentum of development. This is reflected in the import and export, not only shows that the Chinese plastic machinery in the production to the significant growth also shows in the quality of domestic plastics machinery and technology has improved significantly.
    China presses producing country
    At present, China has a certain amount of plastic machinery manufacturer about 400, most located in the southeast coastal economically developed Pearl River Delta, Yangtze River Delta area. Tibet, Xinjiang, Qinghai, Ningxia, Hainan and other provinces, the District has no plastic machinery manufacturer. At present, China is a plastic machinery manufacturing country, but it is also the country of consumption of plastic machinery, plastic machinery, but not power.
    The reason is China's plastics machinery manufacturing base is weak after the establishment of New China, from small to large, from weak to strong, and after only three historical periods to develop. China Plastic Machinery 20th century after the formation period of 70 years ago, the growth period of 80 years, 90 years period of development, has developed into both a plastic machinery producing country is consumer. Especially after the accession to WTO, China Plastic Machinery manufacturers efforts with international standards, actively participate in international competition, implement the "going out" of the strategic directions to meet the historic opportunities and challenges. In the plastic molding machines, among which injection molding machine, extrusion machine, hollow blow molding machine three cultivars, three output, output value represents about 80% of plastic machinery in the three major products, injection molding machine has more than 50%. The 21st century, China Plastic Machinery Industry has become a vital force in the machinery industry.
    Output in the world
    From the pace of development and major economic indicators, in the mechanical industry, more than 190 industries, plastic machinery are among the best. Today, plastic machinery, production capacity of about 20 million years (sets), ranked first in the world. 2003 annual production of about 100,000 pieces (sets), which yields 50,000 sets injection machine, plastic machinery accounted for about 50% of the total, only the injection molding machine manufacturing plant in Ningbo, more than 100, which "Ningbo Haitian Group shares Limited "production of" Haitian "brand injection molding machine HTF80X ~ HTF3600X, series complete, 80-4000 tons of clamping force, injection volume of 45-51000 g presses in 2004 production exceeded 15,000 units, output broke through 30 billion exports to over 30 countries and regions, including Europe, America and other developed countries, earning foreign exchange of about 2 million.
    According to the statistics, from January to April 2005, the National presses yield 75 000 units (units), up 19.05%, is still growing fast. Expected 2005-2010, China Plastic Machinery output will reach 150 000 -50 million. Which accounts for about 35% of the injection molding machine, extruder 25%, 5% of the Blow Molding Machine, other 35%. On the export side, accounting for 60.4% of injection molding machines, extrusion machines 6.8%, 11.7% hollow machine, other 21.1%; 74.1% export injection molding machines, extruders 8.1%, 8.0% hollow machine, other 17.8%.
    High-precision equipment still has to import
    As China's plastics machinery market capacity, expanding the total imports of plastic machinery does not decline, the market has accounted for 50% of total capacity. So far, China's large-scale ethylene project in the plastic granulator unit, has been imported; electronics, communications engineering precision required for injection molding machines, automotive industry required in the large injection molding machines, large-scale multi-layer blow molding machines, packaging industry are widely used two-way stretch film production equipment, multi-layer blow molding machine, medical and health fields required precision extrusion machine has been imported.
    The root causes, on the one hand the level of plastic machinery in China with advanced countries than the existence of gaps, especially those technologies difficult, such as precision injection molding machines, large-scale pelletizing unavailable in domestic, market, Shang has urgently needed really need Jinkou ; but on the other hand the performance of domestic equipment, better than the import of poor quality, can meet the requirements, but also from abroad. To solve this problem, plastic machinery industry to further improve their addition to the development, innovation, the state management has yet to be further improved.
    Opportunities and challenges
    Overall, the general plastic machinery products, excess capacity. Currently carrying out technical transformation of enterprises, to add a number of efficient, high-precision equipment and suggested equipment to improve product development and innovation. In recent years, plastic machinery industry is a prominent feature of many of the world famous enterprises have set up factories in China.
    According to incomplete statistics, has been in Jiangsu and Zhejiang region of foreign enterprises to invest and build factories Toshiba, Canada HUSKY, Japan and France that g, Ube Japan, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Japan's Sumitomo Heavy machine, Demag, Germany, etc.. In addition, LG, rises in the east, Japan, Nissei, Engel Austria are also prepared to invest and build factories in China. Foreign companies have to seize the Chinese market, although the development of plastic machinery in China and the bases will play a positive role, but also to the domestic manufacturer of plastic machinery pose serious challenges.
Read more on Big but not strong domestic plastic machines need high…
The skull may be the hardest bone in your body, but it doesn’t have all the strength it needs to protect your brain. There are times when impact to the head, gross negligence of doctors, or deliberate attempt of someone to hurt you can make you suffer from a brain injury. Sad to say, the situation may result to permanent damage to death says Los Angeles personal injury lawyer.
Read more on The Brain Stops Working: Causes of Brain Injury…
VoIP refers to using the Internet Protocol network for voice transmission, which is representative of Internet Protocol IP, which is the hub of the Internet, Internet protocol can be Electronic E-mail, instant messaging and web traffic to thousands of PC or mobile phone. Some people say it is the telecommunications killer, some people say it is a revolutionary factor in international affairs. In short touted many. But, perhaps, when you use the service, perhaps there was a hacker to steal your personal information or engage in destruction of your network.
All affect the data network attacks are likely to affect the VoIP network, such as viruses, spam, illegal intrusion, DoS, hijacking phone, eavesdropping, sniffing and other data. The only difference is, we are more willing to take some measures to protect other networks. For VoIP, but few specific measures. In fact, only if we take some protective measures, the technology was possible to achieve true success.
Of the following methods to protect VoIP:
1, limit all of the VoIP data can only be transferred to a VLAN on
Cisco voice and data were proposed division of VLAN, which helps in accordance with the priority for voice and data. VLAN also contribute to defense costs divided fraud, DoS attacks, eavesdropping, hijacking Communicate And so on. VLAN user's computer division to form a valid closed circle, it does not allow any other computer access to its equipment, thus avoiding the computer attacks, VoIP, also quite safe; even if the attack will be lost minimum.
2, monitor and track the VoIP network communication model
Monitoring tools and intrusion detection systems can help users identify those VoIP network intrusion attempts. VoIP detailed observation log can help find some irregular things, such as unexplained or international telephone company or organization of the basic non-contact international calls, multiple login attempt to crack the code, voice exploded and so on.
3, protection of VoIP server Must take effective measures to protect the server's security to withstand internal or external intruders from using sniffer technology to intercept the data. Because VoIP phone has a fixed IP address and MAC address, an attacker easy to sneak into accordingly. Recommends that users limit IP and MAC addresses, VoIP systems do not allow random access super user interface, and SIP gateway before the establishment of Another Firewall This will to some extent, limit the intrusion of the network.
4, use of multiple encryption Send packets only to the encryption is not enough to be on all of the phone signal is encrypted. Voice encryption to prevent interception of the person's voice will be inserted into the user session. In this regard, SRTP protocol to-end communication encryption, TLS to encrypt the entire communication process. Should be through the gateway, network and host level to provide strong encryption protection to support voice transmission.
5, to establish VoIP network redundancy
Should always be prepared may be subject to viruses, DoS attacks, they may lead to network paralysis. Construction to set up multi-node, gateway, server, Power supply And call the network router, and connected with more than one supplier. Regular tests on various network systems to ensure their work well, when the main service network paralysis, the standby facility can quickly take over.
6, the device placed behind a firewall
Establish separate firewall, so that the communication through the VLAN boundary agreement is limited to available.
Read more on Safe way to protect VoIP…
1, the radiator temperature control valve development:
    Radiator temperature control valve in the early 40s of the 20th century emerged in Europe in the early '80s China began developing its own radiator temperature control valve, into the 90's, the late policy and technical measures with the heat the deepening and the masses room temperature on the individual requirements of various domestic and imported products emerged radiator temperature control valve, and a lot of projects in China were used.
    In the radiator heating the room temperature control can be used to control the radiator temperature control valve, also better resistance characteristics can be used to control the manual temperature control valve. Radiator temperature control valve with the advantages is that it can better control the use of "free heat" to save energy, while avoiding the cumbersome user repeated adjustment.
    Second, the radiator temperature control valve working principle and classification
    Radiator temperature control valve and the valve body from the temperature controller composed of two parts. Its mechanism for the user to set the thermostat to the desired temperature, spin, when the indoor temperature exceeds the set temperature, the thermostat temperature controller package (within the full temperature medium) heat expansion, the volume increases, promoting stem, so that the valve is small, reducing water flow radiator, the room temperature reaches the set temperature. When the indoor temperature is lower than the set temperature, temperature of the cold shrink, the volume decreases, the spool valve stem within the return spring, push back, so that a large valve opening, increasing the radiator water flow until the temperature reaches the set value.
    1. Temperature controller
    Temperature controller, temperature of the location based on its temperature and package can be divided into built-in and Remote type. As the warm feelings package is ambient air temperature, and temperature control valve regulating action is due to changes in temperature and package volume production, so the location, temperature of the correct use is important for temperature control valve. In most cases, the need to adjust the room in which the radiator in this group when the indoor temperature, temperature and package built-in temperature control valve should be adopted. In some specific cases, such as the radiator cover in this group was blocked radiator, thermostatic valve in the hood, or in the thermostatic valve within close range of other hot (cold) source, such as stoves, lamps and so strong, that feelings of time-temperature package is around local high temperature, not the exact room temperature, should adopt Far-type temperature controller can accurately adjust the sensor placed in the room temperature suffered little interference where strong heat source in order to achieve accurate control of room temperature purposes. In some special systems, such as the level of single-pipe system, can only be installed in the first group of radiator radiator thermostatic valve, the user adjust the living room or master bedroom Youyi room temperature mainly, but also can use Remote Temperature and control valve, the temperature sensor placed in the living room or master bedroom to adjust the temperature within the collection.
    Temperature controller can charge packages in accordance with its temperature sensing to classify the different media can be broadly classified into four categories.
    (1) steam temperature-inclusive.
    Temperature within the package filled with a low boiling point liquid medium, when the outside temperature, some of the vaporized liquid to gas, temperature and package volume increased to promote stem, off a small valve opening, reducing the water into the radiator flow, when the outside temperature decreases, some of the liquefied gas has a liquid, temperature and package volume decreased and increased valve opening to increase the radiator water flow. The package thermal medium temperature in a gas-liquid mixed state often played the role of the time advantage is rapid, but very strict temperature and sealed package, there are very few domestic applications.
    (2) liquid temperature and package type.
    Bag filled with warm temperature medium is a special liquid, usually methanol or toluene. Larger packages such temperature, reaction time is shorter, now is widely used in China.
    (3) solid-state temperature and package type.
    Winter package is filled with high expansion coefficient of solid, mostly paraffin. As the relative gas and liquid heat of solid (cold) small volume changes, so its temperature moves slowly, but the volume is relatively small packet of liquid temperature in the domestic as well as some applications.
    (4) metal piece.
    The temperature controller temperature sensing device is a special metal alloy with memory chip, the metal heat expansion contraction by the cold, driven temperature control valve movement. Such products take their temperature before leaving the factory installed rigorous test and inspection, the same time, stretching and bending of metal in the frequent presence of fatigue fracture and other properties after the change problem, and has a ductility of metal, so will this temperature devices affect the life and accuracy. Some domestic manufacturers to produce such a temperature control valve products, its rare to see foreign products.
    2. Thermostatic valve body
    Thermostatic valve body generally copper, nickel-plated, and installed in accordance with its inlet water temperature control valve core can be divided into the following between the point of view.
    (1) through type thermostatic valve body: temperature control valve inlet and outlet angle of 180 degrees.
    (2) angle thermostatic valve body: temperature control valve inlet and outlet angle of 90 degrees.
    (3) three-dimensional temperature control valve body (three-dimensional temperature control valve): temperature control valve inlet, outlet and valve angle of 90 degrees each, similar to the X, Y, Z coordinates.
    (4) The special combination of temperature control valve body: for some new radiator (such as the bathroom radiator, etc.) and some connections (such as single-tube cross-type), many manufacturers have also introduced some special combination thermostatic valve body . This makes the list.
    3. Thermostatic valve Kv value Kvs value
    Foreign control valve products for general use water resistance of Kv value indicates that in many domestic thermostatic valve with Kv value products labeled water resistance characteristics. Kv value is defined as the regulating valve before the valve when the pressure drop is 1bar, the flow through the valve. Kvs values that the maximum valve opening when the Kv values. The following formula can be applied Kv values are translated into the local resistance coefficient commonly used in China.
Read more on Thermostatic radiator control valves and principles of development…
8 held in the Expo theme of health services to protect the press conference, Li Weiping, deputy director of Shanghai Municipal Health Bureau, introduced the Expo-related health insurance situation. Li Weiping said that since the park opened the World Expo, a total of 526 visitors by the trauma, it is recommended not to wear high heels.
    Anti-based medical point of heat stroke
    Li Weiping introduced, peak flow in the EXPO, the park ambulance to full capacity. To meet the needs of park emergency medical, public health departments in the park, the original basis of five ambulances also added two ambulances. At the same time in the Expo area outside the fence, command communications, bulk transport the wounded, medical emergency equipment and other special emergency support vehicle will also be 24-hour standby. Park around 13 emergency sub-stations (7 Puxi and Pudong 6) the increase in an ambulance.
    Considering the hot weather gradually, easy to heat and other factors line up in the peak flow of the main entrance of the Expo Site will also set up temporary medical point of carrying out heat treatment and other medical services to patients.
    Recommended not to wear high heels
    According to the Shanghai Health bureau, since the park opened the World Expo park five medical stations were 2198 admissions, of which 526 were trauma patients. Li Weiping experts advise, best not to wear high heels garden visitors.
    According to Li Weiping analysis of trauma admissions at the Expo visitors, some for the fracture patients, "often, fell after the hand-wrist brace to cause fracture." In addition, many tourists go back when in camera, did not see the terrain, fell accidentally scratch.
    Li Weiping proposed garden when the first visitors to pay attention is to avoid wearing high heels garden. "Park area is so big, long walk, easily tired legs, high heels easily cause a sprained ankle."
    Days when the walk as little as possible
    Li Weiping proposed reasonable distribution of physical visitors to avoid the more walking, in addition, to remind visitors not to bring cooked food as much as possible, to guard against food-borne diseases.
    From May 1 to open the Shanghai World Expo Park, 24 to May 7, the park five medical stations have been 70 admissions heat stroke patients, mainly with mild heat stroke. Li Weiping said that many tourists because of heat stroke caused by exhaustion. He suggested that visitors arrange their own activities and reasonable travel, do not over-exertion, attention to rest.
Read more on Tour experts recommend not to wear high heels EXPO…
Background
In 1957, the Soviet Union launched Sputnik 1, the first artificial satellite. Lyndon B. Johnsont the time Senate Majority Leader and later Presidentecalled feeling “the profound shock of realizing that it might be possible for another nation to achieve technological superiority over this great country of ours.” The resulting Sputnik crisis continued, and by 1961, when Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin orbited the Earth aboard Vostok 1 during the first human spaceflight, many people in the United States felt the Soviets had developed a considerable lead in the Space Race.
On May 25, 1961, President Kennedy announced that America would attempt to land a man on the Moon by the end of the decade. At that time, the only experience the United States had with human spaceflight was the 15-minute suborbital flight of Alan Shepard aboard Freedom 7. No rocket then available was capable of propelling a manned spacecraft to the Moon in one piece. The Saturn I was in development, but would not fly for six months. Although larger than other contemporary rockets, it would require several launches to place all the components of a lunar spacecraft in orbit. The much larger Saturn V had not been designed, although its powerful F-1 engine had already been developed and test fired.
Mission configuration
See also: Project Apollo#Choosing a mission mode
Early in the planning process, NASA considered three leading ideas for the moon mission: Earth Orbit Rendezvous, Direct Ascent, and Lunar Orbit Rendezvous (LOR). A direct ascent configuration would launch a larger rocket which would land directly on the lunar surface, while an Earth orbit rendezvous would launch two smaller spacecraft which would combine in Earth orbit. A LOR mission would involve a single rocket launching a single spacecraft, but only a small part of that spacecraft would land on the moon. That smaller landing module would then rendezvous with the main spacecraft, and the crew would return home.
NASA at first dismissed LOR as a riskier option, given that an orbital rendezvous had yet to be performed in Earth orbit, much less in lunar orbit. Several NASA officials, including Langley Research Center engineer John Houbolt and NASA Administrator George Low, argued that a Lunar Orbit Rendezvous provided the simplest landing on the moon, the most costfficient launch vehicle and, perhaps most importantly, the best chance to accomplish a lunar landing within the decade. Other NASA officials were convinced, and LOR was officially selected as the mission configuration for the Apollo program on 7 November 1962.
Development
C-1 to C-4
Between 1960 and 1962, the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) designed rockets that could be used for various missions.
The C-1 was developed into the Saturn I, and the C-2 rocket was dropped early in the design process in favor of the C-3, which was intended to use two F-1 engines on its first stage, four J-2 engines for its second stage, and an S-IV stage, using six RL-10 engines.
NASA planned to use the C-3 as part of the Earth Orbit Rendezvous concept, with at least four or five launches needed for a single mission, but MSFC was already planning an even bigger rocket, the C-4, which would use four F-1 engines on its first stage, an enlarged C-3 second stage, and the S-IVB, a stage with a single J-2 engine, as its third stage. The C-4 would need only two launches to carry out an Earth Orbit Rendezvous mission.
C-5
On January 10, 1962, NASA announced plans to build the C-5. The three-stage rocket would consist of five F-1 engines for the first stage, five J-2 engines for the second stage, and a single, additional J-2 engine for the third stage. The C-5 was designed for the higher payload capacity necessary for a lunar mission, and could carry up to 41,000 kg into lunar orbit.
The C-5 would undergo component testing even before the first model was constructed. The rocket’s third stage would be utilized as the second stage for the C-IB, which would serve both to demonstrate proof of concept and feasibility for the C-5, but would also provide flight data critical to the continued development of the C-5. Rather than undergoing testing for each major component, the C-5 would be tested in an “all-up” fashion, meaning that the first test flight of the rocket would include complete versions of all three stages. By testing all components at once, far fewer test flights would be required before a manned launch.
The C-5 was confirmed as NASA’s choice for the Apollo Program in early 1963, and was given a new namehe Saturn V.
Technology
The Saturn V’s huge size and payload capacity dwarfed all other previous rockets which had successfully flown at that time. With the Apollo spacecraft on top it stood 363 feet (111 m) tall and without fins it was 33 feet (10 m) in diameter. Fully fueled it had a total mass of 6.5 million pounds (3,000 metric tons) and a payload capacity of 260,000 pounds (118,000 kg) to LEO. Comparatively, at 363 feet (111 m), the Saturn V is just one foot shorter than St Paul’s Cathedral in London, and only cleared the doors of the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) by 6 ft (1.8 m) when rolled out. In contrast, the Redstone used on Freedom 7, the first manned American spaceflight, was just under 11 feet (3.4 m) longer than the S-IVB stage, and less powerful than the Launch Escape System rockets mounted on the Apollo command module.
Saturn V was principally designed by the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, although numerous major systems, including propulsion, were designed by subcontractors. It used the powerful new F-1 and J-2 rocket engines for propulsion. When tested, these engines shattered the windows of nearby houses. Designers decided early on to attempt to use as much technology from the Saturn I program as possible. Consequently, the S-IVB third stage of the Saturn V was based on the S-IV second stage of the Saturn I. The instrument unit that controlled the Saturn V shared characteristics with that carried by the Saturn I.
Stages
Saturn V diagram
The Saturn V consisted of three stages the S-IC first stage, S-II second stage and the S-IVB third stage and the instrument unit. All three stages used liquid oxygen (LOX) as an oxidizer. The first stage used RP-1 for fuel, while the second and third stages used liquid hydrogen (LH2). The upper stages also used small solid-fueled ullage motors that helped to separate the stages during the launch, and to ensure that the liquid propellants were in a proper position to be drawn into the pumps.
S-IC first stage
Main article: S-IC
The first stage of Apollo 8 Saturn V being erected in the VAB on February 1, 1968
The five F-1 engines on the rear of the Saturn V rocket, on display at the Kennedy Space Center
The S-IC was built by The Boeing Company at the Michoud Assembly Facility, New Orleans, where the Space Shuttle External Tanks are now built. Most of its mass of over two thousand metric tonnes at launch was propellant, in this case RP-1 rocket fuel and liquid oxygen oxidizer. It was 138 feet (42 m) tall and 33 feet (10 m) in diameter, and provided over 34 MN (7.64 million pounds force) of thrust to get the rocket through the first 61 kilometers of ascent. The S-IC stage had a dry weight of about 288,000 pounds (131,000 kg) and fully fueled at launch had a total weight of 5.0 million pounds (2.3 million kg). The five F-1 engines were arranged in a cross pattern. The center engine was fixed, while the four outer engines could be hydraulically turned (“gimballed”) to control the rocket. In flight, the center engine was turned off about 26 seconds earlier than the outboard engines to limit acceleration. During launch, the S-IC fired its engines for 168 seconds (ignition occurred about 7 seconds before liftoff) and at engine cutoff, the vehicle was at an altitude of about 42 miles (68 km), was downrange about 58 miles (93 km), and was moving about 7,850 ft/sec (2,390 m/sec, or approximately 5,352 mph).
S-II second stage
Main article: S-II
The S-II was built by North American Aviation at Seal Beach, California. Using liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen, it had five J-2 engines in a similar arrangement to the S-IC, also using the outer engines for control. The S-II was 81 feet and 7 inches (24.9 m) tall with a diameter of 33 feet (10 m), identical to the S-IC, and thus is the largest cryogenic stage ever built. The S-II had a dry weight of about 80,000 pounds (36,000 kg) and fully fueled, weighed 1.06 million pounds (480,000 kg). The second stage accelerated the Saturn V through the upper atmosphere with 5.1 MN of thrust (in vacuum). When loaded, significantly more than 90 percent of the mass of the stage was propellant; however, the ultra-lightweight design had led to two failures in structural testing. Instead of having an intertank structure to separate the two fuel tanks as was done in the S-IC, the S-II used a common bulkhead that was constructed from both the top of the LOX tank and bottom of the LH2 tank. It consisted of two aluminum sheets separated by a honeycomb structure made of phenolic resin. This bulkhead had to insulate against the 70 C (125 F) temperature difference between the two tanks. The use of a common bulkhead saved 3.6 metric tons in weight. Like the S-IC, the S-II was transported by sea.
S-IVB third stage
Main article: S-IVB
The S-IVB was built by the Douglas Aircraft Company at Huntington Beach, California. It had one J-2 engine and used the same fuel as the S-II. The S-IVB used a common bulkhead to insulate the two tanks. It was 58 feet 7 inches (17.85 m) tall with a diameter of 21 feet 8 inches (6.60 m) and was also designed with high mass efficiency, though not quite as aggressively as the S-II. The S-IVB had a dry weight of about 25,000 pounds (11,000 kg) and fully fueled, weighed about 262,000 pounds (119,000 kg). This stage was used twice during the mission: first in a 2.5 min burn for the orbit insertion after second stage cutoff, and later for the trans-lunar injection (TLI) burn, lasting about 6 min. Two liquid-fueled auxiliary propulsion system units mounted at the aft end of the stage were used for attitude control during the parking orbit and the trans-lunar phases of the mission. The two APSs were also used as ullage engines to help settle the fuel prior to the trans-lunar injection burn.
The S-IVB was the only rocket stage of the Saturn V small enough to be transported by plane, in this case the Guppy. Apart from the interstage adapter and the stage restart capability, this stage is nearly identical to the second stage of the Saturn IB rocket.
Instrument unit
Main article: Saturn V Instrument Unit
The Instrument Unit for the Apollo 4 Saturn V
The Instrument Unit was built by IBM and rode atop the third stage. It was constructed at the Space Systems Center in Huntsville. This computer controlled the operations of the rocket from just before liftoff until the S-IVB was discarded. It included guidance and telemetry systems for the rocket. By measuring the acceleration and vehicle attitude, it could calculate the position and velocity of the rocket and correct for any deviations.
Range safety
In the event of an abort requiring the destruction of the rocket, the range safety officer would remotely shut down the engines and after several seconds send another command for the shaped explosive charges attached to the outer surfaces of the rocket to detonate. These would make cuts in fuel and oxidizer tanks to disperse the fuel quickly and to minimize mixing. The pause between these actions would give time for the crew to escape using the Launch Escape Tower or (in the later stages of the flight) the propulsion system of the Service module. A third command, “safe”, was used after the S-IVB stage reached orbit to irreversibly deactivate the self-destruct system. The system was also inactive as long as the rocket was still on the launch pad.
Comparisons
The F-1 engines of the S-IC first stage dwarf their creator, Wernher von Braun.
The Soviet counterpart of the Saturn V was the N-1 rocket. The Saturn V was taller, heavier and had greater payload capacity, but the N-1 had more liftoff thrust and a larger first stage diameter. The N1 had four test launches, each resulting in the vehicle catastrophically failing early in the flight, before the program was canceled. The first stage of Saturn V used five powerful engines rather than the 30 smaller engines of the N-1. During two launches, Apollo 6 and Apollo 13, the Saturn V was able to recover from engine loss incidents. The N-1 likewise was designed to compensate for engine failures, but the system never successfully saved a launch from failure.
Saturn V first stage thrust performance during Apollo 15 launch. 7.823 million pounds (34.8 MN) liftoff thrust. CECO stands for Center Engine Cut-off and OECO is for Outer Engine(s) Cut-off
The three-stage Saturn V had a peak thrust of at least 34.02 MN (SA-510 and subsequent) and a lift capacity of 118,000 kg to LEO. The SA-510 mission (Apollo 15) had a liftoff thrust of 7.823 million pounds (34.8 MN). The SA-513 mission (Skylab) had slightly greater liftoff thrust of 7.891 million pounds (35.1 MN). No other operational launch vehicle has ever surpassed the Saturn V in height, weight, or payload. If the two Soviet Energia test launches are counted as operational, it had the same liftoff thrust as SA-513, 35.1 MN. The N-1 had a sea-level liftoff thrust of about 9.9 million pounds (44.1 MN), but it never achieved orbit.
Hypothetical future versions of the Soviet Energia might have been significantly more powerful than the Saturn V, delivering 46 MN of thrust and able to deliver up to 175 metric tonnes to LEO in the “Vulkan” configuration. Planned uprated versions of the Saturn V using F-1A engines would have had about 18 percent more thrust and 137,250 kg (302,580 lb) payload. NASA contemplated building larger members of the Saturn family, such as the Saturn C-8, and also unrelated rockets, such as Nova, but these were never produced.
The Space Shuttle generates a peak thrust of 30.1 MN, and payload capacity to LEO (excl. Shuttle Orbiter itself) is 28,800 kg, which is about 25 percent of the Saturn V’s payload. If the Shuttle Orbiter itself is counted as payload, this would be about 112,000 kg (248,000 lb). An equivalent comparison would be the Saturn V S-IVB third stage total orbital mass on Apollo 15, which was 140,976 kg (310,800 lb).
Some other recent launch vehicles have a small fraction of the Saturn V’s payload capacity: the European Ariane 5 with the newest versions Ariane 5 ECA delivers up to 10,000 kg to geostationary transfer orbit (GTO). The US Delta 4 Heavy, which launched a dummy satellite on December 21, 2004, has a capacity of 13,100 kg to geosynchronous transfer orbit. The Atlas V (using engines based on a Russian design) delivers up to 25,000 kg to LEO and 13,605 kg to GTO.
S-IC thrust comparisons
Typical acceleration curve
Because of its large size, attention is often focused on the S-IC thrust and how this compares to other large rockets. However, several factors make such comparisons more complex than first appears:
Commonly-referenced thrust numbers are a specification, not an actual measurement. Individual stages and engines may fall short or exceed the specification, sometimes significantly.
The F-1 thrust specification was uprated beginning with Apollo 15 (SA-510) from 1.5 million lbf (6.67 MN) to 1.522 million lbf (6.77 MN), or 7.61 million lbf (33.85 MN) for the S-IC stage. The higher thrust was achieved via a redesign of the injector orifices and a slightly higher propellant mass flow rate. However, comparing the specified number to the actual measured thrust of 7.823 million lbf (34.8 MN) on Apollo 15 shows a significant difference.
There is no “bathroom scale” way to directly measure thrust of a rocket in flight. Rather a mathematical calculation is made from combustion chamber pressure, turbopump speed, calculated propellant density and flow rate, nozzle design, and atmospheric conditions, in particular, external pressure.
Thrust varies greatly with external pressure and thus, with altitude, even for a non-throttled engine. For example on Apollo 15, the calculated total liftoff thrust (based on actual measurements) was about 7.823 million lbf (34.8 MN), which increased to 9.18 million lbf (40.8 MN) at T+135 seconds, just before center engine cutoff (CECO), at which time the jet was heavily underexpanded.
Thrust specifications are often given as vacuum thrust (for upper stages) or sea level thrust (for lower stages or boosters), sometimes without qualifying which one. This can lead to incorrect comparisons.
Thrust specifications are often given as average thrust or peak thrust, sometimes without qualifying which one. Even for a non-throttled engine at a fixed altitude, thrust can often vary somewhat over the firing period due to several factors. These include intentional or unintentional mixture ratio changes, slight propellant density changes over the firing period, and variations in turbopump, nozzle and injector performance over the firing period.
Without knowing the exact measurement technique and mathematical method used to determine thrust for each different rocket, comparisons are often inexact. As the above shows, the specified thrust often differs significantly from actual flight thrust calculated from direct measurements. The thrust stated in various references is often not adequately qualified as to vacuum vs sea level, or peak vs average thrust.
Similarly, payload increases are often achieved in later missions independent of engine thrust. This is by weight reduction or trajectory reshaping.
The result is there is no single absolute figure for engine thrust, stage thrust or vehicle payload. There are specified values and actual flight values, and various ways of measuring and deriving those actual flight values.
The performance of each Saturn V launch was extensively analyzed and a Launch Evaluation Report produced for each mission, including a thrust/time graph for each vehicle stage on each mission.
Assembly
The Apollo 10 Saturn V during rollout
After the construction and ground testing of a stage was completed, it was then shipped to the Kennedy Space Center. The first two stages were so large that the only way to transport them was by barge. The S-IC, constructed in New Orleans, was transported down the Mississippi River to the Gulf of Mexico. After rounding Florida, it was then transported up the Intra-Coastal Waterway to the Vertical Assembly Building (now called the Vehicle Assembly Building). This is in essence the same route used by NASA today to ship Space Shuttle External Tanks. The S-II was constructed in California and so traveled via the Panama Canal. The third stage and Instrument Unit could be carried by the Aero Spacelines Pregnant Guppy and Super Guppy, but may also be carried by barge if warranted.
On arrival at the Vertical Assembly Building, each stage was checked out in a horizontal position before being moved to a vertical position. NASA also constructed large spool-shaped structures that could be used in place of stages if a particular stage was late. These spools had the same height and mass and contained the same electrical connections as the actual stages.
NASA assembled the Saturn V on a Mobile Launcher Platform (MLP), which consisted of a Launch Umbilical Tower (LUT) with nine swing arms (including the crew access arm), a “hammerhead” crane, and a water suppression system which was activated prior to launch. After assembly was completed, the entire stack was moved from the VAB to the launch complex using the Crawler Transporter (CT). Built by the Marion Power Shovel Company, and still in use today for transporting the smaller and lighter Space Shuttle, the CT runs on four double tracked treads, each with 57 ’shoes’. Each shoe weighs 900 kg (2,000 lb). This transporter was required to keep the rocket level as it traveled the 3 miles (5 km) to the launch site, especially at the 3% grade encountered at the launch site itself. the CT also carried the Moveable Support Tower (MST), which allowed technicians access to the rocket until 8 hours before launch, when it was moved to the “halfway” point on the Crawlerway (the junction between the VAB and the two launch pads).
Lunar mission launch sequence
Liftoff of Apollo 11, the first mission to land humans on the Moon, July 16, 1969.
The Saturn V carried all Apollo lunar missions. All Saturn V missions launched from Launch Complex 39 at the John F. Kennedy Space Center. After the rocket cleared the launch tower, mission control transferred to the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas.
An average mission used the rocket for a total of just 20 minutes. Although Apollo 6 and Apollo 13 experienced engine failures, the onboard computers were able to compensate by burning the remaining engines longer, and none of the Apollo launches resulted in a payload loss.
S-IC sequence
A condensation cloud is seen sticking to the Apollo 11 Saturn V launch vehicle as it works its way up through the dense lower atmosphere. See: Max Q.
The first stage burned for 2.5 minutes, lifting the rocket to an altitude of 42 miles (68 km) and a speed of 6,164 miles per hour (9,920 km/h) and burning 2,000,000 kilograms (4,400,000 lb) of propellant.
At 8.9 seconds before launch, the first stage ignition sequence started. The center engine ignited first, followed by opposing outboard pairs at 300-millisecond intervals to reduce the structural loads on the rocket. When thrust had been confirmed by the onboard computers, the rocket was “soft-released” in two stages: first, the hold-down arms released the rocket, and second, as the rocket began to accelerate upwards, it was slowed by tapered metal pins pulled through dies for half a second. Once the rocket had lifted off, it could not safely settle back down onto the pad if the engines failed.
It took about 12 seconds for the rocket to clear the tower. During this time, it yawed 1.25 degrees away from the tower to ensure adequate clearance despite adverse winds. (This yaw, although small, can be seen in launch photos taken from the east or west.) At an altitude of 430 feet (130 m) the rocket rolled to the correct flight azimuth and then gradually pitched down until 38 seconds after second stage ignition. This pitch program was set according to the prevailing winds during the launch month. The four outboard engines also tilted toward the outside so that in the event of a premature outboard engine shutdown the remaining engines would thrust through the rocket’s center of gravity. The Saturn V quickly accelerated, reaching 1,600 feet per second (490 m/s) at over 1 mile (1,600 m) in altitude. Much of the early portion of the flight was spent gaining altitude, with the required velocity coming later.
Apollo 11 S-IC separation
At about 80 seconds, the rocket experienced maximum dynamic pressure (Max Q). The dynamic pressure on a rocket varies with air density and the square of relative velocity. Although velocity continues to increase, air density decreases so quickly with altitude that dynamic pressure falls below Max Q.
Acceleration increased during S-IC flight for two reasons: decreasing propellant mass; and increasing thrust as F-1 engine efficiency improved in the thinner air at altitude. At 135 seconds, the inboard (center) engine shut down to limit acceleration to 4 g (40 m/s2). The other engines continued to burn until either oxidizer or fuel depletion as detected by sensors in the suction assemblies. First stage separation was a little less than one second after cutoff to allow for F-1 thrust tail-off. Eight small solid fuel separation motors backed the S-IC from the interstage at an altitude of about 67 kilometers (42 mi). The first stage continued ballistically to an altitude of about 109 kilometers (68 mi) and then fell in the Atlantic Ocean about 560 kilometers (350 mi) downrange.
S-II sequence
Still from film footage of Apollo 6’s interstage falling away (NASA)
After S-IC separation, the S-II second stage burned for 6 minutes and propelled the craft to 109 miles (176 km) and 15,647 mph (25,182 km/h 7.00 km/s), close to orbital velocity.
For the first two unmanned launches, eight solid-fuel ullage motors ignited for four seconds to give positive acceleration to the S-II stage, followed by start of the five J-2 engines. For the first seven manned Apollo missions only four ullage motors were used on the S-II, and they were eliminated completely for the final four launches. About 30 seconds after first stage separation, the interstage ring dropped from the second stage. This was done with an inertially fixed attitude so that the interstage, only 1 meter from the outboard J-2 engines, would fall cleanly without contacting them. Shortly after interstage separation the Launch Escape System was also jettisoned. See Apollo abort modes for more information about the various abort modes that could have been used during a launch.
Apollo 6 interstage
About 38 seconds after the second stage ignition the Saturn V switched from a preprogrammed trajectory to a “closed loop” or Iterative Guidance Mode. The Instrument Unit now computed in real time the most fuel-efficient trajectory toward its target orbit. If the Instrument Unit failed, the crew could switch control of the Saturn to the Command Module’s computer, take manual control, or abort the flight.
About 90 seconds before the second stage cutoff, the center engine shut down to reduce longitudinal pogo oscillations. A pogo suppressor, first flown on Apollo 14, stopped this motion but the center engine was still shut down early to limit acceleration G forces. At around this time, the LOX flow rate decreased, changing the mix ratio of the two propellants, ensuring that there would be as little propellant as possible left in the tanks at the end of second stage flight. This was done at a predetermined delta-v.
Five level sensors in the bottom of each S-II propellant tank were armed during S-II flight, allowing any two to trigger S-II cutoff and staging when they were uncovered. One second after the second stage cut off it separated and several seconds later the third stage ignited. Solid fuel retro-rockets mounted on the interstage at the top of the S-II fired to back it away from the S-IVB. The S-II impacted about 4200 km (2,300 miles) from the launch site.
S-IVB sequence
Unlike the two-plane separation of the S-IC and S-II, the S-II and S-IVB stages separated with a single step. Although it was constructed as part of the third stage, the interstage remained attached to the second stage.
During Apollo 11, a typical lunar mission, the third stage burned for about 2.5 minutes until first cutoff at 11 minutes 40 seconds. At this point it was 1,640 miles (2,640 km) downrange and in a parking orbit at an altitude of 118.8 miles (191.2 km) and velocity of 17,432 mph. The third stage remained attached to the spacecraft while it orbited the Earth two and a half times while astronauts and mission controllers prepared for translunar injection (TLI).
The S-IVB stage from the Apollo 7 flight in Earth orbit. Although Apollo 7 used a Saturn IB booster, the S-IVB stage was used on both the Saturn IB and Saturn V. On Saturn V flights the four Spacecraft/LM Adapter panels would be jettisoned to allow access to the Lunar Module
This parking orbit is quite low by Earth orbit standards, and it would have been short-lived due to aerodynamic drag. This was not a problem on a lunar mission because of the short stay in the parking orbit. The S-IVB also continued to thrust at a low level with hydrogen vents to settle the propellants in their tanks, and this thrust easily exceeded aerodynamic drag.
For the final three Apollo flights, the temporary parking orbit was even lower (approximately 150 kilometers (93 mi)), to increase payload for these missions. For the two Earth orbit missions of the Saturn V, Apollo 9 and Skylab, the orbits were much higher and more typical of manned orbital missions.
On Apollo 11, TLI came at 2 hours and 44 minutes after launch. The S-IVB burned for almost six minutes giving the spacecraft a velocity close to the Earth’s escape velocity of 11.2 km/s (40,320 km/h; 25,053 mph). This gave an energy-efficient transfer to lunar orbit with the moon helping to capture the spacecraft with a minimum of CSM fuel consumption.
About 40 minutes after TLI the Apollo Command Service Module (CSM) separated from the third stage, turned 180 degrees and docked with the Lunar Module (LM) that rode below the CSM during launch. The CSM and LM separated from the spent third stage 50 minutes later.
If it were to remain on the same trajectory as the spacecraft, the S-IVB could have presented a collision hazard so its remaining propellants were vented and the auxiliary propulsion system fired to move it away. For lunar missions before Apollo 13, the S-IVB was directed toward the moon’s trailing edge in its orbit so that the moon would slingshot it beyond earth escape velocity and into solar orbit. From Apollo 13 onwards, controllers directed the S-IVB to hit the Moon. Seismometers left behind by previous missions detected the impacts, and the information helped map the inside of the Moon.
Apollo 9 was a special case; although it was an earth orbital mission, after spacecraft separation its S-IVB was fired out of earth orbit into a solar orbit.
On September 3, 2002, Bill Yeung discovered a suspected asteroid, which was given the discovery designation J002E3. It appeared to be in orbit around the Earth, and was soon discovered from spectral analysis to be covered in white titanium dioxide paint, the same paint used for the Saturn V. Calculation of orbital parameters identified the apparent asteroid as being the Apollo 12 S-IVB stage. Mission controllers had planned to send Apollo 12’s S-IVB into solar orbit, but the burn after separating from the Apollo spacecraft lasted too long, and hence it did not pass close enough to the Moon, remaining in a barely-stable orbit around the Earth and Moon. In 1971, through a series of gravitational perturbations, it is believed to have entered in a solar orbit and then returned into weakly-captured Earth orbit 31 years later. It left Earth orbit again in June 2003. Another near-earth object, discovered in 2006 and designated 6Q0B44E, may also be part of an Apollo spacecraft.
Skylab
Main articles: Saturn INT-21 and Skylab
The last Saturn V launch carried the Skylab space station to low Earth orbit in place of the third stage.
In 1968, the Apollo Applications Program was created to look into science missions that could be performed with the surplus Apollo hardware. Much of the planning centered on the idea of a space station, which eventually spawned the Skylab program. Skylab was launched using a two-stage Saturn V, sometimes called a Saturn INT-21. It was the only launch not directly related to the Apollo lunar landing program.
Originally it was planned to use a ‘wet workshop’ concept, with a rocket stage being launched into orbit by a Saturn 1B and its spent S-IVB outfitted in space, but this was abandoned for the ‘dry workshop’ concept: An S-IVB stage from a Saturn IB was converted into a space station on the ground and launched on a Saturn V. A backup, constructed from a Saturn V third stage, is now on display at the National Air and Space Museum.
Three crews lived aboard Skylab from May 25, 1973 to February 8, 1974, with Skylab remaining in orbit until July 11, 1979.
Proposed post-Apollo developments
The (canceled) second production run of Saturn Vs would very likely have used the F-1A engine in its first stage, providing a substantial performance boost. Other likely changes would have been the removal of the fins (which turned out to provide little benefit when compared to their weight); a stretched S-IC first stage to support the more powerful F-1As; and uprated J-2s for the upper stages.
A number of alternate Saturn vehicles were proposed based on the Saturn V, ranging from the Saturn INT-20 with an S-IVB stage and interstage mounted directly onto an S-IC stage, through to the Saturn V-23(L) which would not only have five F-1 engines in the first stage, but also four strap-on boosters with two F-1 engines each: giving a total of thirteen F-1 engines firing at launch.
The Space Shuttle was initially conceived of as a cargo transport to be used in concert with the Saturn V, even to the point that a “Saturn-Shuttle,” using the current orbiter and external tank, but with the tank mounted on a modified, fly-back version of the S-IC, would be used to power the Shuttle during the first two minutes of flight, after which the S-IC would be jettisoned (which would then fly back to KSC for refurbishment) and the Space Shuttle Main Engines would then fire and place the orbiter into orbit. The Shuttle would handle space station logistics, while Saturn V would launch components. Lack of a second Saturn V production run killed this plan and has left the United States without a heavy-lift booster. Some in the U.S. space community have come to lament this situation, as continued production would have allowed the International Space Station, using a Skylab or Mir configuration with both U.S. and Russian docking ports, to have been lifted with just a handful of launches, with the “Saturn Shuttle” concept possibly eliminating the conditions that caused the Challenger Disaster in 1986.
The Saturn V would have been the prime launch vehicle for the canceled Voyager Mars probes, and was to have been the launch vehicle for the nuclear rocket stage RIFT test program and the later NERVA.
Successors
U.S. proposals for a rocket larger than the Saturn V from the late 1950s through the early 1980s were generally called Nova. Over thirty different large rocket proposals carried the Nova name, but none were developed.
Wernher von Braun and others also had plans for a rocket that would have featured eight F-1 engines in its first stage allowing it to launch a manned spacecraft on a direct ascent flight to the Moon. Other plans for the Saturn V called for using a Centaur as an upper stage or adding strap-on boosters. These enhancements would have increased its ability to send large unmanned spacecraft to the outer planets or manned spacecraft to Mars.
In 2006, NASA, as part of the cancelled Constellation Program that would replace the Space Shuttle after 2010, unveiled plans to construct the heavy-lift Ares V rocket, a Shuttle Derived Launch Vehicle using some existing Space Shuttle and Saturn V infrastructure. Named in homage of the Saturn V, the original design, based on the Space Shuttle External Tank, was 360 ft (110 m). tall, and powered by five Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs) and two uprated five-segment Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, which a modified variation would be used for the crew-launched Ares I rocket. As the designed evolved, the Ares V was slightly modified, with the same 33 ft (10 m) diameter as that of the Saturn V’s S-IC and S-II stages, and in place of the five SSMEs, five RS-68 rocket engines, the same engines used on the Delta IV EELV, would be used. The switch from the SSME to the RS-68 was due to the steep price of the cost of the SSME, as that it would be thrown away along with the Ares V core stage after each use, while the RS-68 engine, which is expendable, is cheaper, simpler to manufacture, and more powerful than the SSME. In 2008, NASA again redesigned the Ares V, lengthening and widening the core stage and added an extra RS-68 engine, giving the launch vehicle a total of six engines. The six RS-68B engines, during launch, will be augmented by two “5.5-segment” SRBs instead of the original five-segment designs, although no decision has yet been made on the number of segments NASA would be using on the final design. If the six RS-68B/5.5-segment SRB variant is used, the vehicle would have a total of approximately 8,900,000 lbf (39.6 MN) of thrust at liftoff, making it more powerful than the Saturn V or the Soviet/Russian Energia boosters, but less than 5043 MN for the Soviet N-1. An upper stage, known as the Earth Departure Stage and based on the S-IVB, will utilize a more advanced version of the J-2 engine known as the “J-2X,” and will place the Altair lunar landing vehicle into a low earth orbit. At 381 ft (116 m) tall and with the capability of placing 180 tons[vague] into low Earth orbit, the Ares V will surpass the Saturn V and the two Soviet/Russian superboosters in both height, lift, and launch capability.
The RS-68B engines, based on the current RS-68 and RS-68A engines built by the Rocketdyne Division of Pratt and Whitney (formerly under the ownerships of Boeing and Rockwell International), produce less than half the thrust per engine as the Saturn V’s F-1 engines, but are more efficient and can be throttled up or down, much like the SSMEs on the Shuttle. The J-2 engine used on the S-II and S-IVB will be modified into the improved J-2X engine for use both on the Earth Departure Stage (EDS) as well as on the second stage of the proposed Ares I. Both the EDS and the Ares I second stage would use a single J-2X motor, although the EDS was originally designed to use two motors until the redesign employing the five (later six) RS-68Bs in place of the five SSMEs.
Cost
From 1964 until 1973, a total of US$6.5 billion was appropriated for the Saturn V, with the maximum being in 1966 with US$1.2 billion. Allowing for inflation this is equivalent to roughly $3245 billion in 2007 money. This works out at an amortized cost of $2.4-3.5 billion per launch.
One of the main reasons for the cancellation of the Apollo program was the cost. In 1966, NASA received its biggest budget of US$4.5 billion, about 0.5 percent of the GDP of the United States at that time.
Saturn V vehicles and launches
A montage of all Saturn V launches.
Serial Number
Mission
Launch Date
Notes
SA-501
Apollo 4
November 9, 1967
First test flight, a complete success.
SA-502
Apollo 6
April 4, 1968
Second test flight, with some serious second and third stage problems occurring.
SA-503
Apollo 8
December 21, 1968
First manned flight of Saturn V and lunar orbit
SA-504
Apollo 9
March 3, 1969
Earth orbit LM test
SA-505
Apollo 10
May 18, 1969
Lunar orbit LM test
SA-506
Apollo 11
July 16, 1969
First manned lunar landing
SA-507
Apollo 12
November 14, 1969
Landed near Surveyor 3. Vehicle was struck twice by lightning after liftoff with no serious damage.
SA-508
Apollo 13
April 11, 1970
Severe, near catastrophic pogo oscillations in second stage caused early center engine shutdown. Service Module O2 tank rupture caused mission abort en route to moon, crew saved.
SA-509
Apollo 14
January 31, 1971
Landed near Fra Mauro
SA-510
Apollo 15
July 26, 1971
First Lunar Rover
SA-511
Apollo 16
April 16, 1972
Landed at Descartes
SA-512
Apollo 17
December 6, 1972
First and only night launch; Final Apollo lunar mission
SA-513
Skylab 1
May 14, 1973
Two-stage Skylab version (Saturn INT-21)
SA-514
Unused
Designated but never used for Apollo 18/19
SA-515
Unused
Designated but never used as a backup Skylab launch vehicle
Currently there are three locations where Saturn Vs are on display:
A Saturn V on display at the U.S. Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville, Alabama before its move to indoor display at the Davidson Center for Space Exploration.
One at the Johnson Space Center made up of first stage of SA-514, the second stage from SA-515 and the third stage from SA-513. With stages arriving between 1977 and 1979, this was displayed in the open until its 2005 restoration when a structure was built around it for protection.
One at the Kennedy Space Center made up of S-IC-T (test stage) and the second and third stages from SA-514. The vehicle was known as 500F when it was rolled out at LC-39 on May 26, 1966. It was displayed outdoors for decades, then in recent years was enclosed for protection from the elements.
Two at the U.S. Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville:
One made up of S-IC-D, S-II-F/D and S-IVB-D. These were all test stages not meant for actual flight. This was displayed outdoors for decades (and there is a poignant photo of Wernher von Braun standing next to it) and in recent years was enclosed in the Davidson Center for Space Exploration.
Also in 1999, a Saturn V mockup was built and is located adjacently in a prominent upright display.
Of these three locations, only the one at the Johnson Space Center consists entirely of stages that were intended to be launched. Additionally, the S-IC stage from SA-515 resides on display at the Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans, Louisiana. The S-IVB stage from SA-515 was converted for use as a backup for Skylab. The Skylab backup is now on display at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C..
The blueprints or other plans for the Saturn V still exist on microfilm at the Marshall Space Flight Center.
Media
Launch of Apollo 15: T-30s through T+40s.
See also
Comparison of super heavy lift launch systems
References
Akens, David S (1971). Saturn illustrated chronology: Saturn’s first eleven years, April 1957 – April 1968. NASA – Marshall Space Flight Center as MHR-5. Also available in PDF format. Retrieved on 2008-02-19.
Benson, Charles D. and William Barnaby Faherty (1978). Moonport: A history of Apollo launch facilities and operations. NASA. Also available in PDF format. Retrieved on 2008-02-19. Published by University Press of Florida in two volumes: Gateway to the Moon: Building the Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex, 2001, ISBN 0-8130-2091-3 and Moon Launch!: A History of the Saturn-Apollo Launch Operations, 2001 ISBN 0-8130-2094-8.
Bilstein, Roger E. (1996). Stages to Saturn: A Technological History of the Apollo/Saturn Launch Vehicles. NASA SP-4206. ISBN 0-16-048909-1. Also available in PDF format. Retrieved on 2008-02-19.
Lawrie, Alan (2005). Saturn, Collectors Guide Publishing, ISBN 1-894959-19-1.
Orloff, Richard W (2001). Apollo By The Numbers: A Statistical Reference. NASA. Also available in PDF format. Retrieved on 2008-02-19. Published by Government Reprints Press, 2001, ISBN 1-931641-00-5.
Final Report – Studies of Improved Saturn V Vehicles and Intermediate Payload Vehicles (PDF). NASA – George C. Marshall Space Flight Center under Contract NAS&-20266. Retrieved on 2008-02-19.
Saturn 5 launch vehicle flight evaluation report: AS-501 Apollo 4 mission (PDF). NASA George C. Marshall Space Flight Center (1968). Retrieved on 2008-02-19.
Saturn 5 launch vehicle flight evaluation report: AS-508 Apollo 13 mission (PDF). NASA George C. Marshall Space Flight Center (1970). Retrieved on 2008-02-19.
Saturn V Flight Manual – SA-503 (PDF). NASA George C. Marshall Space Flight Center (1968). Retrieved on 2008-02-19.
Saturn V Press Kit. Marshall Space Flight Center History Office. Retrieved on 2008-02-19.
Notes
^ a b Phil Sumrall (2008-08-15). “Ares V Overview” (PDF). p. 4 – Launch Vehicle Comparisons. http://event.arc.nasa.gov/aresv-sss/home/ppt/AresV-sss/SAT/am/4Sumrall/7567AresVSolarSysWorkshop.pdf.
^ a b c Wade, Mark. “Saturn INT-21″. Encyclopedia Astronautica. http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/satint21.htm. Retrieved 2008-01-16.
^ “The American Response to Sputnik”. NASA. http://history.nasa.gov/sputnik/sputorig.html#american.
^ Edgar M. Cortright, editor (1975). “3.2″. Apollo Expeditions to the Moon. NASA Langley Research Center. ISBN 978-9997398277. http://history.nasa.gov/SP-350/ch-3-2.html. Retrieved 2008-02-11.
^ a b c d e f Bilstein, Roger E. (1999). Stages to Saturn: A Technological History of the Apollo/Saturn Launch. DIANE Publishing. pp. 5961. http://books.google.com/books?id=JnoZTbVLx0MC. Retrieved 2008-02-04.
^ Edgar M. Cortright, editor (1975). “3.4″. Apollo Expeditions to the Moon. NASA Langley Research Center. ISBN 978-9997398277. http://history.nasa.gov/SP-350/ch-3-4.html. Retrieved 2008-02-11.
^ “Stennis Space Center Celebrates 40 Years of Rocket Engine Testing”. NASA. 2006-04-20. http://www.nasa.gov/vision/space/gettingtospace/stennis_40th.html. Retrieved 2008-01-16.
^ “Skylab Saturn IB Flight Manual” (pdf). NASA Marshall Spaceflight Center. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740021163_1974021163.pdf. Retrieved 2008-01-16.
^ Wade, Mark. “Saturn V”. Encyclopedia Astronautica. http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/saturnv.htm. Retrieved 2008-01-16.
^ Wade, Mark. “N1″. Encyclopedia Astronautica. http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/n1.htm. Retrieved 2008-01-16.
^ “SP-4206 Stages to Saturn p405″. NASA. http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4206/p405.htm. Retrieved 2008-01-16.
^ Wade, Mark. “Saturn MLV-V-1″. Encyclopedia Astronautica. http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/satmlvv1.htm. Retrieved 2008-01-16.
^ “Working Scenario” (pdf). Columbia Accident Investigation Board. http://caib.nasa.gov/news/working_scenario/pdf/sts107workingscenario_1.pdf. Retrieved 2008-01-16.
^ “InsideKSC”. InsideKSC.com. http://www.insideksc.com/.
^ “NASA GSFC – Lunar Impact Sites”. NASA. http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo_impact.html. Retrieved 2008-01-16.
^ Wade, Mark. “Saturn Genealogy”. Encyclopedia Astronautica. http://www.astronautix.com/lvfam/saturnv.htm. Retrieved 2008-01-17.
^ Wade, Mark. “Saturn V-23(L)”. Encyclopedia Astronautica. http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/satnv23l.htm. Retrieved 2008-01-16.
^ “Apollo Program Budget Appropriations”. NASA. http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-16_Apollo_Program_Budget_Appropriations.htm. Retrieved 2008-01-16.
^ The Inflation Calculator
^ “Saturn 5 Blueprints Safely in Storage”. Space.com. http://www.space.com/news/spacehistory/saturn_five_000313.html. Retrieved 2008-01-16.
External links
NASA sites
Three Saturn Vs on Display Teach Lessons in Space History
Apollo Lunar Surface Journal
Declassified 1964 NASA technical memo on Saturn Rockets. Note that this is a large PDF file (61 Megabytes).
Launch complex 39 facility description from 1966. (10 Megabyte PDF file)
Other sites
Apollo Saturn Reference Page
Project Apollo Archive
Apollo/Saturn V Development ApolloTV.net Video
Simulators
3D Saturn V Explorer and Launch Simulation Program
3D Apollo Simulator with Saturn V Simulation Program
Saturn V/Saturn IB simulation for Orbiter spaceflight sim
v d e
Expendable launch systems
Current
Spaceflight portal
Ariane 5 Atlas V Delta (II IV) Dnepr-1 GSLV H-IIA H-IIB Kaituozhe-1 Kosmos-3M Long March (1D 2C 2D 2F 3A 3B 3C 4B 4C) Minotaur I Molniya-M Naro-1 Paektusan Pegasus Proton (K M) PSLV Rokot Safir Shavit Shtil’ Start-1 Strela Soyuz (U FG 2) Taurus Unha VLS-1 Volna Zenit (2 2M 3SL 3SLB)
Planned
Angara GSLV III GX Haas Long March 5 Long March 6 Minotaur IV Minotaur V RPS-420 Rus-M Soyuz-1 Simorgh TSLV Taurus II Tsyklon-4 Vega Zenit-3F
Previous
Ariane (1 2 3 4) ASLV Athena Atlas (B D E/F G H I II III LV-3B SLV-3 Able Agena Centaur) Black Arrow Conestoga Delta (A B C D E G J L M N 0100 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 III) Diamant Energia Europa Feng Bao 1 H-I H-II J-I Juno I Juno II Kosmos (1 2I 3) Lambda Long March (1 2A 2E 3 4A) Mu (V) N1 N-I N-II Pilot R-7 (Luna Molniya Polyot Soyuz (L M U2) Soyuz/Vostok Sputnik Voskhod Vostok (L K 2 2M)) Saturn (I IB V INT-21) Scout SLV Sparta Thor (Able Ablestar Agena Burner Delta DSV-2U) Thorad-Agena Titan (II GLV IIIA IIIB IIIC IIID IIIE 34D 23G CT-3 IV) Tsyklon (2 3) Vanguard
v d e
United States orbital launch systems
Active
Atlas V Delta (II IV) Falcon 1 Minotaur I Pegasus Shuttle Taurus
In development
Ares I Ares V Falcon 9 GX* Minotaur IV Minotaur V Taurus II
Retired
Athena Atlas (B D E/F G H I II III LV-3B SLV-3 Able Agena Centaur) Conestoga Delta (A B C D E G J L M N 0100 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 III) H-I* Juno I Juno II N-I* N-II* Pilot Saturn (I IB V INT-21) Scout Sparta Thor (Able Ablestar Agena Burner Delta DSV-2U) Thorad-Agena Titan (II GLV IIIA IIIB IIIC IIID IIIE 34D 23G CT-3 IV) Vanguard
* – Japanese projects using US rockets or stages
v d e
Saturn launch vehicle family
Early proposals
Juno V Saturn A-1 A-2 B-1
“C” series
Saturn C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 C-5 C-5N C-8
Saturn I series
Saturn I IB IB-CE IB-A IB-B IB-C IB-D INT-05 INT-11 INT-12 INT-13 INT-14 INT-15 INT-16 INT-27 LCB
Saturn II series
Saturn II INT-17 INT-18 INT-19
Saturn V series
Saturn V MLV V ELV INT-20 INT-21 INT-23 INT-24 INT-25 Saturn-Shuttle Saturn V-3 V-A V-B V-C V-D V-Centaur Jarvis
Categories: 1967 in space exploration | 1968 in space exploration | 1969 in space exploration | 1970 in space exploration | 1971 in space exploration | 1972 in space exploration | Apollo program | Saturn rocketsHidden categories: Rocketry articles with outdated infoboxes | All Wikipedia articles needing clarification | Wikipedia articles needing clarification from January 2010
