"The Big Challenge" -- 1966 Documentary on Construction of Kennedy Space Center

"The Big Challenge" is a documentary produced circa 1966 about the design and construction of Kennedy Space Center. Produced by the Technicolor Corporation of America, it was presented by NASA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The film was narrated by John S. Batchelder, a former announcer and reporter who narrated voiceovers for historic sites. He retired from WJLA TV in Washington D.C. in 1976 and passed away in 2000.
This is a black-and-white version obtained via public domain from NASA. I have seen a color version but it is not publicly available.

[@xyz.ijk.]

That was a brilliant find. Thank you!

[@powerfulstrong5673]

I just wonder why the Apollo lunar launch site wasn't constructed in Hawaii?

[@lukestrawwalker]

It's interesting reading some of the original plans for KSC... they had tentative plans for a launch site 39-C, D, and E, and reserved room further north for another set of pads if needed. If you look at an aerial photo of the Cape, you find Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS, now "Space Force Station" CCSFS) with a series of pads and complexes running along just inland from the beach northwards from Cocoa Beach and Port Canaveral. Patrick Air Force Base is included in that. At the southern end is Pad 5 where the Mercury Redstone flights of Alan Shepard and Gus Grissom took place, just north of that within site of it is the old Delta rocket pads. North of that are "launch complexes" with their old underground blastproof "block houses" that contained the "firing rooms" to launch vehicles like Atlas that flew the rest of the Mercury Atlas flights, further north is the old Titan complex where they flew all the Gemini flights from, continuing northwards to LC-37 where the Saturn I's and I-B's were launched from, including the ill-fated Apollo 1 whose crew died in the fire on the pad in a test, later their booster lofted a prototype LEM into orbit unmanned for a test flight, then the manned Apollo 7 crew that tested the new Apollo block 2 in orbit. Complex 40 and 41 lie north of there, where Titan III/IV once flew, now one is for Atlas V and Delta IV flights (EELV's) and the other is operated by SpaceX for unmanned Falcon 9 launches. Some of the old pads have been demolished and cleared and now act as landing pads for the Falcon 9 first stage or its boosters in Falcon Heavy launches. Kennedy Space Center lies north of there with Pads 39-A and B, which were the only pads NASA ever built at KSC. The C, D, and E pads were never built, nor was any new "super booster" pads north of there ever built since none of those vehicles ever got built (Nova or anything bigger like the "million pounds to orbit" super boosters proposed as follow-ons to Saturn V). Pad 39-A has been leased to SpaceX for like 20-25 years IIRC; they've built their main operations hangar astride the old crawlerway that brought Saturn V's and shuttles on their MLP's from the VAB to the pad, so now crawlers can't access the pad at all. 39-B will the sole pad for SLS. SLS is only intended to fly once every 2-3 years at most, so the single pad is about all NASA could afford to keep up and pay for, and they "didn't need" 39-A anymore and couldn't afford to keep it up, and so they leased it to the commercial launch providers and SpaceX got the lease, which is good as it's the only manned access to space from US soil at the current time (the mess they call Boeing's Starliner included, though it launches via Atlas V at complex 40 or 41, can't recall which). It's doubtful that SLS will survive long-- it's a lousy design, absolutely STUPID expensive, uses all the most expensive reusable bits of the shuttle in EXPENDABLE mode, dumping them all on the ocean floor in a million pieces after each launch, by NASA's own Inspector General's office is projected to cost about $4 billion dollars PER LAUNCH just for the rocket (compared to the shuttle program's final cost divided by 135 flights, two of which were destroyed and killed their crews, which put each shuttle launch at about a billion dollars each). That breathtaking figure doesn't even include mission hardware or mission costs, just launching the rocket and the rocket itself! When SLS finally gets the ax, the VAB will probably just become a museum, as nothing else will likely use it in the foreseeable future. Really sad... I was there on a tour back in 2013, and even then it was almost like entering King Tut's tomb... its like it had been built by a race of titans now long gone, and only the massive edifice stood as mute testimony to their existence and grandeur, to their hard work and brilliance... awe inspiring and mysterious with the scent of cosmoline hanging in the air like the scent of natron used to preserve mummies in the ancient tombs. BUT time marches on, and Elon Musk, having learned a lesson from the Russians, who use HORIZONTAL integration and transportation of the rocket from the assembly building to the pad, and then erect the rocket on the pad, unlike the vertical integration and transport, like the crawlers used for Saturn V, the manned Saturn IB Skylab flights, and shuttles, or the railroad transport of vertically assembled Titan III/IV's from their assembly buildings out to the pad. Horizontal integration and transport is easier and cheaper than vertical integration and transport, but the vehicle and system has to be designed for it. Why the Soviets did it in the 50's on and have stuck with it, even with their shuttle when it existed. Later! OL J R :)

[@Zoomer30]

10:04 Crow: "I don't have the plans, I thought you did" Servo : "Uh, yeah... Lets hope all these pieces are marked"

[@Zoomer30]

It's surreal seeing them move the VAB work platforms from the outside, when you can find recent video of them doing precisely the same thing for the SLS. Did all the work in the 60s, undid it in the mid-70s, re-did it in the 2010s.

[@powerfulstrong5673]

I just wonder why the Apollo lunar launch site wasn't constructed in Hawaii? Hawaii is more ideal than Cape Canaveral to launch Apollo spacecraft.

[@Zoomer30]

19:00 Rare film of Saturn 500F on the pad. 500F was a dummy "fit check" vehicle and practice vehicle for installing mockup range safety explosive ordinance. It also served as a dynamic test article when workers rocked it back and forth to get a feel for how much it would move in the wind. 500F is easy to ID since it was the only Saturn V to have a complete black ring at the top of the black bars on the first stage. It was found that the extra black paint absorbed to much heat and caused problems for the propellant tanks.

[@sixstringedthing]

Fascinating info. I've often wondered how range safety/self-destruct systems were designed and tested, and whether any scaled down test hardware was flown simply to blow it up and ensure everything would work as advertised in the event of a full scale launch mishap. I suppose that when you're dealing with what is essentially an enormous binary explosive bomb, two thirds of which is full of LOX, the design process probably only needs to go as far as "ensure both propellant tanks rupture in a fairly serious way". The rest takes care of itself (although I presume that there might also have been a few smaller charges designed to completely destroy specific bits of hardware that were considered strategically sensitive and absolutely had to be kept out of the wrong hands even if they were charred and dented).

[@powerfulstrong5673]

I just wonder why the Apollo lunar launch site wasn't constructed in Hawaii?

[@powerfulstrong5673]

@@sixstringedthing I just wonder why the Apollo lunar launch site wasn't constructed in Hawaii?

[@lukestrawwalker]

@@sixstringedthing They used a lot of linear shaped charges, some of which can be seen on rockets like the Saturn IB, as long thin lines on the propellant tanks. Basically a small explosive charge to "unzip" the tank, the pressurized liquid inside would simply blow the tank apart once structural integrity was breached. Same way they blew up the SRB's after the Challenger explosion... the boosters flew on out of the debris cloud and were detonated remotely by range safety a few seconds after the spacecraft had exploded. Since the boosters were made of maraging steel about 1-2 inches thick, like a submarine hull, to contain the ~750 PSI internal pressure while the boosters were firing, they had to use a larger linear shaped charge, but once it was triggered, it instantly burned through the casing wall along its length and the internal pressure simply ripped the boosters apart. The then shattered and smoldering bits of metal and propellant dropped back down into the ocean. It's a rather interesting facet to spacecraft design and there's studies about it published online for free from the NASA Technical Resource Server (NTRS) and there's even some videos showing testing of linear shaped charges and things used to separate stages or the enormous interstage skirt "ring" on the back end of the S-II stage atop the S-IC Saturn V first stage. Later! OL J R :)

[@lukestrawwalker]

@@powerfulstrong5673 Because a lot of the tracking and range infrastructure already existed at Cape Canaveral. Patrick Air Force Base and the Cape Canaveral Eastern Test Range had been testing military missiles for a decade or so by that point, so why start over building duplicate facilities of all of those in Hawaii?? Plus, real estate would be a lot more difficult to come by, as they need an area with miles and miles of nothing around, plus a large "downrange" area free of habitation, air and sea traffic, etc. for the rocket to fly through and dispose of its stages and parts during ascent, so they could safely crash into the ocean without endangering life and limb. They didn't mention it in the video, but I read a study where they had looked at the NE coast of Brazil as a possible launch center site as well. At the time that area was about 100 miles from any substantial settlement/habitation, and was on a peninsula area jutting out into the Atlantic Ocean, near the equator, and would provide the most "free boost" from the Earth's rotation to improve the performance of the rocket and its cargo carrying capability. In the end it wasn't necessary and I suppose the problems of dealing with another nation for a launch center and personnel issues, transportation, etc. was all unnecessarily complicated by such a remote location in a foreign country. Interestingly enough, the idea of building a launch center in Texas was considered again in the early days of the shuttle program. They looked at some of the coastal plains area just west of Bay City, Texas, about an hour drive west of NASA's Johnson Space Center (then the "Manned Spacecraft Center") and Ellington Field where the astronauts flew in and out of in their T-38's. It would have been called the "Spiro T. Agnew Space Center" had a shuttle launch and landing facility been constructed there. Ultimately the decision was made to stick with Cape Canaveral and reuse the existing VAB and pads, crawlers and crawlerways, and Launch Control Center and other facilities that had been built for the Saturn V lunar missions at Kennedy Space Center, mostly as a cost-saving move. It's interesting to consider the "what if" had the launch center for shuttles been relocated to Texas. The whole idea was, to make it easier for astronaut crews to travel from their homes and training/working base at Johnson Space Center to a nearby launch facility, versus having to fly out from Ellington just a couple miles north of JSC to Kennedy Space Center at Cape Canaveral in Florida for launches. Hawaii would have been even worse on this score, as it's a LONG flight from Houston to Hawaii, or from Houston to Brazil for that matter (had the launch site been located there near the equator as proposed early on). Houston to Florida was bad enough LOL:) Later! OL J R :)

[@Zoomer30]

I remember when they built the pads they first had to place huge piles of sand to compress the ground so it could support the later heavy concrete pad.

[@geomodelrailroader]

yup and it is still hallowed ground today Every astronaut has made their first trip into space from Launch Pad 39.

[@dougball328]

@@geomodelrailroader Not true, not even for Apollo. Mercury/Redstone missions went from LC 5. Mercury/Atlas missions were launched from LC 14. Gemini/Titan missions were launched from LC 19. The lone Saturn 1B/Apollo mission to not be launched from LC39 was Apollo 7 from LC34.

[@powerfulstrong5673]

I just wonder why the Apollo lunar launch site wasn't constructed in Hawaii? Hawaii is more ideal than Cape Canaveral to launch Apollo spacecraft.

[@johnaugsburger6192]

Thanks

[@trombogenic]

great music too.

[@skyprop]

Classic

[@sixstringedthing]

Viewing this in 2021, a great historical film and I wonder if the proper Technicolor version has been moved into the public domain in the intervening years since this was posted...?

[@SpaceSPAN]

A local engineering society restored the color version years ago but wanted something like $400 for a copy. I said no.

[@powerfulstrong5673]

I just wonder why the Apollo lunar launch site wasn't constructed in Hawaii?

[@powerfulstrong5673]

@@SpaceSPAN I just wonder why the Apollo lunar launch site wasn't constructed in Hawaii?

[@powerfulstrong5673]

I just wonder why the Apollo lunar launch site wasn't constructed in Hawaii? Hawaii is more ideal than Cape Canaveral to launch Apollo spacecraft.

[@dare-er7sw]

America is great.

[@Zoomer30]

They had paved the Crawlerway with asphalt, but on a first test run with a loaded crawler it was found that it caused severe bearing damage.

[@geomodelrailroader]

and Crawler weighs 12 million tons the solution was pave it in gravel.

[@JamesHawkeYouTube]

12 million tons?

[@geomodelrailroader]

@@JamesHawkeKZbin crawler plus rocket

[@dougball328]

@@geomodelrailroader No, 12 million pounds, not tons.

[@lukestrawwalker]

@@geomodelrailroader Twelve million pounds, not tons LOL:) The gravel could "cushion" the tracks and crushed to sand beneath the crawler tracks as it rolled over it. Interestingly enough, there's been a LOT of proposals for larger launch vehicles over the years. From Saturn V's with up to four 260 inch solid rocket motors (monolithic motors, not segmented, one of which was cast and then test fired from an underground silo down near Miami, there's some vids of it on YT, including one by "the Woo" who snuck into the old condemned facility to film it). Later there were proposals for boosters like "Magnum" which would have used 3 shuttle SRB's around a core vehicle similar to SLS, all the way up to the gargantuan "Jupiter V" launch vehicle proposal which would have used FOUR shuttle SRB's lifting a pair of modified ET's acting as "boosters" to feed the engines of a core vehicle 33 feet in diameter, which would have staged and dropped the tanks after a few minutes of flight, so the core vehicle could continue to orbit with a massive payload. All these proposals overlooked one critical thing (except the Saturn V with SRM's proposal)-- The crawler and crawlerways and launch pads and the VAB foundations were only designed to support a weight of 14 million pounds. All these proposals simply weighed too much to ever be realistically considered. Unlike liquid propellant rockets which are moved DRY of fuel, thus are just big empty tanks and other structures, SOLID propellant rockets have to be stacked and moved to the launch pad FULL OF FUEL and thus are INCREDIBLY heavy. The Saturn V on the crawler transporter was MUCH lighter than the space shuttle for this reason. SO much so that for the shuttle, the tower had to be removed from the launch platform and relocated to the pad itself, to save weight on the crawler transporter, launch platform, the VAB floor and crawlerways. Ares V was running into this problem, as faced with a shortfall in performance due to the relatively low thrust (500,000 lbs) of the SSME's they needed more power from the boosters. The shuttles used four segment SRB's, each segment consisted of two half-segments connected at the factory in Utah where the propellant was cast into them (factory joints) and the individual segments were stacked and connected together with "field joints" as they were mated together atop one another in the VAB (thus the O-ring that failed and destroyed Challenger). The Ares I was supposed to reuse the shuttle boosters for a first stage, one booster topped by a fifth segment to give it more power to lift the Ares I capsule and upper liquid hydrogen stage. The Ares I-X test launch of a dummy capsule and upper stage on an old shuttle booster topped by a dumm fifth segment, however, was found to be bent beyond repair from the parachute landing in the ocean after the flight, which basically (along with a ton of other problems) doomed Ares I to failure. As Ares I had been underperforming in its weight-launching capabilities, more and more weight for the mission had been shoved onto Ares V. Ares V was also suffering difficulties "closing" the design to get the desired payload capability, so engineers were looking at adding a fifth and even sixth SSME engine under the liquid core, which of course had to be bigger to hold more propellant for the extra engines, which then needed more liftoff thrust to get airborne, which required more powerful boosters, in a self-defeating spiral. They looked at six segment boosters as a solution, but quickly found that the weight of 2 six-segment SRB's, 12 segments total, which was the equivalent of 3 shuttle SRB's, was simply too much for the VAB floor, the crawler and crawlerways, the launch platforms, and the pads to be able to stand. Looking at the figures, they could sneak in just under the weight limits with two 5.5 segment boosters, adding a half segment atop the other five full segments. Running the numbers it STILL wasn't enough thrust, so basically at that point Ares V was doomed. That's part of the reason SLS came to be. BUT the inherent limit is still there, and part of the reason SLS is such a lousy design (aside from taking the most expensive reusable bits of the shuttle, and using them in expendable mode-- everything flying on SLS ends up on the ocean floor in a million pieces, except the capsule hopefully. Why SLS will be nearly $4 billion dollars per flight.) SLS has very little room to boost its performance, either. The Saturn V had some proposals to add solid propellant boosters. At one time NASA was tinkering with designs for a 360 inch (33 foot) diameter monolithic SRM (solid rocket motor). Of course such a motor would be unfathomably heavy fully loaded with propellant and just moving it, transporting it, and erecting it on a launch pad would be enormously challenging to say the least. More realistically were plans for a 260 inch booster (21.5 feet) diameter, which Aerojet actually produced and test fired in southern Florida in the late 60's IIRC. The spent motor casing remains in the casting/testing pit to this day, abandoned. Even the 260 inch was going to be enormously heavy to move and erect. The shuttle used ~12 foot (146 inch) boosters, and Titan III/IV used 10 foot (120 inch) boosters. There were some proposals to add a pair or even four of the 260 inch solid boosters to a modified Saturn V core vehicle, to create a "super-Saturn" that could deliver twice the payload to the Moon of a regular Saturn V. To do this they would have had to build a supplementary solid motor erection gantry, basically a fixture with cranes and stuff that would be hauled to the pad and erected around the main launch platform upon which a Saturn V had already been stacked in the VAB and had been moved to the pad, then the crawler would haul in the enormous monolithic (one-piece, not segmented) SRM's from the barge slip near the VAB where the Saturn stages arrived. The motor erection gantry would then lift the enormously heavy solid motors and maneuver them up to the Saturn V core so they could be attached together. Thus the crawler would move all this equipment piece by piece to the pad, not all at once like a stacked shuttle or SLS or Ares V or any of the other proposals. Even then I'm not sure that the pad could have supported that much weight without foundation problems, or it would have been right at the limits. Of course none of it ever got past the proposal stage. Later! OL J R : )

[@glenmccarthy8482]

Peak USA.

[@lox_5017]

How was this film obtain? From Nasa or the internet, if so, where on the net.

[@SpaceSPAN]

I was doing research at the KSC NASA Press Site. They had it in their archives. They gave me a copy on DVD. A local engineering society claims to have a "restored" color version but wants $400 for it. Pass.

[@lox_5017]

@@SpaceSPAN could you make a copy and if so what would you charge. How can I get a hold of you.

[@geomodelrailroader]

when Kennedy Space Center was built they had to build many structures to support the centers mission 1. Build Rockets, 2. Process the Payloads, 3. Accept Delivery of Flight Hardware, 4. Provide Room and Board for the Crew, 5. Tow Rockets to the Pad, and 6. Launch the Rockets into Space. To build the rockets NASA had to construct the largest building in the world The 526 Foot Tall Vehicle Assembly Building. Inside here NASA builds all of its rockets once the parts arrive from contractors. below the VAB and along the the main highway are hangers inside each NASA is prepping spacecraft to head to the stars this work is also done in Titusville 14 miles away. next to NASA HQ Kennedy Center is The Operations and Checkout Building inside here more spacecraft processing goes on and the crew is given room and board before launch day when they man their ships. some parts of Kennedy Space Center are on rail sidings NASA Railroad brings in supplies and also delivers rockets to their launchpads. If you have a rocket as big as a Saturn 5, The Shuttle,Falcon Heavy,or the SLS you need a way to get to the pad the six mile long Crawlerway is used each day to bring those rockets to the pad and on top of it is the mechine that gets the work done The Crawler itself. and last but not least is where America begins its trips into space hallowed ground where Astronauts went into space or died during launch or reentry Launch Pad 39 Kennedy Space Center every manned mission begins here. next to the VAB is a building where all missions on the Cape are controlled The Launch Control Tower where each of the 4 Firing Rooms control a rocket in the final stages of launch. and a mile from the VAB is Runway 15 where deliveries of spacecraft and rocket components are delivered also Shuttles land here when the mission is over. each area of Kennedy Space Center has a dock next to it around the Turning Basin so rocket parts can be delivered from Michoud, Marshall,or Stennis.

[@powerfulstrong5673]

I just wonder why the Apollo lunar launch site wasn't constructed in Hawaii? Hawaii is more ideal than Cape Canaveral to launch Apollo spacecraft.

[@Folker46590]

Wonder how much all this would cost in today's dollars.

[@powerfulstrong5673]

I just wonder why the Apollo lunar launch site wasn't constructed in Hawaii? Hawaii is more ideal than Cape Canaveral to launch Apollo spacecraft.

[@jetvette66]

"Technicolor"?!! Huh?

[@SpaceKSCBlog]

+jetvette66 As I noted in the description, this copy was provided by NASA. A color version exists but is not publicly available. Someone wanted to charge me $400 for a color copy. Not worth it.

[@jetvette66]

+SpaceKSCBlog Oh. Ok.

[@skyprop]

Oh F-No!

[@powerfulstrong5673]

@@SpaceKSCBlog I just wonder why the Apollo lunar launch site wasn't constructed in Hawaii? Hawaii is more ideal than Cape Canaveral to launch Apollo spacecraft.

[@albclean]

Never happen again.

[@powerfulstrong5673]

I just wonder why the Apollo lunar launch site wasn't constructed in Hawaii? Hawaii is more ideal than Cape Canaveral to launch Apollo spacecraft.