The power of just one F-1 from the Saturn V

[willpittenger]

I remember looking at the thrust levels for the various Saturn V and Apollo main engines. A single F-1 had more thrust than all of the other engines combined (aside from other F-1s). I think the difference was enough that even if you include every last thruster in the entire stack, the F-1 would have more thrust. <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>

 

[propforce]

What are your points in this post? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

It's a really impressive engine -- and its development began back in the late 50's. No engine built yet has surpassed it. <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>

 

[davf]

Take a look at the Soviet RD-170 / 171 (used in the Energia strap-on boosters and Zenit)... more thrust than F1 and a higher specific impulse on the same propellants (kerosene / LOX). <br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/engines/rd170.htm

 

[qso1]

The U.S. tested a 260 inch SRB back in the 1960s which IIRC was more poerful but I'll have to look that up to verify it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[publiusr]

RD-170 is superior to F-1 in thrust--and is still in production. AJ-260 might be good for future space capitalists with real money. No cryogenics headaches.<br /><br />Be prepared to have the State Dept. or someone try to shut it down if you try to get an oil state to fund it.<br /><br />And don't forget how OTRAG turned out.

 

[toothferry]

The Russians were innovative in using a single turbo pump for mulitple thrutst chambers.... all the way back to their R7. <br /><br />The F-1 generates a lot of turbulence and shakes and rattles because its soooo large (the trust chamber).. its hard to get the outflow to be smooth ..and its actually more likely to fail than other smaller engines... is that correct? <br /><br />I read this in SpaceRace by Deborah Cadbury a while back <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />

 

[publiusr]

Multiple venturi (nozzles) make a lot of sense

 

[rfoshaug]

As far as I know, the F1 is the world's most powerful single-chambered engine. But the RD-170/RD-171 is the most powerful engine. It has 4 nozzles, so it looks like 4 engines, but has only one set of turbopumps and other moving parts, and is installed on the rocket as one engine.<br /><br />It's light weight and less complex, and it also burns its propellants cleaner than a single-big-nozzle type engine such as the F1.<br /><br />It seems that at the moment, Russia is at the cutting edge of kerosene-fuelled rocket engines, while the US is leading in LH2-fuelled engines. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff9900">----------------------------------</font></p><p><font color="#ff9900">My minds have many opinions</font></p> </div>