Talk:Saturn I rocket

I have changed this from a disambiguation page to a redirect page. EVERY link to this page is related to the Saturn I rocket, none to Mimas. My guess is that almost everyone who types Saturn I in directly is looking for the rocket as well.

I have a comment about the following picture description:

"The first Saturn I launched October 27, 1961 on the first flight of a rocket not designed for military purposes."

1. Robert Goddard's rockets or Vangurard were earlier rocket launches that were not designed for military purposes.

2. Saturn was initially designed for a military purpose, not civilian, according to the book, "Stages to Saturn". It was designed to be a heavy lift vehicle for the military. Civilian uses were secondary. Rusty 18:25, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I fixed it. I had recalled a presentation wherein the speaker showed pictures of various rockets in sequence and asked why they were built.  Each was built "to kill the Russians", until (I'm guessing now based on our conversation) the Saturn V was built "to beat the Russians."  I would still like to say a little more about the first flight, but I didn't want to leave an error on the page while I figured out a good caption. Help welcome! -- ke4roh 18:35, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * I would have to agree that the Saturn I's were not built to "kill the Russians". They were not ICBM's, but were built out of ICBM (or IRBM) parts and designed for a military purpose. Or at least that was Von Braun's explanation to the Army for their need. I'll bet down deep inside he really just wanted to build a larger rocket to explore space. This later turned out to be the case when he worked for NASA. So the Saturn I was designed by the Army to "watch the Russians" (launch spy satellites, military space stations, rocket delivered cargo, etc), but was later built by NASA to "beat the Russians". Rusty 18:48, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone have a source for this: 'A Titan III has about the same lift capability of a Saturn IB, but costs less to manufacture and launch.' Everything i've heard suggests the reason being one of the air force not wanting to depend on a NASA vehicle rather than cost. The Titans are not cheap vehicles, but they did allow the air force to run its own 'heavy' launch complex without nasa input. -- Audin 03:43, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)