My arguments against the existance of the saturn v are as follows
1. it was the smokiest rocket ever even smokier than more powerful russian rockets which used the same fuel(the more powerful the more fuel burned the more smoke isn't that logical
2. the saturn had only five nozzles and russian rockets had over 30 because of extreme temps created by the fuel the bigger the nozzle the more likely it is to burn through
3. acoustic vibrations resulting in burn anomalies causes the thin metal walls to burn through makes rocket explode thus the saturn was just an light empty shell which was used to convince people a rocket did blast off even though it did not carry a spacecraft
4. the pogo effect was probably the reason the saturn had to be faked using smaller more proven rockets
5. the saturn rockets blew up on numerous occasions in the testing stage and as we learned with challenger sometimes rockets do not divulge their problems until it was to late
6. If the scientists and engineers as you say were confindent that the rocket would not blow up why were they hiding miles away from the launch site why not right next to the saturn
7. The saturn had hydrogen tamk leaks plague building the program because hudrogen was so untried and dangerous
8. all the apollo contractor reported problems making welds in metal so light like the saturn was made of
9. insulation was yet another grand problem
10. Problems with the contractors. Mainly North American, but also Boeing, Douglas, and Lockheed.
11. The Baron testimony
12. Walter Schirra article in Bill Kaysings book
13. Gus Grissom
14. Von Braun
AN EXPLANATION OF NUMBER SIX. WHAT I MEANT IS THAT IF THEY WERE WILLING TO PUT THREE GUYS IN UNTRIED MACHINERY WITH A BAD HISTORY AND THEY WERE CONFIDENT IT WOULD FLY AND NOT BLOW UP THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE HIDING MILES AWAY. BACK IN THE EARLY DAYS OF THE AIR FORCE THEY HAD A POLICY THAT IF YOU BUILT AND DESIGNED SOMETHING YOU WOULD BE THE FIRST TO TEST IT NO MATTER HOW DANGEROUS. THEY DID NOT DO THAT.
By the way did anyone see the tonight show with Jay Leno? If you did not this is what he said "we are the only country in the world that thinks professional wrestling is real and the moon landings are fake."

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SaturnV on 2002-11-06 22:51 ]</font>



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SaturnV on 2002-11-10 22:58 ]</font>

The Rocketdyne F-1 is one of the most well-documented, well-understood, and oft-cited rocket engine designs in history. LOX/RP-1 is a propellant formulation which produces an incandescent plume and dark particulate aerosol at steady state combustion.

Those who argue that the F-1 combustion is somehow wrong or anomalous generally cannot claim any special understanding of rocket propulsion, or of the special characteristics of the F-1's performance and fuel formulation. They are generally the subjective opinions of lay persons and are contradicted by a vast amount of engineering documentation.

I personally know an Aerospace prof who worked on the Saturn project. He'd love to punch you in the face, if he was a little younger.

>The article read that the saturn was the smokiest rocket ever built even smokier than a higher powered Russian rocket.<

You shouldn't believe everything you read in the press. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]
If you think that the Saturn is the 'smokiest' rocket ever, I think that you should watch some of the film of one of the launches. That clearly shows very little smoke for an engine that is consuming 15 tons of propellant a second. Much of the 'smoke' you see as it clears the launch tower is in fact steam from the sound suppression water deluge. Once clear of the tower and in flight there is next to no smoke at all.
You could also compare it to the launch of any Shuttle Orbiter, where the solid fuel boosters (SRB) create more smoke than you could shake a stick at. That might qualify as the 'smokiest'.
DK

Didn't we already do this one? It goes along with the 'black first six feet of the exhaust plume' argument. The F1 engines were cooled by running the relatively cool 800 degrees exhaust from the fuel pumps between the inner and outer skins of the engine bells. Gaps in the inner surface were left 'leaky' to allow this gas to mix with the exhaust gasses along the inside surfaces of the bells. This kept the inner surfaces 'cool'. The fuel pumps ran fuel rich, and the exhaust has been described as the 'dirtiest greasiest gunk imaginable' by an engineer who worked on the pumps. Once mixed with the air, this 'gunk' burns to produce the smokey exhaust of the F1 engines. It also produces the 'black first six feet'.

Every Apollo launch was watched by hundreds of spectators. Find one who saw any of them go "boom".

Don't you means hundreds of thousands of people?

If you actually read the history of the F-1 engine and the Saturn V in general you would see that all these problems were known and solved.

From my own experience, when you've got hundreds of technicians and engineers working on a specific problem, it can usually be solved and the problem fixed.

Again, I'd love to see you sources.

I repeat: The Rocketdyne F-1 is one of the most well-understood rocket engines in the industry. It's the '67 Mustang of rocket engines. The combustion instabilities you mention were solved at the appropriate stage in the development process. (In short, Bill Kaysing doesn't know what the heck he's talking about.) The F-1 was eventually so stable that bombs could be detonated in the nozzle and the resulting oscillations would damp out in milliseconds.

Bill Kaysing is the source for most of these arguments, and it's the most laughable bunch of tripe imaginable. He's simply making it up. First, he has no expertise. His degree was in English literature and he has had no formal technical training. Second, he left Rocketdyne in 1963 for personal reasons, long before the events he "witnessed" actually happened.

I would like to see the average hoax believer attempt to define any of the terms in the revised initial post. It irritates me when people smugly question Apollo engineering without knowing much if anything about engineering. It's like the patient's mother-in-law standing behind the surgeon and telling him he's doing it all wrong.

Other problems with the Saturn
Welding, Leaking Hydrogen Tanks, Insulation

Are you under the impression that large-scale engineering projects should not encounter problems such as these? Do you know what it means to engineer a rocket booster? Does your site go into any detail about how these problems were overcome?

Minor quibble, Jay -- the bombs were not detonated in the nozzle, but in the combustion chamber itself. That's where the combustion instability was occurring (not surprisingly).

This is one of the most fascinating and impressive stories in the whole Apollo project. It's also an example of the "art" of engineering, where computers (of the era) and theory were useless. It was patient experimentation, redesign, and testing that ironed out the stability problem, not an "Aha!" moment or theoretical analysis.

By the way, does anyone know how powerful the bombs were? Obviously they had to be pretty big, or their effect would be swamped by the energies of the engines themselves. But how would they compare to, say, a stick of dynamite?

Here's a nice link to the Saturn V development.

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4206/contents.htm

Go to http://groups.google.com/groups?group=sci.space.history and search in the group for F-1 bombing

... the Saturn should of had less smoke and that means we did not actually make the Saturn because of technical problems associated with a rocket that big.

Which blithely ignores the undeniable fact that Saturn V boosters were built and launched, and that they lifted a very considerable amount of mass into space, and that the payloads were indeed tracked into Earth orbit. This was not fakeable.

Or perhaps the claim is that the Saturn launches were mass hallucinations? Or just that NASA conspirators switched the CSM/LM stack with a paper-mache mockup while no one was looking?

STS-60,

Excellent response. This HB statement ranks right up there with the statement that all the technical textbooks through out the world were changed/removed from all the libraries in the world.

You don't honestly believe a word you just wrote, do you?

"Too smokey"? "Why didn't they stand ten feet away"?

Sigh.

__________________
I'm a Christian.
I believe the world is billions of years old. Why? Because God gave me COMMON SENSE!

One word? How about the word "not!" [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

Let's see here. Overwhelming evidence that the Saturn V booster worked... hmmm... oh, I know: We could use the MILLIONS OF EYEWITNESSES ALL OVER THE GLOBE who watched the thing launch. Yep, that'll work.

As far as smokiness, who cares? The "more powerful" Russian booster, the N-1, WAS rated for more thrust, but did it work? In a word, no. Not once, not ever. Here's a site about it: http://astronautix.com/lvs/n1.htm (and by the way, you're allowed to post these, too)

I have a feeling, though, that we won't be hearing from you about this.

__________________
PC load letter? What the @%$# does that mean?

This is starting to sound like a troll since he's not defending any of his points.

__________________
~AstroMike

Why didn't anyone stand ten feet away during a Saturn launch? Saturn V, most people with any sense won't even stand within ten feet of a model rocket once it's lit. Just imagine what damage would be caused by a fully-fueled Saturn containing millions of pounds of propellant should anything go awry. You might want to read up on the Nedelin Disaster or the second N-1 launch (number 5L, I believe) if you want any evidence of how catastrophic launch pad disasters can be. Fortunately, the Saturn V suffered no such eventualities

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Speedy on 2002-11-06 19:35 ]</font>

Why didn't anyone stand ten feet away during a Saturn launch? Saturn V, most people with any sense won't even stand within ten feet of a model rocket once it's lit. Just imagine what damage would be caused by a fully-fueled Saturn containing millions of pounds of propellant should anything go awry. You might want to read up on the Nedelin Disaster or the second N-1 launch (number 5L, I believe) if you want any evidence of how catastrophic launch pad disasters can be.

I obviously need to do some more research.
Thanks for the info.