Why The Engines That Flew On Saturn V Rocket Look Different In Museums

[@zerospampls3980]

“Industry standard Werner Von Braun for scale” And the best Qutoe 2019 goes to Scott Manley!

[@RealityIsTheNow]

Always an irritating photo, as Von Braun didn't design those engines. Rocketdyne's team did. He's posing in front of someone else's work. Same sort of thing Musk would do.

[@tinldw]

RealityIsTheNow although Elon Musk does participate in the development personally, he doesn't say that he made a car or a rocket or a spacecraft, he always gives the credit to the team. I don't know much about Von Braun's role, but at least you're wrong about that.

[@martinborgen]

@@RealityIsTheNow I never took it as von Braun taking credit for the engine - he's just posing by the "buissness end" of the Saturn V, which he did have the overall responisbility for, as far as I know.

[@RealityIsTheNow]

Sergey Von Braun was also mostly a management type. Irritating thing about Musk is that people WORSHIP him, and give him credit for the entire thing, despite the thousands of engineers who make it happen. Not necessarily Musk's fault, to be fair, the cultists and their nonsense.

[@cheesiechrist]

@@RealityIsTheNow Yikes. What an ill-informed comment. Von Braun was Chief Architect for the Saturn V, and I highly doubt that photo was him "taking credit" for anyone else's work. Not sure what throwing the Elon shade is about either.

[@ewanmurray153]

I kinda like that they don't have insulation in museums, it means you get to see all the amazing details underneath

[@linecraftman3907]

I mean , just have at least a piece of it

[@liaminwales]

@@linecraftman3907 health and safety maybe as it's "Asbestos", or maybe it's just something that has been forgotten or hides the beauty of the engine ? or simply just cost of adding a fake Asbestos free dummy version & braking the realism?

[@zuthalsoraniz6764]

That's probably the reason they left it off, the F1 engine without the insulation definitely looks a lot more interesting.

[@fred_derf]

A photo display and a plaque explaining the heat shielding would be a nice addition.

[@1_2_die2]

Asbestos blanket in public display... also not a great idea.

[@dougball328]

Scott, as an aerodynamicist I feel the need to give you a minor course correction. The pressure behind a shock is higher, not lower. Supersonic flow, when encountering a protrusion into the flow (like the corner between the service module and the SLA) a shock forms to turn the flow. When the body turns away from the flow (like where the SLA meets the S-IVB) an expansion forms to turn the flow. The pressure behind an expansion is lower. So you are correct that the base pressure is decreasing, but it is because of expansions and not shocks. I offer this kindly because I find most of your videos and explanations spot on and thought you would like to know. Keep up the good work!

[@nathansmith3608]

in layman's terms, am I still correct to think of supersonic objects producing a high pressure cone of shock front, which is necessarily followed by a low pressure zone (ignoring zones of exhaust pressure)?

[@dougball328]

@@nathansmith3608 Usually, but not necessarily. Let's take a flat plate at angle of attack in a supersonic free stream. Think of the plate as infinitely thin so that we can ignore detailed leading edge effects. On the 'compression' side, which is the side where the flow is being deflected by the plate, there will be a shock wave and the pressure on the plate will be higher than that of the free stream. On the other side of the plate where the plate has turned away from the free stream, there is an expansion wave and the pressure is lower than free stream. At the trailing edge we will get the opposite to occur. The compression flow will expand back to free stream and the suction side will go through a trailing edge shock to get its pressure back up to free stream. In the case of the Saturn V, there are three primary regions where we see a shock followed by an expansion. 1) The nose of the command module produces a shock and transition to the constant diameter service module produces and expansion. 2) The service module - to SLA produces a shock and the SLA-SIVB produces and expansion. The final pair is the SIVB to S-II transition produces a shock at the start of this conical region and an expansion at the rear where the cone stops and the S-II begins. Needless to say the flow at the aft end of the S-I stage is very complex. You have shocks coming off each of the four nozzle fairings as well as the four fins on those fairing, plus you have the expansion at the base of the vehicle. Another thing you can easily observe in the S-V launches is the effect of the decreasing pressure on engine flow/performance. The exit static pressure is dropping as the rocket's altitude increases. This causes the engine flow to further expand once it leaves the exhaust nozzle (at this point the flow is termed to be "under expanded"). You see this as the increased diameter of the exhaust plume. And this is probably way more than you wanted to know about supersonic aerodynamics but I hope you find it interesting.

[@banzaiib]

@@dougball328 more layman's terms... supersonic flow is more compressible, which means lower pressure... this is why the control surfaces on the P-38 did not work properly in dives as it approached mach 1. When the supersonic flow is disrupted and slowed, but the volume remains the same, pressure jumps up behind the shockwave. This is how variable intake geometry works inside the F-15 and F-14. Shockwaves are formed which slow down the incoming air, which results in increased pressure behind the shockwave... which "pre-compresses" the air before it gets to the compressor of the engine. If supersonic flow met the blades of the compressor, it would stall, just like the control surfaces of the p-38 did. The solution to both problems is the same (similar): Air brakes. Inside an F-15 intake, they create shockwaves that slow but result in increased compression... in a p-38, the planes just slows enough that its surfaces work enough to pull it out of a dive.

[@Markle2k]

@@dougball328 Is the flat plate of infinite thinness the aerodynamicist's spherical cow?

[@dougball328]

Your explanation of the F-15 inlet is correct, but your explanation for the control issue (P-38 and others) is incorrect. For starters, supersonic flows are capable of more compression only because of the greater total pressure. As for the controls, shocks would build at the hinge line and separate the flow, making the control ineffective. This is the reason that the X-1 was modified for an all-movable tail surface as well as an elevator. I can't think of a single supersonic airplane since that does not have a movable horizontal, unless it's a tailless delta wing.

[@joeyschwartz82]

Thanks for the explanation. I've noticed this difference between flown and unflown articles since the early 1980s. I assumed it was simply the heat from the engines deforming the metal in some way, and never questioned it beyond that, nor gave it a second thought. Well done! Thank you for making these videos Scott.

[@Kumquat_Lord]

Ahh, launch camera E8, how I love your footage of the F-1's starting up and lifting the magnificent Saturn V into orbit!

[@eggaweb]

You never grow tired of watching that!

[@muzero2642]

That footage is from Apollo 11, which was launched in July. Why is there ice breaking off the Saturn?

[@PrograError]

@@muzero2642 cryogenic fuels

[@Kumquat_Lord]

@@muzero2642 because the liquid oxygen is several hundred degrees below zero, and any water in the air condenses and freezes on the area where the tank is almost instantly.

[@DrewWithington]

50 years later and it's still astonishing.

[@shadowraith1]

Thanks for that. I suspect most F-1 engines on display wouldn't want to hide part of it under insulation. There was so much going on with them.The Saturn 5 was an amazing piece of engineering.

[@vxzrt]

That motors are such a big monsters Who consumed 20 tons of rp1 and lox per second

[@maxk4324]

First Man got it correct because instead of making the close up shots using expensive CGI which would then just go through a filter to make the footage look old anyway, they just used the incredible close up footage that NASA engineers shot already for analysis purposes. Good choice in my opinion, but I wouldn't give them full credit for getting every detail right in this case since it was just by default. Still an incredible film though (and after this I think I should go see Apollo 11) Edit: I had not yet seen Apollo 11 and so didn't realize it was made using entirely real footage, my bad. Just saw it and oh my god it was awesome!

[@cud0s]

I never understood why moviemakers use crappy cgi instead of the amazing original footage

[@maxk4324]

@@cud0s It depends on the look someone is aiming for. Notice how in first man even the CGI shots looked like they were filmed on (albeit NASA quality) 1960s cameras? If they wanted to make it look as if we were literally standing next to the Saturn V then the CGI would have been twice as detailed with a steady camera, but the spliced in real footage would have stood out like a sore thumb. Personally for movies and documentaries regarding the Saturn V I prefer they use the first method of making it all look like period footage so and using as much real footage as possible, because it gives credit where credit is due to the engineers who had to design cameras able to steadily capture such high quality footage at the time while being subjected to the vibrations coming from the second most violent machine built by humanity (next to nukes). Also, it tells the world, "There, see? We did it! We fucking did it! I mean ya we had to design a new type of drawing board for us to go back to for most of this project, but we were asked to put men on the moon with in a decade and so put them there we did!"

[@KuraIthys]

That's a good point. But given the existence of explicit reference footage of the actual event, you'd figure CGI recreations would be fairly accurate as well. After all, you have an exact reference for what it should look like.

[@deus_ex_machina_]

@@KuraIthys Perhaps it was intentional? To better show the complexity and beauty of the engine? After all, the shielding was not part of the original design, so I wouldn't blame them, it is a movie after all.

[@owensmith7530]

First Man gets lots of details wrong, I was shouting at the TV half the time I was watching it. I was particularly annoyed about the Blu Ray extras repeating the myth that the LM computer alarms meant it wasn't any use to them and they had to land completely manually. Wrong! Read the Apollo 11 Haynes manual for the correct story on that, or other more detailed sources. As a computer programmer by profession I admire robust well designed and engineered computer systems and the Apollo guidance computers were up there with the best. The design and the alarms saved the landing, not made it difficult.

[@hkhjg1734]

that footage is incredible. seeing something the size of a skyscraper take off never ceases to amaze me

[@jwg30]

I live in Huntsville and worked for the Space and Rocket Center for 9 years and helped design and construct his portion of the museum. I have also have spoken with his daughter and my wife works for NASA so I thought I would mention a two things. 1. The way he and his daughter pronounced “Braun” sounds like “Brown” and he even wrote “Brown” on their mail box to try and get us to say it correctly. I confirmed this when I spoke to his daughter face to face for 45 min as we had dinner at an event honoring her father. 2. Werner von Braun left his lunch box on top of the Saturn V Dynamic Test and is 363 feet tall on red stone arsenal and never went back to get it. He would eat lunch on top of the stand every day weather would allow to clear his thoughts. They used to take new hires up to the top to see it and to reflect on how their vision compares with Brauns. They stopped this now due to the condition the test stand is in now but still show a picture and ask you reflect. Just some info most people don’t know.

[@thomasbrown1363]

Jerry W. Gilley. Love your story. That’s so neat. Correct me if I’m wrong. I’ve looked it up before. But, I thought Braun is Brown in German. Our last name are Brown. My Uncle worked with him on arsenal. His job title wouldn’t let him speak about a lot things. Maybe he will tell me some stories later on. He did acknowledge he new him. I guess Von Braun has always fascinated me every since I was a kid.

[@williamevans9426]

@@thomasbrown1363 Quite right - brown is indeed braun in German, and is pronounced in the same way as 'brown'.

[@the_retag]

@@williamevans9426 almost the same

[@williamevans9426]

@@the_retag OK!

[@PhillipNutt]

So glad I took your recommendation on the documentary. Saw it in Denver with friends and was absolutely blown away. The launch sequence got me extremely emotional for some reason, it was just the most epic thing I’ve ever seen. Thanks Scott

[@joevignolor4u949]

I saw it last Tuesday. I'm seeing it again next Sunday.

[@PhillipNutt]

Joe Vignolo I think I’m going to try and go again as well, I think I’m gonna take my dad to see it

[@joevignolor4u949]

@@PhillipNutt Great! Good luck.

[@howtofocus2463]

“Industry standard Werner Von Braun for scale” 😂😂😂 so understated. Well done, Scott

[@RealityIsTheNow]

Always an irritating photo, as Von Braun didn't design those engines. Rocketdyne's team did. He's posing in front of someone else's work. Same sort of thing Musk would do.

[@Anvilshock]

Also, that's von Braun. Scott mentions a guy named vonn Bronn, so they are clearly not the same people.

[@RealityIsTheNow]

Anvilshock Just try not to remain oblivious to all the name pronunciations you routinely butcher.

[@Anvilshock]

@@RealityIsTheNow "you" as in …? You have zero idea who I am, what my native language is and what other languages I speak (not that the speaking of languages and knowing the pronunciation of names is mandatorily related), and what names I do or do not routinely butcher, so you will find it very easy to realise that your pathetic attempt at a retort by merely distracting from the issue at hand has no weight, let alone relevance. Feel free to try again, but by no means feel obliged to do so.

[@notmorganfreeman6632]

@@RealityIsTheNow He's right, you know.

[@terpcj]

I've been adding the insulation to Saturn V models for quite a while now (not that I make a ton of them). Finding clear pictures of the engines was an interesting exercise -- especially before the Interweb references were fleshed out.

[@dongurudebro4579]

So even The F1 Engines are wearing Tin foil hats and they still tell us that there are no Alien out there! Unbelievable! ;D

[@zerospampls3980]

Hey Don ;-)

[@FandersonUfo]

People are so naive

[@someguythatlookslikeme8306]

Great point!

[@MatteoMori]

Without tin foil mankind would have never made it to the Müün

[@SteveSiegelin]

That's hilarious!

[@rocketmentor]

That explains why the museum engines don't have the Inconel foil, it's only installed in the VAB just before launch and all Saturn's that were stacked were also launched never an abort and roll back to the VAB for de-stacking and mothballing. Excellent video as always Scott, Many thanks, Ken

[@drauggen486]

My grandfather helped design some targeting systems for rockets and was a huge apollo fan boy. He used to call the f1 at lift off the "the voice of God" he sat outside one night and told me by the time I had kids we would probably have cars in space. Well he was not totally off thanks to Elon. For what it's worth you remind me of him. Even at 80 anything space would cause him to light up.

[@butchs.4239]

I lived in Daytona in the early 70's, and got to witness multiple Saturn V launches from just outside the fence. Your grandfather wasn't kidding, they were easily the loudest things I've ever experienced.

[@keithv708]

That is so cool 😎

[@dukecraig2402]

@@butchs.4239 To this day the launch of a Saturn V remains the loudest non nuclear man made noise ever.

[@achtsekundenfurz7876]

*laughs in Halifax disaster*

[@Dr_Kenneth_Noisewater]

See this in IMAX if you possibly can. It's absolutely breathtaking. I had seen the footage of Apollo 11 that everyone has seen but much of this movie is new and it's spectacular. And this is an unobtrusive film. No narrator and 100% archival footage. The Sound and small amount of music somehow added drama to the already-dramatic and was very well done.

[@fox2102]

I'm lucky enough to live about 2 hours away from the space and rocket center in Huntsville AL where the test stands and shake building are located. They also have an actual Saturn V rocket and Apollo Capsule. Very cool place to visit if you ever get the opportunity.

[@PyroDesu]

I got to go to Marshall Space Flight Center last summer - the actual place with the test stands and shake building, not the museum (which has the rocket and capsule). It was really cool getting to talk to people actively working on projects like ion engines or systems integration for the SLS. Moreso than seeing the historic stuff, in my opinion.

[@PyroDesu]

@nasty buzzard They've also got a giant 7-axis CNC mill, friction stir-welding machines, metal 3D printers, a fiber winder that can work in three dimensions with a robotic arm. And a bunch of machine tools that looked like they were probably around for the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo era. I got to *touch* an incomplete Orion capsule. There was a SLS interstage shroud in the manufacturing hall. I just wish, though, that we'd had time to go see their X-ray and cryo lab.

[@Skyprince27]

MotoOtto Yes, I’ve been there three times, it’s epic. I was on a business trip for a week and the hotel we were at was across the street from the S&RC. Went on a bus tour of the Marshall Space Flight Center as well, saw some pieces of the truss work for the ISS being assembled. Good times!

[@pg1171]

I've been there also, three times. Both trips were incredible, even though the last was with a school field trip, and I was in charge of a bunch of kids. I live about 30 minutes south of Birmingham. If you drive up to the Alabama/Tennessee state line, there is a rest area with what I seem to remember is a Saturn 1B. It is infested with birds, and covered with bird droppings now. Sad. The Saturn V at the S&RC is quite the item though. Along with the Shuttle that never flew. A school trip, many years ago (1980 or 1981), afforded the chance to see the chimp that was sent into space, along with the chance to speak with one of the original German engineers that came here after WWII. VERY interesting! The time passed WAY to quickly! If you ever get the chance to visit, please do. You will not be disappointed!

[@dopejoel]

I used to live in Huntsville for years and the Saturn V was 10 minutes away. Sorry had to 1 up you 🤗

[@ColinWatters]

Fifty years after I watched Apollo flights on TV as a kid it's still possible to learn something new. Thanks.

[@laelienriviere5735]

I didn't know I needed this in my life. Yet I did. Thanks, Scott. Keep being amazing.

[@carpandrei7493]

I also bought this book during my latest visit in the UK. I'm looking forward to buy the SR-71 service manual, and some others too!

[@ComandanteJ]

I cant stop hearing "Koyaanisquatsi...." whenever i see those slow-motion Saturn V launch shots.

[@sidewalkere]

Having seen countlesse videos and photos of the saturn V, i'm banging my head on the wall for never had noticed that insulation.. Thank you, Scott!

[@nazamroth8427]

Do you know what is even more interesting? Such details of everyday life and megaprojects as well, may well be lost to the future. A thousand years from now, we might have archeologists trying to figure out how the famous Saturn 5 in the museum was supposed to fly, since its engines would overheat from the mentioned effects, and the DIY thermal shroud mod would have been lost to the pre-digital era.

[@SuperAWaC]

a thousand years from now? we have people trying to figure out how it flew now, reverse engineering the engines and whatnot because so much of the info was lost

[@MrDariolett]

SuperAWaC Yes you beat me to this answer I was going to say basically the same thing.1000 years? More like today. If you were to tell NASA that they had to re-engineer the Saturn V by 2030 l don’t think they would be able to do it. Those old geezers with their slide rules were geniuses that we don’t have today. I’m talking in part about the German engineers although they had a lot critical help from all the American engineers involved in the Saturn V. The F1 engine was an American design.

[@Losttoanyreason]

They will claim it was aliens, LOL

[@RCAvhstape]

@@MrDariolett Of course they could do it if they wanted; the plans and documentation for the Saturn V and its subassemblies all still exist, there are photos, books, and actual examples still around. But if you were to build a Saturn V today you wouldn't make an exact copy anyway; you'd use modern technology to make it more capable by using lighter materials, miniaturized electronics, upgraded variants of the F-1 and J-2 made to be more powerful, lighter, etc. You'd wind up with a "Saturn V-A"

[@nizm0man]

@@MrDariolett you couldn't recreate the engine because the suppliers and tooling that made components don't exist any more. So it would be way more expensive than "modernising" the design. Geniuses definitely exist today, did you watch Falcon Heavy's two first stages land together?

[@n7565j]

I remember putting brakes on my first car back around 1980 (it was a built in 68), and my father warning me not to inhale the brake dust as it was full of asbestos. We spent quite a few years without a good replacement for asbestos, it really was an excellent insulator!!! Same with R-12/22, my father used to bring home cans of R-12 for $0.50 a can, and you could buy asbestos at any local hardware store. There's no telling how much asbestos dust I inhaled as a boy, maybe some folks are just more susceptible to it than I was... Who knows, I'm 53 and in relatively good health :-) Great catch Mr Manley, thank you for the insight! I've watched Apollo launches many times and never noticed that :-)

[@fakiirification]

brake dust is still harmful even without asbestos. The harmful effects depend on how much or how frequently you were exposed. Unless you worked in the industry installing or removing asbestos every day, you probably did not inhale enough to cause issues. The hype about exposure these days is really overblown. Its only an issue for remodeling where it has to be removed. If asbestos is just sitting there, in a home or office, its not going to hurt anyone unless they hurt it first. lol R-12... man, there was no better refrigerant. Ironically propane is an excellent refrigerant as well, I used it in an old car once instead of retrofitting to 134A. Just have to flush the system and use an oil compatible with it so it doesn't burn up the compressor. Worked great. Not quite as good of a temperature drop as r12, but that was probably down to needing a different size orifice tube for the expansion into the evap core.

[@Abdega]

It was made to look like duct tape so all the engineers would trust the engine 🙃

[@chidino1129]

THAT may actually be the most accurate comment here. Thanks.

[@keef71]

i just thought that - never mind fancy expensive complicated metal-asbestos heatshield shenanigans, they obviously covered it in silver gaffer tape cos everyone knows that just works

[@vxzrt]

I dont get it why they foiled the engine with aluminium paper whats the problem?

[@Splarkszter]

@@vxzrt did you even watch the video?

[@scottcurrence6526]

Thanks for your videos. My whole family loves and learns from them every time.

[@tanzanos]

"I grow old learning" - Socrates I never knew this detail. Thank for the insight Scot.

[@magssr]

Scott I live 2 miles from Johnson Space Center in Houston. They have a a Saturn V on display. It’s impressive. The engine are huge. Amazing thing to go see.

[@ianlehman8342]

4:40 reminds me of a casual joke I made about a truck my friend bought recently. His 95 ford F-250 has the dual fuel tanks, one of which is missing. I told him jokingly, that he needed to get a liquid oxygen tank, as the missing tank was for oxidizer

[@AaronShenghao]

Nah, LO2 tank is not as good as a NOs tank.

[@ArcturanMegadonkey]

Seeing the flames come back when the rocket or shuttle went super sonic worried me! Great video as always Scott. Long time viewer, rarely comment Paul

[@BMrider75]

Thanks Scott, excellent explanation and visual demonstration (as usual!). Thumbs up for the Haynes manuals reference. Smiles

[@mihir2012]

I watched the movie 2 days ago after your recommendation. Time well spent! That ignition/liftoff audio was so great, I hope I get to experience a rocket launch in person some day..

[@NicolasBana]

Well, I guess they realised that asbestos isn't good for your health didn't they. Also, it looks much cooler without its blanket (or should i say hotter ? Depends on your viewpoint !)

[@DrewLSsix]

It’s harmless as installed. When it’s disturbed or degraded you are at risk of inhaling the stuff. Oh, did I mention we used to play in the stacks of old ducting in our basement growing up? It was leftover from the change from oil to gas heat lol. ‘Cough’

[@allangibson8494]

I think you can take from this that NASA was aware at the time Asbestos was not good for their workers health but could not find an alternative material at the time. I suspect that it was added really late in the assembly process - ie. just before roll out to minimize exposure. (The ancient Romans were aware of the issues with asbestos - hence condemned slaves mined and processed it). As for disturbance - the vibration and turbulence from a running F1 might qualify as would hitting the water at Mach 1.

[@floundericiouswa5694]

@@allangibson8494 it's not that you can't use it, you just have to ensure that it cannot go airborne near unprotected personnel. I would also think the raw material and assembly cost for the INCONEL (not cheap stuff) foil sandwiched asbestos would have been prohibitive for a museum piece. Also, the foil wrapped asbestos was likely one of the last additions to the ship before launch due to..well...foil being delicate and asbestos being n asty

[@davidgreen5099]

@@DrewLSsix we had oil growing up. The guy coming to fill the tank was exciting! We had asbestos tile in the basement.

[@jairo8746]

@@DrewLSsix It might not be harmful while it is still. But it becomes a risk... why take it?

[@RufftaMan]

Hah, this "Owners Workshop Manual" for the Saturn V is laying beside my bed right now.. Great stuff! Haven't read it all yet, but it's fun seeing details you never thought about before. Great video!

[@LazerLord10]

Meanwhile the closest iMax showing of that documentary is 130 miles away. Worth the drive?

[@olasek7972]

LazerLord10 there was a guy who drove 600 miles and didn’t regret it .... 130 is peanuts

[@robertthomas5906]

Going to KSC? Look around the visitors center. You'll find a bridge made out of metal. Last I saw it's mounted on concrete. That's the bridge that was from 39-A. You can walk down the very bridge they did to go to the moon!

[@nounoufriend]

I flew 4'400 miles and it was well worth it

[@lexiepexie7845]

I went 230 didn't regret it

[@gavinward5448]

Any of the space IMAX movies is worth the drive. Many of the cinemas (in UK) / theatres (in US) will have other space movies in their schedule (and some other interesting documentaries too) so if you plan your visit you can binge-watch them all.

[@thomasfholland]

You’re my main man Scott Manley!! For decades I’ve always been wondering if anyone else noticed the exhaust being sucked up the side (@2:30). Didn’t occur to me to figure in the shock wave creating a low pressure around the engines. Thanks.

[@EMBer3000]

Museum: "And this is our display of asbestos covered rocket engines." Turns around to see every kid lifted of their feet by parents in full sprint away from the display.

[@ErrorAcquired]

Another amazing educational video. I swear Scott, you are my #1 youtube subscription these days... thank you!

[@r_____________________]

I've read the Saturn V Haynes manual, very informative book.

[@fred_derf]

Terrific (as usual). Why can't normal TV shows be this good?

[@MrDmuncaster]

I wonder if the fact that it was COVERED IN ASBESTOS is the reason that they don't display that version :) But to be honest I like the look of the non-covered version better, shows just how incredibly complex rockets are.

[@passthebutterrobot2600]

Yep. Even if the covers weren't made from asbestos, I suspect some museums would leave them uncovered anyway to display the details of the actual engines.

[@crackedemerald4930]

@@passthebutterrobot2600 yeah, so they don't look like they melted

[@KuraIthys]

Well, given when the covering was added it's probably not possible to get an authentic engine in that state anyway. That means the only way to create a display piece with that kind of cover would be for the museum to do it itself, (or get someone to do it for them) But since this is a non-functioning display piece for a museum, what's the point in making it functionally authentic? The only goal is that it looks authentic. Thus if I had one in a museum and wanted to add the cladding I'd substitute something else for the asbestos layer. It only has to look the part after all, it doesn't have to actually be capable of resisting heat.

[@caonabo2]

The asbestos was sandwiched between the two layers of metalic thermal protection. that's why the cover looks like metal foil, instead of white.

[@MrDmuncaster]

@@caonabo2 its still asbestos... Not the best stuff to have in an open air museum. Plus you don't get to see the beautiful details of the rocket!

[@GeorgeGraves]

Wonderful video. My Sister is somewhat of an asbestos expert. I set her a link. It really was a "wonder" product at the time. Please keep making detailed videos - more details the better!

[@SteveSiegelin]

Chilton and Haynes manuals are in the U.S. They have been here for decades.

[@MrMakemyday3]

and they are very stupidly made. I ordered one on 63 thru 67 corvettes.....the part of the book about repairing a vette 4 speed trans. showed pics of like a fiat trans.. ..lol

[@richmanwisco]

Haynes manuals have saved me many hundreds of dollars on auto repairs. They are a huge value at twice the price.

[@dukecraig2402]

@@MrMakemyday3 Yea they're really not very good, I always tell people to buy factory manuals instead of them whenever they can.

[@kurtweinstein8450]

I started watching this, paused to look up IMAX show times, and ran out the door. That was definitely worth rushing out to catch the second to last IMAX showing in my area.

[@dafoex]

Haynes manuals are great, they even have a workshop manual for Thomas the Tank Engine for all the young, aspiring engineers.

[@leohorse658]

Would love to see some more Saturn V footage. Maybe some history on the design as well! Great video yet again, keep up the good work!

[@madzak9847]

wow, i want the enterprise one fix manual ) , my grandpa bought me manual like that and gave me the old Soviet one from 1970s, (you know few Russian cars just stayed the same as the 70s model except the fuel injection system) you can build a car from scrap with it )

[@IanSlatas]

I hadn't noticed the engine insulation until I saw Apollo 11 in IMAX yesterday. Thanks for the recommendation! What a stellar film.

[@TheOzarkWizard]

Im absolutely amazed theres a manual for the Saturn V

[@Shady-Shane]

I hope it still includes instructions on improvising bits of junk found around the workshop to recreate required specialist tools, lol

[@fakiirification]

its not really a haynes manual. its more like a history and picture book with a bit of tongue in cheek.

[@galagachamp]

Thanks, Scott! The Saturn V model I'm building will be a little more accurate than it would've been, though you've also given me more work to do...

[@CuzicanAerospace]

I have the Haynes manual for The Moon. No, really. It's a stretch but the book's not bad.

[@robertthomas5906]

Does it show that it's really an alien spaceship? LOL.

[@adamantium1983]

Watched it yesterday and was blown away by how clear it was.

[@camojoe83]

A HAYNES MANUAL FOR A SATURN ROCKET? TAKE MY MONEY NOW!

[@JustSomeCanuck]

I've got one of the books from that series (Rolls-Royce Merlin engine). They're a lot more about the history of the subject than the actual technical details, but they are still excellent. You should give them your money ;)

[@andersjjensen]

@@JustSomeCanuck Also, providing an actual service manual for all the Merlin engines would be one behemoth of a book, since it went through a slew of incremental upgrades during the war (round 50 if I remember correctly).

[@JustSomeCanuck]

@Anders Juel Jensen I'm sure a full repair manual for even one version Merlin engine is a huge book. Getting a set for all of them would be like buying multiple sets of encyclopedias. And now I probably have to explain to the youngsters what an encyclopedia is...

[@johnfrancisdoe1563]

JustSomeCanuck Old enough to have browsed encyclopedias for fun. But I guess a workshop manual for routine maintenance of the wartime Merlin engines wouldn't be as voluminous as the overly detailed official manuals for their modern jet engines.

[@daviddiscenza3187]

Scott, I saw "Apollo 11" earlier this week. For space junkies like me who grew up following the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo missions, this film in an emotional experience. I found myself gripping the armrests at several points of the film. There's a scene of the launch that really shows the raw power of those F1 engines, something that television wasn't capable of showing back in the day. I even learned something new about the flight. They arrived at the moon 4 minutes early. I don't recall the exact words of one of the flight controllers but it was along the lines of "that S-IVB really over-performed!". The other breath-taking moment was the panoramic view of Tranquility Base as photographed through Armstrong's window in the LM. It really felt like I was there.

[@steve1978ger]

Von Braun's size is pretty well defined: he was tall enough to join the SS, but too small to admit to anything that happened under his responsibility, let alone apologize for it.

[@Quirk91]

I've been wondering about this detail for ages! Thanks a lot for making a video about it! Hard to believe it took up to 1000 man hours just to put those on. Soo much work into something that becomes wreckage in a matter of minutes after liftoff!

[@quinnalmeida4043]

When I first saw first man, I wrote it of as some kind of budget, cheap prop-engine. Turns out I'm wrong.

[@playgroundchooser]

Ha! me too! I'm ashamed I never knew about the blankets.

[@my3dviews]

This is why movies are better when they aren't too accurate. LOL I want to see those detailed engines, not the covered ones.

[@jdubbwhitelightning2216]

I've always been captivated by the exhaust flume to pay attention to that. Thanks for this info. I love your videos. Keep them coming.

[@BeCurieUs]

RIP John Haynes

[@danielmurray6068]

I was at the static Saturn 5 display in Cape Canaveral last year and spent 2 hours just looking at the engineering. There are several solo engine displays that allow you up close examination. Extraordinary work. If you haven't been....go.

[@donaldculp3759]

My Dads career at NASA started before Mercury and retired 6 months before the Challenger tragedy. He took me on base for the Apollo 8 launch. I was a little boy. I know what an Earthquake feels like at ground Zero! O M G! Humans actually built that SOB and flew it successfully no more than 60;years after the Ohio Wright Brothers flew for the first time. Take a minute.....and let that sink in!

[@G-ra-ha-m]

An amazing achievement for 1962 technology. Now in 2019 no one can get above LEO (and NASA can't get above an aeroplane). Progress? Loss of tech? Pack of lies? You decide.

[@donaldculp3759]

Graham....what are you referring to? We have explored every planet, most of the moons, sent 2 satellites outside our solar system, built incredible space telescopes, and created a space station. Not to mention highly accurate GPS and internet communications. Sure seems pretty good!

[@G-ra-ha-m]

@@donaldculp3759 That NASA has gone from claiming to play golf on the moon to not being able to get into orbit in 50 years of progress. Well at least they now have a heat shield that works for Project Orion, which is nice.

[@tsurutuneado5981]

@@G-ra-ha-m Space tech isn't free you know?

[@G-ra-ha-m]

@@tsurutuneado5981 Free? They had ALL the gear they claimed they needed. Trips to the moon were ROUTINE. They had spare rockets, it was EASY. All the R&D done and paid for. Everything worked. You want me to believe NASA scrapped all that working technology ?? How naive do you think I am? People only scrap JUNK. NASA was scrapping JUNK and moving onto the Shuttle because they could only go into LEO. Number of missions above LEO launched from the Shuttle? ZERO. Think about it. Zero. The shuttle was perfect for assembling a manned probe but they never did anything because of the Van Allen belt.

[@PirateMTH_ToddH]

Scott, Thanks so much for your review of Apollo 11. It's the reason I saw the film just a couple days before the run ended. Definitely worth seeing; and especially in the IMAX theater.

[@dongurudebro4579]

Cause they are not on (fire)? ;-)

[@Excelcior58]

I noticed these coatings as well. That documentary is amazing, so much detail. Need another week in IMAX! I didnt get to see it a third time :(

[@ian._0024]

Short answer: Space magic

[@markdavis2475]

Just pulled out my copy of the Haynes manual! Never noticed the missing blankets before!

[@LazyLifeIFreak]

I thought it was because you know - *ASBESTOS*.

[@tetsujin_144]

Well, museum displays are generally not disturbed once they're in place, so asbestos in a non-operational situation (where no routine stresses or periodic maintenance would disrupt it) would be pretty safe. Asbestos is really just a problem when it goes airborne. But one could always replace the shroud with a replica with another material in place of the asbestos... Though it's kind of more interesting to see the mechanical details of the engine anyway - and maybe just have reference photos to show how it looks when insulated.

[@LazyLifeIFreak]

Public area and asbestos does not mix in modern day health and safety regulations regardless how you really view it. Its like the Black Death, even if its encased in a inert atmosphere, behind 3 layers of polycarbonate and 6 foot of reinforced concrete.

[@artistjoh]

LazyLife IFreak Only the engines that flew had the insulation. They ended up on the bottom of the ocean. The ones on display are either spares or test engines and never had any insulation in the first place. The engine parts that Bezos recovered from the seabed were extensively damaged and the insulation did not survive impact with the water so do not have insulation despite originally being fitted with it.

[@pratherat]

That slowed-down video of the Saturn 5 launch is one of my favorite vodeos on the internet. I've probably watched it 20 times.

[@VidVwr00]

It's weird that NASA would spend so much time and effort on getting the hardware right with all this trial and error and then faking the moon landing on a studio set. /s

[@barkingapollo]

Yeah I defy skeptics to see this movie and still claim fake. Then again they’re not in the interest of accepting facts so whatever...

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

A week ago I spent what probably totaled to a few hours trying to convince internet know-it-alls that just because they know a guy whose brother-in-law works in a machine shop, that doesn't mean that they actually understand how difficult reverse engineering a _production cycle_ actually is. So because we couldn't be arsed to spend billions trying to figure out a modern manufacturing process for the Rocketdyne F1 that automatically means we never actually managed to get them to work. Flat Earthers and moon hoaxers win in their minds again.

[@wingsofwrath4647]

@@ChucksSEADnDEADNot to mention there's no point in putting F-1s back in production because we've already created an improved version, the F-1B, which is 15% more powerful, more fuel efficient, easier and cheaper to produce with modern techniques and will be equipping the SLS block II, including replacing the Shuttle derived SRBs and RS-25s of the block I SLS.

[@johnfrancisdoe1563]

VidVwr00 One infamous crackpot theory is they did all the work trying to get there, but had to fake it to meet the deadline. Only 3 people knew first hand, and one of them is dead.

[@wingsofwrath4647]

@@barkingapollo Yeah, don't worry, NOTHING would change their mind, because they already "know" the truth. I bet that even if you took one to the moon and showed him the Apollo landing sites they'd still find an explanation on why they are still right, no matter how illogical. In fact I've watched an Apollo documentary with a Russian dude who was an Apollo denialist and at the end he started to rant about how the Americans faked the moon landings because if Russia couldn't do it, then it's clearly impossible... and then I asked him, "OK then, why didn't the Russians accuse the US of faking it then, since they obviously could follow the progress of the Apollo spacecraft with heir own instruments?", he was clearly discomfited but hand-waved it as "I don't know, but I'm sure an explanation will present itself, because I just *know* the US faked it".

[@machone7580]

I consider myself a pretty accomplished rocket nerd, and I can honestly say that I did not know about the thermal blankets on the F1 engines. Thanks Scott! Learned something today!!

[@dosmastrify]

Two comments 14 views 14 upvotes wow I haven't been this early in a while

[@h0ll1s]

Thanks Scott for another great content video! Watching the Saturn V launch never gets old!

[@TheJoeSwanon]

Make asbestos great again 😂

[@TheJoeSwanon]

Oh come on nobody has a sense of humor

[@chriholt]

Great info Scott. I had only seen the "naked" engines, and never noticed that they had been thermally protected for flight!

[@mrwealthyhobo]

Hearing those powerful engines in the IMAX theater brought a tear to my eye, amazing movie thanks for the recommendation!

[@grit9938]

I live close to the old Rocketdyne facility in southwest Missouri where the F-1 was developed. It's a military base now and the testing tunnels underneath have long since been abandoned. Getting to see those tunnels would be so cool!

[@vontar1]

I saw the ones on Display about 2 weeks ago in Huntsville AL. Wish I could add a picture here.

[@nikmathews555]

Awesome catch.... thus, awesome video Scott!

[@glenesis]

Hi! Just found your channel. Thanks for the great video! I hadn't noticed this. Very cool! I need to find that imax doc. Have a beautiful day!

[@carrollshelby8690]

Haynes Manuals were and are pretty big in the USA. They're the best because they start with a used vehicle and tear it down. The dirty, greasy parts in the photos look exactly like what you're holding in your hands in your garage. The factory manuals always show pristine, clean parts. Plus, Haynes always offered work-arounds whenever possible for special factory tools.

[@The123Smoke123]

Scott, I'd like to thank you for dragging me from KSP shenanigans into the amazing world of space exploration! Please keep up your wonderful work!!!

[@wrichardmorris]

Great article, I'm a big Apollo fan being just old enough to have seen the moon landings on TV but had never noticed that the F1 engines were covered in an insulating shroud.....

[@erictaylor5462]

We had those books as well here. I used one to rebuild my S-10 when I was 18. They are really quite good guides.

[@rpc717]

I noticed this in Apollo 11, too! I've built the Revell Saturn V model, and I've never noticed seeing the F-1 engine bells look they were finished with strips of foil in any other film.

[@dalethelander3781]

They called the insulation layer "batting," Scott. I got hold of a set of aftermarket "batted" resin engines for my 1/144 Saturn V kit.

[@Gitarzan66]

Great video Scott. I love anything that has to do with the Saturn V. I'm sure I'm not alone in that. It has become my favorite thing when studying the space program. I love all the close ups in this video. I'm hoping to see the Apollo movie while its in the theaters but time is a factor, always busy :( I did just order First Man on Blue Ray. You have a vast knowledge of this topic. I dig watching your videos mate! Thanks a bunch.

[@nikkothegoblin]

Going to watch Apollo 11 tomorrow! Thanks for recommendation Also saw you tweeting about the engines in Apollo 13 so I guess I kinda expected this topic. Great video as always

[@feanor3876]

Scott, good video as always. Could you do one on what held the Saturn 5 to the pad, what triggered it's release. I am also curious about the swingarms, what detached them from the Saturn 5 and trigged the motion. I know it's a tiny detail but I have always been fascinated with those subjects. Thank you for your video's they have provided some really great info for me.

[@franklincerpico7702]

I drove 80 miles to watch it and it was indeed awesome. Thanks Scott.

[@FredtheDorfDorfman1985]

As many times as I've seen the slo-mo pad camera of Aollo 11 I never noticed the insulation on the engines. I was looking at the ice falling, the dark turbopump film cooling exhaust, the way the main exhaust impinges on the pad, the water deluge system, but never noticed the "foil" on the engines. Cool.

[@jimsackmanbusinesscoaching1344]

I think the size thing that nobody really talks about is my ability in South Florida (200 miles or so away) being able to see the Shuttle take off - even during the day. I imagine the Saturn V launches were similarly visible. Night launches were spectacular. And there was this one day when we were going to lunch, looking up and saying: "Must be something wrong with the Shuttle." (RIP Challenger).

[@davegoldspink5354]

Great job on this one Scotty. Remember watching the Apollo 11 launch and the moon landings as a kid. Found this video very interesting especially about the blankets. Even here in Australia the Haynes workshop manuals are popular and very helpful. Am really thinking after this video of adding the Saturn V one to my already massive car and bike collection. 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻

[@heaslyben]

Thank you for this excellent TPS report.

[@willys4882]

I personally prefer the insulation not being on the museum pieces. Without it you are able to appreciate the intricate details of the rocket motor and bell assembly. I will always remember talking to Dan Hawkins, retired NASA propulsion engineer, at the US Space and Rocket Center. With a rightfully proud smirk he pointed up to the F-1 engines on the SA-500D and said, "Nobody else has those."

[@pg1171]

Awesome video! I never knew about the insulation blankets. I had noticed, during the original launches, that the flams tended to rise up the sides of the S5 as it got higher and faster. I was always worried that it would cause the rocket to explode. I was born in 1964, so I just remember some of the last launches, including Skylab, and the Apollo/Soyuz missions. A lot of what I got to see was on the nightly news, unless it took place during the summer. Oh, those were the days! Now, it seems to be coming back again, thanks to Space X, and it's Dragon crew capsule...Beautiful performance!

[@f1matt]

Heh. I should’ve been expecting this after seeing your tweet. Always interesting content! Going to see Apollo 11 doc tomorrow!!!!

[@Merennulli]

This is an amazing detail that I knew nothing about. There are so many aspects of the Apollo missions that are coming to light now that were never really talked about like this and the LLRV. All these layers to knowledge about the missions really drive home why it took so many people to get us to the moon.

[@jasonparker2270]

Scott, i really do think u should put in for the narration with the guy from curious droid to do several documentaries on the science channel. You guys do such awesome presentations!

[@RobertSababady]

Intriguing little detail. Thanks Scott! Never thought about that, but makes sense.

[@dieselrotor]

Oh Man, when Ronco finally releases the portable "Home Time Machine", I'm going back to hear those massive engines run !