Talk:Saturn V

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Saturn V article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 365 days

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Saturn V is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 10, 2004.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 17, 2004	Featured article candidate	Promoted
March 18, 2008	Featured article review	Demoted
July 27, 2020	Good article nominee	Not listed
June 2, 2022	Peer review	Reviewed
February 26, 2024	Good article nominee	Not listed
Current status: Former featured article

Rocketry Top‑importance

	Rocketry portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RocketryWikipedia:WikiProject RocketryTemplate:WikiProject RocketryRocketry articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	The topic of this article is rocket.

Spaceflight Top‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

National Register of Historic Places Mid‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

First stage manufacture

Shouldn't we highlight the fact that, though Boeing was chosen as the manufacturer of the S-IC, MSFC chose to build the first stage test articles and the first two flight stages itself, and that the flight stages after this were built by Boeing? (This is verified by the color coding in the recently added diagram.) I'm not quite sure where the best place is to insert this. What say you all? JustinTime55 (talk) 13:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Convert template usage

126 °F (52 °C) temperature difference between the two tanks.

A difference of 126x5/9= 70C exactly. Don’t consider the difference in the zero point. 2001:56A:712D:F700:94B9:4D92:3CCC:115E (talk) 02:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good catch; it's fixed now. Actually, the error was in misunderstanding how to use our Template:Convert on a temperature difference rather than a temperature. There's no need to be insulting about it, however. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, setting aside the gross incivility: Assume I'm a general reader here (I am a general reader here). 126 °F (52 °C) temperature difference between the two tanks. Please explain how a temperature difference is converted differently - or at least, how a general reader would understand this separate formula? It may be useful to provide some sort of footnote or link so that the general reader will understand it - because that's who we're writing for, not wonks.

By the way, 2001:56A:712D:F700:94B9:4D92:3CCC:115E, I wonder how many stone you weigh? cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should add, by the way: the reason I removed the edit was not solely because of the incivility: I did just what any average person would do, I plugged '126 degrees fahrenheit to celsius' into google, and it said '52 degrees'. So, based on being a general reader not a wonk, and this being a single contribution by an anon IP - it seemed to me to be just a weak attempt to screw with people. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:09, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Anastrophe, but I think you're the one being a jerk and poorly representing Wikipedia's collegiate atmosphere here; in good faith I'm assuming you're just a bit obtuse. The whole idea of the convert template is to be transparent, and just show the converted result without the reader having to know the math. The IP user 2001:56A did a fair job of explaining it.

If I say "One thing is 126° F hotter or cooler than another", that means to a European that it's 70° Celsius hotter or cooler. The transparent math, which the reader does not need to know, is:

126*(100/180) = 70. That's because there are 100 Celsius degrees, and 180 Fahrenheit degrees between freezing and boiling.

But if my thermometer reads 126° F, that's equal to a Celsius thermometer reading of 52.2°. The math in this case is a bit more complicated:

(126-32)*(100/180) = 52.2 because Fahrenheit freezes at 32° instead of 0°.

All you had to do would have been to read the Template:Convert doc page to learn how to fix the page. No footnotes or "wonk knowledge" necessary. You seem to be motivated to make things much more complicated than they need to be. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fight incivility with incivility. Got it. Do I have to repeat that I am a general reader? I don't give AF about all the math. I did what any average reader would do when presented with an IP editor - with only this single edit on wikipedia - whose first words are to insult an entire cohort of readers, then write "A difference of 126x5/9= 70C exactly. Don’t consider the difference in the zero point." which means absolutely nothing to someone who isn't a math wonk. So okay, great. I'm a stupid american. Laugh all you want. Generally speaking, gross incivility to the primary readership of en.wikipedia.org doesn't need to be given slack, particularly given the circumstances I've described. But again - fine, I'm "a jerk and poorly representing Wikipedia's collegiate(sic) atmosphere here". cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is a wonk, Anastrophe, since we are apparently not writing the encyclopedia for their benefit? I am unfamiliar with the term, math or otherwise, and google did not help. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 12:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dont bother, I tried google again without the typo, and it appears that it is a derogatory term. Labelling people with derogatory terms and dismissing them as irrelevant is a definite form of incivility. However you seem to refer to yourself with a similar lack of respect, so it is not clear what your intentions were. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 12:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Wonk" is only very minimally derogatory. Many people describe themselves or others as same when they are expert in something, things that other people might not even be aware of, or things that are arcane and unusual, sometimes for things they are avocationally inclined that others find it odd that they would be expert in without remuneration. I'm afraid I don't see where in my comment I dismissed them as irrelevant. One area of my expertise is self-deprecation. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's no more derogatory than nerd, a vice president has referred to himself as a wonk. It just means someone is a little bit pedantic about knowledge in a field in which they have interest or expertise.User:Pedant (talk) 09:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

S-II sequence

The text says:

For the first two uncrewed launches, eight solid-fuel ullage motors ignited for four seconds to accelerate the S-II stage, followed by the ignition of the five J-2 engines. For the first seven crewed Apollo missions only four ullage motors were used on the S-II, and they were eliminated for the final four launches.

I can't find any mention of the ullage motor being removed in the subsequent missions, in the reference given a few sentences after (https://web.archive.org/web/20150326211327/http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/saturn_apollo/documents/Second_Stage.pdf). LexisVD (talk) 12:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ullage motors are afaik reserved entirely for space, they are intended to move liquid propellant to one end of the tank so that it flows correctly. Only used in freefall. I don't know of any time it has been used on launch, it just wouldn't make any sense.User:Pedant (talk) 09:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Cold War Science

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 11 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Fappy45 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Fappy45 (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Skylab

As the vehicle that launched Skylab was radically different from the other vehicles (two stages v.s three stages (also the "third stage wasn't even based on the S-IVB 500)), should it be labeled as a different version, similar to the Falcon 9 page? Redacted II (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the engine not the vehicle stack.Not the right article for that issue I think.User:Pedant (talk) 09:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The vehicle that launched Skylab didn't have the third stage. So I think this is the right article. Redacted II (talk) 12:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add Starship as a comparable rocket?

Currently there are 3 rockets listed as comparable to Saturn V; N1 (never operational), Energia & SLS. Could/should we add "Starship (not operational)"? Considering N1 is on the list and it was never operational, I think it's reasonable for Starship to be on the list too. Chalyls (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo 7?

Why is there no mention of Apollo 7? It was an honest-to-god mission, not one that was skipped or discarded for some technical reason. 2601:18F:700:307:8CAC:4D51:9DCA:85D (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo 7 was launched with a Saturn IB, not a Saturn V. Allecher (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not relevant to this article. It goes in the Apollo constellation, but not Saturn.User:Pedant (talk) User:Pedant (talk) 09:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Named after Saturn

I am certain, having watched the design of most of the US space program from childhood in a family with a top level project engineer, that all of these craft were named after gods and not planets. I want to see a very credible source for Saturn 5 was named after the planet. see: Zeus, Nike, Apollo, Athena etc. named after gods. IMO it is an absolutely ridiculous assertion and not in any way factual except for the quibble that "the planet Saturn IS the god Saturn" which pffft, no. User:Pedant (talk) 09:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's Wernher von Braun on the name.

The program was named "Saturn" simply because Saturn was the next outer planet after Jupiter in the solar system.^[1]

Redraiderengineer (talk) 10:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Unsuccessful. Generalissima (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Saturn V/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 16:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cocobb8: Apologies; I'm going to have to quickfail this review as a drive-by nomination. The GA criteria explain that you need a fairly high percentage of authorship on the article to nominate it for GA status; an authorship breakdown shows that you currently have around 1%, much too low. Thank you for your enthusiasm for getting such vital topics to Good Articles, but please read through the criteria thoroughly before any nominations! Generalissima (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

^ von Braun, Wernher (1975). "Chapter 3: Saturn the Giant". In Cortright, Edgar (ed.). Apollo Expeditions to the Moon. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. p. 41. ISBN 978-99973-982-7-7.

Good Article Nomination

Hello everyone,

As you have probably seen, I recently submitted this article for GAN. However, it was quick-failed because I did not have enough authorship on the article, a criteria I was totally not aware of.

So, here's me tagging the contributors with more authorship on the article: @The4lines @CactiStaccingCrane @Enceladus @JustinTime55

What do you guys think? Would one of you like to resubmit Saturn V to GAN? I really think all the criteria is met, and if there's anything that needs to be improved, please mention it below . Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 11:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] von Braun, Wernher (1975). "Chapter 3: Saturn the Giant". In Cortright, Edgar (ed.). Apollo Expeditions to the Moon. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. p. 41. ISBN 978-99973-982-7-7.

[1]