Talk:Saturn V dynamic test vehicle

for future expansion

This seems like an excellent candidate for future expansion. Between NASA archives, local press, and several books, there are sufficient sources to strongly expand this text. Also, with the recent building of a new exhibit building for the Saturn V at the U.S. Space and Rocket Center, there is more recent history (especially the restoration) to be covered with its own attendant sourcing and photographs. - Dravecky (talk) 23:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I think a very good article can be created out of this one. Hint. Hint. ;) If not, maybe I'll get around to it one day, but you're the better author. Altairisfar_talk 00:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Restoration

Added initial section covering restoration of the vehicle. There may be some sound of self-promotion/AD with reference to Conservation Solutions, especially with the reference material being their website. This was not my intent. Would appreciate any help revising that.--Crkey (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see anything wrong with it. I liked how you included the picture of the Davidson Center. I didn't much like what happened to it when I added another picture. -- ke4roh (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Look here!

http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/saturn_apollo/display.html - good article & PD-USGov-NASA -- ke4roh (talk) 03:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

"The first"

The Saturn V displayed at Marshall was not the first to be built. It was built from several test components. The second stage was from AS-500 which I believe was the first Saturn V to be fully assembled. I'm not sure where the other parts came from, but since the second stage had already been used on AS-500, it can't possibly have been the first. --GW… 18:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I accept that "the first" is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. (I didn't write it myself; just found it there when I came upon this article and haven't dug any further than to find the piece from MSFC historian Mike Wright.) From [1] I take that this rocket is SA-500-D. It was used as an entire assembly for dynamic testing, and that it was assembled before any other Saturn V because they wanted to verify that it didn't shake apart before building more. On the other hand, the other two Saturn Vs on display at KSC and JSC were certainly cobbled together from spare parts. See the notes I added on Saturn V#Saturn V vehicles and launches regarding the locations of certain remaining stages. -- ke4roh (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

GW - I just realized I completely removed your citation needed notation, that was not intended, just over zealous mouse highlight. My take from the MSFC article Ke4roh mentioned, as well as the National Historic Landmark register entry [2], was that this was the first vehicle.

Perhaps some of this can be settled with an article rename. I am not sure yet if any of the other vehicles have their own pages; however, the noteworthy fact for me is that it was the dynamic test vehicle, as well as they story/history which revolves around the artifact. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crkey (talk • contribs) 20:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I removed the citation needed upon figuring it was sufficiently referenced. Perhaps it's not. GW, do those references address your concerns about SA-500-D and the particular parts used in this assemblage? By your reckoning, is it impossible to have a "first" Saturn V because they are all just assemblages of stages, or would you say that another was "first"? I haven't gone so far as to check manufacture and delivery dates of the stages. That'll be next :) -- ke4roh (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I've been doing some background research on this as well, and my understanding now is that the first and third stages were built for SA-500-D, and the second stage was originally built as part of SA-500-F (which I mistakenly called "AS-500" above), being converted to become part of SA-500-D when SA-500-D's original second stage was destroyed. Either way, calling it the first could be a little misleading since it neither used live components or flew, some people may be looking for the first Saturn V to fly, AS-501. I'm happy for the claims that it was the first to remain in the text since they can be qualified and referenced, however I am concerned about using it as the title. How about renaming the article SA-500-D? --GW… 21:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I like it. Wright gives its designation as SA-500D, so I would recommend going with that punctuation. I do prefer the shorter name as it's much more descriptive, less contentious, and quite to the point. On the other hand, we must be extra-careful to see that people can find the article. None except us three and a few dozen more space enthusiasts would think to try out SA-500D for a title. I recommend a redirect from SA-500-D. I found this one on a map, actually, and added links to it from a few other places. Crkey? -- ke4roh (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done. I've moved the article and created the requested redirect. We should probably create an article for SA-500F as well. --GW… 22:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow. I am impressed by the speed you all moved on this. I have been thinking about this article and where it should go. There was a good bit of new processes and machinery developed for Saturn, which is neither mentioned here or on the Saturn V page (other than perhaps a general statement that new tech was developed). Examples: new processes for handling such a large endeavor, the transporters (the blue cradles on the Huntsville exhibit) were themselves a piece of work, guppies and specialized barges, the test stands themselves, etc. I am not sure if those items necessarily fit here, probably the main Saturn V page. Other thought I had involves the images. There are several images, perhaps not necessarily of SA-500D, but of the various tests themselves. There is one I have in mind of the first stage being towed through a road gate and down a street. Not many people will understand "dynamic tests". Would it be appropriate to go into that here, perhaps with a small gallery of example tests that were performed? Also, found the following resource [3] "SP-4206 Stages to Saturn", which looks to be a close-out report written in 1979 for the history of the entire Saturn program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crkey (talk • contribs) 02:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Great! Continued... -- ke4roh (talk) 12:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done I created SA-500F to collect all the great pictures and stories of that fine piece of hardware. -- ke4roh (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

What's next?

...Too many indents :) There's an article already for the dynamic test stand and two others. [4] I have not yet put the pieces together to figure out what parts were tested on what stands at what times. With the renaming, it changes the focus of the article a little, to be more about the test article than about the thing on display in Huntsville, so we should flush out the part about why it's museum-worthy. I'd like to see much more about the tests, more details on the components, and as much as possible, attribute pictures to the actual parts in them. I'll work on it as I'm able, but not many spare minutes in a day! -- ke4roh (talk) 12:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I added some history of testing. I'd really like to see a video clip from [5] from about 5:02 to 6:21, but the transcoding and editing are a little beyond me. -- ke4roh (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I learned a bit about video editing and bought the Mighty Saturns Saturn V set which has several of the quarterly reports. I'll probably re-visit this video, but what we've got now is a good start! -- ke4roh (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:SA-500D/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ankit Maity 10:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi ke4roh,

Thanks for your nomination. I have selected it as a good article because it had enough info and everything was well balanced. Thanks.--Ankit Maity 10:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy / completeness concern

Forgive me if this is in the wrong place; I don't fully understand the GA nomination process. Copying comments I entered in the reasessment, which I still understand to be pending:

I agree these assessments are sometimes given too casually, and I have a couple of accuracy/completeness concerns:

• The term "Apollo module" was used inappropriately; such a term was never used in this sense by NASA engineering and seems to reflect a lack of knowledge about the Apollo spacecraft, which consisted of two separate vehicles: the Command/Service Module, and the Lunar Module. I've fixed the references by changing "Apollo module" to "Apollo spacecraft".
• Corrective action: It isn't clear from the information given in this article (or the sources cited), whether or not the BP-27 accounted for the Lunar Module mass (which would have been necessary for an accurate dynamic test of the complete vehicle.) Unfortunately there don't seem to be any pictures available of exactly what BP-27 looked like. The LM was usually simulated by a LM Test Article (LTA) (such as that carried on the Apollo 6 and Apollo 8 flights), which would have been a separate piece of hardware carried inside the SLA. We should find out whether or not the LM was accounted for, and state it in the article one way or another.

Other than this, it qualifies as at least B class. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Follow-up at Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/SA-500D/1#Detailed_comments. -- ke4roh (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Picture(s) of SA-500D in Dynamic Test Stand

MHR-5 part 7 contains a free picture, figure 323, of SA-500D in the test stand, but it suffers from a bad moiré pattern in the sky to the left. There are probably other pictures, but I don't know where. -- ke4roh (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Found some at USSRC.ke4roh (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Buckbee says

I spoke to Ed Buckbee, first USSRC director and friend of von Braun. He insisted that the first stage on display was S-IC-T. He said, "Do you think von Braun would let that T-bird out of town? Of course not!" He also told of how they brought it up from MTF. "Winter is wrong." Not sure what to make of that.ke4roh (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Casebolt, Barry J. (1974-03-18). "Headed for Flordia Museum - Veteran Moon Rocket Booster Leaves MSFC". The Huntsville (Alabama, USA) Times. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help) says S-IC-T was taken from the test stand in 1974 and shipped to Florida, so it must not have been on display at USSRC from 1969 to the present. -- ke4roh (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The vehicle displayed in the US Space and Rocket Center is not the DTV.

The vehicle displayed in the USSRC Davidson Center is not the DTV. As shown in the picture the S-1C stage of the DTV had only one real engine. The other four were mass simulators. The S-1C stage in the USSRC has all five engines. The vehicle in the USSRC is known as the "Pathfinder," a vehicle that was built to prove the manufacturing tooling and processes before attempting to build a flight vehicle. The book, Stages to Saturn, by Roger Bielstein, confirms this. I was an engineer on the Saturn V and was very familiar with the DTV program. Also I visited the USSRC many times in the years before the Davidson Center was built, and during that time the vehicle laying on the ground was referrer to as the Pathfinder, a generic name for a vehicle built to prove the manufacturing processes. Unfortunately, the Davidson Center vehicle is on loan from the Smithsonian Institute and they have the name wrong. This the USSRC cannot correct the error. 136.53.32.78 (talk) 17:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)