Відео

Because the time period is very small in this range of high speeds (speeds from 700 to 1300 m/s, altitudes from 17 to 30 km, just over 25 seconds) in which the Saturn V is still in sensitive atmosphere layers. There isn't enough time for the heating to cause problems with the rocket's structure.

The Saturn V accelerated from the pad at 2.7 m/s2. Starship accelerates at 5 m/s2, or twice as fast as the Saturn V.

The velocity reading is reality. In less than 10 minutes, the Saturn V stack went from sitting on the pad, to doing 28,000 km/h. The big differences between a railgun and a rocket are these: 1. a railgun has to accelerate its projectile within the length of the barrel, which is a few tens of meters at most. A rocket runs its engines the whole way. 2. a railgun is limited in speed both by the length of the barrel, and by the atmosphere it operates in. A rocket goes up, and gets to the thinner layers of the atmosphere where air resistance becomes less and less of a problem.

No, NASA officials don’t claim they “lost the technology”. That's a quote from a single interview, not NASA’s official position. It’s easy to see that the claim is incorrect. Tons of Apollo data, from drawings to technical reports is sitting in public archives.

NASA doesn’t claim it can’t get past the van Allen belts either. Now, just as back in the 1960s, it’s not hard to pass through the van Allen belts: the radiation levels are low enough that humans in a simple pressure hull are protected enough.

Going to the moon is not difficult in the sense that a lot of computing power is needed. That’s not the limiting factor. The limiting factor is money. Apollo cost $300 billion, for designing and building the huge Saturn V, the spacecraft, the other stuff they needed plus the infrastructure to support all of that. And that number is why we haven’t been back to the moon since: manned lunar missions are more expensive than the USA was willing to pay.

Exactly. "Incredible", which means NOT CREDIBLE. Did you see the rocket being weighed? Did you see a verifiable weight of 310,000 pounds? Why do you believe what the mass media tells you?

When the rocket is going 4473 MPH, the weight is much less than 310k lbs. That's why it going faster and faster, because of the weight loss.

The Apollo spacecraft launched to earth orbit. After a check-out in earth orbit, the 3rd stage would re-fire and push the spacecraft to the velocity needed to travel to the moon. The launch to orbit insertion took a bit over 11.5 minutes. This video shows liftoff through just after the second stage ignition. The second stage burned for around 6 minutes. Each stage provides the least acceleration at the beginning of its burn. As it burns fuel, the spacecraft becomes lighter, and the acceleration increases throughout the time the stage is burning.

Saturn V's maximum acceleration (4 g) happened just before first stage shutdown at 3:03 in this video. The acceleration never exceeded 2 g during the burn of the second and third stages, but their burns lasted longer and produced a larger velocity increase (delta v) than the first stage did.

they dont reach so much speed...they are made of helium... they are big baloon's space shuttle big fuel tank also helium baloon...cover the flame of the rocket and watch wat you see....does it goes fast..or just floating up with a little bit of trust fake flame.....space is fake

@@MartijnFEH 👎👎👎

Yes! You're waking up to the lie! The velocity readings were made up fantasy. That rocket did Mach-2 at best. Then its trajectory flattened out, and off camera, it landed in the sea. They are all unmanned. It's a total lie.

The rocket has to reach 25,000 MPH to reach the moon. The acceleration had started to flat line at 1/4th that speed. The absolute stupidity of people who believe in the moon landing.

At the end of this video, the Saturn V had climbed to 92-93 km altitude, where the atmospheric density is about 1/500,000 of that at sea level or *1/16,000* of that at the Blackbird's cruising altitude. That difference _might_ have some impact on the air resistance experienced by the two vehicles. It's also worth noting that when the Saturn V passed the Blackbird's cruising altitude at around 25 km, its speed was just slightly higher than the Blackbird's top speed. And unlike the Blackbird, the Saturn V didn't _stay_ at that speed/altitude for long, but kept climbing into much thinner air as it continued to accelerate.

@@malceum The Saturn V did in fact have three stages, but this video covers just the first and the beginning of the second stage burn. The second stage had lower thrust/weight ratio and thus a lower acceleration than the first, but the burn lasted for more than 6 minutes, adding about 1.5 times more speed (~15,000 km/h) to the rocket than the first one did. The third stage had even lower acceleration than the second, but having a total burn time of more than 8 minutes, it added about the same speed as the second did.

@@fromnorway643 Are there any videos of the Saturn V accelerating to its final speed?

@@malceum Not that I am aware of, since that happened after it had reached orbit and was too far away from any cameras on the ground to get good footage.

But it did it (we don't need to fly at 11,000 per second for orbit)

11,000 what per second?

Meters

You don't need *_escape velocity_* (11,000 m/sec) to reach low Earth orbit, only about 7800 m/sec. This video only lasts to shortly after the first staging, but a Saturn V needed to burn all the fuel in the second stage plus some in the third stage before reaching orbit, and that took almost 12 minutes in total.

@@fromnorway643 What ever you're smoking pass some my way will ya? 7800m/sec?? Name me a single missile today that can do 7800 km/H? Even the mighty 16/50 Missouri WW2 Battleship Guns could only manage 2700 feet per second, the exact same speed as a .308 bullet!!! 7800 Metres per second is multiple times faster than that even. This is explosive energy not gas fired energy. Not in 100M years is any rocket going to achieve 10x the speed of a bullet. Try another subject champ.

👎

@@m.souffreur8064 Color in the US arrived in the mid 50's. This is 1969. No one had B/W in the US by then. You're just joshing right??

@@m.souffreur8064 Kidding? Pulling my chain. Mucking about. Horsing about.

@@m.souffreur8064 It's a biblical word that goes back to the OT times. When Joshua led Israel into the Promised land after 40 years in the Wilderness they thought he a taking the Mickey.

Unlike you, who has no clue

1234567890