This is awesome....the power of these things was just incredible, glad to see NASA still testing.. How NASA brought the monstrous F-1 ?moon rocket? engine back to life | Ars Technica 55,000 HP just to turn the fuel pumps...amazing engineering from before CAD was even thought of, really brilliant stuff
That was a really cool article. I'd seen some references to this activity, but this was neat to read. Thanks for sharing with the community.
A couple of these were recently located and retrieved from 14000ft underwater. Bezos Salvage Team Plucks Apollo Rocket Engines from Atlantic | News & Opinion | PCMag.com Cool pic of 1st stage separation on Apollo 11 in this link Amazon CEO's Apollo 11 Engine Search Excites NASA | Apollo 11 | Space.com
Very sad though that the current crop of rocket scientists (engineers) are several generations removed from the most recent man rated engine designs (shuttle), and are reduced to reverse engineering something that first flew 50 yrs ago. The guys who originally built the F-1's did not have 50yo designs to study and yet made these fantastic pieces of machinery that are still unmatched in performance.
I was thinking the same thing. was it 32 million horse power each ? :0 Very interesting point, in the article they mention how they build it, test it, see what fails and then go back and fix it. Todays modern engineers especially in Formula One seem to spend millions in the wind tunnel, put it on the car only to find all the data was wrong from the wind tunnel and the car is slower because the CAD/Tunnel are out of sync...Love it when a part gets knocked off the car and it goes the same speed....LOL The old engineers knew there was nothing better than physical tests.. Amazing piece of engineering.
Jim- Performance (Isp) was not that impressive, but the sheer size and thrust of the engines was. Ideal theoretical way to launch to orbit and beyond is LOX/RP (kerosene) lower stage and LOX/H2 (hydrogen) for the upper (vacuum) stages. Saturn used that combination.
Great read. Thanks for sharing. There is an F-1 on display in Canoga Park, CA at the Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne facility. Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Wonderful history of amazing engineers. I remember as a kid in the 70s an aerospace engineer summarized for me, and I never forgot "...the science of rocket engines is mainly the science of the most powerful and effective fuel pump you can make."
Jim- Isp (specific impulse) is a measure of efficiency for a rocket engine. Isp on the Saturn V LOX/RP engines was only 265 secs. Modern LOX/RP (rocket propellant kerosene) engines are way over 300 secs with the small nozzles used for low altitudes and 355 seconds with large vacuum nozzles. Isp is directly proportional to rocket performance. The LOX/H2 SSME engines on the Shuttle had a vacuum Isp of over 450 seconds and upper stages on EELV type lift vehicles are around 460 seconds. Russ- Turbopumps are usually driven by the same propellants as the main rocket engine and have amazing power to weight ratios to pump enough propellants for all that thrust.
Saturn V [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCsbiZ6z3QE]Apollo/Saturn V Tribute - YouTube[/ame] current space travel [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIg6pWwezEU]VASIMR at Full Power - YouTube[/ame]
So your saying the F-1, designed in the early 60's, is inefficient compared to modern designs. The only other engine in its class (>1M lbt) is the RD-170, which has an Isp of 309. Not what I would call 'way over 300', and less than a 17% improvement. Even then they achieved that only by going to 4 nozzles fed by common pumps. The point being, for the design of the Saturn V vehicle the F-1 was an efficient design that met the mission requirements. Any other engine would have resulted in a different design and possibly impacted the reliability (think N-1 with 30 engines).
The Saturn V rocket is absolutely huge to see in person. The U.S. Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville, Alabama had one that was on display outside for many years - they have a mock up erected vertically and a genuine Saturn V laying down in sections. Since I've been back in the area, they built a new covered facility called the Davidson Center for Space Exploration to protect the real rocket from the elements, but I've not been in there yet. It's definitely worth a visit if you can get there. All the best, Andrew.
Was there in December...nice Saturn V. They need to put the Blackbird indoors too as it's in terrible shape. I'll be back there summer 2014 when I move to Birmingham...looking forward to the trip to Huntsville.
That was a great story, just finished reading it and thought this was a great line "dozens more are scattered around the country on display or in storage" , now those are BARN Finds! Too bad we don't have another von Braun character with the ability to inspire Washington to get behind another big effort. They should build a larger more powerful Saturn rocket to lift component into orbit. I believe I have seen (at least the nozzle) of an F1 at the Air&Space on the mall along with Apollo 17 suits in one display. I have watched a vid on YT of the original F1 test firings in Alabama and this video here is the closest thing being done today, very cool work at SpaceX, why didn't they have him do work on these new F1's instead of a team starting from scratch? [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCc2F8KccD4]Elon's SpaceX Tour - Engines - YouTube[/ame]
There is a measurement of take off acceleration compared to the rocket size that goes something like the time it takes from launch to climb its own vertical height (and clear the tower). The Saturn V has the slowest time.
+1 However, their "two word reason to return" was a little weak IMO - We've now got HD coming back from Mars after all. I guess they're bored with the moon. As for liftoff, I read somewhere it's about 100ft off the pad before the fuel level actually moves upwards with the thing; It burns it down quicker than it's going up for the first few seconds..... Cheers, Ian
More on SpaceX; The Merlin 1D builds on the technology of the Merlin engines used on the first five flights of Falcon 9. With nine Merlin 1Ds on the first stage, the Falcon 9 rocket will produce nearly 1.5 million pounds of thrust in a vacuum. The Merlin 1D has a vacuum thrust-to-weight ratio exceeding 150, the best of any liquid rocket engine in history. This enhanced design makes the Merlin 1D the most efficient booster engine ever built, also read; SpaceX has talked of a next-generation Merlin 2 that would exceed the F-1, powering future rockets that would exceed the Saturn V. All I can say is GO SPACEX! and even though competition is good, efficiency is also good. SpaceX have proven themselves and I think should be rewarded with the funds to accelerate their development instead of a multitude of newbies starting from scratch. hello [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=976LHTpnZkY[/ame]
Jim- You are not listening. Performance was traded against reliabilty on the F-1 engine using proven technology, like a gas generator cycle instead of a closed cycle where turbopump effluents are burned in the combustion chamber. Newer technologies like coatings on the RD170 allow for higher temperatures and more efficiency. A 17% increase in efficiency is huge and means your stage could carry 17% less fuel, the first and upper stages could be smaller, payload could be increased and so on as the improved performance ripples through the entire lift vehicle. Took them two or three years to get rid of combustion instability on the F-1 even at the performance they were getting. The RD170 bypassed part of those problems by having one turbopump for four smaller combustion chambers and nozzles. The four nozzles also shortened the overall length the nozzles took up. Mule- Acceleration is a straight function of thrust to weight ratio. Unless you can throttle your engines, T/W is a trade-off between acceleration and exceeding max air loads on the launch vehicle. For the later Saturn Vs, there were five F-1 engines in the first stage and the center engine was shut down as max air load (max Q) was approached.
The power generated by five of these engines was best conceptualized by author David Woods in his book How Apollo Flew to the Moon"[T]he power output of the Saturn first stage was 60 gigawatts. This happens to be very similar to the peak electricity demand of the United Kingdom." Oh baby!
Copy, but I think when I saw that on TV, they were sort of emphasizing the height of it compared to others. It had to travel almost 400 feet to "clear itself", while the others were much less height and weight. Just one of those FYI documentary facts.
