• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Saturn V Engine Refurbishment

Colonel Midnight

Colonel Midnight

Vice Admiral
Premium Member
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).
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
^ 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.
 
gturner said:
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).
Click to expand...

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
 
^ 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).
 
gturner said:
I'd also name the SLS after either Demeter or Circe, who both have some associations with pork.
Click to expand...
: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.
 
^ 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!
 
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-
 
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).
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ColdFusion180
Star Trek: Lower Decks - CF075 - "Kicking a Gift Horse in the Mouth" (Challenge Entry - Sep/Oct 2024)
Replies
3
Views
496
Bynar0110
Bynar0110
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top