I’ve previously mentioned that once the Shuttle program ends this year, there will be no way for NASA to launch manned missions. It simply doesn’t have the necessary rockets to launch such a heavy payload into orbit, let alone a rocket capable of launching a heavy payload to another planet. A good example is the case of Mars. The Delta II hit its payload limit with the Mars Exploration Rovers Spirit and Opportunity, and that’s with each rover launched separately. The upcoming Mars Science Laboratory rover Curiosity is significantly larger and will use an Atlas family launch vehicle. For NASA’s Martian exploration plan to progress, as well as for the continuation of manned spaceflight, the organization needs a heavy lifting vehicle. (Pictured, the first Saturn V to launch: Apollo 4, 1967.)

But NASA doesn’t necessarily need a new launch vehicle. The organization had the means to launch a manned mission to Mars in the 1960s using only technology of the day. The whole mission, however, depended on the titanic Saturn V rocket, a technology that is lost to the current generation.

The Saturn V was the brainchild of Wernher von Braun (pictured), the man behind the Nazi V-2 missile that rained down on London in the final days of the Second World War. In 1945, with the Germans defeated and the Allies closing in to collect the brightest Nazi scientists as a form of intellectual reparations, von Braun and his team of rocketeers surrendered themselves to the Americans. They hoped their expertise in rocketry would be their ticket to continued work. It was; von Braun hand-selected 110 men to move White Sands, New Mexico to join the Army Ballistic Missile Association (ABMA).

The German rocketeers worked on developing improved missile to launch the lightweight American warheads. But the Soviets soon proved the might of their rockets. The powerful R-7 launched the 182-pound Sputnik satellite followed a month later by the 1,120-pound Sputnik II. The US was well behind in brute force lifting vehicles; the first successful US satellite was the 30-pound Explorer 1. The launch vehicle was the von Braun-designed, 69.5 foot high Jupiter C. (Pictured, the Jupiter C rocket launches Explorer 1. 1958.)

As the space race quickly picked up steam in the late 1950s, von Braun and his team in New Mexico found themselves with a new project: building a more powerful launch vehicle than anything the US currently had.

To this end, the rocketeers set to work in 1960 developing a new family of missiles named Saturn – the new rocket built on the successful Jupiter family of missiles, and was given the name of the next furthest planet from Earth. Their headquarters also received a new name. The ABMA became NASA’s Marshall Spaceflight Centre (MSC) with von Braun as its first director.

The new Saturn family of rockets was tied to NASA’s long-term goals; though unofficial in 1960, the Moon was an objective. But to build a rocket capable of sending men to the moon, MSC engineers had to know how NASA intended to get there. There is more than one way to go to the moon, and each decision requires different capabilities of its launch vehicle. In preparing Apollo, NASA considered three options called mission modes.

The first mode is the brute force method of direct ascent. A mammoth rocket is required to send a spacecraft on a straight path from the Earth to the Moon. The spacecraft would also have to land and relaunch from the Moon making it heavy. Von Braun calculated that such a rocket would require around 12 million pounds of thrust at liftoff provided by eight engines. This method would require development of Nova, a missile of unparalleled power. (Pictured, a comparison of Saturn and Nova launch vehicles. Research into Nova development was cancelled in 1962 when the LOR mission mode was selected. This artist’s conception is from 1962.)

The second mode of Earth Orbit Rendezvous (EOR) uses two smaller rockets to assemble the same spacecraft in orbit around the Earth.

The third mode of Lunar Orbit Rendezvous (LOR) is the recognizable method that NASA used for the Apollo program. Two spacecraft would be launched on one powerful rocket, the lighter of which would land on the moon while the heavier stayed in lunar orbit. This significantly lightened the payload and simplified the launch vehicle. (Pictured, the Apollo 8 flight plan shows the basic Apollo mission profile. 1968.)

This method also brought an added safety measure to the lunar mission; it provided the astronauts with a stopping point in Earth orbit as well as lunar orbit. With more places to pause during a mission, there was more leeway to catch up on late manoeuvres as well as a safe place to double check the mission profile. If any problems were detected, the crew could be brought home from Earth or Lunar orbit much more easily than they could be from a lunar transit.

Within the developing Saturn family, only the Saturn V (so called as it was the fifth in the family) could launch the lunar spacecraft into Earth orbit then onto the Moon under its own power. At 364-feet tall, the three-stage rocket was the most powerful ever built.

The Saturn V’s stages (pictured) are the key to its power. The stages are stacked: the first stage on the bottom, the second stage on top of the first, and the third stage on top of the second. Above the third stage is the spacecraft. The stages burn and are discarded in sequence; as spent pieces of the rocket fall away, the payload headed towards the moon became increasingly lighter and easier to lift.

The first stage (called the S-IC, pictured with MSC engineers) provided the raw power. Two huge tanks, one containing 800,000 litres of refined kerosene the other 1.3 million pounds of other liquid oxygen (LOX), fuel five powerful engines. These engines produce 7.5 million pounds of thrust for about two and a half minutes, bringing the spacecraft to an altitude of about 38 miles. Once exhausted, the first stage falls away and the second stage takes over.

The second stage (called the S-II) burns for about six minutes, producing 1 million pounds of thrust from its five liquid hydrogen and LOX fuelled engines. The second stage shoots the spacecraft to an altitude of about 114 miles before it falls away exhausted.

The third stage (S-IVB) fires last and is responsible for propelling only the spacecraft. Its liquid hydrogen and LOX-fuelled engine fires twice; once for 2.75 minutes to bring the spacecraft to an altitude of 115 miles, and again for 5.2 minutes to initiate the lunar transit. With the final firing of the S-IVB, the Apollo crew is on their way to the moon.

While its three stages were responsible for the Saturn V’s spectacular power, it wasn’t the only factor that made it such a sophisticated launch vehicle. It also had a certain degree of autonomy. The brain of the Saturn V was its instrument unit, a ring of computerized components situated above the third stage. This included a digital computer, a stabilized guidance platform, and sequencers. (Pictured, a cutaway of the Saturn V’s instrument unit.)

The rocket was able to guide itself into orbit and readjust its trajectory to achieve the orbital insertion point specified by the mission profile. Directional control was achieved through the first stages’ engine configuration. The central engine was fixed, but the outer four were on gimbals and could swivel to direct the rocket’s thrust in the desired direction.

This level of control was due to the rockets inertial guidance system. Like the Apollo spacecraft, the Saturn V was aligned to the stars rather than any point on Earth. It used ‘fixed’ stars to orient itself. The Saturn V’s own guidance system wasn’t only responsible for a successful orbital insertion; this was the guidance that shot the Apollo crew towards the moon with the translunar injection or TLI burn.

The idea was that separating the rocket’s computer and guidance systems from that of the spacecraft would provide an added redundancy. Apollo’s onboard computer could control and steer the Saturn V – the Command Module (CM) was also aligned to the ‘fixed’ stars for guidance with its own inertial guidance platform. But in the event Apollo’s computer failed, NASA would have a potentially rogue Saturn V on its hands. With separate guidance systems, the crew was almost guaranteed a safe arrival into orbit at which point any problems could be addressed.

This proved to be a fortunate decision. When lightening struck Apollo 12 soon after launch (pictured), the CM’s guidance system and computers were knocked off line. The Saturn V’s systems, however, were unscathed. The crew and mission control were able to correct the problem in the spacecraft knowing they were still safely on course for orbit where an emergency abort and splashdown was simpler and safer.

The Saturn V’s sophistication also makes it a complicated piece of technology.  There are a lot of parts that have to function independently while simultaneously working together as a cohesive unit. And so von Braun, as the rocket’s designer and director of the MSC, had to answer the same question that faced every new aspect of the space program: who would build it?

In the case of the Saturn V, the question was not only which subcontractor would build it, but how many. Should one contractor build the whole thing or should each stage be built by a different contractor? What about the instrumentation unit, the onboard computer, as well as the telemetry and radio systems? If each piece was made by a different contractor, who would oversee the final assembly and testing of the completed launch vehicle?

Von Braun made the decision to give each piece of the rocket to a different contractor, a decision that yielded mutual gain. From the contractors’ standpoint, multiple companies were able to benefit financially as well as partake in the challenge of building the Saturn V. From von Braun’s perspective, it enabled him to pull together the best in the industry; the top men from each company worked towards building his launch vehicle.

Three main companies were awarded Saturn V contracts. Boeing built the first stage, North American Aviation (who built the X-15 and the Apollo CM) built the second stage, and Douglas Aircraft built the third stage. The inertial guidance system and instrumentation was built in-house by the Marshall Spacecraft Centre – it made sense to keep the brains of the rocket close to the men who would control it during a launch. (Pictured, the Saturn V with each section labelled by subcontractor.)

To simplify the oversight of proceedings around the Saturn V’s construction, von Braun created two groups within the MSC. The Research and Development Operations team became the architects overseeing the rocket’s integrity and structure, and the Industrial Operations team funded and oversaw the subcontractors.

The Saturn V was completed at an impressive speed. Construction began in 1960. Each element was tested individually before the first launch of a complete Saturn V in 1967, which launched an unmanned Apollo CSM as payload. There was no time to waste a launch using a dummy spacecraft or a water tank as ballast. Everything had to advance the goal of the lunar landing.

After only two unmanned launches, the third Saturn V took Apollo 8 to the moon.

The Saturn V fell out of favour with NASA in the mid-1970s; Apollo was no longer a viable program and NASA had begun to favour the reusable low Earth orbital space shuttle. There were no immediate plans to return to the Moon or any foreseeable need for such a powerful launch vehicle. In the intervening nearly 40 years, the technology behind the Saturn V has been all but lost. (Right, the launch of Apollo 8. 1968.)

The division of labour on the Saturn V’s construction proved, in retrospect, to be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it allowed the rocket to be completed at an incredible rate, certainly responsible for the success of the Apollo program.

But on the other hand, building the rocket at such a rate and with so many subcontractors means the people who oversaw and understood the actual assembly and overall working of the Saturn V were few. Each contractor recorded the workings of their stage and records survive about the engines used, but only a handful of engineers from the MSC knew how Saturn V puzzle fit together.

It is possible to work backwards to recreate individual aspects of the technology, but the men who knew how the whole vehicle worked are gone. No one alive today is able to recreate the Saturn V as it was.

Worse is the lack of records. Without a planned used for the Saturn V after Apollo, most of the comprehensive records of the rockets inner workings stayed with the engineers. Any plans or documents explaining the inner workings of the completed rocket that remain are possibly living in someone’s basement, unknown and lost in a pile of a relative’s old work papers.

Two Saturn Vs remain today as museum pieces, but it is likely that the rocket will never see a rebirth and reuse in manned spaceflight.

Yes, NASA put men on the moon with 1960s technology, but that technology doesn’t exist anymore. By default, neither does the possibility of a manned lunar or Martian mission for that matter without a new launch vehicle. A new heavy lifting vehicle will eventually come about – it will have to for NASA to pursue its longer-term goals. Until then, NASA is bound to low Earth orbit and minimal interplanetary unmanned spacecraft.

Composite image of every Saturn V launch. Apollo 5 and Apollo 7 were launched on the slightly smaller Saturn IVB launch vehicle.

Selected Sources/Suggested Reading

1. Homer E. Newell. Beyond the Atmosphere. Dover: New York. 2010

2. W. David Woods. How Apollo Flew to the Moon. Springer Praxis: UK. 2008.

3. Edgar M. Cortright ed. Apollo Expeditions to the Moon. Dover: New York. 2009.

Suggested Viewing:

The live CBS footage with Walter Cronkite of the first Saturn V launch – the Apollo 4 unmanned mission, 1967. You can hear him describing the rockets effect on the building. Pretty good indicator of its power.

Dramatization of the Apollo 12 launch from “From the Earth to the Moon” – a great mini series from Tom Hanks well worth watching. This is from the seventh episode “That’s All There Is”, 1998.


  • […] is still alive. How can this be the case when there are complete rockets and pieces still around? “The Lost Art of the Saturn V” explains a little about how and why the mammoth launch vehicle is ‘lost’. (Pictured: […]

  • Matthew Libby says:

    It’s an interesting story, but somehow I just don’t buy that the completed plans for the project were just “lost” and now could be living in someones basement. The Falcon Heavy is a new, commercial US launch vehicle and it has the the most lift capacity that we’ve ever created in a rocket (3.8 millions lbs/thrust), since the Saturn V (12 million lbs/thrust). Staged engines are all part of the general scheme everyone uses now, so that’s not the secret. Also in the 1960’s computers generally filled multiple rooms, not guided rockets, yet we were able to fit a computer system advanced enough to guide a rocket automatically by the stars into the Saturn V? So in 1960 we built a flew the Saturn V using 60’s computer and rocket technology, and somehow now with all of our current technology, the best we can do is less than 1/3 the total thrust of a Saturn V? It’s just too weird for me to swallow. And add to all that, they were also developing the Nova rocket system the thrust on just THE FIRST STAGE of which was 13.9 million lbs and a total thrust capacity of over 16 million lbs 4 TIMES MORE than our most advanced rockets today…something is rotten in denmark my friends.

    • I was doing a search for a news program I saw that came out several years ago about NASA searching for lost tech of the Apollo and Saturn V missions- even going through “junk yards” looking for these special tanks where the company that build them went out of business and the “art” of making these tanks went with them. I believe just as the plans to build the pyramids in Egypt have vanished through the millenniums, the technology that built us a rocket with the lift capacity of 12 million lbs of thrust were probably stored on what is now antiquated equipment and media and irretrievable, or vanished along with the companies that fabricated the equipment after the dismantling of the Apollo Program.

      • Century25 says:

        It would be ludicrous to believe America ‘lost’ the technology to build Saturn V assemblies. The idea that we would need pick through junkyards… no, our citizens wouldn’t.. ‘throw away’ our unbelievably fantastic ability to visit our Moon.. Uh-uh.

        It was PURPOSELY trashed. Just as so much of our best in America has been..’lost’. Cities.. trashed. Our highest technology, trashed. From the SSC to our heavy industry & sciences.. look to: AIPAC. And the NSF. And the.. ‘atomic scientists’ from just after WW2. The AEC..

        Just as they did to Russia & Germany.. et al.

    • dan says:

      Built by “ex” NAZIs no more explanation is required. Werner Von Braun was a specialist in media not rockets. His chief engineer built the rockets but he only had designs from the V2s as the Soviet Union got to the actual designers first. Actual tests included a V2 launch over White Sands that ended up in Roswell, NM.

  • Torbjörn Larsson, OM says:

    Ahh, conspiracies, where would we be without them. (In a saner world, perhaps. :-/)

    – IIRC the drawings were indeed junked during a move for cost reasons.

    – Think more hardware, less software. The LM computer lead up to the first modern microprocessors IIRC. What have some kg of mass to do with thrust?

    – Saturn V launch thrust was 34 MN to lift ~ 120 Mg to LEO, STS 31 MN comparable to Energia 29 ~ 32 MN for the same purpose to lift ~ 105 Mg to LEO (orbiters + payload).

    Falcon X has ~ 18 MN launch thrust to lift ~ 50 Mg to LEO. Compare to Ariane 5, Delta IV Heavy and Proton for ~ 2/3 of that LEO mass launched (~ 30 Mg), all around ~ 12 MN.

    Same efficiency, different load configs.

    – Nova was a concept.

  • […] neared, NASA took increased risks with daring decisions such as immediate full-scale testing of the Saturn V and sending Apollo 8 to the moon with only half its spacecraft. (Pictured, a Saturn V launched […]

  • Michel says:

    I did not know we don’t own today (in 2011!) technology that would allow us to send men to a mission to the Moon or to Mars…? That’s strange…

    But I do hope one day, we’ll be travelling to space again! (And we’ll send also un-manned space crafts farther than Voyager 1 & 2, with better equipment, larger batteries and more powerful computers! Imagine a Voyager-3 that travels faster than its predecessors and carries high-res digital cameras, and super-computers! Imagine it taking an image of our Solar system in less than 10 years and sending it to us (an image at 30 or 50 or even 100 megapixels!), or sending us detailed probes from the heliosphere edge…)

  • Stu Young says:

    I was just reading the other day that the Saturn V “lost blueprints” story is an urban myth. NASA has a few complete sets, although they are on microfilm. I’ll have to retrace my steps, so to speak, and find the source.

    Some people describe themselves as “Shuttle-huggers;” I’m a Saturn-hugger! I must admit I swing back and forth between the “medium-lift launchers/orbital assembly/propellant depots argument, and the HLV/all-up argument, re. the debate on how to get humans to Mars one reads on all the space-related forums. With a Saturn V-class vehicle (and significant improvements would have been included, had Saturn V production resumed; the F-1A and J-2S engines had already been thoroughly tested, and were ready for production), and a Mars Direct mission architecture, we could have begun Mars settlement in the late 70s/early 80s. How I wish I lived in THAT world!

    Very thorough summary, Ms. Teitel, on the rise and fall of the Saturn V, which for me will always be emblematic of humanity’s potential. I don’t celebrate New Year’s; rather, every July 20, I recognize a new “Year of Decadence” – the number of years which have passed since humankind reached the zenith of civilization. Shortly, we’ll be hitting the Year 42, Y.D.

    -Stu Young

  • Stu Young says:

    P.S. Thank you for the video links. I hadn’t seen Uncle Walter’s coverage of Apollo 4 before. Ah, those were the days – live, network T.V. coverage of an UNMANNED test flight! Not a single network would carry such an event today – except for NASA TV, and a few other Web feeds.

    I’ve never heard Walt so excited! His reaction must have been the inspiration for the enthusiasm of the Emmitt Seaborn character in the “1968” episode of “From the Earth to the Moon:” “Look at th – look at that thing go!”

    And yes, it IS a great mini-series – easily my favorite.


  • Graham says:

    From what book did the author of this article get the retro, yet descriptive, looking illustrations of the Saturn V?
    I would love to get a hold of it!

  • Stu Young says:

    CCNet interviewed Paul Shawcross, from NASA’s Office of Inspector General. Shawcross said the Saturn 5 blueprints are stored at the Marshall Space Flight Center on microfilm.

    “There is no point in even contemplating trying to rebuild the Saturn 5 … The real problem is the hundreds of thousands of parts that are simply not manufactured any more.”

    “The Federal Archives in East Point, Georgia, also has 2,900 cubic feet of Saturn documents,” he said. “Rocketdyne has in its archives dozens of volumes from its Knowledge Retention Program. This effort was initiated in the late ’60s to document every facet of F 1 and J 2 engine production to assist in any future restart.”

    Another website, SciSpace, basically repeats the above facts.

    Robert, I believe the “special tanks” to which you were referring were the S-II liquid hydrogen tanks. They were manufactured by North American, which was absorbed by Boeing. Those tanks were the largest LH2 rocket tanks every manufactured, and they indeed required development of new welding techniques, which delayed the program.

    I also believe I read somewhere that the nozzle cooling passages of the F-1 motors required a lot of hand work. It would be much more practical these days to use an automated technique which leaves cooling channels in the nozzle. If I recall correctly, the Russians developed the technique. I believe SpaceX uses such manufacturing in its Merlin engine.

    We all know that achieving stable combustion in an engine as large as the F-1 was very difficult, and pogo was never completely eliminated. The Russian approach of using multiple nozzles per engine is much less trouble, and more efficient, as it turns out.

    We can build a rocket with even greater lift capacity than the Saturn V, but obviously it would probably not be an exact copy, nor does it have to be. The questions are those of necessity, of political will (if it’s going to be a government rocket), and of money.

  • Kevin Wright says:

    Years, after the moon landing was a success, a fan took advantage of a chance encounter with Von Braun to ask, “How were you able to accomplish so much so fast?” To which Von Braun replied: “We had Help…” he gestured to the heavens, “you know, THEM…” He left it to imagination and the sages of the ages, as to his true meaning.

  • Kevin Wright says:

    The biggest obstacle to man’s return to deep space, the moon and beyond are the obstructionists and naysayers. Imagine what could have been if Von Braun had a laptop, CAD and CNC machining at his disposal. WE DO.

  • Graham says:

    ”No one alive today is able to recreate the Saturn V as it was.”
    Isn’t there a flight ready Saturn V for Apollo 18, that was built but never launched sitting in Johnson Space Centre?
    It’s a museum piece.

    So even if I swallow the line that the plans are lost, there is a workimg model to reverse engineer if anyone feels up to it.

    • Stu Young says:

      Considering that NASA has at times cannibalized spare vehicles for parts for actual missions, and that the restoration which was done a few years ago of the JSC Saturn V focused on structural integrity and cosmetics, I wonder how much of the “guts” below the surface were removed?
      The NASA link is inaccurate in implying that the JSC Saturn V would have been the launcher for Apollo 18. A great source for accurate information on leftover Apollo hardware is “A Field Guide to American Spacecraft” (http://web.mac.com/jimgerard/AFGAS/pages/aaindex/home1.html).
      The JSC Saturn V is made up of components from several canceled flights. It is, however, the only Saturn V on display which is composed of all flight-ready stages. At least, they WERE flight-ready until they were released from storage, after plans for Skylab B were shelved.

      • asteitel says:

        Your point about preservation of the insides is a good one. I know without fuel the Saturn V was almost light, but it’s not unreasonable to think anything that wouldn’t be seen from the outside would be removed to make it easier to store, maintain, and hang from the ceiling. I’d have to look it up, but I know one of the two full Saturn Vs on display is the dummy Saturn 500F and I’m not sure how flight ready that rocket was and I think the other has been pretty extensively restored for display purposes only.

        • JosephC says:

          The 500F was the Facilities Checkout Vehicle rolled out to 39A check the interfaces/connections between ground equipment and the vehicle. While the stages could be loaded with propellants, the 500F was never designed to fly. The shuttle Enterprise served the same kind of role prior to the first launch of Columbia.

          There are three Saturn V displays around the country, four if you count the full-scale vertical fabricated model at the US Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville, Alabama. The only component of the 500F known to have survived is the second stage, the S-II-F/D. It was also part of the 500D stack assembled for shake tests in Huntsville, at the Marshall Space Flight Center, in 1967, after facilities checks with the 500F were completed. That second stage is currently on display in Huntsville, part of the only Saturn V display to feature components that had all been previously assembled to one another.

          No one seems to know what happened to the rest of the 500F. The first stage was evidently shipped back to Marshall, placed in storage, and later scrapped. Third stage was shipped from Marshall to KSC in 1974, where it apparently evaporated…

          Enjoying your page, by the way!

  • Sean Gambill says:

    I have 4 paintings given to me from my Grandfather who retired from Rockwell, but started with Hughes and North American Aviation. They are developmental copies or lithographs given to him prior to the Apollo/Saturn V flights. I cannot find them in any archives anywhere. 1 is the painting of a Saturn/Apollo launch, the second is of the second stage, the third is the LEM, and the fourth is the Apollo, all with backgrounds. Does anyone have any info on them? They also came with a letter from the president, H.A. Storms and a description of the idea behind each lithograph.

  • David Shomper says:

    I like the composite photo of the Saturn V launches, but the caption needs to be corrected; Apollos 5 & 7 were launched on Saturn IB rockets. There is no rocket called Saturn IVB; the S-IVB is the 3rd stage of the Saturn V.

  • […] An example of lost knowledge is the inability of the U.S. space program to recreate the Saturn V rocket. […]

  • I’ve done some writing on this topic (“Launch Vehicles” – Apogee Press), and, in my primary job as a documentary filmmaker, have written and directed numerous specials and a Discovery Channel series (“Rocket Science”) dealing with the birth of the Space Age from Tsiolkovsky through Apollo. It’s a rare and wonderful thing to encounter such a thoroughly researched and beautifully written essay. Keep up the great work.

  • […] of the unsung heros of the Apollo program. Launched on November 9, 1967, it was the first flight of a Saturn V rocket, the first orbital test of a Command and Service Module, and an overall vital step on the way to […]

  • Beth says:

    In regards to Apollo 5 and lost plans….I just brought 3 original prints from a Goodwill store in Jupiter Florida this past weekend.
    Per this part of the article written….

    – Worse is the lack of records. Without a planned used for the Saturn V after Apollo, most of the comprehensive records of the rockets inner workings stayed with the engineers. Any plans or documents explaining the inner workings of the completed rocket that remain are possibly living in someone’s basement, unknown and lost in a pile of a relative’s old work papers.
    Two Saturn Vs remain today as museum pieces, but it is likely that the rocket will never see a rebirth and reuse in manned spaceflight.

    The pictures we purchased has all the inner workings of the Apollo 5 plus all the details of the space suites too. They are also numbered. It is unbelievable!!
    We will be researching who to contact in regards to these prints.

  • Mike says:

    The myth of the mighty Saturn V must live on… But the real obstacle why we can’t simply repeat it now is because nowadays engineers don’t know how to use a slide rule, a skill essential in building mammoth rockets.

  • Bert Murray says:

    The Federal Archives in East Point, Georgia, has 2,900 cubic feet of Saturn documents. Rocketdyne has in its archives dozens of volumes from its Knowledge Retention Program. This effort was initiated in the late ’60s to document every facet of F 1 and J 2 engine production to assist in any future restart.

    At the Johnson Space Center

    The Saturn V on display at the Johnson Space Center : The first stage is from SA-514 and designated S-IC-14 from the cancelled Apollo 18 mission. The second stage (S-II-15) is from SA-515 the Skylab backup vehicle which NASA did not use. The third stage (S IV-513) was originally part of SA-513, the launch vehicle selected for Skylab. Unlike the three-stage Apollo Saturn V configuration, the Skylab Saturn V configuration only required a first and second stage since the Saturn V upper stage was replaced by Skylab. This allowed NASA to designate the third stage for Apollo 18. That mission was cancelled, however, and the third stage eventually became part of the

    Kennedy Space Center

    The three Saturn stages on display at the Kennedy Center are a first stage (S-IC-T), a second stage (S-II), and a third stage (S-IV-B 500F). The first stage booster (S-IC-T) on display at Kennedy is a ground-test replica of an actual Saturn V booster. It was manufactured on site at the Marshall Center in 1963. Although this S-IC-T stage was described in official documents as the “All Systems Test Stage,” it came to be known by those inside NASA as the “T- Bird.” The “T” stood for “test” but it might have stood for “thunder” in 1965 when all five of the 1.5 million pound thrust F-1 engines were static fired while the ground shook and a continuous plume of smoke and flame blasted out of the Marshall’s newly constructed S-IC test static stand.

    Although a lack of documentation makes it difficult to confirm, the second stage of the Saturn V on display at Kennedy Space Center appears to be from SA-514, the vehicle designated to launch Apollo 18. The third stage at KSC is designated as the “S-IV-B-500F.” This stage was originally manufactured as the third stage for the smaller Saturn IB vehicle and used to check Saturn IB launch complex facility qualifications at Kennedy. Later the stage was modified to meet the Saturn V third stage configuration. In 1970 it was modified again, this time into the Skylab Workshop Dynamic Test Stage. In December 1970, the stage was shipped to the Johnson Center for Skylab Workshop Dynamic Testing. In June 1971, it was shipped to the Marshall Center for Skylab Workshop Static Testing. In June 1974 it was transferred to the Kennedy Center for display.

    National Air and Space Museum has F-1 engines and many other components in the collection.

    The Cradle of Aviation Museum in Long Island has a Flight Hardware: Grumman Lunar Module LM-13 was to be used on Apollo 18.

    All of these museums have flight hardware. By using something like the Nvision 3D scanners along with the drawings all the components and systems of the Saturn V can be reverse engineered.

    It is also possible to recover J002E3 NEO which is a stage III using solar ion engines to park in high earth orbit for scanning.and study.

    The electronics should be redesigned with today’s components, But everything else can be build with a general purpose machine shop.

    It just takes money

    BTW I was trained on a sliderule, and it is not that hard to learn, but why you , spreadsheets are easier

    Bert Murray

    • Mike says:

      Looks like we have to visit Apollo museums and re-engineer a lot of lost technologies: radiation shielding, dust protection, lunar module, command module, Saturn busters, atmosphere re-entry from beyond LEO, flexible and lightweight spacesuits, etc.
      As for Saturn V 2,900 cubic feet of Saturn documents, there is a different opinion. Raymond Teague, NASA Apollo 13 mission control engineer in Secrets Revealed on youtube TheAlexJonesChannel (Published on Jul 3, 2013).
      “When Robert McNamara … he ordered the drawings and all the tooling for the Saturn V rocket destroyed… Everyone all of the NASA people were in shock because they knew before they had anything to fly with there would be 10 years… This was treason of the highest order. They literally abandoned the space program … This seems like they wanted to bail out of space program. The government wanted to bail out of the Apollo program.”
      I am sorry, Robert McNamara who? Secretary of Defense? But he left office in 1968, didn’t he? Does this mean that the fate of Saturn V rocket was decided upon even before the first moon landing? Or maybe Raymond Teague is just a brazen liar?

      • Bert Murray says:

        I would not call this “lost technologies” At worst the design for Saturn V documentation may be incomplete.

        Because one or a few people stated that the Sec of DOD ordered the drawings destroyed doesn’t make it a fact. I can not find where Robert McNamara ordered the drawings destroyed. It is common for the USG not to pay for the storage of tooling when the direction is to end the program. With that said I believe the program should not have been ended.

        The next step would have been a Saturn C-8 (Based on Saturn V F-1 engines), which would have lead to a Lunar base. Replace the second stage with a NERVA design, which at the time was 90+ percent flight ready. A C-8 first stage and NERVA second stage would have allow very large payloads( 200 + tons) to LEO and translunar lunar trajectories. Saturn V could deliver 100 Tons to LEO. NERVA is another program funded and effort and then cancelled, what a waste !!!!

        At any rate reverse engineering is less expensive than starting from scratch.

        • Bert Murray says:

          Here is an article that describes how NASA this year tested a F-1 engine assemble from museum parts . Also NASA scanned them with a laser measurement system, and is considering using 3d printing to make new parts.

          Basically this is the approach that I suggested above.


          Cheers, Bert

          • Mike says:

            “a F-1 engine assemble from museum parts” I see black irony here, don’t you? Instead of thriving on 60 years old technology NASA should be thinking in perspective. Besides, there is already much better engine with the same thrust RD-171. So, I don’t see the point or scavenging museum articles.
            Are all our glorious days of the space exploration in the past? Because I don’t see how all this mars/asteroid business is moving forward. And I don’t see how Falcon Heavy can lift itself off the ground with 27 (!) Merlin engines.

          • Bert Murray says:

            If cost per pound to LEO is cheaper with an old design then used it. If designing a modern engine pays for itself then that is where the effort should go. On the same line of thinking I do believe NERVA type design should be used on the upper (3rd) stage, that would pay for itself.
            A spent NERVA stage would need to be parked in lunar or solar orbit so it can’t fall back to earth. Also the NERVA stage should only operate once orbit is achieved.

            As far as SpaceX, if they can keep the cost down and meet the requirements more power to them. Some senators are beating up NASA for paying SpaceX and OSC even though milestones were late, but I smell pork in the Senator’s complaints.

            If NASA did business the old way then the contracts would go to only Boeing and Lockheed Martin, and I know they would get waivers for missed dates and requirements. The space industry needs new blood.

  • […] make them. Such is the case with the Saturn V, one of the most powerful launch systems made by man. Amy Teitel has a really neat article on the lost art of the Saturn V. The article explores how the rocket was design, and why decisions made during that process led to […]

  • EPulido says:

    The idea that the Saturn V technology is simply lost is merely a figure of speech in this article. Technology has undoubtedly advanced over the years, yet the need and desire to build rockets capable to reach the moon and beyond is no longer a national priority like it was in the 1960’s.
    The United States is no longer in a “space race” or Cold War trying to outpace the ex-Soviet Union to the moon. Current affairs are simply not conducive to spend billions of dollars or an entire nations focus on creating the latest, fastest, longest reaching human-rated expandable rockets anymore.

  • Jo Hall says:

    A friend of mine ran up on this article and showed this to me. I had no ideal what I had. However I have 17 pieces of original art on the Saturn V. I also have the schematics. I have had them appraised by a Certified Appraiser. I would like to sell what I have. Do you know anyone that would be interested in buying?

  • Milan says:

    …and the next human being to set foot on another celestial body will be a Chinese. That’s now perhaps more than 95% sure. Or?

  • Brad says:

    I am not kidding there is a guy in Canada who wants to rebuild a usable Saturn 5….
    He is 2 years along in this project as of Dec. 2013…

    I will post details very soon.
    He is not nuts…a very viable plan

  • January 2014 Education Summit

    Date: January 14, 2014 Location: Broomfield, Colorado Facilitators: Brad Fults, Marii Thompson Keynote Credits

    • Bart says:

      I met a retired machinist in western PA who has the “…. inner workings of the completed rocket… living in (his) basement, unknown and lost in a pile of a relative’s old work papers.” When I was at his shop he pulled some parts out of a drawer and showed them to me and said he made them and many other parts for the Apollo program. The parts have to be seen to be believed. His story about design and manufacture is even more incredible. Only a few people know his story.

  • Tired Old Man says:

    Shortly after Nixon took office, von Braun explained his plan to build orbiting solar power platforms using materials from the moon and send the power back to Earth with microwaves.

    Within days Nixon had promoted key team members across the country to non-engineering positions. After they were out of town, Nixon had the factory equipment cut up and melted down.


    Nixon got allot of his money from coal, oil and nuclear power industries and had extensive family investments in them as well.

    I knew people that worked there at the time.

  • Ken Zeiler says:

    I have inherited a large collection of Saturn and Apollo prints from the 60s. I would like to see them go to a collector or museum. Call Ken 727-278-1952

  • G. Felipe says:

    Hi Amy, Just came across your article and I was taken down memory lane.

    I was lucky enough to grow up during the height of the Apollo / Saturn Program and witnessed the launch of Apollo 11. I was ten miles away from the launch and you could feel the thunder and shaking of the ground from that spot. I was a fifteen year old space fanatic (and still am) building model rockets etc.

    I also had the fortune of possessing a letter from Dr. Von Braun in response to one I sent to him shortly after he transfered to Washington as NASA Deputy Associate Administrator in May 1970.

  • david says:

    A friend of mine (who has since passed away) worked under von Braun in the mid 1960’s. Many years ago, that friend told me that von Braun would get Saturn components from the vendors, look them over, and go “that isn’t going to work” and then start making changes himself. He never changed the blueprints, and therefore there is no record of the changes that von Braun personally made to Saturn V components. My friend had told me that because of the changes von Braun made, NASA was unable to make new Saturn V’s that would work. I find it interesting that a decade after hearing this story, I am now reading that NASA engineers are reverse engineering the 1 remaining Saturn V to figure out how it really worked. I had always though my friend was exaggerating…

  • Jimmie Loocke says:

    Hi Stu, You seem
    to be very Knowledgable when it comes to rocket engines . I personally own 3 Apollo Ascent Engines and many parts related to the testing of these engines . I am in the process of restoring my engines . I would love to speak with you about some questions related to my engines.

  • Jimmie Loocke says:

    I may have 5 of the 6 Rope Memory Modules from AS-501 ( Apollo 4 ‘s AGC) I am tryng to prove what I have was on that Flight.

  • Jimmie Loocke says:

    I would love to see what you have. I may be able to identify them if they are from an ApolloAscent Engine. I own 3 of these egines

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: