Back in the sixties, I, my brother and our dad would gather with thirty or forty fellow model rocketeers in a gravel pit Saturday evenings and launch model rockets. One such model was the Saturn 1B that was sponsored by our local hobby shop. It was the highlight of the day for all involved when we got all four engines to ignite simultaneously and launch that cool rocket❤, RIP dad❤🎉
@@sonnyburnett8725 I would twist one end of each motor’s igniter wire, and solder them together and attach one micro-clip, the other ends get soldered to a copper wire ring for the other clip. Soldering makes for sure connections. Hope this helps
Part of why I love learning about the space program is not only the manufacture of the rockets, but, the manufacture of the machines and equipment to build them, to test them, to ship them and to operate them. The engineering involved is mind boggling. Building the Kennedy Space Center on mosquito infested swampland and getting the largest, most complicated machines to leave the Earth and go to the moon and back is still amazing.
I spoke to the man who developed the fiber optic cables (two for lighting into the tank; one for relaying the image out of the tank) and he said that it was the first practical use of fiber optic cable bundles. Otherwise, they would not have been able to have electric lights and a high-voltage tube video camera *inside* a tank of liquid hydrogen (without exploding that is).
I'm guessing all the strange blurriness is from using ai for restoration? I really think it might be worth holding off on using that anymore until the technology improves.
Not "Apollo 3", as that was never flown. AS-203 was a mere test flight of the launch vehicle and, as noted in the video, did *not* carry any Apollo spacecraft.
IMO AS-203 should've been launched first and they should attempted a full J-2 restart including ignition and had a burn to depletion (I've no doubt the S-IVB would've ended up in a heliocentric orbit.
I wonder what they thought liquid hydrogen might do in microgravity that necessitated this test flight? Does hydrogen behave differently than oxygen in orbit?
There wasn't too much they were doing that would have a super long coasting period in orbit. Most stuff prior to this was "go go go" the whole time, not needing so much in the way of ullage motors. An Apollo lunar mission would go into orbit, set setup, checked out, etc, then need to perform a TLI burn (hence the restart they're talking about here). And it's not like they had much data with restarting engines on the Agena Target Vehicle yet, Gemini missions wouldn't get a chance to test that until Gemini X later that month (July 1966).
@@TastyBusiness even then the Agena was almost guaranteed to work because of its fuel. The hydrogen and oxygen combination have the caveat of cavitation. Air bubbles forming in the fuel lines as the fuel floats out of the chamber.
The point is that both are liquids in weightlessness. There is no "bottom" anymore, which means there is a risk that there is no more fuel there. This was solved by giving the stage a push with thrusters, which led the fuel back to the "bottom".
@@ApolloKid1961They're called ullage motors, engines, rockets. Thrusters are completely different to ullage motors and perform other tasks such as station keeping, manoeuvring, etc.
Back in the sixties, I, my brother and our dad would gather with thirty or forty fellow model rocketeers in a gravel pit Saturday evenings and launch model rockets. One such model was the Saturn 1B that was sponsored by our local hobby shop. It was the highlight of the day for all involved when we got all four engines to ignite simultaneously and launch that cool rocket❤, RIP dad❤🎉
Hey Paul, how did you get all four engines ignited at the same time. All these years and I still can’t do it. Lol. Thanks
@@sonnyburnett8725 I would twist one end of each motor’s igniter wire, and solder them together and attach one micro-clip, the other ends get soldered to a copper wire ring for the other clip. Soldering makes for sure connections. Hope this helps
Part of why I love learning about the space program is not only the manufacture of the rockets, but, the manufacture of the machines and equipment to build them, to test them, to ship them and to operate them. The engineering involved is mind boggling. Building the Kennedy Space Center on mosquito infested swampland and getting the largest, most complicated machines to leave the Earth and go to the moon and back is still amazing.
Thanks! Another great one!
Ah, I'd heard about the camaras in the hydrogen tamk but had never seen the footage until now. Thanks!
I spoke to the man who developed the fiber optic cables (two for lighting into the tank; one for relaying the image out of the tank) and he said that it was the first practical use of fiber optic cable bundles. Otherwise, they would not have been able to have electric lights and a high-voltage tube video camera *inside* a tank of liquid hydrogen (without exploding that is).
Such fascinating footage!
Really it is mind boggling to think about all the things developed and tested to make it all work in the end!
Great video, many elements not before seen! Loved the technical drawings depicted with a photo of each section at the beginning.
The tip of the lightweight nosecone appears to be the Q-ball/nosecone assembly from an Apollo LAS.
😍👍
So how long before the AS-202 video is uploaded?
Big gear..🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
I'm guessing all the strange blurriness is from using ai for restoration? I really think it might be worth holding off on using that anymore until the technology improves.
A lot of footage was converted to 4k when the Apollo movie was made from archived film. So maybe some of this was also converted?
Not "Apollo 3", as that was never flown. AS-203 was a mere test flight of the launch vehicle and, as noted in the video, did *not* carry any Apollo spacecraft.
IMO AS-203 should've been launched first and they should attempted a full J-2 restart including ignition and had a burn to depletion (I've no doubt the S-IVB would've ended up in a heliocentric orbit.
"Nose Cone" ... now THERE is a term lost to the 1960s!
Thanks from Russia for this video!
русски иван?!
@@georgka74 My name is Sergei and I sinserely wlsh you to get smarter over the years.
I wonder what they thought liquid hydrogen might do in microgravity that necessitated this test flight?
Does hydrogen behave differently than oxygen in orbit?
There wasn't too much they were doing that would have a super long coasting period in orbit. Most stuff prior to this was "go go go" the whole time, not needing so much in the way of ullage motors. An Apollo lunar mission would go into orbit, set setup, checked out, etc, then need to perform a TLI burn (hence the restart they're talking about here). And it's not like they had much data with restarting engines on the Agena Target Vehicle yet, Gemini missions wouldn't get a chance to test that until Gemini X later that month (July 1966).
@@TastyBusiness even then the Agena was almost guaranteed to work because of its fuel. The hydrogen and oxygen combination have the caveat of cavitation. Air bubbles forming in the fuel lines as the fuel floats out of the chamber.
The point is that both are liquids in weightlessness. There is no "bottom" anymore, which means there is a risk that there is no more fuel there. This was solved by giving the stage a push with thrusters, which led the fuel back to the "bottom".
@@ApolloKid1961They're called ullage motors, engines, rockets.
Thrusters are completely different to ullage motors and perform other tasks such as station keeping, manoeuvring, etc.
@@ed9121 Thank you.