The Flickr Apollovi Image Generatr

Apollo 6 Command Module landed in the Pacific, northwest of the Hawaiian Islands at 4?46 PM, EST, April 4, 1968. Apollo 6 was the second unmanned flight of the Saturn V in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Lunar Landing Project.

Launch: April 4, 1968 7AM Complex 39 Kennedy Space Center, Fla.
Impact Zone: 27°40’ N - 157°55’ W / 50 Nautical miles West of the scheduled impact area.
Onboard Carrier (USS Okinawa) 15 hrs 55 min GET

“This still from footage from an airborne camera of the ascent of Apollo 6 shows debris coming from the SLA.”

“Apollo 6 lifted off smoothly and cleared the tower after performing a yaw maneuver to provide a bit more clearance for the ascending Saturn V. Fortunately, the modifications made to the pad facilities resulted in much less damage on MLP-2 than MLP-1 had experienced during the Apollo 4 launch five months earlier. At 11.1 seconds after launch, SA-502 began a 20-second roll maneuver to align itself to the proper azimuth so that it could begin to slowly pitch over and start travelling downrange. While all seemed to be going well with the flight, at the 110-second mark the ascending rocket began to experience a longitudinal oscillation known as pogo. Superimposed on the steadily growing acceleration curve was an oscillation with a frequency in the 5.2 to 5.5 hertz range which reached a peak amplitude of ±0.6 g about 125 seconds into the flight – over six times larger than the same effect experienced by Apollo 4. This was much higher than the ±0.25 g upper limit permitted during earlier manned missions and would have been intolerable for any crew. If Apollo 6 had carried astronauts, it would have certainly been aborted at this point.

But as the longitudinal oscillations began to die out and finally reach acceptable levels 140 seconds after launch, ground-based and airborne cameras tracking the ascending Saturn V noted several pieces of debris coming off from the area of the SLA just after 133 seconds of flight. At about this time, the emergency detection system (which was flying in an automated closed-loop configuration for the first time) cast one vote for aborting the mission which would have been mandatory had a second vote been cast. Changes in the telemetry readings indicated that the outer skin of one of the SLA panels had debonded and separated from the rocket. Fortunately, the SLA maintained its overall structural integrity allowing the ascent to continue.

The center engine of the S-IC stage shutdown as expected 144.9 seconds after launch followed by the outer four F-1 engines at 148.4 seconds. After operating for just 1.1 seconds longer than planned and travelling just 7.3 meters per second faster than nominal, the S-IC stage was separated 149 seconds after launch at an altitude of 60.1 kilometers. The S-IC-2 had completed its task and fell to Earth breaking up about 397 seconds after launch at an altitude of 28.9 kilometers some 611 kilometers downrange. Aside from the 30 seconds of excessive vibration and the failure of three of its four camera pods to eject from the falling stage, S-IC-2 had met its objectives.

After casting off its spent first stage, the five J-2 engines of the S-II stage ignited 149.8 seconds after launch as Apollo 6 continued to accelerate towards orbit. At 184.8 seconds after launch, the LES separated since it was no longer needed to support abort options for the rest of the mission. All was going well until the 319-second mark when the fuel flow rate on engine J-2044 in the no. 2 position on the S-II stage suddenly increased at the same time its thrust decreased. Following a spike in the engine bay temperature, engine no. 2 shut down after running for 263.8 seconds out of a planned 368.8-second burn. Although it was showing no signs of trouble, engine J-2508 in the no. 3 position also shutdown 1.3 seconds later. After the loss of two J-2 engines, the Saturn V guidance system did its best to cope with the situation. While never configured to deal with the loss of two J-2 engines, Apollo 6 continued its ascent. Finally, the remaining three engines of S-II-2 shutdown nine minutes and 36.3 seconds after liftoff. With the three remaining engines burning for 58.8 seconds longer than planned, Apollo 6 was travelling 102.3 meters per second slower than expected due to the lower acceleration while being 436.8 kilometer farther downrange and 6.4 kilometers higher because of how the guidance system tried to cope with the unexpected situation.

After separating from the now spent S-II stage, the single J-2 engine of S-IVB-502 ignited just a second after the S-II engines shutdown to continue the troubled ascent to orbit. The guidance system continued to attempt to get Apollo 6 back on course to reach a 185-kilometer parking orbit despite being too high and travelling too slow. Finally at 12 minutes and 27 seconds after launch, the S-IVB shutdown after burning almost 29 seconds longer than planned. Instead of being in a circular 185-kilometer circular orbit, Apollo 6 was in a more eccentric 173.0 by 356.8-kilometer orbit. Despite this off-nominal orbit and the longer than expected burn time, enough propellant remained in the S-IVB to proceed with the mission and perform the TLI burn near the end of the second revolution.”

All above is an extract & minor paraphrasing from Andrew LePage’s eminently readable account & website (DREW exmachina), at:

www.drewexmachina.com/2018/04/04/apollo-6-the-saturn-v-th...

And, specifically, the image:

i0.wp.com/www.drewexmachina.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/0...


Also, per “APOLLO 6 ANOMALY REPORT NO. 6: ABNORMAL STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE DURING LAUNCH PHASE (MSC-PT-R-68-22)”, compiled by NASA’s Apollo 6 Structual Task Team:

“Approximately 2 minutes 13 seconds after lift-off of the Apollo 6 mission, abrupt changes of strain, vibration, and acceleration measurements were indicated in the S-IVB, instrument unit, adapter, lunar module, and command and service modules; photographs showed objects coming from the area of the adapter. The adapter, however, continued to sustain the required loads with no impairment of the mission.

The investigation was first focused upon the understanding of the coupled vibration modes and characteristics of the launch vehicle and spacecraft. Extensive test programs were conducted. It was eventually concluded that the adapter failure was not caused by vibration.

Extensive study of the airborne photography and other evidence indicated that a large area of the adapter had lost inner facesheet from the honeycomb sandwich panels. Loads and stresses resulting from vibration were determined to be insufficient to initiate such a failure.

The investigation was then directed toward determining the range of pressures that could have been trapped in the Apollo 6 adapter sandwich panels, and toward determining the tolerance of the panels to withstand pressure with various degrees of flaws such as adhesive voids and facesheet dents. The degradation effects of moisture and heat exposure on the adhesive strength were also studied and tested. These tests and analyses led to the conclusion that pressure internal to the sandwich panels could have caused the failure, if a large flaw existed. The pressure buildup would have been caused by aerodynamic heating effects on air and moisture trapped in the panel.

The probable cause of the failure was found in the original ultrasonic inspection scan record of the affected adapter panel. In the center of the region where the adapter failed, horizontally along the station 709 panel splice, the record contained two thick anomalous lines extending several feet. Without an X-ray record of this region, the significance of this particular scan record cannot be fully understood. However, since all other evidence had indicated that the adhesive had to be weakened in a rather large area to initiate the failure, the investigation was focused intently upon the station 709 splices of other adapters. Sufficient information was developed to verify that deficient assembly techniques have consistently resulted in abnormalities in the structure at this station. These abnormalities were identified in adapters 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16.

Before the splice abnormalities were pinpointed, corrective action was taken to reduce pressure "buildup in the honeycomb panels and to reduce heat degrading effects on the adhesive. This was done by drilling vent holes in the inner facesheet and covering the outer facesheet with cork. The adapters having identified abnormalities in the station 709 splice are being repaired, and the contractor is investigating ways of avoiding these abnormalities in panels yet to be bonded.”

At/From:

ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19740078908/downloads/1974007...

And:

forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28946.20
Credit: NASA Spaceflight Forum website

Finally:

galacticjourney.org/tag/apollo-6/
Credit: “Galactic Journey” website

Understandably, there are plenty of others.

The photograph is in fantastic condition, despite the numeral 25. Believe me, it’s not coming off, I tried. That, and the three-ring binder holes make me think this photo was actually used in some sort of in-house analysis, presentation, etc.

Lastly, the explanation for the normal - albeit alarming in appearance - phenomena seen during every Saturn V ascent:

gwsbooks.blogspot.com/2015/04/saturn-v-s-ic-flow-separati...
Credit: Wes Oleszewski/"Growing Up With Spaceflight blog

“Apollo 6 Command Module landed in the Pacific, northwest of the Hawaiian Islands at 4:56 PM, EST, April 4, 1968. Apollo 6 was the second unmanned flight of the Saturn V in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Lunar Landing Project.

Launch: April 4, 1968 7 AM Complex 39 Kennedy Space Center, Fla.
Impact Zone: 27°40’ N - 157°55’ W
50 Nautical miles West of the scheduled impact area.
Onboard Carrier (USS Okinawa) 15 hrs 55 min GET”

How does one ‘schedule’ an impact area…or, for that matter, anything locational/geographic? Most NASA caption writers’ elusive nemesis: the baffling & insurmountable grammatical complexities of the English language, let alone the often ungraspable mysteries of capitalization & punctuation. Ugh. But hey, a pleasant surprise; at least the image isn’t reversed left-to-right.
Actually, compared to all too many other abysmal offerings, this ain’t that bad.

“APOLLO 6 RECOVERY----Recovery personnel from the USS Okinawa participate in the recovery of the Apollo Spacecraft 020 Command Module. A U.S. Navy frogman team attaches a flotation collar to the Command Module. The USS Okinawa was the prime recovery ship for the Apollo 6 (Spacecraft 020/Saturn 502) unmanned space mission.”

The photograph is left-to-right reversed.
THIS is NOT the “rocket science” part! Dumbasses.

Also applicable, I assume from the caption of another Apollo 6 recovery photo:

“A U. S. Navy frogman team prepares the Apollo Spacecraft 020 Command Module (CM) for hoisting aboard the USS Okinawa. The USS Okinawa was the prime recovery ship for the Apollo 6 (Spacecraft 020/Saturn 502) unmanned space mission. Splashdown occurred at 4:58:45 p.m. (EST), April 4, 1968, at 375 nautical miles north of Honolulu, Hawaii. Objectives were to demonstrate trans-lunar injection capability of the Saturn V with a simulated payload equal to about 80% of a full Apollo spacecraft, and to repeat demonstration of the Command Module's (CM) heat shield capability to withstand a lunar re-entry. The flight plan called for following trans-lunar injection with a direct return abort using the Command/Service Module's (CSM) main engine, with a total flight time of about 10 hours.”

“APOLLO 6 ROLL OUT--------High-angle view of the Apollo 6 (Spacecraft 020/Saturn 502) stack and its mobile launch tower atop a crawler-transporter leaving the Vehicle Assembly Building on the way to Pad A, Launch Complex 39.”

Also:

www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/9903402...

In color:

www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/apollo_...

In lieu of comparative photographs (other than the one following), along with well-founded skepticism and doubt associated with NASA photographic record keeping & identification, I’ll foolishly go out on a limb and call this S-IC-3…being hoisted into position or removed(?) from the S-IC Test Stand/Building 4670, Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), possibly in October 1966.

In support of my above, I submit the following weak evidence:

history.nasa.gov/MHR-5/part-7.htm

Specifically, the following passage:

“After successful completion of post-manufacturing checkout at the Michoud Booster Checkout Facility, the S-IC-3 stage left Michoud on September 23 and arrived at MSFC on October 1. Unloading operations began on October 3, and on that same date workmen erected the stage in the test stand. ³²⁵

325. MSFC Press Release No. 66-223, Sept. 29, 1966.”

Even more specifically, this image – it being the ‘smoking rocket’:

history.nasa.gov/MHR-5/Images/fig317.jpg

HOWEVER, odds are far greater that it’s S-IC-T, due to the fact that it was static fired multiple times in the test stand. Per Mike Jetzer’s superlative “HEROIC RELICS” website:

“A total of 18 tests were performed with the S-IC-T stage at MSFC. The first three flight stages were also static-fired in the stand, with S-IC-1 undergoing two tests and S-IC-2 and S-IC-3 each being fired once. S-IC-4 and subsequent were tested at the MTF.”

At:

heroicrelics.org/msfc/test-stand-s-ic/index.html

ALTHOUGH, what little photographic evidence I’ve found of the purported S-IC-T at the MSFC S-IC test stand, of both supposed emplacement & removal, none have evidence of thrust chambers installed.

FINALLY, the outward appearance of the S-IC probably offers a clue as to its identification, Unfortunately though, I can’t keep up with the different paint schemes of the Saturn V’s, which seemed to have been changed, at different locations, during different times of the manufacturing/testing process, and where/when/if the U.S. flag decals were applied, along with what font “USA” decal was applied. So I suppose my final determination should actually be: who the f**k knows.

“APOLLO 6 MATING---Apollo Spacecraft 020 Command Module is hoisted into position for mating with Service Module in the Kennedy Space Center’s Manned Spacecraft Operations Building. Spacecraft 020 will be flown on the Apollo 6 (Spacecraft 020/Saturn 502) unmanned, earth-orbital space mission.”

images.nasa.gov/details-S68-17301

“APOLLO 6 ROLL OUT-----The Apollo 6 (Spacecraft 020/Saturn 502) stack and its mobile launch tower atop a crawler-transporter moving from the Vehicle Assembly Building toward Pad A, Launch Complex 39.”

The ENTIRE Apollo PROGRAM: Over-budget & on-time.

SLS (JUST the ROCKET): Way way way over- budget & way way way late.

Sign of the times.

archive.org/details/S68-21356
Credit: Internet Archive website

“Sturdy shackles embedded at several points keep the rocket from blasting off during tests. Seen through protective steel net from seven stories up, a shackle is fastened to rocket’s side. If rocket broke loose, it could be a real disaster.”

Based on the stamped date on the verso, if anywhere near timely, ICW the content of the following linked site, I’m going to take a stab that this is S-II-2, positioned in the A-2 test stand of the Mississippi Test Facility (MTF).
Or not.
Regardless, I like the sort of slightly abstract artsy kind of thing going on, set off by the perspective through the grating. A brilliant photographic composition! 😉
An S-II stage is 33-feet in diameter, so I’m guessing the hold-down ‘strut’ visible is, at the very least, a foot in diameter, maybe closer to two? Understandably, it appears to have a hydraulic "shock absorber" design/configuration in order to tolerate & dampen(?) some movement, vibration, etc. Awesome.

history.nasa.gov/MHR-5/part-8.htm

Excellent information:

www.apollosaturn.com/Website/Saturn-V-Flight-History
Credit: "The Apollo Saturn Reference Page" website

“NUMBER TWO COMING IN - - The second flight version of the Saturn V second stage (S-II) is unloaded from the barge “Pearle River” upon its arrival at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Mississippi Test Facility. Weighing 86,000 pounds, the 81 1/2 foot long, 33 feet in diameter stage is shown being towed into the Stage Storage and Servicing Building for checkout and preparations for installation in an S-II stand prior to static firing in March. This is the second flight stage of the S-II to be static fired at MTF. The first S-II test at MTF arrived at the NASA Kennedy Space Center, Fla. last week.”

S-II-2 history:

history.nasa.gov/MHR-5/part-8.htm

More significantly, from the immensely readable & informative article by Andrew LePage:

“The second stage of the Saturn V was designated the S-II stage with North American Aviation as its prime contractor (which merged with Rockwell in March 1967 and subsequently with Boeing 29 years later). Unlike the S-IC and most earlier rockets, the S-II burned the high-energy combination of liquid hydrogen and LOX which yields about half again as much thrust as a like mass of more conventional propellants. With the same ten meter diameter as the S-IC stage, this stage was 24.8 meters long and carried 429 metric tons of cryogenic propellant. Its five Rocketdyne J-2 engines generated a total of about 4,450 kilonewtons of thrust in its initial versions. With a nominal burn time of 367 seconds, the S-II provided most of the energy to drive the rocket and its payload towards Earth orbit during an Apollo lunar mission with burnout occurring at a typical altitude of 185 kilometers and a speed of 6.8 kilometers per second…

…At this point, the delivery of the first two S-II stages from North American was running months behind schedule due to problems encountered during final assembly and testing. In order to keep the processing of the first pair of Saturn V rockets on track, it had been decided that the initial stacking of AS-501 would instead use a substitute – a S-II simulator designated H7-17 which had been originally constructed for handling training and test facility fit checks. The H7-17 test article basically consisted of a small diameter, load-bearing center column with S-II interfaces at either end giving the article a distinct spool-like shape. Modifications would make it suitable for use in the initial stacking and ground testing of the Saturn V…

…After being removed from AS-501 on February 13, 1967, the S-II spacer was added atop of S-IC-2 on March 29 so that stacking of AS-502 could be completed and initial testing of the second Saturn V could proceed. The S-II-2 stage finally arrived at Cape Canaveral on May 24 and, after completing an inspection of its liquid hydrogen tank for cracks on July 6, it was added to the launch vehicle on July 13 to begin the next round of preflight testing during the next six weeks. CSM-020 attached to its SLA with LTA-2R tucked inside was finally added to the stack on December 10…

…After casting off its spent first stage, the five J-2 engines of the S-II stage ignited 149.8 seconds after launch as Apollo 6 continued to accelerate towards orbit. At 184.8 seconds after launch, the LES separated since it was no longer needed to support abort options for the rest of the mission. All was going well until the 319-second mark when the fuel flow rate on engine J-2044 in the #2 position on the S-II stage suddenly increased at the same time its thrust decreased. Following a spike in the engine bay temperature, engine #2 shut down after running for 263.8 seconds out of a planned 368.8-second burn. Although it was showing no signs of trouble, engine J-2508 in the #3 position also shutdown 1.3 seconds later. After the loss of two J-2 engines, the Saturn V guidance system did its best to cope with the situation. While never configured to deal with the loss of two J-2 engines, Apollo 6 continued its ascent. Finally, the remaining three engines of S-II-2 shutdown nine minutes and 36.3 seconds after lift off. With the three remaining engines burning for 58.8 seconds longer than planned, Apollo 6 was travelling 102.3 meters per second slower than expected due to the lower acceleration while being 436.8 kilometer farther downrange and 6.4 kilometers higher because of how the guidance system tried to cope with the unexpected situation.”

The entire article at:

www.drewexmachina.com/2018/04/04/apollo-6-the-saturn-v-th...
Credit: Drew ExMachina/Andrew LePage

Apollo 6/AS-502 liftoff, 4 April 1968.

~11” x ~14”.

And, as always, excellent reading/info at:

www.drewexmachina.com/2018/04/04/apollo-6-the-saturn-v-th...
Credit: Drew Ex Machina website/Andrew LePage

See also:

apolloimages.photoshelter.com/gallery-image/Early-Apollo/...
Credit: Allen Murabayashi’s Apollo Images gallery

www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a410/ap6-S68-2736...
Credit: ALSJ/Apollo Image Gallery-Kipp Teague

“PREPARING FOR REENTRY--Following separation of the command module from the service module, the reaction control system engines are ignited to turn the command module with the thickest part of the aft heat shield forward. The command module speed builds up to almost 25,000 miles an hour as it enters the earth’s atmosphere at an altitude of about 400,000 feet (76 miles). Apollo spacecraft command service modules are produced by North American’s Space Division, Downey, Calif., for NASA’s Manned Spacecraft Center.”

Note the 'vertical' orientation of the negative pitch thrusters (shown firing) in the far left attitude depiction of the capsule, this being the Block I design of the Command Module.

In color, at the wonderful "HACK THE MOON" website, albeit with an incorrect description...unless it was indeed resurrected for Apollo 8:

wehackthemoon.com/sites/default/files/styles/hero_extra_l...

View of the Senegal River, Mali, taken by an automatic camera mounted in the Apollo 6/AS-502 Command Module (CM-020), 4 April 1968.

As always, excellent reading/info at:

www.drewexmachina.com/2018/04/04/apollo-6-the-saturn-v-th...
Credit: Drew Ex Machina website/Andrew LePage

Also:

tothemoon.ser.asu.edu/data_a70/AS06/extra/AS06-02-0946.ha...
Credit: ASU/March to the Moon website/gallery

“This aerial photo shows the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Mississippi Test Facility opening its man-made waterway system to receive its first “Space Age” cargo -- an S-II Saturn V second stage Simulator -- built in California. Here, the S-II Simulator is shown aboard the river barge “Pearl River” leaving the MTF lock. The stage and “Pearl River” were lifted some 13 feet in the lock and transported to MTF’s Booster Storage Building. The S-II Simulator will be used to check out test stands and other facilities at MTF.”

The spherical LOX(?) tank is part of the cryogenic dock, seen here:

history.nasa.gov/MHR-5/Images/fig221.jpg

I believe that’s the A-2 test stand under construction on the left, protruding above the horizon. And...I’m thinking that’s the B-1/B-2 test stand in the distance to its left.

Correlate with this SUPERB map:

www.de-la-terre-a-la-lune.com/vehicules-et-technologies/m...
Credit: De la Terre à la Lune website

EVERYTHING you ever wanted to know about the S-II Simulator:

www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum29/HTML/001677.html
Credit: collectSPACE website

An excellent view of the spacer (with its 'skin'), during/as part of Apollo 4/SA-501 stacking:

i2.wp.com/www.drewexmachina.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/1...
Credit: Drew Ex Machina website/Andrew LePage

Preflight photo: Apollo 6 Command Module 020 interior, Right Hand Equipment Bay (aft section).

And, as always, excellent reading/info at:

www.drewexmachina.com/2018/04/04/apollo-6-the-saturn-v-th...
Credit: Drew Ex Machina website/Andrew LePage

www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvCMJLjqD8o
Credit: Hidden Below

Apollo 6/AS-502 rollout to LC-39, 6 February 1968.

And, as always, excellent reading/info at:

www.drewexmachina.com/2018/04/04/apollo-6-the-saturn-v-th...
Credit: Drew Ex Machina website/Andrew LePage

High-angle view of the Apollo 6 (Spacecraft 020/Saturn 502) stack and mobile launch tower atop a crawler-transporter leaving the Vehicle Assembly Building's High Bays on the way to Pad A, Launch Complex 39.

And, as always, excellent reading/info at:

www.drewexmachina.com/2018/04/04/apollo-6-the-saturn-v-th...
Credit: Drew Ex Machina website/Andrew LePage

Apollo 6/AS-502 Command Module (CM-020) is prepared for mating/stacking prior to its 4 April 1968 launch.

And, as always, excellent reading/info at:

www.drewexmachina.com/2018/04/04/apollo-6-the-saturn-v-th...
Credit: Drew Ex Machina website/Andrew LePage

Preflight photo: Apollo 6 Command Module 020 interior, Main Display Console (right side).

And, as always, excellent reading/info at:

www.drewexmachina.com/2018/04/04/apollo-6-the-saturn-v-th...
Credit: Drew Ex Machina website/Andrew LePage

Excellent in-flight footage...of the same general area (from a different perspective):

www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvCMJLjqD8o
Credit: Hidden Below

Preflight photo: Apollo 6 Command Module 020 interior, Main Display Console (center).

And, as always, excellent reading/info at:

www.drewexmachina.com/2018/04/04/apollo-6-the-saturn-v-th...
Credit: Drew Ex Machina website/Andrew LePage