Hypothetical: Dusting off the old F-1

[barrykirk]

How much would it cost to ressurect the old F-1 engine?<br /><br />How about upgrading it to the F-1A configuration that was being considered for the NOVA rocket?<br /><br />And would it be possible to improve it any further, with modern technology?<br /><br />I know that NASA likes their clustered rockets with LOX/LH2 core and SRB boosters, but how does that compare with the Saturn V way of doing things?<br /><br />Would expensive would it be to make a F-1 or F-1 varient powered first stage re-usable? and would that be cost effective compared to re-using SRBs?

 

[mlorrey]

Martin Marietta had proposed wrapping a cowling around the F-1 to make them into ram-ejector engines that they called "thrust modules" for some of their Nova designs. This would allow the fuel-rich burning engines to gain thrust from combustion with the ram air and boost Isp significantly.

 

[nacnud]

That sound interesting, do you have any more details on that? I wonder if there are any current fuel rich engines this could be tested on?

 

[mlorrey]

Its been demonstrated with the RBCC engine already. <br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/novr10r2.htm<br />http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/novr10e2.htm<br /><br />This Zubrin article:<br />http://www.pioneerastro.com/Projects/MER/Meth_ejector_ramjet_ph_1_report.DOC<br /><br />Shows a methanol ram-ejector engine would boost Isp from the mid 300 seconds range (with just LOX/methanol) up to 695 seconds with air/lox/methanol.

 

[nacnud]

Just off to look at the links but this would only work up to a relatively low altitude. Sound ideal for a booster, perhaps a study to see if the idea is applicable to solids?

 

[mlorrey]

Ah, that is essentially a solid fuelled ramjet. The French have a good design that has a solid rocket core that burns through to the top by the time ramspeed is attained, allowing air oxidation of low-oxidizer fuel at that point. Once past 100k feet, the scoops close and the combustion goes back to rocket.<br /><br />The studies for the Nova concepts showed that launcher mass would be reduced by 30% for the same payload size using the air augmented system. Keep in mind that most boosters burn about 30% of their propellant off below 100,000 feet and mach 3.<br /><br />Ram combustion could be maintained up to about 120,000 feet and mach 7. To maximize Isp benefit, you'd just fly a bit shallower of a trajectory. I'll note that the STS flight profile is inefficient in that it pops up out of the atmosphere steeply rather than follow an optimum trajectory, which is why its gravity losses are greater while its aerodynamic losses are less.

 

[nacnud]

Then you have the problems of a much larger maxQ to cope with, yes?

 

[mlorrey]

I wouldn't say much larger, but significant. Given SHARP materials, there is no real issue with heating. That MM R10R-2 concept has a pretty sharp point on its nose cone. You want the dynamic pressure anyways for the ram effect to maintain as high as possible. Once air breathing is done, the vehicle can start climbing steeply again.

 

[mattblack]

Old article on prospect for F-1 revival: <br /><br />Source -- Popular Mechanics, July 1994, by Philip Chien.<br /><br /> />>>Deep in the bowels of Launch Pad 39A runs a Teflon-lined slide, designed to carry astronauts from a Saturn V in danger of exploding. If you take the slide, you plunge into the egress-shaft termination room, today disused and littered with paint dust. Next door lies the actual blast room, a domed bomb shelter suspended on springs, fitted with 20 concrete chairs for astronauts and close-out crews. Here, a mouse has built a nest from discarded cigarette butts in the mechanical oxygen<br />generator.<br /><br />Yes, entropy has exacted its inevitable toll on the old Moon-launch complex. It's plain to the eye that two decades have slipped by since the last Saturn V blasted off, and to explore these abandoned chambers is to walk back through time. The dust and disrepair bring a question to mind: Could we ever revitalize Apollo's infrastructure, surely one of mankind's greatest engineering achievements?<br /><br />The answer is complicated. Kennedy Space Center cannibalized much of the Apollo facilities for shuttle use. Work crews cut the launch umbilical tower in half, widened the Vehicle Assembly Building doors and upgraded the Launch Control Center. The crawler/transporters are still there, as are the astronaut crew quarters and other operations buildings.<br /><br />But the crown jewels of Apollo were the Saturn V launch vehicles. Contrary to popular rumor, NASA has not lost the blueprints to its mightiest rocket. While much of the information resides in obsolete computer formats, it could be recovered if necessary.<br /><br />What NASA has lost is its corporate knowledge. The rocket's designers and mechanics have retired, died or moved on without passing on their skills to a new generation. Although it may be possible to follow blueprints, it's impossible to relearn what was never written down.<br /><br />Nevertheless, the Saturn V has a special appeal <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[rocketman5000]

Very interesting article. Thanks for sharing

 

[nacnud]

Sounds fun <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> so is that where you got the idea to jump out of planes from <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

 

[drwayne]

I am so jealous of you sir....<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[mikejz]

Jarvis was a great booster design that I really reget never flew, It would have done $3-4k per lbs. Add two Shuttle SRBs and we might have already been to the moon.

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>A single F-1 generated as much thrust as all three shuttle main engines.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Not only that, but that single F-1 would generate more thrust than the rest of the Saturn V stack above it put together. Everything from the tiniest thrusters all the way up to the J-2s in the second stage, when put together, couldn't keep up with that one F-1. That is big! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[john_316]

But would they go back to using RP1 as a propellent and recertifying the F-1 and still use the current tooling for tankage at McCeoud?<br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />

 

[danwoodard]

There may be a little fudge in the stats, but the RD-170 is higher in performance (both thrust and Isp) than the F-1 and is in current production. In fact, this engine (in Sealaunch) and the derivative used in the Atlas V already power the vast majority of American satelite launches.<br /><br />http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/EMO/LPE.pdf<br /><br />Why not just use Zenits as strap-ons, like they did with the Energia? In fact, why not just use the Energia, just getting rid of that assymetric cargo pod?

 

[mikejz]

Because it's not made in the US, duh <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[danwoodard]

LockMart claimed they were going to have a US "second source" when they proposed for the EELV. It may have devolved into putting on a US-made nameplate. <br /><br />But if so, we can't afford to spend money putting an old engine back into production when a better one can be bought more cheaply overseas. Look what happened to the RS-68! Beautiful American engineering with no customers. To stay in business we need better technology than the rest of the world has, which was true of the F-1 in 1965.

 

[mattblack]

>>.Because it's not made in the US, duh<< <br /><br />..And they don't want side-mounted configuration, and to have to build new launchpads, and... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[mattblack]

The ET tooling could still be used for and RP-1 fuelled corestage, but you'd have to change the relative sizes of the fuel & oxidiser tanks, because this combination has a different fuel/oxidiser ratio over LOX/LH2.<br /><br />Perhaps then the corestage engines could be 3x RD-180s, 2x RD-170s or 2x F-1As, with a larger upper (EDS) stage used instead. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[mikejz]

There was actually a propsoal to build the HLV around a cluster of RS-180s. I lost the link.

 

[mlorrey]

Mattblack,<br />Yeah, actually the ET LOX tank is about the right size for RP-1 with the LH2 tank being good for the LOX. AFAIKR, the proper mix ratio for RP-1/LOX is somewhere around 2.5

 

[john_316]

Ditto!!!!!!

 

[john_316]

But in honeslty the American Public wouldnt go fo that.<br /><br />Just like we wont go for an Arab state running our ports. I may be a redneck conservative but I dont walk the party line. <br /><br />Not only does using Russian rockets even if manufactured here refrain us from our own motors we then rely on foreign counterparts. I for one like our motors and I feel we have more than ample technology to build on.<br /><br />Why should we goto foreign designs? Please the cost analyst is hyperbole once the foreign design becomes the prominent used design. You then are paying a foreign entity such as Russia for licenses and such. New contracts would have to be enacted and then they may want more than what we want to pay; even for our own rocket designs.<br /><br />Thats why I feel that Boeing started divesting itself in some areas. For the company to win contracts it just can own everything like it has. So it let go its rocket business.<br /><br />Even if the F-1 was resurrected for HLV use it would be built here in the USA. <br /><br />How much outsourcing do some of you people want? All of it? Then why bother design and build our own stuff. Let the Russians do it perhaps!!!! <br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /><br /><br /><br />

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">Why should we goto foreign designs?<br /><br /><font color="white">Because that is how capitalisum should work, go to the best supplier. I can't belive it takes Russians to show the US that!</font></font>