The F-1 (well part of it) roars to life

http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/f1_sls.html

Waiting for an F-1 itself to actually fire!

Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/f1_sls.html

Waiting for an F-1 itself to actually fire!

Thanks for the link, Greg!

On Jan 27, 4:34*am, Philip Lantz wrote:
Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/f1_sls.html

Waiting for an F-1 itself to actually fire!

Thanks for the link, Greg!

wouldnt it be something if nasa decided to go back and use the F1
engine on a future booster

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 07:48:00 -0800 (PST), bob haller
wrote:


wouldnt it be something if nasa decided to go back and use the F1
engine on a future booster

You do understand that's the point of this test, right?

Brian

On Jan 27, 1:35*pm, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 07:48:00 -0800 (PST), bob haller
wrote:

wouldnt it be something if nasa decided to go back and use the F1
engine on a future booster

You do understand that's the point of this test, right?

Brian

yeah but doing so will be futher proof ending the saturn family was a
big mistake

Brian Thorn presented the following explanation :
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 07:48:00 -0800 (PST), bob haller
wrote:


wouldnt it be something if nasa decided to go back and use the F1
engine on a future booster

You do understand that's the point of this test, right?

Not exactly. The point of the test is to investigate an F-2. Or at
least, that's my understanding.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/01/saturn-v-moon-rocket-engine-firing-again-after-40-years-sort-of/


/dps

--
But happiness cannot be pursued; it must ensue. One must have a reason
to 'be happy.'"
Viktor Frankl

In article , bthorn64
@suddenlink.net says...

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 07:48:00 -0800 (PST), bob haller
wrote:


wouldnt it be something if nasa decided to go back and use the F1
engine on a future booster

You do understand that's the point of this test, right?

Bob doesn't understand much of anything.

I'd really like to see those solids replaced with liquids, especially
since SLS is going to be carrying Orion.

Unfortunately, the development costs of F-1 powered boosters would be
quite a bit higher than the development costs of advanced solid rocket
boosters being proposed by ATK. That and ATK (at least in the past) has
had strong political support. Liquid boosters will unfortunately face a
long, uphill battle.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

In article 0008c5bf-78d9-4547-8488-820717708d69
@k6g2000yqf.googlegroups.com, says...

On Jan 27, 1:35*pm, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 07:48:00 -0800 (PST), bob haller
wrote:

wouldnt it be something if nasa decided to go back and use the F1
engine on a future booster

You do understand that's the point of this test, right?

yeah but doing so will be futher proof ending the saturn family was a
big mistake

It would do no such thing. SLS with advanced liquid boosters would not
be anything like Saturn V. Heck, it wouldn't even look the same, so
anyone with half a brain could tell them apart.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

In article mn.dd837dd1945fba5c.127094@snitoo,
says...

Brian Thorn presented the following explanation :
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 07:48:00 -0800 (PST), bob haller
wrote:


wouldnt it be something if nasa decided to go back and use the F1
engine on a future booster

You do understand that's the point of this test, right?

Not exactly. The point of the test is to investigate an F-2. Or at
least, that's my understanding.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/01/saturn-v-moon-rocket-engine-firing-again-after-40-years-sort-of/

More like an updated F-1A, but yes, NASA could call it anything they
want (like J-2X). The F-1A was quite a ways down its development path
before it was canceled.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...

Jeff Findley wrote:

In article 0008c5bf-78d9-4547-8488-820717708d69
, says...

On Jan 27, 1:35 pm, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 07:48:00 -0800 (PST), bob haller
wrote:

wouldnt it be something if nasa decided to go back and use the F1
engine on a future booster

You do understand that's the point of this test, right?

yeah but doing so will be futher proof ending the saturn family was a
big mistake

It would do no such thing. SLS with advanced liquid boosters would not
be anything like Saturn V. Heck, it wouldn't even look the same, so
anyone with half a brain could tell them apart.


And that explains why Bobbert can't tell them apart....

Now now, both are really tall and have flames coming out the bottom.

That could confuse anyone.

On a separate note: http://xkcd.com/1133/




--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net