Talk:Saturn V

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Saturn V article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 12 months

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Saturn V dynamic test vehicle was copied or moved into Saturn V with this edit on 24 July 2025. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

	Saturn V is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	Saturn V has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 10, 2004.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 17, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted March 18, 2008 Featured article review Demoted July 27, 2020 Good article nominee Not listed June 2, 2022 Peer review Reviewed February 26, 2024 Good article nominee Not listed September 17, 2025 Good article nominee Listed A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 7, 2025. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the force developed by the engines of the Saturn V (pictured) during testing shattered the windows of nearby houses? Current status: Former featured article, current good article

This  level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Rocketry Top‑importance Rocketry portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. The topic of this article is rocket. Spaceflight Top‑importance Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. National Register of Historic Places Mid‑importance National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

S-II sequence

The text says:

For the first two uncrewed launches, eight solid-fuel ullage motors ignited for four seconds to accelerate the S-II stage, followed by the ignition of the five J-2 engines. For the first seven crewed Apollo missions only four ullage motors were used on the S-II, and they were eliminated for the final four launches.

I can't find any mention of the ullage motor being removed in the subsequent missions, in the reference given a few sentences after (https://web.archive.org/web/20150326211327/http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/saturn_apollo/documents/Second_Stage.pdf). LexisVD (talk) 12:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ullage motors are afaik reserved entirely for space, they are intended to move liquid propellant to one end of the tank so that it flows correctly. Only used in freefall. I don't know of any time it has been used on launch, it just wouldn't make any sense.User:Pedant (talk) 09:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo 15 was the first flight that flew with no second stage ullage engines. The NASA Flight Evaluation report for AS-510 (Apollo 15) has this:

Four of the eight S-IC retromotors and all of the S-II ullage motors were removed for this flight; therefore, the S-IC/S-II separation sequence was revised. This sequence change extended the coast period between S-IC OECO [outboard engine cutoff] and S-II ESC [engine start command] by one second. The S-IC/S-II separation sequence and S-II engine thrust buildup performance was satisfactory. (pg. 6-1)

Source: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19730025086/downloads/19730025086.pdf Mschulm (talk) 01:46, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No corresponding info in the TLI capacity data reference in the infobox

As noted in Infobox: nasa.gov provides a reference to a TLI load of 52,759 kg (116,314 lb).

While that reference is no longer accessible, the data does not appear to be found in the Internet Archive archives, but is actually below.

It could launch about 118,000 kilograms (130 tons) into Earth orbit. That's about as much weight as 10 school buses. The Saturn V could launch about 43,500 kilograms (50 tons) to the moon. That's about the same as four school buses.

Yusancky (talk) 07:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saturn V reusability

I have found articles that contain legit plans for Saturn V resuability. I have added these links to the First stage section, but they are from discussions on Collect Space. I have lost the article to the Brown reusability proposal but I downloaded it as a PDF before I lost the discussion. These links are not exactly the best and kind of questionable for this kind of thing, any suggestions? Spaceman20290 (talk) 15:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just backed out the changes, the sources don't seem to meet WP:RS. Also, never place raw links in the body of the text. Tarl N. (discuss) 04:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Saturn V/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: The4lines (talk · contribs) 19:10, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: SnowyRiver28 (talk · contribs) 08:16, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Operation Paperclip, authorized by President Truman,[6] brought in over 1,600 German rocket engineers and technicians to the United States This sentence could be expanded to reference where they were brought in from and the context surrounding this. I feel it would give the sentence more purpose. Y Originally, in the early 1960s, when the Saturn project was transferred to NASA from whom? Y At T+20.6 seconds, the four outboard engines were tilted toward outward, in case of a premature outboard engine shutdown Is this meant to say 'tilted outward', or does it mean something else in this context? Y
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Whilst the GAN requirements don't explicitly mention MOS:LINKING as necessary, it would be good for this article to be improved in this area as it's currently quite poor. A thorough review of the links in this article in its entirety is needed, particularly in regard to MOS:REPEATLINK. Y
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Majority of sources correctly using WP:SHORTCITE format.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	In the first couple of months, the Germans were only given "primitive or aged" wooden workshops. Though this may be cited under the source that follows a few paragraphs later, I feel it would be good to cite at the end of the quoting sentence, given its nature and WP:WTC Y Source spot-check completed. Seems to have improved greatly since last GA nomination. All sources seem highly reliable.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No obvious copyvio detected.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	File:Saturn V, rocket display.jpg says it was created by NASA. If this is true, it should have the NASA public domain copyright tag just like all the other NASA images. At the moment it's just a creative commons license.  Removed Image removed. If you like, the image can be added back, it just needs to be updated to have the correct copyright tag. The image says the author is NASA, so adding the NASA public domain tag like most of the other images would make it compliant. Otherwise, it can stay left out, up to you! All other images are tagged and valid.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Please review MOS:CAPFRAG for info on punctuation in captions and review captions in article accordingly. Y
	7. Overall assessment.	Issues fixed and article listed.

Comments

link to diff from previous serious GAN

Creating review. Nominator has 62% authorship (last GAN failed for insufficient nominator authorship). Pinging @Amitchell125: who reviewed a previous nomination. Would you be interested in helping to review this considering your previous thorough read-through of the article in its prior state (though quite a while ago)?SnowyRiver (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've read up until § Specifications. Will continue when I get the chance. Some initial notes in the above table.SnowyRiver (talk) 10:00, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've read up until § Mission Profile. Taking it a few sections at a time so I can fully grasp and understand concepts for a fair review. Table above updated, more to come. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 07:17, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Full read completed. Great article! I found this really interesting and insightful. I just need to check citations and sources then we should be good to list. I've added to the table above so you're not waiting on me for things to fix. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 01:30, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The4lines:Review completed. Great work! I had a great time reading and reviewing this article and it seems to have improved greatly since the last GA nomination. Please have a look at my notes above and let me know if you have any questions or comments. I'll put this on hold for 7 days to give you a chance to work on it. Once again, great job! SnowyRiver28 (talk) 01:52, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Noting that I have removed duplicate links throughout the article, aside from one explained in my edit summary. This article contains technical components and MOS:REPEATLINK does allow level-3 exceptions particularly when sections are rather long. I have not implemented any here, but it's possible that should be considered for the Development section for more subject-specific or technical links. Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 03:40, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SnowyRiver28: Done with all the changes. Thank you for the review. The4lines |||| (talk) 05:23, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by TarnishedPath talk 12:15, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Launch of Apollo 11 aboard the Saturn V rocket

• ... that in 2002, a suspected asteroid turned out to be a used stage from the Saturn V rocket (pictured)? Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20030412104402/http://ali.opi.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/WebObjects/UANews.woa/2/wa/SRStoryDetails?ArticleID=6102
  • ALT1: ... that during testing, the force developed by the Saturn V's (pictured) engines shattered the windows of nearby houses? Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20200426120059/https://www.nasa.gov/vision/space/gettingtospace/stennis_40th.html

Improved to Good Article status by The4lines (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

The4lines |||| (talk) 23:22, 17 September 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• Recently promoted to GA. Article length is sufficient and referencing is all good. Hooks are both interesting, verified in the sources, and cited inline where appropriate. Copyvio not detected (score is a bit high but that's due to extensive use of long place names such as "the Marshall Space Flight Center" and QPQ not yet required being the nominator's 5th DYKN. Image is clear at that size and is Public Domain. Good to go. Juxlos (talk) 04:06, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]