Slashdot Mirror
NASA Considers Apollo-Era F1 Engine For Space Launch System
MarkWhittington writes "A company named Dynetics, in partnership with Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne, will perform a study contract for NASA to explore whether a modern version of the Saturn V F1 booster (PDF) could be used on the Space Launch System. These would be the basis for a liquid fueled rocket that would enhance the SLS to make it capable of launching 130 metric tons to low Earth orbit, thus making it capable of supporting deep space exploration missions in the 2020s."
I would LOVE to see the F1 back in action. Few things have inspired such awe in me as the launch of a Saturn V rocket and the five tremendous columns of fire atop which it strode.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
Is there any reason we shouldn't recycle designs when it comes to rocket engines? Of course (maybe?) we could use modern tools to help improve efficiency but is there anything to gain by starting from scratch?
I really wish I understood more about rocketry and satellites :/
This is what I like about rocket engines. A rocket engine designed for a specific load in the 60s and today would have nearly the same design. A modernized F1 is entirely logical.
And before people complain about rocket engines not advancing at the same rate as microprocessors, let me note that the cost of a rocket is primarily determined by its complexity, not the cost of fuel or the size of the engines. A simple rocket engine (like the F1) that burns kerosene and oxygen is often cheaper than super advanced rocket engines like those on the Space Shuttle.
The F-1 wasn't a booster, it was an engine. The booster stage using the F-1 was the S-1C.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
The F1 was designed on blackboards and drafting tables. A "modern" F1 is only going to be similar in size - it'd have to be a clean sheet design, the facilities that built the F1 are long gone at this point. Why even study redesigning the F1? This seems like a tremendous waste. Of course it's going to be a clean sheet, computer drafted design.
Money for a study on a stone age rocket design* seems like a federal handout, nothing more.
*although the Saturn V's anti-oscillation system is pretty inspired... for it's time
moox. for a new generation.
1) Off topic.
2) That was a lot of work just to get a couple of suckers to click on Goatse links.
Have gnu, will travel.
Can you really trust Dynetics? I mean, come on! They are going to be late and over budget, but blame all the problems on Thetans. Then ask NASA to pay a bit more, promising higher level analysis.
Not being a rocket scientist; but for those that are: is the F1 booster the most efficient design, or is it being chosen simply because it is the cheapest design?
If it's a waste of money, then why not just buy the rocket engine from China? It's certainly saner than buying "micro" chips from the Reds. A rocket engine (minust the guidance system which should be American made) would be easier to comb for intentional "bugs" than microscopic computer parts.
I just realized the Intel microprocessor is almost as old as the F1 rocket engine.
Not quite sure what to make of that realization.
I did have my hands on a F1. If you want to see my photo, google "VolCo360". or click this link. http://www.volco360.com/2012/07/the-engine-that-could.html
Place nail here >+
2) That was a lot of work just to get a couple of suckers to click on Goatse links.
You make a habit of clicking on spam links?
Am I the only one who was wondering what NASA was going to be doing with a Cosworth DFV?
Wouldn't it be more cost effective for NASA to just use the upcoming SpaceX Merlin 2 engine? The design documents state that the Merlin 2 should provide 890 kN more thrust than the old F1 engine and should be much more efficient. Plus, the Merlin 2 has the benefit of being already in active development: SpaceX expects they'll have it ready for certification within 3 years.
None of the proposed missions are compelling enough to withstand Washington DC political processes for a sufficient amount of time to reach completion. The American people have not bought the stories used to justify the projects, and hence they are all extremely vulnerable to the vagaries of politics over the next decade.
So we're getting the Nazis to build this one too?
"A new airplane doesn't make a new engine possible, a new engine makes a new airplane possible".
While this may be the right thing to do, admit your mistake (cough "shuttle" cough), and use a simple cheap design for a big dumb booster, I'm a little sad for possibilities lost.
Too bad the linear aerospike engines never panned out (X-37?) or the hypersonic scramjet hasn't been fully developed. While the F-1 may reduce launch costs by a factor of 10, it'll take some revolutionary new technology to bring it down by a factor of 100. (Unless I'm seriously wrong and Elon Musk can do it by reusability and sheer operational efficiency). So maybe space flight for the ultra-rich but not for the rest of us. Not until the space elevator at least.
I'm also afraid that the rebirth and re-design of the F-1 will suffer "mission creep" like; let's make it out of some super-exotic alloy to protect against corrosion for possible ocean recovery and we need to add the capability for a restart. By the way, just how reliable were the original F-1s? Didn't one fail on the way to orbit on Apollo 13? Any other failures?
Right now, this is nothing more than a GD neo-con job's bill that will waste another 10-20 billion, 10 years to get a rocket that will launch 70 tonnes to LEO at $1-3 Billion per launch.
.5B/launch.
.5B and under launcher, then we will no doubt see many many launches, space stations and most importantly, stations on the moon and mars.
Instead, a far better solution is to create a COTS-SHLV for 2 Super heavy launch vehicles that are in the range of 150 +- 20 tonnes to LEO. Two American companies would get 5 billion each over 5 years total to design, build and test the rockets which have to have no less than 85% American construction/parts. Upon the successful completion of these, another contest would be held for 2 companies to win a contract of 2 launches a year for 4 years. In addition, who ever is the cheapest would then get a 3rd launch, at the same price as the other 2. The max can only be
With this approach, we could have multiple launch systems that can then be used to back each other up, but also can be used to launch private industry as well as military. And once there are 2 launch systems with cheap prices, and can do 150 tonnes to LEO, you can bet on it that we will see a major build-up of private space.
OTOH, the SLS is PROHIBITED by law from doing private launches. It can only by used by NASA and the DOD. And from the DOD's POV, they would rather have much cheaper prices then 1-3 billion/launch. However, if private space can do a
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Well, another neo-cons has spoken, but has ignored the fact that it was the neo-cons reagan and W that ran up the bulk of the debt, created our nightmare economy that we now have, destroyed our manufacturing base, and put us into 2 wars while totally FUBARing them to a level that ALL military strategy books will use these as what NOT to do. And just like reagan and W, you have a yellow spine and hate to take responsibility for your own damn actions.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
And what is the problem with building an engine of this type? Did the math change? You can tweak it a bit, but the basic design is sound (very sound). The engineers that designed it weren't just pissing away the day, they did a big fat wad of aerodynamic tests when they designed it. You can compare computers used back then, and rightly compare computers designed now, and say "oh my", but jet/rocket engines? The big era for advancement in jets and rockets was in the 1950's and 1960's (well, actually starting in the late 1930's and through the 1940's in Germany). There have been advances since, but not like the advances then. Turbines (rocket and jet) are a product of the late industrial age. The electronic/computer age is the one we are in. Big changes in computers, small changes in rocket design. A new "tweaked" Saturn V engine might give 5% more power for 5% less fuel. The big thing is that you can run billions of computer simulations to do the tweak, something the original engineers couldn't do.
Apollo 9 says hello.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Well there was another engine bigger than the F-1, that is the Airjet M-1. There is a piece of one at the Evergreen Aviation Museum. http://www.evergreenmuseum.org/the-museum/aircraft-exhibits/space-flight/ Very big, very impressive. It was design for 1 1/2 million lb of thrust in the base configuration. It would make a interesting starting point for a updated engine.
Aside from the Apollo 13 problem (which had nothing to do with the Saturn launch vehicle), the flight record of the Saturn V launch system was PERFECT. Those "steely eyed missile men" who built the thing developed a perfect launch vehicle. Then, the shuttle came around and boom...it was dropped. Funny how they are revisiting something from 50 years ago. Let's see...what other OLD hardware still works. 1. incandescent light bulbs 2. Internal combustion engine 3. The Browning/colt M-1911 4. The B-52 bomber Just because it is OLD, doesn't mean it "just works".
It looks like Apollo, it smells like Apollo, and it tastes like Apollo.
Just yank the plans out and re-make the whole damned thing. Russia's 40-year-old tech still works well. Space rides are mostly a mechanical and chemical process, not an electronic one such that the old concepts are still relevant.
Table-ized A.I.
Von Braun didn't either but instead worked around it, which was possible using several engines instead of relying on continuous output from a single engine. The F-1 bounced around all over the place, but that was known behaviour.
We get too fixated on the latest and greatest, The point is the physics don't change so the technology needs updating not a from scratch approach. Look at trains. The biggest change from the 1800s is the shift to diesel from coal. Otherwise the technology is largely unchanged only the safety equipment gets upgraded regularly. Funny how we are still trying to get back to where we were in the late 60s with rocket engines. The SR-71 is another good example. They were used into the late 90s and it was 50s technology. A ram jet is fairly simple and other than refining it you aren't going to dramatically change the design. Officially the SR-71 still holds speed records.
...the BEST idea since Apollo.
Those engines are still state of the art, their age doesn't matter... no better engines has been made yet (nobody cared).
Things (engines, planes, ships) became obsolete WHEN something far superior is manufactured, not simply because they are old.
Is there any reason we shouldn't recycle designs when it comes to rocket engines?
Even considering going back to a 40+ year-old design is an admission of failure - pretty typical for government funded projects, when compared to the private sector. Compare that with all the innovation (admittedly, spurred on by an almost constant state of war) in the 'plane industry. 60 years stood between wooden biplanes and the Jumbo Jet and the US government is now saying that the best way to resurrect their space programme is to start making the rocketry equivalent of a DC-3, again.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Fuel is cheap, engines are expensive,
You're looking at this all wrong. Fuel is cheap to manufacture but it's incredibly expensive to carry up to orbit. Especially when the only reason for doing so is because your engines are so badly designed that they waste a lot of fuel in the early stages of flight. In that respect, trying to pinch pennies on engine design, materials and production is a false economy - unless your even more precious commodity is development time, as with the "space race".
If you plan to productionise getting to LEO, it's much better to device a system with the lowest overall cost: that would include not just the cost of the fuel, but the vehicle (disposable/reusable) as well.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Have we really reached the point where the best our "best and brightest" can do is recycle 60 year old designs, and they have to sub out to a private firm just to do that?
I would Love to see some alternate methods tried.
No one has tried a giant rubber band,or firing the capsule from a cannon.
Wouldn't it be greener to just take the elevator up? Or once on the moon install a winch system to Earth?
If only we could use green cheese as a fuel for the return trip. Think Green!
If the problem with space exploration is the politics of paying the bill, why can't we point some significant portion of the military industrial complex at the problem? We can have all the pork-barrel juicy government contracts and create jobs, and be working towards improving mankind instead of mass murder.
Rename the company.
That design is over 50 years old, surely we can build something much better today. , But there are tradeoffs.
We need to compare the costs of designing testing and building a totally new design versus the same for the old design.
Many people don't realize that we don't even know -how- to build those old components any more and that because the original designers are dead or gone, it will actually take longer to understand the old design than it will to start from scratch.
Besides we need a re-usable rocket engine with the same lift ability as the F1, but smaller, lighter, using less fuel, more reliable and more recoverable and totaly re-usable.
There, those are your design goals. Go.
I took this years ago at the U.S. Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville AL.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kimhill/4412421201/
Wide shot: http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/s5msc1.jpg
Biggest Mentalcase Online? Take yer meds BMO, or your shock treatments, please! You need them and please, spare us your bullshit commentary. No mind trolling loons like you need not apply as to posting here. Nobody cares what a nutcase like you has to say.
Oink, oink, oink. More pork for Nasa/Houston for pointless manned missions while Houston tried to kill Mars exploration at Nasa/JPL...
sued by the Church of Scientology...