Formulka very sharp of hem

Well, he was XD. probably for the best if that's what the BBC want.

You do a grand tour on the moon

oh wow, I thought it was a tongue in cheek reference but it was actually a shameful plug :P

Subliminal advertisement

YYEEEEAAAAAAAAAHHHH!

Well, he sure as hell isn't going to say fifth gear. That would just put a bad taste in his mouth.

And for that he will be nagged in the afterlife by a pedantic Scotsman (Sir Jackie). ;)

Captain Slow strikes again.

Tonit on butom gér

theres more than one u no

You'd think with all the money they got by faking the moon missions they could have afforded a shed to put it in sooner than that. [/sarcasm]

smithfan22 The Kennedy Space Center's Saturn 5 was in a similar condition - the space coast environment is very hard on equipment and machinery - and was finally put under cover in 1997. I've seen it three times now and it is very well preserved. The Saturn at Huntsville is also now under cover.

I didn't know where this video was made. But I am in full agreement. The story is the same for the Saturn V static display at KSC. The last time I visited, in 2011, I was relieved to see they'd finally sheltered it.

MarsFKA I’ve seen the one in Huntsville, before it was refurbished and enclosed. A video just doesn’t do justice to the size of the Saturn. The one in Huntsville has the full system, but was used for ground testing, not for actual flight. The other two were supposed to be used for Apollo 18-20, which were all cancelled.

Disappointingly, he's a climate change denialist.

@@yassassin6425oh shit your right, that’s pretty disappointing honestly.

@@yassassin6425 Indeed! Being an expert on lunar geology doesn't make you an expert on planets with _atmospheres,_ unlike climatologists like James Hansen who has studied the atmospheres of Earth and other planets since before Armstrong walked on the Moon.

Huh?! ​@@yassassin6425

In the words of clarkson if that happenes "A BBC film crew just hung themselves"

*hanged

hung*

No, hanged. "Hanged" is the past tense for execution by strangulation or snapping the neck by a rope.

rockaholictom Well, many of the parts were redundant, so that one failure wouldn’t cause an abort. The designers of the Saturn booster in particular had a large number of redundant systems. And it certainly worked well. It never had a major failure, a rarity in those early days of rocketry. It even survived two lightning strikes during the launch of Apollo 12. Everything on the CM had to be “rebooted”, but the Saturn’s “brain” (the guidance system), the Instrument Unit (IU) was well shielded, and it kept the booster on course into orbit.

I don't think you get the joke mate

And... you can't spell programme.. :-)

Samuel Rosenberg Voyager 2 did fly the “grand tour” and flew by all four Outer Planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune). Voyager 1 flew by Jupiter and Saturn, and is just now exiting the Solar System. Even today, doing a manned “grand tour” would not be possible (and the planets won’t be in the proper alignment for several decades) as it’s essentially a one way trip. The logistics would be a nightmare, as life support, and supplies would require a huge spacecraft. You would also need to bring along a lot of fuel if you ever wanted to return home, because the Voyagers got most of their speed from gravity boosts from those planets. Jupiter would likely be the most difficult for a manned crew, as the radiation is deadly. No other spacecraft since Voyager has returned to Uranus or Neptune.

Being in the space program back in the late 1950s to the 1960s and early 1970s meant you had balls.

A grand tour of Hollywood.

*I SAWED THIS ROCKET IN HALF*

@@matthewdavidjarvis6039 *12 months and 100 episodes later* "Okay everyone, we are 12% done with the rocket. We still need a few more time."

@@matthewdavidjarvis6039 *100 years and 9000 episodes later* "We are 73% done with the rocket. Still 27% away from it being finished."

@@ismaellopez3963 *130 years later and 10302 episode later* Okay everyone we finally completed the 80% of it but since we have better technology and rocket we are going to switch to other option

@@anonymousstout4759 epic waste of time there lmao

Reminds me, a retired plumber, all the times an electrician told me he tried being a plumber and decided wiring was his calling. Holding back liquid pressures past all those fittings........amazing.

I mean, how hard can it be?

There was a joke from Jezza long time ago (like 10 years ago) "allways use Top gear.. renember Fifth gear is no good"

sparrowJLT The competing show that was a Top Gear ripoff called itself 5th Gear. I guess that made "5th gear" unmentionable at the BBC.

@@johnfrancisdoe1563 i mean, fifth gear was more down to the real formula of being a car show wasn't it. like the top gear in 90s. after 2002, top gear became much more than that but it kinda lost its educational/journalism side. fifth gear filled that hole. you'd watch fifth gear for education and insights, you'd watch top gear for fun.

@@johnfrancisdoe1563 5th Gear was what Tiff Needell, Vicky Henderson and Quentin Wilson wento to do when the original Top Gear was cancelled in the late 90s.. then Jezza went to do standaline videos along Andy Willman .. and few years later BBC offered Willman and Clarkson to recover TG .. their rivality was of course an ongoing joke among them.. Clarkson continued doing videos with Needell and Henderson across the years well after both shows had been on the road

1st gear*

its from 2009

Ben Deem but BBC put it up now... So they are trying to get whatever they can

that's the joke.

Alexander Anderson nnn

This is one of the best gentlemen in existence.

It is saturn v !!!

Therefore, all future flights to the Moon should be from the ISS, or any future replacements of it, rather than ground-launched.

@Voltaic Fire Spaceplanes will definitely get more people into orbit.

I thought he looked WAY younger than on the GT.

no he is using a new lego from june

Sir Blibblob.... Yeah, that's why he got the plug in !

The turbo pumps could make the Columbia River flow backward.

Exactly. Simple does not mean imprecise.

He’s like chuck Norris, to him they are “not very sophisticated “

"Not very sophisticated" is perhaps referring to the turbo pumps existence and size. A modern closed cycle engine like the RD-180 simply eliminated these dinosaurs and there is another issue with the F-1 engines, they are cooled with a series of small tubes that form the combustion chamber - presenting great frictional loss so the turbo pump has to be much bigger then in a modern engine. Incidentally the tubular cooling also creates a limit of combustion pressures which severely limits power and efficiency, couple that with the strange choice of non mixing straight through injectors on the injector plate means that much of the fuel in the F-1 burns 'safely' outside of the engine with a bright yellow glow and huge tail flame. The F-1 engine is such a poor design that no aspect of it's design was ever used again and NASA totally redesigned the engines for the Shuttle in order to get an efficient launch. The F-1 choice of tubular cooling, straight injectors and external turbo pump are notably missing from the world's best rocket engines today, the RD-180 and derivatives.

"It's the science behind . . " Sorry Dylan , the Apollo project rockets had little or nothing to do with science, which is about discovering the working of nature. The Apollo project worked by assembling a whole collection of fundamental principles in such a way that the 6 million parts all worked together to get the desired result - a man on the Moon and back again, safely. The people who do this kind of work are called 'engineers' who understand very well every detail of what is needed, they are absolutely not carrying out 'scietific experiments' where the crews lives are dependent on the result. With a disaster like the 'Challenger Shuttle' explosiong (killed all crew and passengers) it was not a failure on the part of the designers, the failure was due was to Launch Control (NASA management) deciding to launch an ice coated vehicle that was much colder than its design specification. Launch Control had received advice from the designers not to launch in the icy conditions because the seals on the Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) would not close to gas tight at such a low temperature with the consequential total LoV (loss of vehicle). Doing anything like that in the military produces an immediate courts martial. It is very strange that the relevant NASA decision takers were not charged with murder or at least with incompetence because they chose to ignore their own specification.

AfonsoSousa31 the initial release of this one hour documentary for the UK was June 21, 2009, God, that was…6 and a half years ago, more or less.

It's a catchy name!

the initial release of this one hour documentary for the UK was June 21, 2009, God, that was…6 and a half years ago, more or less.

the initial release of this one hour documentary for the UK was June 21, 2009, God, that was…9 years ago, more or less.

AfonsoSousa31 e

I'd argue that title goes to the LHC

Mihai Voiculescu He means, in the world of 1960s rocketry, it's not really very sophisticated. Just pipes, plumbing impellers, and the control of fuel. That kind of technology had been around since the Second World War. What is impressive apart from anything else, is the scale. No rocket had ever been built on this kind of scale before. That's what makes it impressive. You have to remember James' engineering knowledge - he wasn't knocking it, he was as impressed as anyone else, he was just saying it's amazing how simple something like this is, and how effective it was.

Saying this is complex compared to today is like saying the pyramids are more complex then the Eiffel Tower... not even close. No arguing it was amazing, but the "most complex" ship sailed in the 80's

@@RB747domme "Just pipes." Yet somehow 50 years later, it's still the only rocket in history that has put men on the moon. Go read Stages of Saturn and the years that engineers spent trying to overcome the combustion instability, LOX pump explosions, welding defects, and guidance and computer problems that delayed the program over and over. Guess none of them were as brilliant as you.

@@jasperweaver3563The proof is in the pudding. No other space vehicle has done the complex the Saturn V did in putting men to the moon and back. Until another vehicle can demonstrate that it can do that better than the Saturn V, "more complex" my ass.

Ever found out?

@@FlorisMsvld Nope.

I don't know about that one in particular, but there are several models you can purchase, one of them by Revell (probably the one I hear the most about)

and it looks quite like this one, but I could be wrong

It appears to be a lot more substantial than the Revell kit.

probably the UK Airfix kit, not the Revell one. I do own both of them, Revell has a deployable SLA, but Airfix hasn't.

just buy the lego one thats coming out soon

There's plenty of information about how it worked. Just because you want to think there isn't info or don't know how to look it up doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Notmade ofPeople go watch the full documentary this is just a segment

Who manufactured that toy Saturn V?

thats truly remarkable but they arent as big as the saturn V and also have very very much better components and computers. For its day the saturn V was unbelievably advanced. At that time computers were so big you could just fit it in a room. The computer of the saturn V was so increadibly advanced for its time you cant imagine... SpaceX could just use a cellphone if they wanted to. Space X is good and does really get new stuff going, which I prefer over all our standard-marketing-bullshit we have got today... But for my the saturn V is more fascinating. I will be pleased if space X really somehow (manned or unmanned) gets someone or something to mars with no flaws. That would really be a big show ;)

Im really looking forward to december to see if they can finally launch the Falcon heavy..and if they finally do that BFR new rocket.. sounds a bit like smoke.. but so did the SpaceX thing of using reusable rocket stages capable of launching several tons into orbit reliably.. and they did it.. they are making the space race and space advancements real again (specially after the shuttle retiring setback)

falcon heavy is up to 5 million pounds of thrust, getting into saturn V territory there, absolutely agreed though it's unbelievable how advanced and powerful that rocket was, probably the most impressive to date.

Artemis 1 definitely stole thunder away from Starship, hope the latter will finally have a full assembly launch and get into orbit before the Artemis 2 mission…

Just..... Let us have this please...

He said it in a way so that ' Everyone ' could understand the concept , Not just mechanical Engineers or Rocket scientists etc ...... Everyone .

Yet. The cretins will show up sooner or later.

you forgot it's "LM"

You can probably get it from the BBC. I'm too lazy to check right now, though.

What model brand is that? Where can I buy it?

The problem with an "airplane approach" is the very thing that makes it a concept-the Earth's atmosphere. The atmosphere would cause considerable drag and heating at low altitudes and high velocities, which means you have to fly relatively slowly (compared to orbital speeds) until you get quite high up. As a result, you spend a lot of time in a part of the flight envelope where the plane is relatively inefficient (That's one reason commercial jets fly at around 35,000 feet-it's the most efficient altitude for the speed they fly). Efficiency for an airliner means a lower operating cost. For a launch vehicle, it means you don't have to pack as much fuel, so the vehicle can be smaller. The way rockets get around this is by launching more or less straight up, then slowly pitching over to gain horizontal velocity as they get higher and move into thinner air. When the LMs took off from the Moon, they didn't have to worry about atmospheric drag, and so they pitched over very soon (and very quickly) right after launch. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jtJ3nNZkmqvUpqc.html shows 17's take off. The lift off happens just after the 3:00 mark, and they pitch over about 10 seconds after that.

There are actually only three left. Two of them were made from varies portions of the three cancelled Apollo missions (mixed and matched), and the third one, in Huntsville, was SA-500D... made to go through the dynamic structural tests at the Huntsville facility. The one in Huntsville was never meant to fly, but the other two were.

@@stratoblaster3236 You have different information than I have. I'll research it a little more. Thanks for the prod.

@@stratoblaster3236 SA500 at Huntsville, Sa513 at KSC, SA514 at Johnson and the SA515 is split up to two places, Infinity Science center and Nat. Air and Space Museum in DC. There are more pieces too, like the converted to be a mock up for Skylab and some at Alomogordo. The one at Johnson Space Center is the only whole one made to be launched. (But it has mixed pieces)

@@myfavoritemartian1 You may be correct about the SA 515 being split up, But the information I got from KSC was that the rocket there is made up from one of the cancelled Apollo missions, along with the first stage that was used about 20 times for engine test firings. I don't know how much is accurate, but that info came from them. They also said that another first stage from one of the later rockets was used in the launching of Skylab I. I don't know if this is true or not, but a tour guide down at KSC said that he wasn't positive, but he believed that the original first stage from the KSC rocket was the one for Skylab I.