F-1 was--and will be a good engine. besides, and all kerosene option is only possible if F-1 is supported--and the SLS program is funding that--no thanks to the SLS bashers. Any new core would need the same type of tooling, also paid for by SLS. The hydrogen core of SLS has better specific impulse, and wet stage tankage is better for something not containing hydrocarbons.
As per the wiki:
"In 2013, it was reported that the F-1B engine in development has the design goal of being at least as powerful as the un-flight tested F-1A, while also being more cost effective; incorporating a greatly simplified combustion chamber, and a reduced number of engine parts, including the removal of the previously mentioned F-1 exhaust recycling system, that is, the removal of the turbopump exhaust
mid-nozzle, "curtain" cooling manifold
. The resulting F-1B configuration is intended to result in each engine producing 8.0 MN (1,800,000 lbf) of thrust at sea level, an increase over the approximate 6.9 MN (1,550,000 lbf) of thrust that the mature Apollo 15
F-1 engines produced.
Those were awesome, once again, the author was torn to shreds by the commentors. The author really is headed for "conspiracy wacko" territory there.
Torn to shreds nothing
, the comment-makers were the very same trolls who would have trashed the Saturn program--were the blogosphere extant back then
The fool dominating this forum is the real problem:
This "bash gov't spaceflight" is NASA's biggest problem right now.
By the way Sojourner why don't you ask him what went wrong with USA-193?
There is this guy who is supposed to be an "expert" because he works in payload processing--not LV design, or spacecraft design--but in payload processing. Ask him if the sat was lost due to close-out errors and see what kind of response you get.
Oh, that's right, maybe you had better not. He'll just use the word "asinine" on you a dozen times, and ask Chris to have you removed from the board if you, like, prove him a lier as I have.