Apollo 11 Liftoff

>>7970922

The guy's channel is rather interesting. Thanks, tripfag.

>>7970955

You're welcome. I forgot I was tripfagging.

File: moon_apollo-11.gif (401KB, 808x808px) Image search: [Google]

401KB, 808x808px

And this is where they went: the Sea of Tranquility aka mare tranquillitatis.

File: Saturn_5_launch.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

Here's the tldr webm

File: 200w.gif (1MB, 200x144px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 200x144px

And here's the amount of mass expelled, in the form of elephants

>>7971046
Tfw idk what tripfagging is

>>7971120
Looks more like ants

>>7971272
Lurk more, stretch

>>7970922
Prefer the challenger launch footage.

>>7971281
Been lurking a loooooooonnnnngggg time

>>7971120

That's great! I hope that is factually accurate.

Any idea how hot it would be on the launch pad? Like could I have cooked a steak with the Saturn V rocket or would it just vaporize?

>>7971692
The exhaust was coming out at about 3200C, so I would say vapourized

>>7971120
But are they expelled at the correct velocity?
Looks kind of slow.

>>7971716
I wonder if the elephant's represent the momentum in the equal and opposite direction to propel the rocket.

>>7971842
I don't think it simulates the correct velocity in relation to mass. Exhaust velocity is around 2.5960km/s. The sheer volume of the plume is enormous. My gut tells me they would be moving much faster.

>>7970922
thanks op, I + this post

>>7970922
Watching 111 m of metal rise on a pillar of fire is a near religious experience. It is impressive what they achieved.

One of my lecturers was in the space race and he told us it was completely crazy. Health and safety were unknown concepts, everything was about getting there first.

>>7972393
>Watching 111 m of metal rise on a pillar of fire is a near religious experience.

Never heard it put like that but I completely agree. It's hard to imagine the sheer size of these rockets and how much power they generated.

I bet that lecture was awesome.

>>7972731
>>7972393
This is why I get pissed off by /sci/ when some neckbeard waddles along and trashes NASA for not having some anti-gravity warp drive bullshit. Saturn V is what you need to get to the Moon that's cold hard reality. Either get with the programme or stay in your popsci fantasies. Saturn V is a truly amazing piece of technology.

Nice video OP

I love me the Saturn V.

I recommend watching "The Mighty Saturns", it's a 3 DVD documentary and camera footage from all launches. Not just the Saturn V, but the whole Saturn family.

I believe it can be watched on YouTube as well

>>7972731
Yes, just watching this thing on a small TV, knowing how long ago it was is just unbelievable. And the lecturer was a peculiar fellow. Sadly he passed away a few years ago, not surprisingly, given how long ago this was, he was quite old.

>>7972749
The thing is that the science and engineering driven NASA up to 1975 or thereabout was very different from the Dilbertesque career launch pad NASA in later years. Feynman rightly hammered them for the b0rken culture.

Having said that I am now very impressed with the turnaround of recent years. The Saturn mission and the Mars landers are all awesome.

>>7973653
>Feynman rightly hammered them for the b0rken culture.
Source? Never heard of this
>I am now very impressed with the turnaround of recent years
Same. I look forward to their Europa mission as well.

>>7973955
>Source
Sure. It is epic:
http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v2appf.htm
>For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.

It is well worth reading in full. He has another equally biting criticism against cargo cult science that also is worth reading in full.

>>7970922
That was super nerdy and neat

>>7973992
It's all funding at the end of the day, NASA had to be frugal and overly optimistic because government funding was very fickle. If they were honest about how much maintenance the Space Shuttle needed Congress would have probably pulled the plug. Which would be good because lives would have been saved however we wouldn't have been able to explore that new frontier of engineering called spaceplanes. Therefore NASA are still my heroes, they took the risk to go ahead and it worked albeit barely.

>>7974045
I agree on frugality and optimism, however I agree with Feynman that proper risk management is critical and here NASA sinned.

In many books on organisational theory many examples are derived from NASA including the Challenger disaster. The important part is that the engineer warned the managers against a launch. The managers pushed ahead. Seven astronauts were killed and for no good reason at all. And while it was willful action against expert advice noone was ever tried for this. Such was the power balance shifted into the hands of the career bureaucrats away from the people who decades earlier had made NASA a success.

Also was the Space Shuttle the right way to work on space planes? NASA already had separate projects on lifting bodies. It just seemed unnecessary.

The Space Shuttle promised shuttle like traffic and didn't deliver, at low price, which didn't work out, and at low risk. In the end the Space Shuttle was an wrong answer to a problem.

This then is probably why unmanned projects have been the main successes of NASA. And that old, bad managers now are retiring.

>>7974045
what do you mean risk?
Right from the beginning they were using disposable boosters & disposable fuel tank that would cost more than just using an expendable rocket

It's not a matter of working vs not working, its a matter that they could have just kept building saturn V's & launched payloads at a fraction of the price

>>7970922
Are there any Saturn V videos that aren't slow motion?

>>7974187
Now that they have returned to the Saturn V model (the SLS) they are now being slated as being "backwards" They can't win.