the saturn 5 returns!

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1204/18dynetics/

In article f98b88ed-5257-445c-94a9-09bbffd7add2
@er9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com, says...

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1204/18dynetics/

The Saturn V is *not* returning. The F-1 might return. That's not the
same thing at all.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

In article ,
says...

In article f98b88ed-5257-445c-94a9-09bbffd7add2
@er9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com, says...

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1204/18dynetics/

The Saturn V is *not* returning. The F-1 might return. That's not the
same thing at all.

Oh, and if you read closely, you'll see that it's not really the F-1,
but an updated version that's optimized for lower manufacturing costs.
It wouldn't surprise me if they called it the F-1X to mirror the attempt
at an appealing name for the J-2X. Sorry NASA, but putting an "X" in
the name of a product to make it sell is pretty much played out by now.

I tried to get excited about this, but I just can't yet. Sure, I'd
prefer F-1 derived engines powering a LOX/kerosene booster over large
segmented solids, but that's really not going to help lower costs much.
As long as the boosters are being dropped into the ocean, they're going
to be "refurbished" at best and "expendable" at worst.

Now if these boosters flew back to KSC to land (on land), I'd be much
more excited. Hopefully Dynetics has given some thought to reusability.

Until NASA stops this back to the 60's and 70's mentality (which has
apparently spread to the contractors like a plague), launch costs will
still be far too high to support a sustainable, beyond LEO, human
exploration program.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

On 19/04/2012 9:41 PM, bob haller wrote:
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1204/18dynetics/

The first paragraph reads: "WASHINGTON -- Dynetics and Pratt & Whitney
Rocketdyne announced Wednesday they are teaming up to resurrect the
Saturn 5 rocket's mighty F-1 engine to power NASA's planned heavy-lift
launch vehicle, saying the Apollo-era engine will offer significantly
more performance than solid-fueled boosters currently under development. "

It's only taken them 40 years to work that out!!

Alan Erskine speculated:
On 19/04/2012 9:41 PM, bob haller wrote:
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1204/18dynetics/

The first paragraph reads: "WASHINGTON -- Dynetics and Pratt & Whitney
Rocketdyne announced Wednesday they are teaming up to resurrect the Saturn 5
rocket's mighty F-1 engine to power NASA's planned heavy-lift launch vehicle,
saying the Apollo-era engine will offer significantly more performance than
solid-fueled boosters currently under development. "

It's only taken them 40 years to work that out!!

Be interesting if the F-1X (or F-1++, maybe) was used for a strap-on
booster. insert suitable smiley here

/dps

--
Who, me? And what lacuna?

On 20/04/2012 6:19 AM, Snidely wrote:
Alan Erskine speculated:
On 19/04/2012 9:41 PM, bob haller wrote:
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1204/18dynetics/

The first paragraph reads: "WASHINGTON -- Dynetics and Pratt & Whitney
Rocketdyne announced Wednesday they are teaming up to resurrect the
Saturn 5 rocket's mighty F-1 engine to power NASA's planned heavy-lift
launch vehicle, saying the Apollo-era engine will offer significantly
more performance than solid-fueled boosters currently under
development. "

It's only taken them 40 years to work that out!!

Be interesting if the F-1X (or F-1++, maybe) was used for a strap-on
booster. insert suitable smiley here

/dps


I don't think there is a suitable smiley for this idea. I think going
to an engine that's 50 years old (older than me!) is a mistake, even if
it is an updated engine.

Have a look at what SpaceX have done with the Merlin - completely new
from the ground up. And on a very tight, private budget at that. I
think suggesting the use of the F1 is purely an emotional response to a
valid need. However, there are also rumours of a much more powerful
engine from SpaceX.

We'll see how the Falcon Heavy performs and see what happens with SpaceX
in the next five years and then we can find out how privately funded
space launch companies fair. I think it's still early days, but the
signs are very good.

....Let's also not forget that plans were in the works for an uprated F-1 called the F-6, which had an uprated turbopump and a much larger engine bell. Diagrams and even a photo of a mockup can be found online using Google if anyone cares to search. IIRC, Pat posted one diagram showing the comparison between the F-1 and the F-6, with the plan at the time being to replace the five F-5s with 2 or 3 F-6s - 2 F-6s having the same combined thrust as 5 F-1s, 3 being used for larger payloads, etc - and were eventually intended for an actual post-Saturn V Nova project. Mark Wade may also have info on this engine as well.

OM

In article 28871905.1864.1334896798362.JavaMail.geo-discussion-
forums@vbus19, says...

...Let's also not forget that plans were in the works for an uprated F-1
called the F-6, which had an uprated turbopump and a much larger
engine bell. Diagrams and even a photo of a mockup can be found online
using Google if anyone cares to search. IIRC, Pat posted one diagram
showing the comparison between the F-1 and the F-6, with the plan at \
the time being to replace the five F-5s with 2 or 3 F-6s - 2 F-6s
having the same combined thrust as 5 F-1s, 3 being used for larger
payloads, etc - and were eventually intended for an actual post-Saturn
V Nova project. Mark Wade may also have info on this engine as well.

OM

I've never heard of the F-6. Nothing on Astronautix.com either.

Might you be thinking of the F-1A? It was to be lighter but 33% higher
thrust (about 2 million pounds force of thrust).

Either that or you might be thinking of the M-1, but that was to be a
LOX/LH2 engine, which would have higher ISP than the F-1, but any stage
designed to use it would have a *huge* LH2 tank when compared to the
relatively small kerosene tank on the Saturn V first stage.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

On 20/04/2012 2:39 PM, wrote:
...Let's also not forget that plans were in the works for an uprated F-1 called the F-6, which had an uprated turbopump and a much larger engine bell. Diagrams and even a photo of a mockup can be found online using Google if anyone cares to search. IIRC, Pat posted one diagram showing the comparison between the F-1 and the F-6, with the plan at the time being to replace the five F-5s with 2 or 3 F-6s - 2 F-6s having the same combined thrust as 5 F-1s, 3 being used for larger payloads, etc - and were eventually intended for an actual post-Saturn V Nova project. Mark Wade may also have info on this engine as well.

OM

Nothing that I could find.

In article ,
Jeff Findley wrote:

In article 28871905.1864.1334896798362.JavaMail.geo-discussion-
forums@vbus19, says...

...Let's also not forget that plans were in the works for an uprated F-1
called the F-6, which had an uprated turbopump and a much larger
engine bell. Diagrams and even a photo of a mockup can be found online
using Google if anyone cares to search. IIRC, Pat posted one diagram
showing the comparison between the F-1 and the F-6, with the plan at \
the time being to replace the five F-5s with 2 or 3 F-6s - 2 F-6s
having the same combined thrust as 5 F-1s, 3 being used for larger
payloads, etc - and were eventually intended for an actual post-Saturn
V Nova project. Mark Wade may also have info on this engine as well.

OM

I've never heard of the F-6. Nothing on Astronautix.com either.

Might you be thinking of the F-1A? It was to be lighter but 33% higher
thrust (about 2 million pounds force of thrust).

Either that or you might be thinking of the M-1, but that was to be a
LOX/LH2 engine, which would have higher ISP than the F-1, but any stage
designed to use it would have a *huge* LH2 tank when compared to the
relatively small kerosene tank on the Saturn V first stage.

Jeff

So the F-1A was to use H2/O2, rather than LOX/RP (oxygen/kerosene)?
I don't recall that engine when I worked on Sat V follow-on, back in
1969.