posted 12-01-2012 06:57 AM               

Apollo F-1 engine test stand demolished at Marshall Space Flight Center

A concrete and metal gantry used to test the first stage engines of the Apollo Saturn V moon rocket was demolished Friday afternoon (Nov. 30, 2012) at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala.

Explosive charges were used to demolish the test stand's concrete towers. Test stand 4696, located in the Marshall Space Flight Center West Test Area, had been inactive since 1969. It was used to fire single F-1 engines, and was officially known as the F-1 engine static test stand. It was much smaller than the 405 foot tall S-IC static stand that was used to test entire Saturn V rocket stages, including multiple F-1 engines.

Last year, after historic preservation activities were complete, the deconstruction of the test stand began. The Marshall Space Flight Center removed the test stand to eliminate maintenance costs and provide space in the test area for modern test facilities.

posted 12-02-2012 10:34 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by APG85:
I hope it was thoroughly photographed before it was removed...

---

While NASA did a "very good job" documenting the history of the tower in photos and words after the state objected to the demolition, Brown said, losing a structure of such technological importance still hurts.

"I would much rather this test stand stay where it is," [preservation director for the Alabama Historical Commission Elizabeth] Brown said.

...Brown said the state eventually agreed to drop its objections after NASA documented the history of the structure, but she was still sorry to see it go.

posted 12-05-2012 02:59 PM               

The Marshall Space Flight Center removed the test stand to eliminate maintenance costs and provide space in the test area for modern test facilities.

The State Historic Preservation Officer was not happy about the proposed demolition ("the demolition of a National Register eligible property is a serious issue" ... "cannot concur with the proposed demolition of the NR eligible Test Stand").

He especially objected to the "maintenance costs" being used as a justification:

[T]he figures provided by your office relative to annual maintenance costs of $23,694 versus the cost of demolition at $3.5 million strongly support maintaining the test stand. A cursory review of these costs indicate that the test stand could be maintained at the current annual maintenance cost for approximately 145 years.

The "historic preservation activities" (a Historic American Building Survey/Historic American Engineering Record Level I documentation effort) was done to placate the SHRO (see the memorandum of agreement on page 70 of that PDF).

posted 12-06-2012 11:06 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by garyd2831:
In my opinion, and I was just up at Marshall about a month ago, our nation's space program is dying. Call them whatever, these "future" programs don't have the same drive and motivation as we once have.

---

1. The space program is more vibrant than ever. There are multiple commercial endeavors in work at this time. NASA does not equate to "our nation's" space program. NASA is only the gov't's civilian space program.

2. NASA is/was a Cold War agency. Its basic task was finished in the middle of Gemini (get ahead of the Soviets) and the icing on the cake was Apollo 11.

3. There is no need for a gov't arsenal type agency to develop and operate spaceflight hardware. Industry and the market can provide what is needed. NASA is an aberration, there is no comparable agency for other mediums or mode of transportation. Yes, the gov't was needed in the beginning in for early development and operations like the Army flying airmail. But we are now at the point where gov't can be an anchor "tenant" like it did for passenger planes with airmail

4. NASA exploration of space is/should be much like NOAA's exploration of the environment/oceans. NOAA is not an ocean settlement/colonization agency and neither should NASA.

5. Space settlement/colonization will be done by NGO's.

posted 12-06-2012 12:27 PM               

Of course the news isn't going to advertise a "routine" procedure happening on the space station, but if there was to be some drumming up on how much it is costing us to have our astronauts placed into space by Russia, it might fuels some interest.

While I was born in the late 70s and missed the great Moonshots, I have always looked at these achievements a great and monumental accomplish both for our a nation and for humanity. We need a new national goal that will help create employment opportunities, challenge our students and raise our nations pride. Being a combat veteran and knowing the challenges we face here on the home front,I still believe we can come together and reorganize our priorities to get us back on track.

posted 12-06-2012 12:51 PM               

This test stand was retired in 1969; the full-up S-IC test stand, which is a protected historic site, encompasses everything and more this stand represents (not to mention the F-1 test stand(s) still standing and soon to be put back into use at Stennis Space Center).

posted 12-06-2012 01:20 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by garyd2831:
When you think Alabama, you think great college football and rednecks. I'm New York and I think of Alabama a cornerstone to that giant leap our nation took.

---

posted 12-07-2012 05:11 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
the full-up S-IC test stand, which is a protected historic site

---

There are a dizzying array of groups willing to call something a "historic site," but I do not believe tha any have declared the S-IC test stand a "protected" historical site.

While the American Society of Mechanical Engineers long ago declared the S-IC test stand a National Historic Mechanical Engineering Landmark, MSFC's history office has a page listing its National Historic Landmarks; neither the F-1 nor S-IC test stands are on the list (although the Redstone Test Stand, the Static Test Tower [S-I and S-IB static test], and the Saturn V Dynamic Test Stand do appear on the list).

NASA's Cultural Resources (CRGIS) site lists "National Register of Historic Places eligible or potentially eligible structures". The S-IC test stand (Bldg 4670) is on the same "eligible or potentially eligible" list as the F-1 test stand (Bldg 4696), and we know how well that worked out for the F-1 stand.

quote:

---

I would rather spend more time seeing the S-IC stand than splitting time with a single F-1 test stand...

---

I don't think you really mean what this sounds like it means. Because you would rather see the S-IC stand than the F-1 stand, it's OK to tear down the test stand you favor less? What do you say to the people who'd rather see the F-1 stand than the S-IC stand? Or those who would spend the time to see both?

Let's hope that there aren't more like minded people who, because they think that Apollo 11 at NASM is more important and people should spend more time seeing it, would be fine with scrapping Friendship 7 and Gemini 4. Or perhaps someone will decide that, since Thomas Jefferson authored the Declaration of Independence and thus had a larger role in shaping the country, Monticello will be kept but Mount Vernon will be razed.

Unlike Hangar S at the Cape or the LUT, there don't appear to have been any maintenance-, safety-, or environmental-related issues with the F-1 test stand (in fact, as the Alabama SHPO pointed out, it would have been much cheaper to continue to maintain it than to demolish it). The test stand merely had "no programmatic requirements beyond 2012," and so it must go.

I realize that the stand hasn't been used since the Apollo days and that it is unlikely to have been used again. With the larger population of Huntsville, it would likely have been difficult to justify the noise issues to the public. Politically, it seems more likely that any necessary engine firings would take place at Stennis, which is NASA's designated engine test facility.

Which means that the test stand basically falls into the same category as left-over Saturn Vs and the various rocket displays and engine displays which dot the landscape at Marshall -- no practical value, and requiring a bit of upkeep, but still an important part of history.

posted 12-07-2012 05:48 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mikej:
I don't think you really mean what this sounds like it means. Because you would rather see the S-IC stand than the F-1 stand, it's OK to tear down the test stand you favor less?

---

NASA does not have it within its charter to preserve every one of its facilities as historic sites. And given the way that its limited budget is appropriated on a year to year basis, it cannot plan for the long-term upkeep of anything, let alone an abandoned test stand.

NASA will continue to destroy facilities it no longer has use for as a matter of course, because it has the money to do so then and there. The savings spread over years is meaningless.

posted 12-10-2012 07:33 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim Behling:
The space program is more vibrant than ever.

---

quote:

---

NASA is/was a Cold War agency.

---

quote:

---

There is no need for a gov't arsenal type agency to develop and operate spaceflight hardware.

---

quote:

---

NASA exploration of space is/should be much like NOAA's exploration of the environment/oceans.

---

quote:

---

Space settlement/colonization will be done by NGO's.

---

posted 12-21-2012 11:40 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cozmosis22:
Ask any American. The US space program is dormant, not vibrant.

---

quote:

---

NASA was supposed to be a space exploration agency, set up specifically as a non-military outfit.

---

quote:

---

There would be no people in space without significant federal investment. That fact stands still to this day.

---

quote:

---

The gov't has often been involved with exploration and settlement, and still has it's fingers in the US railroad system.

---

quote:

---

If we wait for private enterprise alone to "colonize" space... it will never happen.

---

posted 11-12-2013 11:42 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by garyd2831:
In my opinion, and I was just up at Marshall about a month ago, our nation's space program is dying. Call them whatever, these "future" programs don't have the same drive and motivation as we once have.

---

1. The space program is more vibrant than ever. There are multiple commercial endeavors in work at this time.

2. NASA is/was a Cold War agency. Its basic task was finished in the middle of Gemini (get ahead of the Soviets) and the icing on the cake was Apollo 11.

3. There is no need for a govt arsenal type agency to develop and operate spaceflight hardware. Industry and the market can provide what is needed. NASA is an abreation

4. NASA exploration of space is/should be much like NOAA's exploration of the environment/oceans. NOAA is not an ocean settlement/colonization agency and neither should NASA.

5. Space settlement/colonization will be done by NGO's.

posted 11-12-2013 01:37 PM               

I believe the intent of the question is the national space program, i.e., NASA (and supporting agencies). That is no longer the vibrant, enriched program it once was and I agree with Gary in that we no longer have the pride (and interest) in it we once had. That being said, the other various space programs going on (commercial) are vibrant. And I agree with you from this perspective. But it is natural that it goes this way. In order for space interest to go anywhere, it is time for commercial enterprise to step up and play their part now.

As far as losing interest, I grew up during Apollo. And I don't believe you could have found any American at the time that didn't know at least something about the program. Maybe not some of the details we understand, but they knew about it and why it was important. You can't say that today. Granted everyone knows about the ISS. But how many know that we are sending our astronauts up on Russian rockets? That we no longer do that? Maybe some, but I work with a guy that didn't even know the shuttles were done. (Yes, I enlightened him.)

So no, NASA is no longer the Cold War-era agency it once was. Nor should it be. And that is typical of new areas of research. Look at all the other scientific areas that the government started because we needed it and then slowly backed away from it as the commercial market geared up to take it where it needed to go. Case in point — the internet. It was started as a research idea by DARPA. It then transitioned to a means for universities to share research information. Look at it now. But the point is, it started as a government research project that the government no longer has much involvement.

posted 10-30-2019 02:58 PM               

I was at the US Army Ordnance Guided Missile School (OGMS) in 1961 when an early Saturn engine (F-1?) was fired in this test stand. I was in the post library at the time and the building shook and the Venetian blinds rattled.

A second firing took place while we soldiers were in formation. An officer began speaking into the microphone just as the rocket engine fired; he was drowned out completely by the noise. He kept on talking, though, and as soon as the engine shut down ewe heard him say "Pass in review." We marched past the reviewing stand and back to the barracks. I never did know what that parade was all about.