![]() | Apollo 6 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on April 4, 2004. |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This page of the Encyclopedia is very informational thanks for helping me finish my project
I would think it would have to be West Longitude
There's mention of the famous Saturn V launch footage originating from Apollo 6, but similar footage came from Apollo 4, too--perhaps this and the Apollo 4 article should reflect that? (The footage of the interstage falling away is seen in the Star Trek episode " Assignment: Earth" which aired in late March 1968, and thus must have been from Apollo 4.)
Cameras covering the interstage separation were on both Apollo 4 and 6. The appear to NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Saturn V reports for both missions detail their operation--both cameras worked on Apollo 4 [1], while one of the cameras on the S-II on Apollo 6 was not recovered [2]. This could simplify identification of images in that any image with the rocket nozzles at the top of the frame (with the Earth below) must be from Apollo 4, while images with the rocket nozzles at the bottom of the frame could be from 4 or 6. It's difficult to search NASA's sites (the interstage photo on this Apollo 6 page appears to come from a NASA Apollo 6 page that no longer exists), such that I am unable to find still images of the interstage separation from Apollo 4, but note that Spacecraft Films' Saturn V DVD set includes Apollo 4 interstage footage ("Film 0-377" and "Film 0-378") and no interstage footage from Apollo 6 [3].
I've now changed the Camera section on Apollo 6 and added a Camera section to the Apollo 4 article. Jaydro 15:38, 12 November 2005(UTC)
What about the frequently shown footage apparently showing the complete S-IVB /Apollo spacecraft firing up and heading away from the camera? Does this come from other recovered cine footage or is it from a TV transmission?
Here is a NASA film clip (2m 19s - 25MB mpeg) showing the three distinct separations:
"Apollo-Saturn S1-C Staging" "Apollo-Saturn S-II Interstage Staging" "Apollo-Saturn S-IV-B Staging"
http://history.nasa.gov/ap08fj/video/staging.mpg
From the foregoing discussion it would appear that all three come from the Apollo 4 launch (Star Trek footage?) - as the point of view is below the main engines on the S-II. It appears they have two cameras at least - one forward point the other backward pointing. Maybe the 'forward pointing' footage from Apollo 6 is the lost footage?
Any thoughts?
I see someone ignored what I said and the page referring to the footage which states "MPEG-1 movie showing first plane separation, second plane separation and separation of an S-IVB from a Saturn IB first stage" [emphasis mine]. The paragraph describing the footage needs correction.... Jaydro ( talk) 18:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC) ...and I did it. Jaydro ( talk) 04:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it's safe to say that the NASA History statement is incorrect and that couldn't have been Apollo 5. They're not infallible, ya know. Karn ( talk) 06:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
As yet another data point, Apollo 5 was launched at 5:48:08 PM on January 22, 1968. That's at night. Yet the sun shines in from the right and front of the stage as we look up and watch the S-IVB pull away. This indicates morning, so it can't possibly be Apollo 5. I went ahead and rewrote the section to eliminate the reference to Apollo 5. Apollos 4 and 6 were both launched at 12:00:01 UTC on 9 November 1967 and 4 April 1968, respectively, so we can't easily tell them apart by sun angle. So all I can say is that the S-IVB footage came from either Apollo 4 or Apollo 6. 72.130.190.192 ( talk) 09:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC) <-- this comment was from me. Karn ( talk) 09:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it can be an S-IB and Apollo 5. The forward-looking footage shows the distortion of a wide-angle lens, not a conical adapter. It almost certainly wasn't from Apollo 4 or 6 or any other Saturn V flight because the S-IVB has the three ullage motors of the 200 series, not the 500 series' 2 ullage motors used on Saturn V's, never mind that I doubt a camera unit could be successfully ejected from the altitude of a Saturn V third-stage separation. I can't vouch for correct sun angles, but it's definitely not from a Saturn V launch, and I can't find another S-IB launch that it could be from, plus there are references to it being from Apollo 5. I'll fix this when I assemble all the proper references. Jaydro ( talk) 02:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
The NASA report on the flight, http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19900066484_1990066484.pdf, says it was engine 2 that cutout due to the ASI fuel line failure and that engine 3 was shutdown due to the wiring crossover. This entry has it the other way round. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laryb1492 ( talk • contribs) 17:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
After watching the film Marooned it would appear that the footage used for the opening sequence showing the launch of Ironman One comes from the Apollo 6 launch footage. It would also explain why the Service Module in the film was painted white. Graham1973 ( talk) 14:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Apologies. I had misremembered that this flight was supposed to go to the moon, when the truth is, that it was only supposed to go into a trans-lunar injection orbit (never going farther than 12,000 nautical miles out, however, and not in the direction of the moon), then immediately after injection burn (5 minutes) turn around and use the SPS to start a burn to come back, with exactly translunar re-entry angle and speed. Total planned mission time was 10 hours, about the same as actual time. It never got up to translunar injection velocity, due to S-IVB re-ignite failure. This was caused by ruptures in a fuel line expansion-contraction segments in both the S-II and S-IVB engines, caused by resonance failure in the line. These had not been seen in sea level tests because ice crystals had damped out the line vibrations, but in a real Saturn V launch, the high altutude was too dry for the damping crystals to form! The problem was fixed by deleting and expansion segments and replacing them with tougher sections that could still bend.
Instead of the S-IVB sending the thing into translunar insertion, it was dead. All Apollo 6's controllers could do, was fire the SPS service module engine from low Earth orbit, to put it into an elipitical higher Earth orbit from which it could then be returned by the same engine, faster than low Earth orbit (about 10,000 fps) but still significantly more slowly than than had been planned, and also slower than Apollo 4 had done. S B H arris 05:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
@ 76.118.198.18: keeps adding "partial failure" or "mission failure" to the Mission duration field in the infobox. Please stop doing this.