F-1B engine

Essentially, the F-1B is an F-1A (extensively ground tested, but never
flown) that has been re-worked to be easier to manufacture. The other
notable difference is that the fuel rich exhaust of the gas generator is
dumped "overboard" on the F-1B (the F-1A injected this fuel rich exhaust
into the nozzle to help with cooling).


Links originally posted on ARocket email list:

How NASA brought the monstrous F-1 "moon rocket" engine back to life The
story of young engineers who resurrected an engine nearly twice their
age.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/...e-monstrous-f-
1-moon-rocket-back-to-life/

----------------------------------------------------------------

New F-1B rocket engine upgrades Apollo-era design with 1.8M lbs of
thrust Dynetics and Pratt Whitney Rocketdyne rebuild the F-1 for the
"Pyrios" booster.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/...gine-upgrades-
apollo-era-deisgn-with-1-8m-lbs-of-thrust/

----------------------------------------------------------------

Gallery: Behind the scenes at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center We
watched a rocket test and came away with a ton of awesome photographs.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/...the-scenes-at-
nasas-marshall-space-flight-center/


--
"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

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

Essentially, the F-1B is an F-1A (extensively ground tested, but never
flown) that has been re-worked to be easier to manufacture. The other
notable difference is that the fuel rich exhaust of the gas generator is
dumped "overboard" on the F-1B (the F-1A injected this fuel rich exhaust
into the nozzle to help with cooling).


Links originally posted on ARocket email list:

How NASA brought the monstrous F-1 "moon rocket" engine back to life The
story of young engineers who resurrected an engine nearly twice their
age.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/...e-monstrous-f-
1-moon-rocket-back-to-life/


Worth the read. Good idea and I think this is the sort of thing that NASA
should be doing. More research on simplifying and the like.

And honestly I'd be more comfortable with a F-1 or two at the base than an
SRB.

I'd love to see a rocket with these roar to life again.


----------------------------------------------------------------

New F-1B rocket engine upgrades Apollo-era design with 1.8M lbs of
thrust Dynetics and Pratt Whitney Rocketdyne rebuild the F-1 for the
"Pyrios" booster.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/...gine-upgrades-
apollo-era-deisgn-with-1-8m-lbs-of-thrust/

----------------------------------------------------------------

Gallery: Behind the scenes at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center We
watched a rocket test and came away with a ton of awesome photographs.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/...the-scenes-at-
nasas-marshall-space-flight-center/



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

On Monday, April 15, 2013 5:11:19 PM UTC-7, Anonymous wrote:
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message

...

Essentially, the F-1B is an F-1A (extensively ground tested, but never

flown) that has been re-worked to be easier to manufacture. The other

notable difference is that the fuel rich exhaust of the gas generator is

dumped "overboard" on the F-1B (the F-1A injected this fuel rich exhaust

into the nozzle to help with cooling).





Links originally posted on ARocket email list:



How NASA brought the monstrous F-1 "moon rocket" engine back to life The

story of young engineers who resurrected an engine nearly twice their

age.



http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/...e-monstrous-f-

1-moon-rocket-back-to-life/





For God's sake! Why do they keep wanting to change things?! Just keep

the F1-A as it is and simply put it back into production unmodified. All

the changes they propose will cost at least a

decade to develop, costing hundreds of millions (if not billions) of $

with very little to show for it.



The same thing happened with the J-2 where they just couldn't leave well

enough alone. The 'small changes' they proposed for the J-2X took more

than a decade to implement. Longer than the original

engine took to develop!



I have serious reservations about the capabilities of the current

generation of aerospace engineers. It seems to me they know a lot about

computers but little else.



I often wondered since they're putting both the J2 and F1 back into

service why they didn't opt to revive the entire Saturn V rocket?! It

would be much cheaper than spending $30+ billion on that

monstrosity called SLS (a rehashed Space Shuttle), which will end up

using most of the parts of the Saturn V anyway. Sigh.

Its a training project for a current generation of engineers and yes a new re-engineered Saturn would be better than a system with solid rocket boosters.

the generation is dead and gone.......................Trig

On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 00:11:19 GMT, Anonymous
wrote:

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
Essentially, the F-1B is an F-1A (extensively ground tested, but never
flown) that has been re-worked to be easier to manufacture. The other
notable difference is that the fuel rich exhaust of the gas generator is
dumped "overboard" on the F-1B (the F-1A injected this fuel rich exhaust
into the nozzle to help with cooling).


Links originally posted on ARocket email list:

How NASA brought the monstrous F-1 "moon rocket" engine back to life The
story of young engineers who resurrected an engine nearly twice their
age.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/...e-monstrous-f-
1-moon-rocket-back-to-life/


For God's sake! Why do they keep wanting to change things?!

Some change is unavoidable, because no one is still building
aeronautical hardware in 2013 the way they were in 1967. Different
tools, different materials availability, different environmental
regulations, different work safety regulations, the list goes on and
on. And once you start down the road of redesigning everything, it is
very tempting to make a few improvements along the way based on
experience with other more modern engines like SSME and RS-68, and
gleanings from Russian engines that now power Atlas.

Just keep the F1-A as it is and simply put it back into production unmodified. All
the changes they propose will cost at least a
decade to develop,

They have a decade anyway. SLS Block II is mid-2020s at least due to
lack of payloads (even SLS Block I has no payload other than Orion,
for which it is massive overkill.) Might as well use the time to make
a cheaper, easier to produce F-1.

costing hundreds of millions (if not billions) of $
with very little to show for it.

If the engine's price is cut in half, that could be worthwhile.
Especially if the engine finds other applications, such as flyback
boosters for EELV's successor.

The same thing happened with the J-2 where they just couldn't leave well
enough alone. The 'small changes' they proposed for the J-2X took more
than a decade to implement. Longer than the original
engine took to develop!

See above. Many of those changes were mandatory due to 21st Century
manufacturing and materials being very different than in the 1960s.

I often wondered since they're putting both the J2 and F1 back into
service why they didn't opt to revive the entire Saturn V rocket?!

Saturn V was built in an era of "waste anything but time." Cost was
not a factor. Today, it is. Also, Saturn V's third stage was a kludge,
chosen for expediency (it could fly on Saturn IB, too) rather than
operational suitability. A better design (had they not been facing a
tight deadline) would have been a third stage the same diameter as the
first and second. S-IVB was a bit of a waste of space.

And Saturn V never did totally cure that pogo problem.

It would be much cheaper than spending $30+ billion on that
monstrosity called SLS (a rehashed Space Shuttle), which will end up
using most of the parts of the Saturn V anyway. Sigh.

No, it would not have been cheaper or faster than SLS exactly because
it is a "rehashed Space Shuttle." Going back to Saturn V would mean
waiting for F-1 and J-2 to be put back into production, tested, and
certified, which would have taken years and cost a lot regardless of
any modifications for 21st Century manufacturing. At a minimum, you
have to redesign every electronic component to use 21st Century
electronics, because no one builds 1967 avionics anymore, or even
wants to.

SLS uses existing SSMEs and the almost-finished Five Segment SRB in
its baseline version, and its second stage will (probably) be a DCSS
(Delta Cryogenic Second Stage) from Delta IV. The J-2 powered second
stage is still a decade down the road.

The core of SLS will be built on the Shuttle External Tank production
line, using the same 27 ft. diameter tankage. Saturn V restart would
require converting Michoud back to 33 ft. diameter. Saturn V restart
would also require reactivating the factories that built S-II and
S-IVB, which are currently busy building other things (which would
have to be evicted.) So no, restarting Saturn V would not be cheaper
than using Shuttle heritage. Not by a country mile.

Brian

In article ,
says...

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
Essentially, the F-1B is an F-1A (extensively ground tested, but never
flown) that has been re-worked to be easier to manufacture. The other
notable difference is that the fuel rich exhaust of the gas generator is
dumped "overboard" on the F-1B (the F-1A injected this fuel rich exhaust
into the nozzle to help with cooling).


Links originally posted on ARocket email list:

How NASA brought the monstrous F-1 "moon rocket" engine back to life The
story of young engineers who resurrected an engine nearly twice their
age.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/...e-monstrous-f-
1-moon-rocket-back-to-life/


For God's sake! Why do they keep wanting to change things?! Just keep
the F1-A as it is and simply put it back into production unmodified. All
the changes they propose will cost at least a
decade to develop, costing hundreds of millions (if not billions) of $
with very little to show for it.

You must have no clue how the F-1 and F-1A was manufactured. You must
not have read the articles. They go into great detail about the issues
involved and why changes are being made.

The same thing happened with the J-2 where they just couldn't leave well
enough alone. The 'small changes' they proposed for the J-2X took more
than a decade to implement. Longer than the original
engine took to develop!

Partly this is due to lack of funding. The original Apollo/Saturn
program enjoyed the mantra "waste anything but time". This meant that a
lot of money was spent in a relatively short amount of time. Today's
NASA does *not* have the same "blank check" funding that it once
enjoyed.

I have serious reservations about the capabilities of the current
generation of aerospace engineers. It seems to me they know a lot about
computers but little else.

I suppose Falcon 9 is imaginary? The Merlin engine program has done
much with modern manufacturing techniques *and* reduced costs at the
same time. To ignore modern manufacturing techniques when designing the
F-1B would be to create yet another unaffordable rocket engine.

I often wondered since they're putting both the J2 and F1 back into
service why they didn't opt to revive the entire Saturn V rocket?! It
would be much cheaper than spending $30+ billion on that
monstrosity called SLS (a rehashed Space Shuttle), which will end up
using most of the parts of the Saturn V anyway. Sigh.

You'd have to redesign the whole thing anyway. For one, you simply
can't buy 1960's era aerospace parts "off the shelf" in 2013. Secondly,
it would be too expensive if modern (cost saving) techniques weren't
used in its construction.

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

On 4/15/2013 8:40 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
Essentially, the F-1B is an F-1A (extensively ground tested, but never
flown) that has been re-worked to be easier to manufacture. The other
notable difference is that the fuel rich exhaust of the gas generator is
dumped "overboard" on the F-1B (the F-1A injected this fuel rich exhaust
into the nozzle to help with cooling).

Wasn't the F-1B originally designed out in the early 60's as a thrust
improvement over the F-1A? (No, answered my own question via Wikipedia,
it was the F-1A which was the later improvement in the 60's, the F-1B is
a much later Pratt&Whitney improvement in the 2000's).

I noticed that last part too. How much off-axis thrust does this cause?
Also that mix does/will ignite some distance away from the exhaust
stream, does that cause complications?

Was this gas generator overboard dump original to the F-1B or part of
the manufacture rework? (Again answered via Wikipeda. The answer is yes
and yes). I assume the exhaust gasses are combined and ignited on the
F-1A, so was the cooling over the entire nozzle, just the original
nozzle or the nozzle extension?

Dave

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ket_engine.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocketdyne_F-1

In article , nospam@
127.0.0.1 says...

On 4/15/2013 8:40 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
Essentially, the F-1B is an F-1A (extensively ground tested, but never
flown) that has been re-worked to be easier to manufacture. The other
notable difference is that the fuel rich exhaust of the gas generator is
dumped "overboard" on the F-1B (the F-1A injected this fuel rich exhaust
into the nozzle to help with cooling).

Wasn't the F-1B originally designed out in the early 60's as a thrust
improvement over the F-1A? (No, answered my own question via Wikipedia,
it was the F-1A which was the later improvement in the 60's, the F-1B is
a much later Pratt&Whitney improvement in the 2000's).

True. The F-1B retains the higher thrust requirement of the F-1A.
Makes sense, since the F-1A was already extensively ground tested.

I noticed that last part too. How much off-axis thrust does this cause?
Also that mix does/will ignite some distance away from the exhaust
stream, does that cause complications?

I wouldn't think so. It's already expanded quite a bit in the
turbopumps (look at the diameter of the exhaust pipe), so the thrust
would be quite small compared to the main engine bell. Besides, I'm
sure it will be designed to gimbal so any (tiny) imbalance would be
dealt with by the launch vehicle control system.

Was this gas generator overboard dump original to the F-1B or part of
the manufacture rework? (Again answered via Wikipeda. The answer is yes
and yes). I assume the exhaust gasses are combined and ignited on the
F-1A, so was the cooling over the entire nozzle, just the original
nozzle or the nozzle extension?

In pictures of the F-1, you can see that the gas generator exhaust was
dumped about midway down the engine bell. This was done so that the
(very fuel rich) gas generator exhaust would help cool the walls of the
engine bell.

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 ,
says...

What manufacturing and materials are you referring to? I refuse to
believe that we can't simply put '60's designs back into production.

You obviously didn't read the article and have no knowledge how the F-1
engines were originally produced and why they've fundamentally changed
the way they're going to build things like the nozzle of the F-1B.

Waving your arms and refusing to learn what has changed and why is just
plain lazy. Please go back and read the articles which were referenced
in this thread. They are quite detailed but should be easy enough for
even a "layman" to understand.

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

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 01:56:07 +0800, Anonymous
wrote:

The Russian rocket engines used in Atlas V and Antares both stem from
the 1970's and are still being manufactured today (the AK-33 may be
manufactured in the U.S. but isn't currently in
production).

Atlas V engines are built in the former USSR, which has, shall we say,
lax environmental and workers safety standards.

Antares engines are not being built today, they are actually leftovers
from N1. OSC is modifying them with western electronics and other
changes, and that has taken about three years. Which should be a clue
how long it will take to start actually building F-1s again, a much
bigger job.

There are no manufacturing, environmental or safety
concerns which would warrant a complete redesign of the F1-A in any
case.

Um... Did you read the articles?

Worst case the avionics will have to be replaced but
that's peanuts compared to modifying the engine and re certifying it.

Heh. Um... no.

I contest that it will be cheaper and easier to produce. Mark my words,
it will be at least as expensive as the original, probably vastly more
expensive.

One huge cost saving will come from eliminating the channel-wall
nozzle of the old F-1 and replacing it with a smooth ablative nozzle.
That will be far easier and thus far cheaper to manufacture. A similar
nozzle is used on RS-68 for Delta IV. They are also eliminating the
gas generator exhaust being dumped back into the combustion chamber,
that will hurt iSp a little bit, but result in a far less complicated
design. These two changes alone should result in great cost savings.

There's no way the price will be cut in half. In fact, I'll wager you
that it will be twice as expensive as the original. The low-production
rate will probably be cited as the reason.

That's why I wrote 'if it finds other applications'. Powerplant for a
reusable booster for EELV's successor is a distinct possibility.

What manufacturing and materials are you referring to? I refuse to
believe that we can't simply put '60's designs back into production.

It isn't relevant that you believe it or not. It is a simple fact.
What materials? Beryllium, for one. Too dangerous to work with today,
forbidden by OSHA. Various other commercial solvents and lubricants as
well. Even Shuttle had to change the way it was building External
Tanks and Solid Rocket Boosters over the years to meet environmental
regulations.

CAD/CAM is now universal in aerospace production, so that contractors
and subcontractors can build the parts you need to assemble the
engine. Since many of the old F1 subcontractors either don't exist
anymore or no longer produce the parts anymore, you have to redesign
those parts in CAD/CAM and find someone to build them again.

The 'cost is no object' mantra actually resulted in Apollo being much
cheaper than most people think.

Wow. I believe you may be the first person to ever assert that Apollo
was cheap. It was not. It was enormously expensive.

IIRC the pogo problem stemmed from engine thrust variations.

Fuel line issues.

Maybe it can be solved with modern avionics,

Equally plausible, we can just wave the Wicked Witch of the West's
magic wand over the problem and make it go away.

but it wasn't a showstopper in any case.

Tell that to SkyLab, the last Saturn V launch, which was nearly
destroyed.

Avionics are relatively easy to replace with modern equivalents. It's
mostly software these days anyways.

Hoo boy, if only that were true! Software/avionics is often the most
complicated, time consuming and expensive element of a major aerospace
project. What exactly do you think took OSC three years to get the
existing N1 engines flying again?

SLS uses existing SSMEs and the almost-finished Five Segment SRB in
its baseline version, and its second stage will (probably) be a DCSS
(Delta Cryogenic Second Stage) from Delta IV. The J-2 powered second
stage is still a decade down the road.

Like I said in earlier posts, the SRB's in SLS are a huge mistake.

Agreed. Never again should humans ride on a vehicle that depends on
solid motors. But that's water under the bridge now. Most of the money
to build Five Segment SRB has already been spent and the stage is
close to flight-ready.

I
therefore support the idea of replacing them with either F1-A's or some
other liquid-fueled booster *before* its first flight.

So do I. But it ain't gonna happen.

If they can build SLS then it would be equally doable for them to build
a new Saturn V.

Where would you build the second stage and the third stage? Those
plants don't build rockets anymore. How long will it take to convert
those factories back to building rockets? How much will it cost to
compensate whatever companies and projects are currently being built
there to move elsewhere?

The Saturn V first stage was built at Michoud, which was converted to
building External Tanks in the 1970s. To build Saturn V, you'd have to
convert it back (that's what Ares V planned to do, and Ares V was
killed for being too expensive.) That's an obvious extra step that SLS
doesn't need to take, saving time and money.

SLS's initial upper stage is already in production for Delta IV. No
new factory or factory reconstruction required. No waiting for J-2 and
S-IVB to be rebuilt before you can go fly. SLS Block II's second stage
(the one to be powered by J-2X) will come off the Michoud line along
with the core stage.

Yes, it will most likely cost the same amount of time,

Longer. You'd have to rebuild the factories. SLS's core stage is
coming off the External Tank assembly line, which will need little
modification. They're going back to standard aerospace aluminum as in
the original External Tank instead of Aluminum-Lithium introduced on
STS-98 to save money and ease manufacturing at the cost of a little
weight.

but at least you don't have to test fly the hardware
like they're doing with SLS.

Yes, you would. You're living in a fantasy world if you think NASA
will put astronauts on the first new Saturn V in nearly 50 years.
There would be at least one test flight, same as SLS.

And who knows what that will bring up.

Saturn V only flew 13 times, 3 of which had serious problems (Apollo
6, Apollo 13, and SkyLab). It had a long way to go before it was
debugged, too.

I believe that the whole idea that we were wrong and are best off moving
back to Saturn V abhors some people within NASA.

Your belief is irrelevant.

BTW is the SSME still in production or is there a sufficient stock for
use with SLS in the foreseeable future? The engines will not be
recovered so they too may have to be replaced by some other
engine after the stock runs out. Sigh...

The SSME (RS-25D) line is intact. There are enough surplus engines for
three or four SLS flights, if memory serves. Pratt & Whitney is
modifyiing the engine to reduce cost, since it no longer will need to
be able to fly 20 or however many times SSME was meant to. The RS-25E
will be a non-reusable version of SSME. Pratt & Whitney has said it
will cost about 40% less than SSME.

Brian

"Nun Giver" wrote in message
...
On Monday, April 15, 2013 5:11:19 PM UTC-7, Anonymous wrote:
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message

...

Essentially, the F-1B is an F-1A (extensively ground tested, but never

flown) that has been re-worked to be easier to manufacture. The other

notable difference is that the fuel rich exhaust of the gas generator
is

dumped "overboard" on the F-1B (the F-1A injected this fuel rich
exhaust

into the nozzle to help with cooling).





Links originally posted on ARocket email list:



How NASA brought the monstrous F-1 "moon rocket" engine back to life
The

story of young engineers who resurrected an engine nearly twice their

age.



http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/...e-monstrous-f-

1-moon-rocket-back-to-life/





For God's sake! Why do they keep wanting to change things?! Just keep

the F1-A as it is and simply put it back into production unmodified. All

the changes they propose will cost at least a

decade to develop, costing hundreds of millions (if not billions) of $

with very little to show for it.



The same thing happened with the J-2 where they just couldn't leave well

enough alone. The 'small changes' they proposed for the J-2X took more

than a decade to implement. Longer than the original

engine took to develop!



I have serious reservations about the capabilities of the current

generation of aerospace engineers. It seems to me they know a lot about

computers but little else.



I often wondered since they're putting both the J2 and F1 back into

service why they didn't opt to revive the entire Saturn V rocket?! It

would be much cheaper than spending $30+ billion on that

monstrosity called SLS (a rehashed Space Shuttle), which will end up

using most of the parts of the Saturn V anyway. Sigh.

Its a training project for a current generation of engineers and yes a new
re-engineered Saturn would be better than a system with solid rocket
boosters.

the generation is dead and gone.......................Trig


The other problem: LBJ ordered the Saturn V tooling destroyed before he left
office. That, IMHO, was just as criminal as one Robert Strange MacNamara
ordering the SR-71 tooling destroyed, or Mr. Peanut issuing the same order
Minuteman.