Talk:Saturn V/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

cost per launch

This article presently states a figure in the 500 million 1960s dollars range, however the source provided doesn't support the figure on display so I tagged it as needing clarification.

I have also found another source that states US$185 to US$189 million in 1969-1971 dollars, which is roughly US$1.2 billion in 2014 dollars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.51.72.3 (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The $494 million is supported by the source cited; it's a matter of significant figures. The number given in the source to the nearest $1000 dollars, $6,416,835,000, is rounded to $6,417,000,000 (rounded to three decimal place billions, or nearest million). The cost per launch figure is given consistent with that (nearset million). I suppose to be picky, we could quote $493.6 million, which would be the same precision (four significant figures.)

I would guess the number given in The Space Shuttle Decision includes only the operational cost per mission; the larger figure we give includes the total development/procurement cost divided by 13 flights. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

So what you're saying is you're using your own gut feelings on how the figures should be manipulated by dividing by 13? That looks to be WP:OR Justin, I also find it especially concerning when reliable refernces do exist that state the cost per vehicle construction and launch at a fraction of your original research figure which, need I remind you, computes cost in a very un-conventional way.

For example, according to your method, every vehicle in existence should initially cost the entire price of the research programs that supported it and then progressively divide this up with each successive launch. I wonder if you'll go forward with this methodology of yours to the vehicles of Space-X? As it is pretty obvious they don't present their cost per launch figures like this, to say the least ha! Which concerns me, we really shouldn't have costs presented 2 different ways on an encyclopedia. In saying that if it's available to the public, by all means include the total net that went towards designing, testing, building and flying it, but that doesn't reflect the true price/cost to make 1 launch. In fact it misleads readers, as no other article page presents the cost per launch in the way you have chosen. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. 185.51.72.3 (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no original research involved. This was not like today's commercial space ventures, where the initial development cost to build a new vehicle is written off as capital cost, and you only charge the customer for operational costs per flight. This was early development of US spaceflight capability, from scratch, which was NASA's (and the US taxpayers') cost. Dividing the entire project cost (note that is the label given on the infobox) of the Saturn V by the number of flights in a finite program, which was terminated rather than ongoing, is a perfectly acceptable way of determining the cost per flight. See The Space Review,"Costs of US piloted programs" which uses this method for the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs (including all costs, besides just the launch vehicles.) We have not established a consensus on how "cost per flight" should be defined. As this author says, "... that’s about all most of us know about piloted program costs. For instance, who knows how much the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station programs cost? How much does each Shuttle flight cost? How much does it cost to spent a day onboard ISS? Almost nobody knows because these figures are difficult to calculate." JustinTime55 (talk) 22:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

In Stages to Saturn (NASA SP-4206), page 406 Appendix A, the total production cost of a single Saturn V is $113.1 million: Stages to Saturn If those were mid-60s dollars this would be about $800 million today. However those figures are not the all-up launch cost of a single mission -- just the production cost of all the hardware. By contrast the incremental cost of a single shuttle mission was about $100-$200 million in late-2000s dollars. That includes ET, SRBs, and all processing costs for one flight. When discussing the cost of adding a Hubble repair mission, NASA administrator Mike Griffin estimated the shuttle-specific costs at $100 million for expendable hardware, plus $100 million for vehicle processing, or a total of about $200 million: NASA Mission to Hubble in 2008.

The article statement under "US Space Shuttle" stating shuttle payload capability of 63,500 pounds is incorrect. That was an early hoped-for spec, not an actual capability. The heaviest payload the shuttle ever carried was about 50,000 pounds on STS-93, Chandra X-Ray telescope: Shuttle STS-93 Chandra Mission. The Saturn V could deliver a useful payload to LEO about 5.6x heavier than the shuttle. Joema (talk) 13:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm back, the Irish IP that started this discussion.As User:JustinTime55 acknowledges they are pushing a reference that doesn't even discuss cost per launch, he is doing WP:OR by dividing the total project cost by 13 flights. Whilst the following references I've now included do indeed provide cost per launch figures. $189 million in 1969-1971 dollars, of which $113.1 million was for vehicle.

109.125.19.96 (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Saturn V LEO lift capabilities

• "The flights to the moon conducted during the Apollo program (from 1966 to 1972) required the capacity to launch about 140 mt into LEO."
  "During the Apollo program (in effect from 1966 to 1972), manned space flight to the moon required the capability to launch about 140 mt into LEO, which was provided by a single Saturn V launcher. "
  "The Saturn V launcher was capable of lifting a payload of somewhat less than 140 mt into LEO. That payload consisted of the Apollo three-man command-and-service module (CSM), the ascent and descent stages of the lunar module (LM), the lunar excursion module (LEM), and the third stage of the Saturn V, which was used both to reach orbit and to propel the CSM, LM, and LEM out of low earth orbit and into a lunar trajectory. The propellant used to travel to the moon, descend to and ascend from the moon’s surface, and return to Earth made up about 75 percent of the 140 mt payload."
  "The payload of 140 metric tons is derived from weight data provided in Richard W. Orloff, Apollo by the Numbers: A Statistical Reference, NASA SP-2000-4029 (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, updated September 27, 2005), available at http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/SP-4029.htm. In that reference, 140 mt is the weight of the Apollo 17 command-and-service modules, the lunar module, the spacecraft/lunar module adapter, the instrument unit, and the S-IVB stage (the third stage of the Saturn V), including the fuel remaining in that stage needed to propel the Apollo command-and-service modules and lunar module from low earth orbit to the moon."
  // Alternatives for Future U.S. Space-Launch Capabilities (PDF), The Congress of the United States. Congressional Budget Office, October 2006, pp. X, 1, 4, 9
• "The Apollo Saturn V launch vehicle had a lift capability of 140 metric tons to low Earth orbit."
  // Thomas P. Stafford (1991), America at the Threshold - Report of the Synthesis Group on America's Space Exploration Initiative, p. 31 or at http://history.nasa.gov/staffordrep/main_toc.PDF

Two sources of a number "118,000 kilograms" in the article are an educational "NASA Knows! For Grades 5-8 Students" (which states "118,000 kilograms (130 tons)") and a personal site of Robert A. Braeunig. The last author on a page THE SATURN FAMILY used LEO (185 km) for all 3 types of Saturn rockets, though none of Saturn V rocket were flying at that exact orbit (198-245 km for Apollo 7, about 160 km for Apollo 8-14, about 145 km for Apollo 15-17, 442 km for Skylab). I wouldn't even be surprised, if Robert Braeunig, whose site for originated from author's project to write a computer program simulating the launch of a rocket to orbit, actually calculated the possible payload, that could be delivered to the LEO (185 km).

Anyways: 1) a site of Robert Braeunig is definitively not a reliable source; 2) reliability of "NASA Knows! For Grades 5-8 Students" is questionable; 3) US gov doc, based on an official NASA publication, and a Report of the Synthesis Group (that "was charged by Vice-President Quayle and NASA Administrator Richard Truly to seek out the best and most innovative ideas in the country"[1]) - seems to be much more reliable sources of information. So, I would suggest to change "118,000 kilograms" to "140 metric tons" (as they are named in both last sources). --Alogrin (talk) 02:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Stellar work man! I've included your authoritative and insightful references in the Space Launch System page that I've frequently edited, check it out! However as your source says "slighty less than" 140 metric tons I've included that caveat, furthermore I am also perplexed how the standard Saturn V could loft close to 140 metric tons into LEO, when the 1965 paper study that resulted in the paper Saturn MLV-V-1 design improvement, was looking like achieving 137,250 kg or 137 metric tons to LEO?

92.251.136.96 (talk) 03:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I... I don't think this is right. "Almost 140 metric tonnes" was the capacity of the uprated Saturn V, not the original moon launcher. It was never built, but it stuck around for a long time as a "this is the capacity we *actually* have" type thing. Just like people always saying the SLS is a 130 tonne to LEO rocket when it is actually a 70 (block 1a) or ~95 (block 1b) tonne to LEO rocket. Block II is unfunded and not under development. Ditto with the Saturn MLV. Never made, only proposed, but some people got it into their heads that it was far enough along that it was true. — Gopher65_talk 16:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

According to Apollo 15 Press Kit (pages 133, section "Significant Vehicle Changes"), SA-510 was supposed to deliver a payload (to the Moon, it seems) that is more than 4,000 pounds heavier than the Apollo 14. It included Lunar Roving Vehicle and extra supplies for a surface mission, that was almost twice as long, as a previous one. It was achieved by using a LEO of 90 nautical miles, rather than 100 (which definitely helped to increase a payload to LEO), a different launch azimuth range and some minor changes to Saturn V hardware. Also, "a significant portion of the payload increase is due to more favorable temperature and wind effects for a July launch versus one in January". PS. Thanks ) --Alogrin (talk) 23:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

A couple of notes. First, the Apollo orbit altitudes quoted previously are incorrect. The poster apparently converted from miles not realizing that he was converting nautical miles. Apollo 8-14 were inserted into 185 km (100 n.mi.) orbits, and Apollo 15-17 into 167 km (90 n.mi.) orbits. Second, the payload figure of 118,000 kg comes from the "Saturn V Payload Planners Guide", November 1965. The guide states the following: "The Saturn V Vehicle is designed to launch very large manned and unmanned payloads into space. Each of the stages are now on the production line and progressing on schedule. The initial flight tests for the Saturn V Vehicles will be in early 1967 and will be capable of injecting over 261,000 pounds of payload into a 100 nautical mile circular earth orbit. Since the S-IVB third stage actually goes into orbit along with the payload, the total weight in orbit is nearly 300,000 pounds." So the payload is 261,000 lb (118,000 kg), and the total delivered to orbit is 300,000 lb (136,000 kg). Of course the Saturn V was upgraded for later missions, allowing it to put a total of 311,000 lb (141,000 kg) into orbit on Apollo 15-17. -- Robert Braeunig, 2605:A000:CC02:AF00:6093:6010:5078:F392 (talk) 04:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, RB, for finding a definitive source which explicitly states the original LEO capability. Since the vehicle never actually flew this type of mission, this is the only real way to get this hard-to-obtain number (which from my recollections was only publicized early in the program), rather than relying on our own "guesstimations" based on total weight in orbit, what Skylab weighed, etc. Since the upgrade increased total weight in orbit by 11,000 lb according to your figures, adding that to the original payload gives an upgraded LEO payload of 272,000 pounds (123,000 kg).

I believe we should reflect the fact that there were two different models with upgraded capability, in the infobox. We should put both sets of LEO and translunar payload capability there. One oversimplication built into the infobox is the fallacious thinking that payload to a certain regime is one absolute constant, when in fact it is highly dependent on the altitude and inclination. We should therefore put footnotes beside the appropriate numbers giving the orbital altitude and inclination. I'm happy to take a stab at this when I get a chance. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Robert, thanks for stopping by! It's much better to know reasons behind analyses, rather then to guess, and you are definitely an expert. So,

1. Sorry, for a misunderstanding of miles vs. nautical miles, and then for my misjudging of numbers on your site, really sorry.
2. The dry weight of a 3rd stage on LEO is not exactly a "dead weight", that should not be considered as a payload. According to the book Richard W. Orloff, Apollo by the Numbers: A Statistical Reference, page 290, Apollo-15 had 239,462 lb. of propellant before the first burn, then used 66,753 lb. and reached LEO with 172,709 lb. of propellant, which means that at the moment of LEO insertion 3rd stage had 72.1% of a fuel. I would say at that point the 3rd stage was a functional rocket engine, that later propelled it's own dry weight, CSM, LM and LEM, which were in total around 143,000 pounds (65,000 kg) to TLI. Of course, at that point a dry weight of a 3rd stage became a "dead weight" (which was used to hit Moon for seismic experiments), so it is excluded from the payload to TLI.
3. Our challenge, as authors of Wikipedia, is that we cannot use any our own calculated numbers in the article, because that would violate a Wikipedia:No original research requirement. All those numbers have to be presented in some Wikipedia:Reliable sources. As for now, official US and NASA documents are probably the most reliable sources.

--Alogrin (talk) 22:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The Planners Guide includes a graph showing the Saturn V's payload capacity for different orbit altitudes and inclinations. I think it would be an excellent addition to the Wiki article. I've scanned it and uploaded it to my web site at, http://www.braeunig.us/pics/SaturnV_Circular_Orbit_Capability.png. Feel free to grab it off my site and use it (note that the abbreviation ETR means Eastern Test Range). Also be advised that I don't know what the "official" capacity was after the J-mission upgrades. The 311,000 lb number just came from adding up the masses of the components and subtracting the propellant burned during boost. It should also be noted that part of this increase in payload came from lowering the orbit by 10 miles, so that portion can't really be counted as increased capacity. -- Robert Braeunig, 2605:A000:CC02:AF00:6093:6010:5078:F392 (talk) 01:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is some more information on Saturn V payload capability from the Payload Planners Guide:

1. 3-stage, 100 n.mi. = 261,000 lb
2. 3-stage, 500 n.mi. = 172,000 lb
3. 3-stage, escape = 98,000 lb
4. 3-stage, synchronous altitude = 72,000 lb (i=28.5°), 62,000 lb (i=0°)

-- Robert Braeunig, 2605:A000:CC02:AF00:6093:6010:5078:F392 (talk) 03:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, not that this can count as a source or anything, but I did some back-of-the-envelope maths based on the data in the article to get numbers for Delta-V. You need a seriously tight orbit, low drag, etc to get something with 9192.27 m/s total Delta-V to reach ANY orbit. It might be possible, but I hope you're aero drag conditions are favorable. Also, from everything I've heard, payload doesn't mean "any mass onboard that isn't totally dead." It means "mass that could be totally arbitrary in nature and isn't necessary for the functioning of the vehicle." The third stage absolutely does not count as payload. 207.62.170.221 (talk) 14:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I performed a detailed simulation of a Saturn V (http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/saturnV.htm) and got it to orbit with 9196 m/s total delta-V, so I'm confident it's possible. -- Robert Braeunig 2605:A000:CC02:AF00:C01E:582:3205:8D02 (talk) 07:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The third stage doesn't count as payload, but the point is that if you removed the third stage and replaced it with a hunk of dead mass with similar density and mass, you could still toss that payload up into a minimal orbit with your now 2 stage Saturn V. Just barely. — Gopher65_talk 01:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

1. There is no such thing, as a widely accepted definition of an orbit "payload" or "lift capacity".
2. Nevertheless, the calculation of a payload, that includes the mass of fuel inside a 3rd stage (filled on LEO at 72% capacity), but excludes the dry mass of 3rd stage - is at least questionable.
3. It looks like, that throughout the time NASA/gov documents were using different ways to calculate payload (lift capacity). NASA Saturn V rocket Payload Planners Guide (published in 1965) excluded from payload the dry weight of the 3rd stage and the instrument unit. In recent documents (which I quoted at the beginning of this discussion) those 2 additional weights were included.
4. It seems, that the subject of this discussion might deserve a special section in this Wikipedia article, that would explain different calculation approaches, the history of planned and delivered payloads, the impact (actual and estimated) of different LEO orbits and launch inclinations. --Alogrin (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

What part of WP:No original research are you people having trouble with? Why do we have this compulsion to try to figure out what a rocket's payload should be based on what limited information is available, and our own reasoning?

A rocket's "maximum orbital payload capability" is commonly meant and understood in the real world, to mean, how heavy a spacecraft can be placed on the last upper stage (in lieu of the Apollo spacecraft), and can reach orbit when all the fuel of that stage is exhausted, period. Adding the stage's empty weight, and any unburned fuel, is playing games. The orbital payload capability of the Saturn V has never been demonstrated in flight, because it has always been used to launch the Apollo spacecraft, or the first two stages used to launch the Skylab. Its orbital capability has only ever been estimated, somewhere around 260,000 lb. for the non-upgraded version. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree, that there are no value in our attempts to estimate, what is that "maximum orbital payload capability". What matters is what reliable source are providing. Currently we have 3 sources of such information:

1. NASA,Saturn V Payload Planners Guide, November 1965;
2. Thomas P. Stafford (1991), America at the Threshold - Report of the Synthesis Group on America's Space Exploration Initiative;
3. Alternatives for Future U.S. Space-Launch Capabilities, The Congress of the United States. Congressional Budget Office, October 2006

which is basing its numbers on Richard W. Orloff, Apollo by the Numbers: A Statistical Reference, NASA SP-2000-4029 (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, updated September 27, 2005

The first document is using a different way of calculation the weight of a payload, then the last 2 documents. Also, that first document is definitely not taking into account all the upgrades to Saturn V, that were done later. From my point of view, that last 2 documents are trumping the number, provided in the first document (they are newer, more official and were issued by a higher-ranked authority). If there are doubts about that - we should ask about it on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. --Alogrin (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

There are various ways to state payload to LEO. On Apollo 15 the Saturn V delivered to LEO orbit a total useful payload of 310,717 lbs (140,938 kg). This was documented in the Saturn V Launch Vehicle Flight Evaluation Report, from actual instrumented data: Saturn V Apollo 15 Flight Evaluation Report. See page 16-5, Total Vehicle Mass, S-IVB End Decay. This was all useful, functional payload since it was used to reach the moon.

When we state the Space Shuttle payload, we count the total useful payload delivered to orbit. If part of that payload is the booster rocket for a geosynchronous satellite -- it is still functional payload from the standpoint of the launch vehicle. Those payload numbers are in the Space Shuttle Missions Summary: Space Shuttle Missions Summary (39MB PDF) It is likewise with the Saturn V delivering payload to LEO. For that mission type it was 310,717 lbs of functional, useful payload delivered to LEO. Other mission types may have less payload capacity, just like when the Space Shuttle's payload is reduced to reach a high inclination orbit. That doesn't change the Saturn V's demonstrated capability -- as measured by actual flight data -- for the max LEO payload capacity. Joema (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

You are both making this more complicated than it needs to be.

• Algorin, I am not disputing the reliability of sources and RSN would be an unnecessary waste of time. (However, I think you're making a fallacious argument from authority when you say the Congressional budget office is "more official and a "higher-ranked authority" on what is for us a technical issue. The CBO just goes by the technical information supplied to it by NASA.)
• Joema, the Space Shuttle is irrelevant, because it was a different animal: reusable vehicle which carried its payload in a bay (thus making it easy to isolate). Also, wasn't Apollo 17 the heaviest of all? (Again, irrelevant.)

We should stick to what the documented sources actually say. I have made the article reflect that. The intro uses sources 2 and 3, and states what the 310,000 lb includes (as does source 3), for the purposes of establishing a record (heaviest in orbit). In the Technology section, I have reverted to the 260,000 lb original number and cited source 1, mentioning that the final number would have been higher because the Saturn V was upgraded during its development. What is wrong with this as it stands now?

I'm still not happy with the 310,000 lb in the infobox, because I believe that was written with the assumption I gave above in mind (heaviest spacecraft with all fuel burned, not including the stage and tankage and engines), and that's what I think the average Wikipedia reader assumes when looking at it. At least the number agrees with, and is close to, the explanation given in the intro text as to what it includes. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• Added an exact explanation from "Alternatives for Future U.S. Space-Launch Capabilities", how the payload of 140mt was calculated. --Alogrin (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

As for "what the documented sources actually say" - the planner is a Primary source (as well as Saturn 5 launch vehicle flight evaluation report, AS-510, Apollo 15 mission, Saturn 5 launch vehicle flight evaluation report-AS-511 Apollo 16 mission and Saturn 5 Launch Vehicle Flight Evaluation Report-AS-512 Apollo 17 Mission). WP:ANALYSIS states, that "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources". Government documents include the necessary analyses from the original data, which definitely makes them Secondary sources. --Alogrin (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

For the record, those evaluation reports are stating in tables 16-5/16-6, that the actual "TOTAL VEHICLE" masses during those 3 missions at the engine end-decay moment were: 310,717 pounds (140,939 kg) (Apollo 15, p. 228), 308,813 pounds (140,075 kg) (Apollo 16, p. 252) and 310,618 pounds (140,894 kg) (Apollo 17, pp. 231-232). --Alogrin (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The Saturn V Payload Planner's guide was printed in 1965, before the vehicle ever flew, and before the vehicle upgrades that constituted most of the missions. The Boeing/NASA Saturn V News Reference (from 1968, after several flights) states the LEO payload capability as 280,000 lb: Boeing/NASA Saturn V News Reference.

In fact there is no single completely definitive LEO payload figure for several reasons (some already discussed): The vehicle was upgraded significantly over its operational life, and in three-stage form was not optimized for a deployable LEO payload. In the two-stage form (sometimes called INT-21) which launched Skylab, the stated LEO payload capacity was 255,000 lb: Saturn INT-21. That vehicle is generally considered a Saturn V. The total Skylab LEO payload was less because it was launched to a 270 mile altitude, not the normally-quoted 100 nautical mile altitude for minimal LEO insertion. But the Saturn V which launched Skylab had an approx 255,000 lb LEO payload capability -- and that's a functional, deployable, general-purpose payload.

As already stated, on Apollo 15 the three stage Saturn V did put a 310,717 lb functional, useful payload into orbit. This is no different than any other launcher which delivers a LEO payload consisting of a satellite and booster rocket to later reach a higher geosynchronous orbit. From the standpoint of launcher specs, they all deliver a functional payload to LEO; the fact the satellite is eventually headed for a higher orbit doesn't change that. It's not like the shuttle external tank which is essentially delivered to orbit but is not functional. The entire vehicle stack consisting of the S-IVB and spacecraft were fully functional payload used to achieve the lunar mission.

That said, the Saturn V could not deliver any random 310,000 lb payload to LEO, so as "LEO payload" is more commonly described it could be misleading to state this number as the general capability. However the INT-21 version of the Saturn V could deliver 255,000 lb to a 100nm LEO. Since the Skylab launch vehicle is generally called a Saturn V, it would not be incorrect to state 255,000 lb as the maximum general-purpose LEO payload. OTOH that was was a special two-stage version used only on that mission, although it was planned for other missions including the cancelled second Skylab mission. That Skylab was actually built and is now in the Smithsonian.

Our goal should be state the number we know most correctly describes the truthful capability as normally understood by most readers, and which has a credible corroborative reference. I think the 260,000 lb number is clearly wrong as it does not reflect most of the vehicles as flown. The 310,000 lb number should not be used, even though it is technically accurate in a narrow sense. The 255,000 lb number for the INT-21 version is accurate with the proviso it's the two-stage version.

The very term "LEO payload" is a poor fit for the three-stage Saturn V since it was not intended to launch general-purpose LEO payloads. If the hypothetical job was launching to LEO the heaviest functional satellite possible on a three-stage Saturn V (in place of the Apollo Spacecraft), they would have partially fueled the 3rd stage and traded that weight savings for increased payload. That was about 162,000 lb of propellant used for the Trans Lunar Injection Burn (see above-referenced Saturn V Apollo 15 Flight Evaluation Report). The total spacecraft weight on Apollo 15 was 117,127 lb, so the true max payload LEO capability for a three-stage Saturn V was roughly 162,000+117,127 lb or about 279,000 lb. Interestingly this is very close to the 280,000 lb figure from the above Boeing/NASA News Reference.

In general I'd recommend using the 280,000 lb figure, along with an asterisked 255,000 lb figure for the Saturn V INT-21 version. The 280,000 lb figure seems closer to the actual capability and is closer to correct than the 260,000 lb figure, and at least there is an official reference for it. Joema (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• The weight of 280,000 lb has the same set of problems, as 260,000 lb: 1) it was estimated too early, in a year 1968; the final Saturn V upgrades happened after a 1971 launch of Apollo 14; 2) it was reported in a primary source; 3) there are 2 other sources (recent and secondary), that are stating 140 mt, as a payload.

The fact, that Boeing/NASA(1968) estimations are close to actual Apollo+propellant weight in 1971 (which they couldn't know in 1968 and which was definitely less then 280,000 at that time) is more alarming, then comforting - it means, then the actual lift capacity of a "heaviest functional satellite possible" to LEO in 1971 by Saturn V had to be even bigger. --Alogrin (talk) 08:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

As already stated, the LEO payload of Saturn V or any other launcher depends on how that is defined, and the credibility/source of the number. If we simply mean total mass delivered to LEO, the highest payload mission was Skylab which delivered the entire orbital workshop plus the empty S-II 2nd stage to LEO. This was 325,247 lbs, as measured by instrumentation and available in the Saturn/Apollo Flight Evaluation Guide for that mission. However the spent 2nd stage was not useful payload.

For the case of a lunar mission, the entire 310,717 lb vehicle mass delivered to LEO on Apollo 15 was useful payload, and from that standpoint it counts as payload. That figure was also determined by actual measurement so would trump any other spec or prediction. However if the goal is state a general-purpose LEO payload figure, that would not count.

The above-stated 140 metric ton figure is likewise not accurate from the standpoint of a general-purpose functional payload. This was clearly stated in CBO: Alternatives for Space Launch Vehicles, where the footnote on page 4 said: "140 mt is the weight of the Apollo 17 command-and-service modules, the lunar module, the spacecraft/lunar module adapter, the instrument unit, and the S-IVB stage (the third stage of the Saturn V), including the fuel remaining in that stage needed to propel the Apollo command-and-service modules and lunar module from low earth orbit to the moon."

In general LEO payload specs (or any other specs) are stated for reasons of comparison. We can add other documented payload numbers for special cases (provided those are spelled out), but the main number should be whatever the common usage is. Within that usage we can use whatever credible documented number we think best reflects reality. That is not publishing original research, it is simply being diligent about using references. The 260,000 lb number is definitely wrong as it was printed before the vehicle ever flew and before the upgrades were done. The 280,000 lb number is not perfect either but it is likely more accurate than the 260,000 lb number. We know from subtracting the SIV-B propellant mass used on the TLI burn, this yields a number very close to 280,000 lb. IOW they could have flown the Saturn V with a partially-fueled SIV-B and traded that weight savings for additional payload mass to LEO. That is not publishing original research it is trying to select the best already-published number. Maybe there is a better number somewhere with a credible reference, but I don't know what that is. Joema (talk) 14:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The number 280,000 lb in that Boeing/NASA(1968) paper is aligned with a weight of 100,000 lb to Moon. The actual maximum weight launched to Moon was 107,161 lb, which proportionally gives about 280,000*1.07161=300,050 lb to LEO. I would say that an estimated weight should be increased even more due to a lower orbit (90nm instead of 100nm or 115 statute-miles in that document). In other words those Boeing/NASA(1968) estimations are in line with actual LEO weights (~310,000 lb) during in the last 3 flights.

Also, since a lift-off of 310,000 lb to LEO required only about 30% of the fuel, a S-IVB stage with a J-2 engine were too powerful for for a optimum LEO deliver. A smaller stage, with a smaller dry weight, could do the same job and also increase a payload. --Alogrin (talk) 06:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• All the citations of how a payload is calculated for Saturn V in a reliable secondary source ("Alternatives for Future U.S. Space-Launch Capabilities"), are provided at the beginning of this discussion. So far we don't have any other definition of a payload, that is coming from a reliable source. Our own ways to do it - are an original research --Alogrin (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Alogrin: you can wave "reliable secondary source" in my face all you want; I don't care if the source is the Pope, or his equivalent in the Eastern Orthodox church, or Sergei Korolev returned from the dead. The policy and its supporting guidelines say that being published in a "reliable source" is a necessary condition for inclusion, but is not sufficient in any and all circumstances. The Template:infobox rocket payload parameter is labled "Capacity" to a specific regime; this by common sense and logic, means the maximum capability burning all the available propellant to the given location. There is no way the mass of the vehicle in a temporary LEO parking orbit before a translunar injection mission, with unburned fuel is representative of the LEO capacity. In this case the CBO does not know what it is talking about (and that certainly wouldn't be the first time), and picked this number simply because it was easily available.

• I have never, ever advocated original research to get this number. Since there is no reliable source we can get our hands on which gives the LEO capacity as finally developed, the only honest answer we can put in the infobox field is "we don't know". And since that's obviously not the right way to write the Wikipedia, the only alternative is to leave the infobox field blank.
• And doing this does not in any way suppress or discount the CBO's notation that that was the mass in orbit on the Apollo missions; this fact is still included with the appropriate notations in the article text. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

You can see in the header of the CBO document, that "representatives from several U.S. aerospace companies and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration" provided comments on an earlier draft, so NASA supervised this document. And the "Report of the Synthesis Group on America's Space Exploration Initiative" - is a combined work from NASA and gov specialist.

As for the phrase "it was never used to its maximum low Earth orbit (LEO) payload capacity" - this is definitely an original research (or there are sources, that support such statement?). And the same is the requirement "maximum capability burning all the available propellant to the given location" - there was unburned propellant even on the leg to Moon to return the CM back. --Alogrin (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, I just re-read the article as currently written and since all the payload numbers are qualified with explanatory verbiage, it seems OK. My above statements were assuming we wanted to state a single non-qualified number, the way most articles do for most launchers. In that case the implied definition of "payload" should match the generally understood meaning, which is general-purpose functional payload. It still might seem a little confusing to some readers of other articles which are not as meticulously written. Their viewpoint might be "I just want to see the payload number, like all the other articles about rockets". The answer is there is no single payload number, and those other books and articles are simply over-simplifying things by implying there is. At least here you have qualified each one, defining what type of payload capacity. Joema (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Joema: I'm disappointed in you giving in so easily; I infer from your posts above that you and I are in essential agreement about the meaning of "payload capacity to LEO", and that the mass of Apollo 15 in its parking orbit before translunar injection does not in any way, shape or form, represent the true maximum LEO payload capacity of the Saturn V. And "we" are not in agreement on this point; only Alogrin insists on using the CBO's definition of LEO capacity in the infobox field. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

First, thanks to everyone for all the work done on this. It would be easy to just cut and paste some number but not necessarily the right thing. I agree that IF the article described "payload capacity to LEO" in non-qualified terms, that would be misleading. However the article has now been changed to qualify each time "payload" is mentioned, and it includes multiple payload figures including the original *estimate* of 261,000 pounds. It is not wrong as written, and much more diligence has been devoted to this than most other articles and books. In many of those the author lazily cuts/pastes from some source without thought. This is how errors and wrong ideas propagate -- some source, somewhere prints something then everyone else cuts and pastes. Meticulously scouring all references, educating one's self about the content, and trying to determine which best represents the facts is not publishing original research, it is simply doing due diligence.

More recent references for other launch vehicles sometimes use the term "useful load mass" and differentiate it from "payload" which (in some contexts) may include non-useful mass. For example see the Delta IV Heavy Payload Planner's Guide, page 2-10, "Useful Load Mass and Payload Mass".

The article as written does not represent the max general-purpose LEO payload as 310,000 lbs. It is appropriately qualified or foot-noted. However the infobox -- if read hurriedly -- could lead to a wrong impression. If the 310,000 lb figure alone is retained in the infobox, I'd suggest the description read: "Payload to LEO (lunar mission only). That was all fully-functional, useful payload but only in the context of a lunar mission.

The problem is we don't have good, authoritative numbers for LEO useful load mass which properly reflect the vehicle's capability on AS-510 (Apollo 15) and later. The 261,000 lb number is clearly wrong if stated as a capability spec for the Saturn V in general. The article does not do that. Upon further thought, the 280,000 lb number from the 1968 Boeing/NASA News Reference is also not the useful load mass to LEO -- it was the total payload mass to LEO including the SIV-B 3rd stage. We know that because the Apollo 8 Flight Evaluation Report shows that number (280,000 lb) for the entire vehicle in LEO.

The fact the LEO total payload increased from 280,000 lb to 310,000 lb from Apollo 8 to 15 shows how much the vehicle was upgraded, or else operated with reduced margins. Those are published numbers from actual flight instrumentation. That is a 10.7% increase. If we believe the 261,000 lb was in fact accurate LEO useful load mass in the early missions, then a 10.7% increase would be 288,927 lbs. Of course we can't publish that number but we can use it to guide our selection of published numbers, even if that entails *not* publishing a number we know to be wrong or misleading. It seems likely Saturn V AS-510 and later had a useful payload mass to LEO of at least 280,000 lbs, but we can't publish that unless we find it in some credible source. Joema (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• Just to confirm: Report to the Congress, 1967, President, NASA, p. 4: "on November 9, 1967, a 280,000-pound APOLLO payload was launched into orbit by a SATURN V rocket". --Alogrin (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

That's not what it says; page 4 only says "SATURN V ... placed an APOLLO spacecraft into orbit" without a weight number. Page 1 gives the weight: "a record 278,699-pound payload". JustinTime55 (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I think we are talking about two different documents. Here is anothe copy of a Report to the Congress from The President of the United States. United States Aeronautics and Space Activities 1967., 5th page of PDF file with a number "3" at the bottom. I would assume that 278,699-pound payload is more precise. --Alogrin (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

No, "we" aren't talking about two different documents; you're the one who posted the original. I assumed "p.4" meant the document page 4, not the PDF sheet number. I missed the 280,000 number, which is on the first of two unnumbered pages (President LBJ's summary). The other number is not "precise"; 1 pound in 278,700 is not significant. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

All those 279k lb and 280k lb numbers from 1967 and 1968 are referring to the total orbited mass (inc'l partially fueled S-IVB), not the general-purpose useful load mass. We know this because the Report to the Congress number of 278,699 is almost identical to the 278,940 lb figure from the Evaluation Report AS-501 Apollo 4 Mission , on page 21-11, table 21-6, Total Vehicle Mass -- S-IVB First Burn Phase (Pounds Mass), line "Total Vehicle", column "Insertion (End of thrust decay start coast)".

Even if some of those 280k lb numbers are close to the actual useful load of Apollo 15 and later, we cannot use those for general-purpose useful load mass. At the time they were issued, the 280k lb numbers were clearly total orbited payload. We cannot reinterpret those to mean useful load mass, even if by coincidence they are close to the useful load mass of Apollo 15 and later. Joema (talk) 11:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• I think I'm ready to summarize arguments towards considering the 3rd stage at the moment of LEO insertion, as a payload:

1. It was considered (directly or indirectly) as a payload in several NASA, government, airspace companies documents (Report to the Congress from The President of the United States. United States Aeronautics and Space Activities 1967., Boeing/NASA Saturn V News Reference, Alternatives for Future U.S. Space-Launch Capabilities);
2. I didn't see yet any documents, related to Saturn V lunches, that are excluding the weight of a third stage at LEO insertion from the payload;
3. The "guilt" of a 3rd stage (why there are even doubts about considering it, as a payload) - is a dual usage of its hardware (dry weight), because it was used for insertion into LEO and then again - for insertion into TLI. Generally speaking, it's not that big of a crime - electronics inside the payload might be used during the ascending into LEO, but it is still considered as a payload. Rocket engines of orbital objects, that are used for orbit corrections are commonly considered as a part of payload.
4. The term "Useful Load Mass" from Delta IV Heavy Payload Planner's Guide is defined in that document, as "PAF Mass" + "Payload Mass", where "PAF Mass" is a "Payload Attach Fittings", or "the mechanical interface between the payload and the launch vehicle". Of course it's necessary for ascending stages to deliver a payload along with PAF till the point of separation (probably close to the point of an orbit insertion), but after that point those PAF are no longer useful. In those terms, a Saturn V Instrument Unit became a part of that "Useful Load Mass" at the moment TLI insertion, but at LEO insertion it was still a part of the payload to LEO.
5. It's not necessary for a launch system to delivery a general type of cargo to the orbit. It might be specialized and optimized for a very specific type of cargo, but still that cargo on the orbit would constitute a "payload". In our case a cargo, delivered during the 1st leg to LEO was Apollo with a 3rd stage, filled by propellant at about 72% (which is currently explained in the article).
6. Please, check arguments on this page (search for "Regarding the Saturn V LEO payload questions"). They are partially similar to the ones, that were already mentioned in this discussion, though I think there are some clarifications.

--Alogrin (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to that page, but they did not cover this issue as stringently as we already did here. They did not even reference the Flight Evaluation Reports, that is the ultimate authority -- actual instrumented data.

This comes down to how "payload" is defined, and for what purpose. In general when referring to LEO payload a reader wants to know this for comparison to other launchers. My understanding is most of these numbers are useful payload -- IOW if a satellite customer approached the launcher company and asked "how heavy a satellite can will your launcher place in LEO?" They want to know the actual useful payload, not 3rd stage, fairings, etc. Unfortunately launch vehicle manufacturers are often not precise in their public information about how they define useful payload. Likewise writers of Wikipedia and other publications are not careful about using these numbers (except in this current article). It takes a lot of dedication, work and study, and the writers are often in a hurry and not focused on quality.

For example a current heavy-lift launcher that is often compared to the Saturn V is the SpaceX Falcon 9 Heavy. It has a published LEO payload of 116,845 lb: Falcon 9 Heavy But is the total useful payload? Does it include the fairing, or payload attachment fittings? They don't say. The authors of the Wikipedia article just blindly cut and pasted from that number, rounding it up to 117,000 lb in the process: Falcon Heavy

As you mentioned, the Delta IV Launch Services User's Guide is more specific. However this accuracy was not brought forward into the Wikipedia article on Delta IV Heavy. They just stated LEO payload was 63,470 lbs, which the User's Guide says includes the Payload Attach Fitting, hence it can't really orbit 63,470 lb of useful payload.

That said it is perfectly valid to state in some places the Saturn V LEO useful payload is 310,000 lb -- provided we always denote that as applying to a lunar mission only. That was a fully functional, useful payload for that mission class. The heaviest payload (functional or not) that any Saturn V delivered to orbit was Skylab (SA-513), which injected to LEO the entire orbital workshop plus the empty S-II 2nd stage. This was 325,247 lbs, as measured by instrumentation and available in the Saturn/Apollo Flight Evaluation Guide for that mission. However the spent 2nd stage was not useful payload.

The above LEO payload numbers of current heavy lift launchers like Falcon 9 Heavy and Delta IV Heavy are mostly trying to describe useful LEO payload, with varying degrees of precision. It makes sense to try and provide a similar number for the Saturn V. However that is difficult (maybe impossible) to state because that was not the Saturn V primary mission. It was definitely more than 260,000 lbs, since those numbers were either estimations before the vehicle flew and was upgraded, or are blind copy/pastes of that by people who did not vet the numbers. The actual LEO general-purpose useful payload for Saturn Vs used on Apollo 15 and later was probably at least 280,000 lbs. However we cannot publish that without a credible reference which is specifically describing general-purpose LEO useful payload. Joema (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to add to what Joema said, and talk a bit about how this affects Wiki articles. Not only is "useful payload" not usually described, as Joema says, but the precise orbit used isn't usually described either. A Falcon Heavy's ~53 LEO tonne payload has some big caveats: it's to a 185km high drag orbit with zero inclination change. It's just as bad with the GTO specs (21.5 tonnes), which are to GTO-1800m/s, while some other rockets list their GTO payload mass to GTO-1500m/s. Big difference. Rarely does anyone clarify what, exactly, they mean by "payload to LEO" or "payload to GTO".

The Falcon Heavy (and Falcon 9, to a lesser extent) also has an issue of not having its public stats updated as design changes to the rocket are made. The rocket was originally a ~35 tonne to LEO rocket (based on the never flown Falcon 9v1.0 block2 with the Merlin 1C+), which became the 53 tonne to LEO monster currently talked about (based on the Falcon 9 v1.1 with the Merlin 1D and crossfeed), which became the current ~60 tonne to LEO version (based on the F9FT with the Merlin 1D+ without crossfeed). The last version doesn't have well sourced specs yet, so it doesn't exist on Wikipedia. But the version that does exist on Wikipedia is known to have been cancelled and superseded.

All of this has led to articles like Comparison of orbital launch systems, which has serious issues because rocket manufacturers can't agree on a standard format to release information in. And even if there was a standard format for specs, they aren't required to release that information on current or past rockets. While it is possible to at least roughly translate a payload launched from Siberia directly into GEO into a form where it can be directly compared with a rocket whose listed payload is derived from launching at the equator into a SSO, the math necessary to do so counts as original research, so we can't even do that. I wish a respectable site would do this type of OR so we can use it as a source.

The whole thing is just annoying, leading to poor quality rocketry articles. — Gopher65_talk 22:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Comparison with N1 soviet rocket

This section mentions that Korolev was instrumental in the development of the N1 and specifically the clustering the 30 small engines. Wasn't Korolev suffering ill health at this time and not really involved in the N1 development, hence its failure?82.47.31.154 (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

The N1 was Korolev's "baby". He was deeply involved over its developmental life. The actual chief designer of the N1 was OKB-1 Deputy Chief Designer Sergey Kryukov, who worked under Korolev. Due to lack of funding, the N1 first stage could not be ground tested. The obvious step would be flight test the 1st stage alone with dummy upper stages. It was Korolev's decision to do "all up" test flights with all stages active, which increased the chance of a total disaster.

As with any large engineering project, the design must be finalized long before construction and testing. Korolev himself wanted fewer, more powerful closed-cycle LOX/kerosene 1st stage engines, vs his competitor Valentin Glushko who advocated more conservative hypergolic engines. Due to this disagreement, Glushko (the most experienced engine designer) refused to develop more powerful LOX/kerosene engines for the N1. This forced Korolev to use 30 of the less-powerful NK-15 LOX/kerosene on the N1 1st stage.

Korolev's deteriorating health in 1965 and death in 1966 does not change that fact that all major decisions on the N1 were ultimately his, including the decision to use 30 LOX/kerosene NK-15 engines. Those decisions were made and locked in long before 1965. These are all discussed in the book Challenge to Apollo by Asif A. Siddiqi Joema (talk) 13:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Apollo 13 not considered a partial failure?

The sidebar states that 12 of the 13 Saturn V launches were successes, with Apollo 6 as the only partial failure. Shouldn't Apollo 13 also be considered a partial failure? Apollo 13 is also considered a full failure on the Apollo Program page. 75.129.9.104 (talk) 14:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Not on an article about the launcher it shouldn't. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Saturn V. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721080114/https://mira.hq.nasa.gov/history/ws/hdmshrc/all/main/DDD/17978.PDF to https://mira.hq.nasa.gov/history/ws/hdmshrc/all/main/DDD/17978.PDF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Units

I am deeply concerned about the use of ancient, useless and confusing units of imperial origin (lb, ft, slug-ft?) for scientific articles. I think Wikipedia should enforce the use of SI ONLY units all around the site. The place for such historical units is on historical pages as history of science and measurements. I consider all XX and XXI science recent not historical for the purpose of this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.232.232.142 (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Saturn V. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101120125715/http://boeing.com/history/boeing/saturn.html to http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/saturn.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111007153222/http://astronautix.com/lvs/saturnv.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/saturnv.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.apollosaturn.com/sibnews/sec5

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

LEGO set as a see also or popular/media instance

LEGO has released an impressive Saturn V building set (#21309) that stands a meter tall (1:110 scale) and separates into the stages and holds the landing module also. https://shop.lego.com/en-US/product/LEGO-NASA-Apollo-Saturn-V-21309 Would it make sense to include this information in the article? Geodude86 (talk) 14:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Highlight these numbers?

All masses in metric tons (1000kg)

1st Stage

• Mass empty: 287
• Mass full: 5,040
• Mass % Fuel: 95%

2nd stage

• mass empty: 88.4
• Mass full: 1,093
• Mass% Fuel: 92%

3rd Stage

• mass empty: 29.7
• mass full: 271
• Mass% fuel: 89.1%

With each stage broken out in its own section, I think probably few people realize that for each stage, 90-95% of the weight was fuel.

Just a suggestion,

Riventree (talk) 05:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

The best place to mention it is in text - eg as for first stage it says "Most of its mass at launch was propellant". Including such a line talking about the whole craft in the introductory paragraphs of the article would not be out of place. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, your math seems a little bit off (if your mass numbers are accurate): for the first stage, I get 1 - 287 / 540 = 94.3%, and for the third stage 1 - 29.7 / 271 = 89.0%. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Hatnote cleanup

This text is currently in a hat note at the top of the article "song by Inspiral Carpets, see Devil Hopping."

Is the "song by Inspiral Carpets, see Devil Hopping.", by a minor indie band from the 1990s worthy of a hat note mention at the top of this article? The album that is given in the link, Devil Hopping, has very poor sourcing and is of questionable notability.

Proposed: Make Saturn 5 a disambig page with links to any and all articles that might be called "Saturn 5" or "Saturn V", and remove the hat note from this article.

SUPPORT, per nom and rationale above. N2e (talk) 02:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

AGREE, not noteworthy enough for a hatnote. Odds are low someone would come here looking for that. @Jorgicio: do you have anything to say to defend the hatnote you added? JustinTime55 (talk) 14:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

If there are more pages with references to "Saturn 5" or "Saturn V" (thing I don't know further the song and the rocket themselves), the disambiguation page would be a good idea instead of the hatnote. Also, "Saturn 5" is the most known song by Inspiral Carpets, so that's why I added the hatnote. But the disambig page would be great if there are many references.Jorgicio (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Discrepancies on Sidebar Notes on stage S-IC

The first stage specs in the sidebar contains small discrepancies with whate is stated in the page S-IC , maybe a possible improvement by someone with knowledge could be an explanation or correction ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.241.48.209 (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Copyedit request for GA nomination

Hey, The4lines. I finished up the copyedit for this article. The article has a lot of detail, so I don't have many content concerns in terms of tone. You may want to think about addressing these before nominating it for GA:

• After assembly was completed, the entire stack was moved from the VAB to the launch pad using the Crawler Transporter (CT). What's the VAB?

Y Done

• For the first two uncrewed 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. Since "positive acceleration" was mentioned, was there a chance for it to accelerate backwards?

N no there is no chance.

 Done. Reworded it slightly. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Best of luck! —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu Done, Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 17:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@The4lines: I think my work here is done. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Italics for spacecraft

@JustinTime55: MOS:ITALICS says: 'Italics should be used for... ...Spacecraft (including fictional): the Space Shuttle Challenger, Gaia satellite, USS Enterprise NCC-1701, Constitution-class starships. Do not italicize a mission, series, or class except where it coincides with a craft's name: the Eagle was the Apollo 11 lunar lander; Voyager 2 was launched as part of the Voyager program.' As 'Sputnik 1' is the name of the satellite, and 'Buran' is the name given by the Soviets to their spaceplane with Buran, their reusable spacecraft project, I'm not sure why you reverted me. Happy to be corrected. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

We have always had a consensus in WP Spaceflight that named serial space craft, e.g. Apollo 4, 5, 6; Vostok 1, 2, 3,...; Sputnik, and Voyager are not "named vessels" as defined in the MOS guideline. This is what gives named space vessels such as Enterprise, Eagle, Friendship 7, etc. their special meaning. (Skylab and Mir are probably borderline cases, but qualify as they were unique space stations.) Someone went and changed the MOS guideline without consensus. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@JustinTime55: Thanks, that's worth knowing, as the editor I'm reviewing—who wants to work on other space-related articles— may not realise the consensus that was reached. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Super heavy-lift launch vehicles.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Saturn V still the most powerful and tallest operational rocket

There's been a lot of excitement over the recent stacking of the SpaceX Starship prototype Ship 20/Booster 4 in Boca Chica, Texas, and there have been an number of edits to this Wikipedia page claiming that the Saturn V have been surpassed in in being the tallest and most powerful operational rocket. This is simply not true, as the first Starship orbital test vehicle has not launched yet, let alone brought to an operational status. When Starship launches an operational payload, then it can be said that it has beaten the Saturn V in being the tallest and most powerful operational rocket ever flown. I suggest reverting the article. user:FossilDS 13:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@FossilDS When you say "ever built", that means that Starship is the tallest rocket ever fully constructed. It is not operational yet, but has been built. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 22:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)