Talk:S-IVB

The page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-IVB lists the Apollo 9 S-IVB as having gone into solar orbit. How is this possible given that the Apollo 9 mission did not leave Earth orbit?

Colinmc151 15:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

After the spacecraft left the S-IVB, it was commanded to thrust out of Earth orbit. Andy120290 19:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fate of Saturn IB S-IVBs?

The table shows several S-IVBs launched atop Saturn IBs into earth orbit as now being in heliocentric orbit. As far as I know, they all expended their propellant reaching earth orbit, from which they eventually decayed. Does anyone have different information? Karn (talk) 06:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Decayed from low earth orbit

Most of the objects in the article left in Earth orbit are described as "Decayed from low earth orbit." Is this common and correct usage of the terminology? I'm not an expert but it doesn't sound like it to me. Is there a better way to describe this in the article? ColinClark (talk) 22:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• It is correct. --W. D. Graham 13:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Every usage of the term I've seen is that the orbit decays, not the object. The heading of the column is "Current Location", but the way it reads to me is that the object decayed. It's not good grammar to say the location is decayed from low earth orbit, either. How about "Left in low Earth orbit. Burned up in atmosphere after orbital decay." A bit wordy, though.

What would be really great is if we had dates for these events. Date it was "left" in orbit, date it burned up, date it was last verified to still be there, etc, but I don't know if anyone has those dates. Do we even know for sure that they've all burned up yet? We need sources.ColinClark (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Decayed is still the correct term. "Decayed from orbit" is grammatically correct. Decay dates are probably in Jonathan McDowell's list if you want to search for them. --W. D. Graham 23:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Wet workshop ambiguity?

This sentence in the article, seems to imply that the empty S-IVB was used as a hull for skylab. "An S-IVB provided the hull for Skylab, the United States' first space station." That was not the case. Can someone clarify it?178.72.48.121 (talk) 21:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The statement was essentially correct, but has been clarified. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

APS thrusters - TR-204 ?

Were they TRW TR-204 ? ... Rocket Engine, TR-204, Liquid Fuel, Saturn V Third Stage Auxiliary Propulsion System (APS) spaceaholic says so, but it would be nice to find and use a NASA or TRW ref. - Rod57 (talk) 11:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Dry Mass?

There's a conflict between the tabulated empty/dry mass of 29,700 lbm and the value cited in the Description, 22,000 lbm. The former is a much more credible mass fraction (88% vice 95%). The 22,000 lbm value does not appear to be substantiated by the cited references; the latter says 23,000 lbm, not 22,000. Demostheneez (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Missing parentheses

The first parentheses on the successes is missing Sp epic (talk) 00:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC) I fixed it how can i delete this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp epic (talk • contribs) 00:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Improper image of S-IVB-211

Under "Stages built," the image used for S-IVB-211 is very clearly an image of an S-IV stage, and is in reality a development S-IV stage on display at the US Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville, Al. The actual S-IVB-211 was converted to a Skylab mockup along with the Skylab section used for training in the Neutral Buoyancy Lab and is on display at the US Space & Rocket Center. The image currently displayed should be deleted until a proper image can be sourced, which I will do soon unless anyone objects. Tcnottwins (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Removed the image. Tcnottwins (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2026 (UTC)