A rough calculation from numbers in [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V[/URL] indicates the 159 seconds burn of the first stage after liftoff averages about 12.5 GW of gravity work and addition of kinetic energy to its upper stages. (So, neglecting drag on the whole craft, and gravity work and kinetic energy on the first stage.) Factoring in the mass of the emptied first stage, brings it to over 15GW average. The peak is clearly considerably higher. Computing an estimate of peak effective power based on thrust times final stage 1 velocity yields 75 GW. [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V[/URL]
A typical nuclear power station unit is around 1 GWe. The world had 450 as of 2014.
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_stations[/URL]

[QUOTE=kriesel;543909]A rough calculation from numbers in [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V[/URL] indicates the 159 seconds burn of the first stage after liftoff averages about 12.5 GW of gravity work and addition of kinetic energy to its upper stages. (So, neglecting drag on the whole craft, and gravity work and kinetic energy on the first stage.) Factoring in the mass of the emptied first stage, brings it to over 15GW average. The peak is clearly considerably higher. Computing an estimate of peak effective power based on thrust times final stage 1 velocity yields 75 GW. [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V[/URL]
A typical nuclear power station unit is around 1 GWe. The world had 450 as of 2014.
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_stations[/URL][/QUOTE]An alternative way of looking at it: the astronauts were sitting on top of a device with the explosive yield roughly half that of those which were used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

A major reason why the sightseers were several kilometres away.

[QUOTE=xilman;543928]An alternative way of looking at it: the astronauts were sitting on top of a device with the explosive yield roughly half that of those which were used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

A major reason why the sightseers were several kilometres away.[/QUOTE]Although the energy release mechanisms are very different.

A typical power bank has more stored energy than a hand grenade, but I know which one I'd much rather be near to when it is in use.

It takes a special kind of person to sit atop all that fuel and oxygen, knowing that every bit of it was built by a low bidder, and what happened to Grissom, Chaffee, and White. [URL]https://www.spaceanswers.com/space-exploration/an-interview-with-nasas-chief-photographer-bill-ingalls-the-man-behind-the-camera/[/URL]
Or to take a space shuttle up the time after the Challenger disaster. Sitting not atop but next to a giant fuel tank the equal of which had killed a previous crew. Or was it the managers. [URL]https://www.britannica.com/event/Challenger-disaster[/URL] "The Rogers Commission heard disturbing testimony from a number of engineers who had been expressing concern about the reliability of the seals for at least two years and who had warned superiors about a possible failure the night before 51-L was launched."
Or after the loss of Columbia during return. [URL]https://www.space.com/19436-columbia-disaster.html[/URL] "An investigation board determined that a large piece of foam fell from the shuttle's external tank and breached the spacecraft wing. This problem with foam had been known for years, and NASA came under intense scrutiny in Congress and in the media for allowing the situation to continue."

[QUOTE=kriesel;543931]It takes a special kind of person to sit atop all that fuel and oxygen, knowing that every bit of it was built by a low bidder, and what happened to Grissom, Chaffee, and White.[/QUOTE]
I seemed to recall hearing decades ago that John Glenn had said something about the low bidder. It took me very little time to find the following quotes attributed to him. No specific citation, though.

[quote]As I hurtled through space, one thought kept crossing my mind - every part of this rocket was supplied by the lowest bidder.[/quote]
and
[quote]I guess the question I'm asked the most often is: "When you were sitting in that capsule listening to the count-down, how did you feel?" Well, the answer to that one is easy. I felt exactly how you would feel if you were getting ready to launch and knew you were sitting on top of two million parts -- all built by the lowest bidder on a government contract.[/quote]
We also have the following:
[quote]If we die, we want people to accept it. We are in a risky business and we hope that if anything happens to us it will not delay the program. The conquest of space is worth the risk of life.[/quote] - Virgil I. "Gus" Grissom, after the Gemini 3 mission, March 1965

I note that, after The Fire on January 27, 1967 the Apollo capsule was completely redesigned and rebuilt, preparatory Apollo missions flown, and Apollo 11 took the first men to the Moon and back -- within about two and a half years.

[QUOTE=kriesel;543931]Or to take a space shuttle up the time after the Challenger disaster. Sitting not atop but next to a giant fuel tank the equal of which had killed a previous crew. [/QUOTE]It was not the giant tank that killed the astronauts. Impact of the crew cabin with the Atlantic Ocean is what killed them. Working backward form that, the break-up of the orbiter, then the break-up of the tank as the attachment of the orbiter, then the loss of structural integrity near the aft bulkhead, then flame impingement on the ET (External Tank), then failure of the field joint (I have put my hand in one), then back to the failure of the O-ring. The tank did not kill the astronauts, rather the impact or the O-ring. There was no "explosion" of the cryogenics. No shockwave from that sort of even is observed.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;543944]... then flame impingement on the ET ...[/QUOTE]ET? Extra Terrestrial?

[size=1]So it was aliens that did it! [/ConspiracyTheory][/size]

[QUOTE=retina;543945]ET? Extra Terrestrial?[/QUOTE]That large orange thing stuck to the bottom of the orbiter.

[QUOTE=retina;543930]Although the energy release mechanisms are very different.

A typical power bank has more stored energy than a hand grenade, but I know which one I'd much rather be near to when it is in use.[/QUOTE]Yup.

That said, it is rather difficult to release the energy stored in a power bank over the few milliseconds typical of the life time of an active hand grenade. It was rather easy to release 8kt explosive yield in a Saturn V within a few seconds and the immediate effect would have been much the same as that experienced in Japan though, thankfully, without the long-term side-effects.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;543944]It was not the giant tank that killed the astronauts. Impact of the crew cabin with the Atlantic Ocean is what killed them. Working backward form that, the break-up of the orbiter, then the break-up of the tank as the attachment of the orbiter, then the loss of structural integrity near the aft bulkhead, then flame impingement on the ET (External Tank), then failure of the field joint (I have put my hand in one), then back to the failure of the O-ring. The tank did not kill the astronauts, rather the impact or the O-ring. There was no "explosion" of the cryogenics. No shockwave from that sort of even is observed.[/QUOTE]My bad.
I remember at the time of the Challenger accident, coworkers wanting to believe there was an explosion and instant death. I knew immediately from engineering background that both the crew cabin was a pressure vessel that would provide some protection, and at the time of catastrophe they were in supersonic motion so any shock wave of an explosion would be somewhat attenuated.A recent rereading of the sequence of events showed what may have killed the crew was loss of atmosphere in the cabin, or ocean impact. The uncontrolled combustion of the released contents of the external tank was described as a fireball, not an explosion. Initially the cabin coasted upward. The impact of the cabin with the ocean surface was minutes later, and so damaging to cabin and crew that the investigation came to no conclusion about the mechanism of their deaths. There was enough time for the onboard electronics to record one of the crew saying uhoh after things went seriously bad and they knew it, before the onboard power went out. There were also other signs of activity performed probably after the cabin detached.They knew they were in trouble, at least briefly. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster#January_28_launch_and_failure[/url]

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;543946]That large orange thing stuck to the bottom of the orbiter.[/QUOTE]Bottom seems imprecise for a craft that initiates atmospheric reentry at 40 degree pitch angle of attack, launches vertical, and often orbited with the payload bay facing earth. The orbiter stands vertical on the launch pad. Nearest the launch pad are 3 liquid fueled rocket engines that receive fuel and oxidizer from the external tank, and a tail fin. The external tank is adjacent to the orbiter's ventral surface, the surface that is the bottom surface in reentry glide and landing and has retractable landing gear. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle#/media/File:Space_Shuttle_Orbiter-Illustration.jpg[/url]
Initially the single-use external tanks were also painted white. Then someone advocated for not painting such tanks, pointing out leaving off the paint saved 600 pounds of mass. The color of the external tank is unprotected spray-on insulation.