|
|
Post by slang on Dec 27, 2008 19:31:13 GMT -4
I happen to be reading parts of the Apollo 8 Flight Journal, and was suddenly surprised by a minor detail, I just had not expected it. Somehow that ring always seemed a flimsy piece of aluminium to me, in the footage that showed the separation. Of course, once you realize that has to bear a lot of weight, it makes sense for it to be strong (thus heavy). Still, it surprised me, the amount of detail on mass necessary to make it to orbit. Then I thought: "If it surprises me, it may also be interesting for others. It might even spark fun or educational discussion". Which minor (or major) detail had you stumped for a bit? (Please, no CT stuff...) (edit: fixed annoying typo in subject. Why do I always miss that first 'r'?!) |
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Dec 27, 2008 20:53:08 GMT -4
It doesn't surprise me. I've been trying to find out the weight of that thing but no luck so far.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but after the second stage would haul the spacecraft from 200,000 to over 600,000 feet? That's a long distance to be dragging that ring with you. If anyone can find out the weight....
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Dec 28, 2008 1:03:55 GMT -4
The interstage adapter has a mass of about 5,000 kilograms, so that is certainly significant.
|
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Dec 28, 2008 3:45:22 GMT -4
Only 5 tons?
|
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Dec 28, 2008 6:11:46 GMT -4
Metric tons. (5.5 short tons, for us drag-the-English-system-kicking-and-screaming-into-the-next-millenium 'Murricans.)
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Dec 28, 2008 12:10:47 GMT -4
According to Apollo by the Numbers: Apollo 8 - 12,436 lb (5,641 kg) Apollo 9 - 11,591 lb (5,258 kg) Apollo 10 - 11,585 lb (5,255 kg) Apollo 11 - 11,477 lb (5,206 kg) Apollo 12 - 11,509 lb (5,220 kg) Apollo 13 - 11,454 lb (5,196 kg) Apollo 14 - 11,400 lb (5,171 kg) Apollo 15 - 9,083 lb (4,120 kg) Apollo 16 - 10,191 lb (4,622 kg) Apollo 17 - 9,975 lb (4,525 kg) |
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Dec 29, 2008 1:49:37 GMT -4
Metric tons. (5.5 short tons, for us drag-the-English-system-kicking-and-screaming-into-the-next-millenium 'Murricans.) I think you and Bob both missed the point of my post. The ring weighed about the same as 2 sedan cars! |
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Dec 30, 2008 7:44:40 GMT -4
"The ring weighed about the same as 2 sedan cars!"
That's a lot of ring!
Anyone else have more surprising Apollo facts?
|
|
|
|
Post by dragonblaster on Dec 30, 2008 17:23:57 GMT -4
Because of time dilation, all the surviving Apollo astronauts are a teeny bit younger than they would have been if they hadn't gone.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Dec 31, 2008 12:10:28 GMT -4
Somehow that ring always seemed a flimsy piece of aluminium to me, in the footage that showed the separation. A flimsy ring 33 feet across and 18 feet high.... The interstage is big enough to be used as a large exhibition hall in at least one of the many rocket and space centres across the US. It's gonna be heavy. The thing that surprised me, which I only found out about when I got the Spacecraft Films DVDs about the Saturn rockets, was the fact that many of the rockets had lights and cameras inside the fuel tanks to observe the behaviour of the liquid during launch and orbit. Gives you a very different view of launch. |
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Dec 31, 2008 12:26:45 GMT -4
many of the rockets had lights and cameras inside the fuel tanks to observe the behaviour of the liquid during launch and orbit. Gives you a very different view of launch. I'm going to have to get those DVDs. I have never seen that view before. That's one of those details that make me think "how could anyone believe it was all fake?" Why would NASA go to that much trouble to study the behaviour of rocket fuel if the Saturn V's were just being launched unmanned and dumped into the Atlantic Ocean (like Bill Kaysing claimed). Obviously the performance of the rockets becomes more important if they really were sending men to the moon. |
|
|
|
Post by ajv on Dec 31, 2008 14:08:03 GMT -4
I'm going to have to get those DVDs.
Ok, for those of you who have the Saturn I&IB DVD set, who has sat through the entire 25 minutes of the SA-203 tank interior sequence without fast-forwarding?
Sheepishly raises hand.
|
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Dec 31, 2008 20:20:12 GMT -4
Oh dear. I feel the need, the need to spend. Think there are a few available in the UK.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Dec 31, 2008 20:52:03 GMT -4
They're all available in the UK. Order direct from the Spacecraft Films website. The Saturn DVDs are available from Amazon though.
And yes, I watched the whole SA-203 tank interior sequence. For the benefit of those who don't know, SA-203 was a Saturn IB launch for the purpose of assessing the bahaviour of the liquid hydrogen in the S-IVB stage during orbital coast and restart. To assess it they used a video camera, and there are 25 minutes of views of liquid floating around in a large tank....
|
|
|
|
Post by slang on Jan 1, 2009 20:17:21 GMT -4
A flimsy ring 33 feet across and 18 feet high.... The interstage is big enough to be used as a large exhibition hall in at least one of the many rocket and space centres across the US. It's gonna be heavy. Thinking about it is cheating!  I'm looking for things that makes you go "huh!?", for lack of better words. Thinks usually make one go "huh" because one had not really considered them before. Facts that may be surprising to some may make immediate intuitive sense to others, perhaps even most.. I sort of enjoy that feeling of "wow, I'd never thought of that" or "I'd never looked at it that way". It appeals to my sense of amazement, I guess. Cameras in fuel tanks? That's a small "huh?" for me. It makes sense of course, once you consider it. What also got me was that some of the famous footage often shown for the moon landings is actually from earlier test flights. I always thought it was from the actual launch of Apollo 11. Doesn't change anything for me, but HB's would probably have a field day with it, if they didn't already.  |
|
I'm looking for things that makes you go "huh!?", for lack of better words. Thinks usually make one go "huh" because one had not really considered them before. Facts that may be surprising to some may make immediate intuitive sense to others, perhaps even most.. I sort of enjoy that feeling of "wow, I'd never thought of that" or "I'd never looked at it that way". It appeals to my sense of amazement, I guess. 