Hypothetical: Dusting off the old F-1

[danwoodard]

Might need a little reinforcement, as the ET would be about four times heavier than it is with O2/H2

 

[danwoodard]

>>But in honeslty the American Public wouldnt go for that.<br /><br />Just try telling them you want to raise taxes.<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 />To late for that. Almost all US commercial satelites are already going up on foreign engines or foriegn rockets. If we slap a tarriff on importing them, how will we sell satellites?<br /><br />I desperately want to stop the outsourcing. But we can only compete if we have better technology and lower costs. Currently NASA has no funds for technology development.

 

[mlorrey]

True, but it would be able to carry twice as much payload into orbit with RP-1/LOX than LH2/LOX.<br /><br />BTW: I've been reading up on friction stir welding, as that was a type I was not exposed to back in engineering school. It doesn't appear to be the sort that an average guy in a shop can do. Anybody know of hobbyists friction stir welders?

 

[danwoodard]

>>True, but it would be able to carry twice as much payload into orbit with RP-1/LOX than LH2/LOX<br /><br />What second stage would you suggest?

 

[mlorrey]

No second stage needed.<br /><br />Lets say the ET with RP-1/LOX fully loaded is somewhere in the ballpark of 4.4 million lbs (I haven't calculated the right amount, I'm just taking the four times figure from the prior post multiplied by the 1.6 million lbs of the LH2/LOX). Equipped with four F-1 engines (at 1.5 million lbs thrust each) generating 6 million lbs thrust, this launcher would drop three of the four F-1 engines at 70% of propellant burned (just as the Atlas dropped two of its three engines), and make orbit in one stage with around 130,000-140,000 lbs of cargo. It would not be reusable. Lets say you loft a 15 ton CEV with it, you'd be able to put up 100,000 lbs of useful payload, AND have a set of fuel tanks to turn into space station living space. <br /><br />We know an ET costs $750,000 (excluding the NASA union jobs program). Lets say a reinforced one for our purposes costs $2 million at most. Lets say an F-1 can be produced today for $20 million at most. Total launch cost should be $100-120 million, resulting in a per lb launch cost of $1000-1200, plus a free launch for the CEV and free orbiting tankage.

 

[john_316]

Did you say Space Station Living Space?<br /><br />Ummmm wonder if we could skylab it on a fly?<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />

 

[mlorrey]

Yeah, I've already concepted building deck structure inside the tanks along with conduit, etc.. The only iffy thing is that cleaning residual RP-1 out of its tank would be a chore. I've been thinking that injecting a spray of soapy water in and spinning the tank then venting it to space would do the job for the most part. Once its all evaporated, seal it and fill it with residual LOX and some bottled N2 brought up in the payload. Perhaps a low pressure pure O2 (about 100 millibars) would oxidize any residual RP-1 without overpressuring the tank, though that is a topic for study.<br /><br />I've also concepted it with hatches built in at the factory, covered internally with easily cuttable domes.

 

[propforce]

<font color="yellow">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. </font><br /><br />LockMart has been blowing smokes up Air Force's panties for quite some times with this story, but it's been 10 years and P&W (RD-180 U.S. supplier) is nowhere near able to produce this engine here. But just like NASA retirees go to Boeing, Air Force generals & colonels retire to LockMart so nobody wanted to make waves. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />But sacarsms aside; this is NASA. We don't have to be better, efficient, or profitable. We just have to keep jobs within NASA and various congressional districts for funding support. Ooopsss... there I go again. <br /><br />OK, seriously there is a <i>technical reason</i> why SDHLV core stage should use hydrogen instead of kerosene fuel. The core stage is acting closer to a 2nd stage rather than a 1st stage, therefore Isp performance dominantes. So unless you want to go with Fluorine-Hydrogen propellant system, Hydrogen-Oxygen system is as good as it gets. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nacnud]

Perhaps the idea is worth it's own thread? I've got a few ideas too.

 

[mlorrey]

Perhaps. Another improvement would be to use the F-1A design, which was lighter and got about 40% more thrust with slightly higher Isp. This would allow using three F-1A engines instead of four F-1s and would improve payload in orbit even more.<br /><br />I wonder how many tank orders you'd have to wave in front of LockMart Michoud to get the real brother-in-law deal my MIT studies purport.<br /><br />I'd guess the F-1A designs are now public domain by this point in time... anybody know where to get ahold of them?

 

[rocketman5000]

designs can be copywritten therefore protecting them for many years. As for removing residual RP-1 from the tank it is a volatile fuel and could be heated and vented to vaccum. Alternatively maybe injecting O2 into the tank and combusting the fuel then scrubbing the CO2 from the atmosphere

 

[mlorrey]

I don't think you'd need to ignite it. A pure oxygen atmosphere, even at low pressure, should just catalyse with the RP-1. Yes, there would be a soot issue, but nothing a few ionic breeze machines couldn't handle. The O2 wouldn't react with the aluminum first, because it would be coated with RP-1 residuals that would oxidize first, coating the Al with carbon residue.<br /><br />However, I'd just do that after as much as possible has just been vented to vacuum. It would be nice if the venting got rid of it all. I personally am just reminded of our family's old hunting cabin. Many years ago some reform school escapees broke into the cabin, had their fun, and poured kerosene all over the floor in preparation for burning when the cops arrived and nabbed em. Even though we replaced the whole floor, the walls and ceiling had soaked up fumes enough that you could still smell it 15 years later... used to give me headaches when I slept in the top bunk... wouldn't want to subject space tourists to that...

 

[mlorrey]

Problem with that concept is that you won't be able to put in decking structures and conduits during tank construction. That means a lot more work in orbit, and a lot of air scrubbers to clean welding residues: flux, gasses, ozone, spatter particulates, etc, out of the air once you've built those structures in space. Esp metal particulates, they are a major headache because in zero g they will float around and eventually come to rest across electrical contacts in various equipment, shorting them out and destroying expensive equipment that cost a lot to put in orbit. Soot is a lot easier to deal with than welding dross.<br /><br />No, I would say go with rocketman5000's idea, and if that doesn't clean it out entirely just put in a low pressure pure O2 atmo, maybe 100 millibars, let it oxidize the minor residue, and then scrub the air with ionic breeze machines.

 

[barrykirk]

Well, if you want to use the tank as a habitat. What about switching to a more volitile fuel such as propane?<br /><br />Sure the density goes down, but you do get a slight ISP boost and the tank is easier to clean for habitation.<br /><br />How much work would it be to re-work a RP-1 engine to use propane?

 

[mlorrey]

Eh, cyclopropane is pretty good (not the other kind). <br /><br />Thing is if you have a significant density change, your turbopumps are useless and you need to go back to the drawing board. Most of a rocket engine cost is in the pumps.

 

[mlorrey]

It would freak out the tree huggers, abandoning hydrogen fuel like that. There is no other reason.

 

[gofer]

This week's spacereview article looks into this topic... http://www.thespacereview.com/article/588/1 (love the photo at the top, rows and rows of F-1's...) That guesstimate of $21mil per serial production engine now seems like a bargain though (given what it could do!)

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"There is no other reason."</font><br /><br />Powerful, high T/W hydrocarbon engines would render Thiokol's solids obsolete. I bet they have a legion of lobbyists telling congressmen why such engines are very, very, very bad choice.

 

[mattblack]

You're right, but using Russian RD-171 (Zenit) engine would be quicker than raising the F-1A from the dead, although it isn't man-rated. Nor is it an *American* engine. <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>

 

[barrykirk]

Thanks for the info. Since, I'm not a rocket designer, I have no idea what parts of the engine account for what part of the design cost or what part of the build cost.<br /><br />Actually, that is a good question. What are the breakdowns for the costs of design and costs to build the components of an engine.

 

[mikeemmert]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Eh, cyclopropane is pretty good (not the other kind).<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><font color="red">???<font color="white">Cyclopropane<font color="red">???<font color="white"> Boy, you like to live dangerously, don't you? Pumping that through the cooling channels of an F-1...tsk, tsk.<br /><br />Anything using acetylene, cycloanything, hydrazine, hydrogen peroxide, or any other energy-containing fuel needs to be designed from the ground up to account for the explosive instability of these substances. mlorrey, always remember that safety is #1.<br /><br />That said, I think if you're careful these substances can be very useful. I know from reading your interesting posts that you and I have a parallel interest in partially airbreathing boosters, which is another thread somewhere (Space Business and Technology?).<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>... you need to go back to the drawing board...<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>Right! And I think that something useful might very well come off that. M&L seems to be more about existing missions and launches. I don't think mentioning nitroglycerine-like substances in the same breath as F-1 engines is very well-thought out.<br /><br />Now, MIPCC-ramjets, that's a different story. That might get somewhere. See you in SB&T!!</font></font></font></font>

 

[vulture2]

>>Powerful, high T/W hydrocarbon engines would render Thiokol's solids obsolete. I bet they have a legion of lobbyists telling congressmen why such engines are very, very, very bad choice.<br /><br />The original choice of the SRB to power the Shuttle was made in the Nixon White House. Times haven't changed.<br />

 

[barrykirk]

At the time of that decision, I don't think anybody realized how expensive it would be to refill and restore a SRB between flights.

 

[mlorrey]

At the time, nobody was shipping SRBs between Florida and Utah. If Aerojet was selected, they already had facilities in situ in Florida capable of building SRBs up to 260 inches diameter (from the Saturn program, when a solid first stage had been seriously considered), and there would have been no transportation costs.<br /><br />A huge amount of STS program overruns is simply due to the program being split up among so many congressional districts. It is a political looters mentality that sabotaged the program.