Saturn V Engine Refurbishment

Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by Colonel Midnight, Apr 26, 2013.

  1. Colonel Midnight

    Colonel Midnight Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    May 31, 2001
    Location:
    Colonel Midnight
  2. Asbo Zaprudder

    Asbo Zaprudder Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2004
    Location:
    On the beach
    This is what we want -- big dumb boosters!
     
  3. farmkid

    farmkid Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Very interesting read.
     
  4. gturner

    gturner Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Location:
    Kentucky
    You think they'd be looking at the RD-170 instead of the F-1. The RD-170 has much better performance (an ISP of 311 seconds at sea level instead of the F-1's 265 seconds).
     
  5. R. Star

    R. Star Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2012
    Location:
    Shangri-La
    The question that comes to mind is... why?
     
  6. diankra

    diankra Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    I find it difficult to believe that an old F-1 could be refurbished back into service... but backward-engineering it to find the stuff that's not recorded in the paperwork to reproduce it might well be very valuable.
     
  7. feek61

    feek61 Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2011
    Location:
    The Sunshine State
    Awesome article. The purpose was to get an accurate digital model to be able to use the F-1 design data and use that information in order to use modern computer modeling to improve upon current liquid-fuel engine design. Firing part of the old engine was just an afterthought and not the reason they did it. Am I the only one that actually read the article? lol
     
  8. Saturn0660

    Saturn0660 Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Location:
    NE Ohio
    Shit, the real question is.. Why NOT fire it up.. :techman:

    Because we can..
     
  9. HarryM

    HarryM Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Location:
    Old Earth
    If it serves a purpose. As the article says, the test stands for the full engine have been long since torn down or repurposed, so they'd have to be rebuilt, which is a lot to do just for kicks.
     
  10. publiusr

    publiusr Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    It is being fuded as part of SLS program
    http://arstechnica.com/science/2013...es-apollo-era-deisgn-with-1-8m-lbs-of-thrust/

    These will replace the SRBs. each Liquid fueled booster (LFB) will have two f-1 engines. The booster is tentatively named Pyrios, after one of the fiery horses that pulled the god Apollo's chariot; the engine is being called the F-1B.

    Now if you recall, Energiya was similar, in that it had hydrogen burning (RD-0120) engines were placed under the Russian external Tank (Energiya itself) rendering Buran just one of many possible payloads. The booster used four thin strap-ons each with one RD-170 (four nozzle) engine. Pyrios will be fatter, and have two F-1 B engines
     
  11. gturner

    gturner Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Location:
    Kentucky
    ^ Well that's just bad naming, since Pyrios is only one horse (not two), and it didn't pull Apollo's chariot, it pulled the chariot of Helios, whose other favorite horses to drag the sun across the sky were Phlegon, Aeos, and Aethon. So the new boosters should at least have different names for left and right. I'd go with calling the two F-1B boosters "Pyrios" and "Phlegon" and Thiokol's two solid boosters "Aeos" and "Aethon". I'd also name the SLS after either Demeter or Circe, who both have some associations with pork.

    The confusion of Apollo and Helios is pretty interesting. Obviously Apollo couldn't be pulling the sun across the sky or the world would've gone dark every time he was in the countryside spreading plague, stirring up trouble, or banging chicks, which would be a major plot hole. The confusion seems to stem from the word Phoebus ("bright"), which could refer to Helios, but also was used for "phoebus Apollo." Perhaps this is a bit like confusing the sun with Cher's ex-husband, but in any event it seems to have really taken hold in the Victorian era.
     
  12. publiusr

    publiusr Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    We have the plans to RD-180, the two-nozzle version half stength version used by Atlas V, but I think they were worried about burn throughs early on in the X-170

    Glushko loved hypergolics. His largest single chanber engine was RD-270, which the Chinese should have bought--but they didn't like the toxicity.

    Ironically the RD-0120 hydrogen burning engine was developed without big problems. It had channel wall cooling. I'd rather keep the F-1 but use RD-0120 instead of RS-25 SSME whatever.

    With any luck we will see this fly
    http://www.russianspaceweb.com/yenisei5.html
     
  13. sojourner

    sojourner Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Location:
    A Long Time Ago...
  14. gturner

    gturner Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Location:
    Kentucky
    ^ The F-1B's haven't been decided on. It's just an option that a contractor is bidding.

    I agree that NASA should move away from the RS-25E's, which despite modifications for expendability are still too expensive for anyone other than NASA. The RS-68's aren't that much better, especially given their much lower ISP.

    They should probably start pursuing the recent innovation of using a swirling oxygen counterflow (injected upward from near the throat to swirl around the sides of the combustion chamber, providing cooling without built in passages).
     
  15. Crazy Eddie

    Crazy Eddie Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Location:
    I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
    :lol: You owe me a new keyboard and a fresh cup of coffee.

    Seriously, though, I think NASA is just going to leave it as "SLS". They have always had a sort of fetishistic obsession with acronyms over the years, but it's gotten so bad over the years that they have actually started coming up with acronyms for things that are supposed to have proper names. I've actually heard some NASA officials referring to the Columbus laboratory "the CSL." I've also been informed that some acronyms actually contain other acronyms (The "PICA Principle" for example stands for "Pre Integrated Columbus APM" where "APM" stands for "Attached pressurized module.")

    Basically, never EVER underestimate NASA's lack of imagination.
     
  16. B.J.

    B.J. Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2004
    Location:
    Huntsville, AL
    ^ It's not just NASA, it's the entire aerospace industry. In college, I had one of those T-shirts that said "You might be an aerospace engineer if..." and one of the options was "you use more TLAs (three-letter acronyms) than the FBI, CIA, and NSA combined." :D

    The fact that "TLA" is a known acronym ought to tell you something by itself! :lol:

    You remember this scene from Good Morning Vietnam?
    [yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_aiDDU5z18[/yt]
    I've been in countless meetings that sounded just like that, only they were completely serious!
     
  17. Colonel Midnight

    Colonel Midnight Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    May 31, 2001
    Location:
    Colonel Midnight
    Heck, "Alphabet Soup" is a constant throughout all of the U.S. Government, not just NASA or the aerospace industry. :lol:

    In my penultimate tour before retirement, you were given a reference book of all the acronyms and abbreviations found in that program. It was about... 40 pages long. I kid you not.

    What was really wacky was the same abbreviation would often be used for totally different items, and you had to just figure it out by context. 'MPA' for instance, could stand for either Maritime Patrol Aircraft' or 'Main Propulsion Assistant.' :p

    Cheers,
    -CM-
     
  18. publiusr

    publiusr Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Well, the term "Falcon" has been overused. It isn't just the name for Musk and Han's ride, but an old Air Force launcher concept (winged I think).
     
  19. Crazy Eddie

    Crazy Eddie Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Location:
    I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
    I don't care if they overuse "Falcon" as a name for things. What would bother me if somebody at SpaceX decided to turn it into a bacronym and "F.A.L.C.O.N." was born.
     
  20. sojourner

    sojourner Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Location:
    A Long Time Ago...
    For an aerospace company, SpaceX seems to use very few acronyms.