

NASA Engineers Resurrect And Test F-1 Engine Gas Generator - Shivetya
http://www.space-travel.com/reports/NASA_Engineers_Resurrect_And_Test_Mighty_F1_Engine_Gas_Generator_999.html

======
gmaslov
This article reads like some kind of sad science fiction scenario.

A team of scientists today reported the first results from their analysis of
the "F-1 Engine", an artefact from the First Empire which was serendipitously
discovered last year in nearly pristine condition in the storeroom of a
museum. Although the documentation meant to accompany the engine has long been
lost, the team is confident that they can apply recently developed scanning
techniques to discover how it worked. These engines were said to be capable of
developing an incredible 1.5 million pounds of thrust, and were instrumental
in powering the First Empire's legendary voyages of exploration. It is hoped
that the knowledge recovered from this engine will eventually enable the
construction of similar devices.

~~~
scrumper
It does a bit, but on a positive note the documentation _does_ still exist and
they had a few engines to work from, including one perfectly preserved
example. NASA has done well.

Long term, I'd hope and expect the Library of Congress to take over the
storage and maintenance of documentation and artefacts relating to major
public engineering works, so people can at least go back to the source to re-
learn the lessons of the past.

------
adaml_623
It's so scary to read an article like this and realise how much engineering
knowledge retires each year. Problem solving skills that were honed in the
Second World War and sent mankind to the Moon and built so many factories just
isn't being replaced.

Those young engineers couldn't just pick up the phone and talk to the
engineers who made the engine and that's potentially a real problem for our
culture.

The obvious solution is that staff need to document what they did and why they
did it. So that those who come after can read it and understand. We all know
it's necessary and so few companies seem to have it as part of their
procedures. Corporations don't seem to be able to plan for more than 5 or 10
years in advance.

------
scrumper
That is kind of a beast: the part they're excited about test firing - which
generates 31,000lb of thrust - is just the motor for the _fuel pump_ for the
main engine!

~~~
gbaygon
As a side note, the main engine generated around 1,500,000lb of thrust!

~~~
scrumper
I know! I am a twelve year old boy again; had a great morning reading up on
this.

(There is a downside to being a child again: I have a strong urge to cheapen
this by saying something like, "That's almost enough to lift your momma off
the couch.")

------
larrydag
At the Stennis Space Center in Mississippi you can sit in the cone of this
engine. They have a couple of the Saturn and Space Shuttle engines on display
in front of the museum. The Stennis Space Center was considered the life blood
of the NASA program by Wernher Von Braun where his office was located. The
rocket testing platforms are really impressive.

------
tocomment
So why doesn't NASA just rebuild the F-1 engines instead of spending (5 or 10
years?) designing brand new rockets?

~~~
rst
If you're referring to the Space Launch System --- the Congressionally
mandated program to build another launch vehicle with the Saturn V's capacity
--- Congress has mandated that that should instead try to reuse technology
from the shuttle program. But at this point, the "reuse" is looking a lot more
like "redesign" --- the solid boosters changed most of the key components
(casings, seals, propellants), and it isn't yet clear how much the "cheap,
expendable variant" of the Space Shuttle Main Engine will have in common with
its original variant.

There's some grumbling in space activist circles that the mandate is, at least
in part, designed to keep federal money flowing towards the contractors for
the Shuttle propulsion systems.

(That said, building a new Saturn V isn't as easy as dusting off the
blueprints. Some aspects of the design would _have_ to change --- there are
places where the originals used asbestos, for example. And the plant where the
first stage was build has since been reconfigured so that it can no longer
handle anything that diameter. But there's a lot less technical voodoo
involved than for that SSME refit...)

~~~
jlgreco
> _Some aspects of the design would have to change --- there are places where
> the originals used asbestos, for example._

As far as space stuff is concerned, would that sort of consideration actually
be made? If there is something actually better than asbestos I am sure they
would use that instead, but if asbestos is the best material for the job is
its danger really in the same league with the rest of rocketry? I mean, they
still use hydrazine...

------
tocomment
Why doesn't spacex use this engine instead of making their own? Why doesn't
NASA just bring back this engine?

~~~
bradleyland
I'd take this article with a grain of salt. It has a very hand-wavy feel to
it.

It's my understanding that the SpaceX team draws at least some inspiration
from the F-1 design. There's a mention of the F-1 under the Merlin 1D section
of this Wikipedia article:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merlin_(rocket_engine_family)#M...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merlin_\(rocket_engine_family\)#Merlin_Vacuum_.281D.29)

The next time Elon Musk does an AMA (or something similar), I'd love for
someone to ask him about the F-1. It would surprise me if every rocket engine
designed since the F-1 simply ignored all previous designs. We may not have a
complete, detailed understanding of the design, but the article comes across a
bit on the "breathless amazement" side of things.

A lot of the comments here follow a common pattern where a layperson looks at
a system and makes seemingly rational comments, but in reality they have an
inadequate understanding to even form a relevant opinion.

I certainly don't have enough understanding of rocket engine design to hold an
opinion. Even after reading that piece, I must consider the source and the
tone of the article. Also keep in mind that programs within NASA are, in
essence, in competition with companies like SpaceX.

------
eru
Amazing. But the lost knowledge really drives home the need for thorough
documentation. Not only of the artifacts but also the design processes used.

------
brg1007
Every time when a company resurects old hardware/software puts a nail in
progress coffin.

~~~
scrumper
No. Have you heard the expression, "Standing on the shoulders of giants?" It
means that we build on what has come before. That only works if you don't lose
what you've already done. Every time a company forgets its past achievements
we take two steps backwards.

In this specific example there is a tremendous amount of large-engine
experience wrapped up in the F1. These engineers are trying to learn from that
to help design the next generation of big engines. Ignoring the work done on
the F1 - failing to resurrect it - would force them to make the same expensive
mistakes as their predecessors. And that, more than anything, will put a nail
in progress's coffin.

~~~
nextparadigms
It's a good thing there aren't a lot of patents in the space industry, or
aren't enforced as heavily as they could be.

~~~
scrumper
I'm not sure whether it was possible for the private companies contracted by
the space program to patent their publicly-funded work.

Interesting to see what happens now that private enterprise is running its own
programs alongside the government. I believe there will be a distinct chilling
of relations between the main private players in a few years, once their main
competition becomes each other rather than the government.

~~~
jlgreco
I am not sure it is possible for private companies to patent rocket work, with
help from the public or otherwise. Rocket technology is heavily export
controlled.

------
Gravityloss
If Lori Garver becomes the administrator, this giant rocket to nowhere cargo
cult could finally end.

~~~
Gravityloss
I was clearly too short because of the downvotes.

The problem here is that there is no good reason to build this large rocket.
There are already rockets capable of launching humans and lunar expeditions
into space from American soil. NASA and the government are wasting precious
resources by duplicating that capability.

The usual justification given is that big rockets are needed for lunar
expeditions. But that is not correct - you can easily just launch more of
already existing rockets. Apollo only used Saturn V since there was so little
time and so little experience in orbital rendezvous, which turned out to be
possible quite easily. There's also a reason why the Saturn V was not flown
beyond the Skylab mission or why no more were built. It was just too expensive
and only few payloads would justify using it.

If american space policy was more rational, it could achieve much more in a
shorter period of time.

In an industrial sense, the F-1 tests are always interesting and probably
don't cost a lot of money. The engine was not that advanced, a normal, if big,
gas generator kerosene engine.

The same "ancient artifacts", could be said from the NK-33 engines, that were
built in the seventies in the Soviet Union but are going to fly this year in
Orbital Science's brand new Antares rocket to resupply the ISS. The engines
are still state of the art high pressure oxidizer rich staged combustion with
thrust to weight rates of around 100.

In what other field can you reach such levels of technological advance that
they stand unsurpassed forty years later?

