The Saturn V and the F-1 rocket engine

[G-MAN]

Very neat, Ed!

 

[javacontour]

I don't know if anyone is following, but there is a series on the Science Channel called Moon Machines. Yesterday, one of the hour long episodes was on the Saturn V and the F-1 rocket motor. http://science.discovery.com/videos/moon-machines-3-stage-rocket.html

 

[SteveSRT8]

I used to sneak past the Air Force base and get right up close to the Apollo shots when I was a kid (in a boat). There is nothing like it. Makes the shuttle look puny.

 

[Loobed]

Originally Posted By: Astro14

And the V-2 to Redstone connections? Sure...that's like saying the F-4 was just a modified ME-262 because they're both twin engine jets that ran on the same fuel...it's easy to ignore the evolution and improvements between the two...

The F-86 Sabre and the Mig-15 look similar for a reason. FW TA183 ...and lets not forget the B-2 bomber. http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/ep...e=redir_stealth other cool German plane pictures http://www.luft46.com/ http://www.luftwaffephotos.com/

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: G-MAN

I'm not forgetting about the nascent US rocket program. But it's clear that the real advancement in US rocketry began when the captured Nazi scientists were brought over after the war. Your statement about the Redstone is just flat out ridiculous. The F-4 was in no way, shape, or form derived directly from the ME-262. It is well documented that Von Braun developed the Redstone directly from the V2. In fact, operational parameters (max range and altitude) of the first Redstone are almost identical to the V2. Granted, the Redstone that was used for Mercury was a highly advanced iteration (a modified Jupiter C, which was directly developed from the first Redstone), but was still a rocket that was developed and derived from the V2.

So...was the Redstone that carried the Mercury capsule highly modified or not? You say the first Redstone was almost identical in performance, (no argument) but the discussion was on the Mercury capsule rocket...and you say it's highly modified... OK, let's define highly modified. Let's look at the F/A-18 for example. The -E/F model is a highly modified version of the -C/D model. It has a new fuselage, wings, hard points, rudders, tails, landing gear and weapon systems...highly modified in other words. Derived from the earlier model but when it was rolled out, the only common parts were the ARC-210 radio and the NACES ejection seat. Super Hornet weapon system components have since been retrofitted to the legacy platform. Looking at the V-2 specs (weight, size, range, thrust) and the Redstone that carried Mercury into space, even though the architectures are similar, there are even more pronounced differences than the two versions of the Hornet. Airframe, powerplant, size, thrust, fuel capacity, were all changed...

 

[G-MAN]

Originally Posted By: Astro14

Originally Posted By: G-MAN

I'm not forgetting about the nascent US rocket program. But it's clear that the real advancement in US rocketry began when the captured Nazi scientists were brought over after the war. Your statement about the Redstone is just flat out ridiculous. The F-4 was in no way, shape, or form derived directly from the ME-262. It is well documented that Von Braun developed the Redstone directly from the V2. In fact, operational parameters (max range and altitude) of the first Redstone are almost identical to the V2. Granted, the Redstone that was used for Mercury was a highly advanced iteration (a modified Jupiter C, which was directly developed from the first Redstone), but was still a rocket that was developed and derived from the V2.

So...was the Redstone that carried the Mercury capsule highly modified or not? You say the first Redstone was almost identical in performance, (no argument) but the discussion was on the Mercury capsule rocket...and you say it's highly modified...

I've said all I'm going to say on the subject: The Mercury Redstone was derived directly from the V2. The F-4 was not derived directly from the ME-262. Hence your comparison was and is ridiculous.

 

[bigmike]

We have something in common, G-MAN. My dad came a bit later to NASA, during the beginning of the shuttle. I wasn't around for the Apollo missions, but trips to the cape were pretty common for me. I really miss Cocoa Beach at times. I was lucky to see how valuable the programs were, the first shuttle launch, first night launch, tours of my dad's work, etc. They were good times, especially as a kid. I've gone back several times since then. Alot has changed. But Taco City is still there, thank goodness.

 

[CivicFan]

Originally Posted By: expat

Originally Posted By: L_Sludger

Originally Posted By: expat

Every time I see that first Vid, and we see the letters USA pass by, I have to wonder, if in a different Time-Line, if that could have been a Swastika :-(

What a silly post. Are you aware of the history of America's rocketry program?

http://www.v2rocket.com/start/makeup/design.html I followed the American (and what we were allowed to know about the Russian program) for as long as I can remember (Gagarin-Mercury program) I also, as a child had an interest in the V2, as one had landed about 300 yards from our house in London. I think about 500 landed in the London area, each with a payload of about 1 Ton of explosive, coming in a Mach 3. Quite the achievement in 1944!

OK, how did they know where the rocket was going to hit if they didn't have a GPS guidance system then?

 

[expat]

"OK, how did they know where the rocket was going to hit if they didn't have a GPS guidance system then?" Gyroscopes try to maintain a trajectory, Numerous other calculations for deviations affect the aim. My Grandfather worked at the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, London. He was an Engineer that specialized in Navel Ordinance, pre war. These were the Big Guns that for the first time were firing on targets beyond the horizon. I remember as a young man him telling me some of the MANY, MANY factors that had to be taken into consideration when calculating a trajectory. Almost mind-blowing! I think the later V2's did have some ability for mid course correction. But Pin-point accuracy did not matter too much :-(

 

[G-MAN]

Originally Posted By: expat

I think the later V2's did have some ability for mid course correction. But Pin-point accuracy did not matter too much :-(

The V2 was more a terror weapon, designed to affect the morale of the English people as much as to destroy property. There was absolutely no defense against it, and not knowing where it was going to hit in a city the size of London only added to the "terror factor."

 

[Astro14]

Thought a lawyer would recognize the application of reductio ad absurdum... We will have to agree to disagree on the characterization of Jupiter C and Mercury launch vehicle...I was really objecting to the oversimplification of the US Space program. There was a complex confluence of US political will, German experience, US engineering and US manufacturing that enabled the space program...it was not as simple as stated...and the F-1 was the culmination of the multitude of factors.

 

[expat]

Originally Posted By: G-MAN

Originally Posted By: expat

I think the later V2's did have some ability for mid course correction. But Pin-point accuracy did not matter too much :-(

The V2 was more a terror weapon, designed to affect the morale of the English people as much as to destroy property. There was absolutely no defense against it, and not knowing where it was going to hit in a city the size of London only added to the "terror factor."

From what I was told, the V1's were possibly more......nerve racking, soul destroying, as they could be heard coming, but the population would never know just when the engine would run out of fuel. People would stop work and search the sky when they heard the sound, with the V2 they never knew what hit them. To put the German contribution to the U.S. space/missile in context. What was the state of U.S. missile technology Before Von Braun et al?

 

[morris]

my dad made parts for the Saturn V, he had parts on each and every one Saturn V. i cant remember how many that is. my dad said that they had full traceable on each part, if you just carried a part from one side of the shop to the other you had to mark it down.

 

[Loobed]

Originally Posted By: morris

my dad made parts for the Saturn V, he had parts on each and every one Saturn V. i cant remember how many that is. my dad said that they had full traceable on each part, if you just carried a part from one side of the shop to the other you had to mark it down.

My dad also made parts for the Apollo Saturn rocket motors, but I don't remember which parts. I remember going down to the local police station (around 1967-68) with him so he could have his finger prints and picture taken, so the FBI could check him out, and get NASA security clearance. He also made rockets motors for the upper stage of the Titan missiles. I remember seeing people come into his work with suitcases labeled "top secret." I thought that was to coolest thing I ever saw. I asked to look inside, so my dad opened it up, and I saw I some machined metal part with screws and safety-wire. To this day I have absolutely no idea what I was looking at, or what it was for.