Why Can't we Remake the Rocketdyne F1 Engine?

As we advance our technology ever forward you would think that remaking a
50-year old design should be easy but things are not quite as simple as they
first seem.

When the Space Launch System or the SLS was in development NASA ran the advanced booster competition to find a new booster system and two of the three entries used liquid fuel engines. 





Liquid fuel boosters would be safer and could be shut down in the event of a problem unlike  the solid rocket boosters which cant. However unlike the space shuttle the new boosters  would be single-use only and would burn up when they fell back to earth but which liquid fuel engines would be powerful enough there really aren't any massive engines in use today. 



The boosters could use four same modified RS-25D the engines those left
over from a space shuttle program which would also be used the SLS's main core stage but that will be very wasteful of a complex expensive and yet highly
efficient engine. 
Now we've already had an engine capable of doing the job, the mighty Rocketdyne F-1  the huge engines which took men to the moon with the Apollo program but they haven't  been built since the 1960s. 

(Left )Russian made RD-170,the world's most powerful multi-combustion chambered liquid-fuel rocket engine. (Right) Wernher von Braun with the F-1 engines of the Saturn V first stage at the U.S. Space and Rocket Center.
The F-1 engines were not only extremely powerful but they were also simple which
meant they were cheap enough to be disposable so why don't we just remake them. Now there is a common myth which says NASA lost or threw away the blueprints which of course is complete rubbish every design document ever created for the Apollo program is still available but if it was just a case of wheeling out old designs they would have done that years ago.
F-1 rocket engine components.
No the problem is not the design but it's for way in which the world has moved on since the engineers first created those F-1 engines back in the 1960s. 
When a group of present-day rocket engineers looked at how they could recreate the iconic  F-1 engines they soon realized just how differently things were done some 50 years ago when there was no computer-aided design just slide rules and trial and error testing. 
F-1 engines being stored in the F-1 Engine Preparation Shop.
Components were designed, built and then tested and then often modified before being used. Complex engines sub assemblies were welded together from sometimes hundreds of smaller parts with skilled welders taking sometimes a day to complete one complex world. 
Although they had the original blueprints what they found that
was missing was the notes made by the engineers as they effectively
handcrafted every engine, each one slightly different with its own quirks
and foibles. 

Test firing of an F-1 engine at Edwards Air Force Base.
The original builders of the F-1 engines were highly skilled engineers,
welders and fitters they did almost everything by hand because often that
was the only way to do it back then and in the rush to meet deadlines they kept
many of the tricks that they used to get things to work and go together in their
heads or scribbled down on scraps of paper long since lost. 
Roll on 50 years and all of those skilled people have long since retired and many have passed away taking their skills and knowledge with them. With the advent of modern manufacturing techniques many of those skills are no longer in use and few people today have them so faced with 50-year old blueprints we find we just don't have the people with the skills that can make them in the same way anymore.
Saturn V was powered by five Rocketdyne F-1 engines during its first stage.
As of 2019, the Saturn V remains the tallest, heaviest, and most powerful (highest total impulse) rocket ever brought to operational status, and holds records for the heaviest payload launched and largest payload capacity to low Earth orbit (LEO) of 140,000 kg
By detailed examination of the remaining F-1 engines from museums and storage
our new  engineers did discover enough to create a new F-1B engine should it ever be built. 
The chart Dynetics had on hand at the gas generator test, showing major differences between the F-1 and the proposed F-1B.


Using modern computer modeling and manufacturing techniques the new engine could not only be more efficient it would be just as powerful as the uprated but unflown F-1A at 1.8 million pounds of thrust but more importantly it would reduce the number of manufactured parts from some 5,600 to just 40 and increase its reliability and decrease costs in the process. 
Although in the end NASA selected the solid rocket boosters for the SLS, this
exercise  proved that it's sometimes easier to redesign something from scratch than it is to try and remake the past. So what do you think of remaking the F-1 engines? Leave a comment below.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

F-1 The Engine That Nearly Stopped the Apollo 11 Moon Mission.

Image
With the 50th anniversary of Apollo 11 coming up is easy to forget that the whole Apollo program was a ground-breaking succession of technologies but one was essential to  literally get things of the ground. The Rocketdyne F1 engines would be the biggest, most  powerful single chamber rocket engines ever built but there was a point in their  development where they were so unstable it was looking like they might never get  anything off the ground,so how did the F1 go from a dangerous failure to 100% reliable. The history of the F-1 goes back to 1955 when the USAF contracted Rocketdyne to build a very large rocket engine. Two were designed the E-1 and the much larger F-1 for what was seen to be a need for future rockets to be able to carry large payload like the emerging spy satellites. The E-1 was tested but dropped in favour of the F-1 but then that was also dropped shortly afterwards, and development was shelved. After NASA was creat...
Read more

What if Apollo 11 got stuck on the moon.

Image
For all the celebrations surrounding the first manned lunar landing of Apollo 11 1969 what is forgotten today is just how close they and the other Apollo missions flew to the edge of disaster. Apollo 11 came within seconds of aborting the landing because they had overshot the landing area and we're running low on fuel. This was only one of several issues with the Apollo missions that arose that could have led to the loss of the mission and the crew, though as it turned out only Apollo 13 came close to this actually happening. This does obviously excludes the Apollo one accident where the crew died because of the fire as they rehearsed the launch on January 27th 1967. Apollo 12 was struck by lightning twice during the launch and although it knocked out several electrical systems the main navigation systems continue to work and the rest of mission proceeded successfully. On Apollo 16 the engine backup system malfunctioned on the command module as it orbited...
Read more

NASA's Vaults Show How They Assembled Apollo 11 Saturn V.

Image
NASA's Vaults Show How They Assembled Apollo 11 Saturn V. 45 years ago today—on July 16, 1969—astronauts Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins launched to the Moon on top of the mightiest spaceship ever built. These amazing photos from NASA's vaults show how they built and launched that spaceship—I look at them in awe and admiration. It was the most important trip in the history of humankind, a trip that many deemed impossible—some people still do think it's impossible—an odyssey that started many years before and changed our perception of the world itself. Only eight years before this day—on on May 25, 1961—Kennedy announced a plan to go to the Moon. It was a plan that they didn't have. In fact, the mere idea was one that almost everyone thought was impossible to do in that time frame . Just think about this: The United States only launched its first man to space on May 5, 1961—and he didn't even orbited the Earth. That happened after K...
Read more