#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
F-1B engine
"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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
F-1B engine
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
F-1B engine
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
F-1B engine
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
F-1B engine
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
F-1B engine
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
F-1B engine
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
F-1B engine
"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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Seo , Search Engine Optimizer , Seo Search engine Optimization , search engine optimization services, SEO Consulting | Se0 Guy | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | December 25th 07 08:33 PM |
72 kw - 3N Ion Engine | Richard Hofer | Technology | 18 | January 6th 05 01:50 PM |
F1 Engine | eling037 | History | 14 | January 25th 04 12:02 AM |
Nexus Rocket Engine Test Successful; 10 Times More Thrust Than Deep Space 1 Engine and Lasts 3 Times Longer (10 years) | [email protected] | Technology | 5 | December 30th 03 07:44 PM |
Jet Engine | Rajesh Khanna | History | 11 | December 15th 03 02:13 PM |