NASA Engineers Resurrect And Test F-1 Engine Gas Generator

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.

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

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...)

Better materials, electronics, etc. available now?

Because noöne really knows how it works? That's part of what makes me so sad about the space program: We've lost worlds of knowledge of the past few decades.

In addition to a huge loss of corporate knowledge concerning the construction, use, and maintenance of the engine, one of SpaceX's primary goals is turning raw materials into rockets at the lowest possible cost. The F-1 is not in the solution space for a lot of the technical challenges facing SpaceX.

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...

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.

It's oversized for SpaceX's current rockets (a single F-1 has more thrust than the entire Falcon 9 first stage).

SpaceX has plans for bigger rockets and engines, but those are rumored to involve different fuels, perhaps for reusability. (Kerosene, the fuel for the F-1, and the Falcon 9's Merlin engines, gunks up the engine's innards a lot more than liquid methane, which is the rumored fuel for their next generation engines. If de-gunking would require a rebuild after a few flights, it's something you might prefer to avoid. The technical name for "gunking up" is "coking", if you'd like to read more on it...)

Because SpaceX already has engines that work. It also has a working factory that manufactures many engines per year and good knowledge base and testing facilities made just for its own engines so it can create improved versions.

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.

Looks more like they're picking up where they have left, rather than shorting progress in place of recent advancements of which there aren't any.

Your statement is wrong is so many levels that's quite easy to tear it apart. Let's start by the meaning of the word progress. The second definition of the Ofxford Dictionary states: advance or development toward better, more complete, or more modern condition. According to that, in order to have progress made you've got to start somewhere. Another word for that would be engineering.

Anyway, I'd say researching a F1 engine is a great start point to progress towards the development of a newer rocket engine. Kudos to these guys!

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?