This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
SLS and Orion

Recreating the Saturn V One Piece At A Time

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
July 31, 2012
Filed under , , ,

Rocket companies hope to repurpose Saturn 5 engines, Spaceflight Now
“Dynetics and Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne announced Wednesday they are teaming up to resurrect the Saturn 5 rocket’s mighty F-1 engine to power NASA’s planned heavy-lift launch vehicle, saying the Apollo-era engine will offer significantly more performance than solid-fueled boosters currently under development.”
NASA Will Explore F-1 Upgrade For Heavy Lifter, Aviation Week
“The powerful rocket engine developed in the 1960s to launch the first men to the Moon could be reprised in the 2020s as the powerplant for strap-on boosters that NASA hopes to use in heavy-lift human missions to Mars.”

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

102 responses to “Recreating the Saturn V One Piece At A Time”

  1. Christopher Miles says:
    0
    0

    Becoming even more clear why Rocketdyne was still of value to any SLS winner.

    Well played,  Aerojet/GenCorp…

    Oh, and wasn’t this news released back in April? Has something changed from the original April 18 press release regarding the Rockeydyne/Dynetics F1 partnership?

    Humph. Add a new picture, change the verbeage a bit from the April pres release, and voila! Old press release recycled for a quick boost for Rocketdyne’s new owners.

    By the way, Dynetics is getting busy down there in Alabama- The firm is also developing the mating and integration rig for Stratolaunch.

    • newpapyrus says:
      0
      0

      It would be much simpler and a lot cheaper for NASA to simply utilize three SLS derived core vehicles in a Delta IV heavy fashion for a non-man rated heavy lift vehicle rather than trying to build still another man-rated heavy lift vehicle component that utilizes a different fuel. This would allow NASA to utilize the cheaper RS-68 engines for cargo flights instead of trying to revive an old hydrocarbon engine.  And such a pure LOX/LH2 super heavy lift vehicle could probably be ready before the end of the decade.

      The Augustine Commission originally advocated the development of a  heavy lift vehicle as a cargo compliment to man-rated Commercial Crew launched vehicles which was also the philosophy of the Constellation program with the Ares I serving as a simple crew launch vehicle.  Such a philosophy could potentially allow commercial crew launched vehicles to be a component of beyond LEO missions, shuttling astronauts to orbit in order to meet the heavy lift launched beyond LEO spacecraft destined for L1 or the Moon.  

      Once the expendable RS-25 engines are in production in the early 2020’s, future– man-rated– SLS derived vehicles should  be simplified to use only the LOX/LH2 core stage with six RS-25E engines with upper stages such as the ICPS,  CPS, or even the  hypergolically fueled Orion Service module– requiring no side mounted boosters at all. Such a simplified vehicle has already been proposed by Boeing.

      Marcel F. Williams

      • John Gardi says:
        0
        0

         Marcel:

        As to your point about hydrocarbon engines, I here that Spacex is ‘considering’ using methane as fuel for their next engine. Higher ISP (power) but larger tanks are required. Liquid methane is handled much the same way as liquid oxygen (which Spacex already has experience with).

        tinker

      • Vladislaw says:
        0
        0

        Considering SpaceX has quoted they would build a 150 ton launch vehicle for 2.5 billion and charge 300 million per flight and freakin’ personally guarantee that fixed price…

        you talking about ANYTHING other than that being a cheaper NASA option .. is beyond silly.. it borders on the ludicrous

        • Anonymous says:
          0
          0

          The only thing that I don’t like about guarantees, is that they are not guaranteed.

          Orbital promised $6.5 million per flight on the Pegasus and that was used as a reason to kill the Scout.

          Then the Pegasus went to $15m, then $25M….

          • Vladislaw says:
            0
            0

            Was this a traditional wink and nod promise or was this a guarantee written into a contract with a fixed price and if they failed they would be on the hook for the costs?

            We have all seen, over the years, promises by the usual suspects. The James Webb comes to mind. I believe Musk was talking about a fixed priced, milestone based contract that would put SpaceX on the hook for any over runs.

            I just do not see SpaceX adopting the cost plus fixed fee model with so many excalator clauses written in you could get to the moon with them without a rocket.

            But I could be totally wrong.

  2. thebigMoose says:
    0
    0

    It seems to get ahead, we have to go back in time!  It is amazing what technology our predecessors accomplished with just sliderules and engineering judgment!  Now if we would only shed our pride and study how they managed the development and manufacture of these complex systems, we could start to actually build a multistage vehicle again! 

    • Anonymous says:
      0
      0

      Neither of the two are much in evidence in modern times…

    • Spaceman888 says:
      0
      0

      No need to shed any pride – just get rid of the do nothing, know nothing middle and senior management and replace then with engineers!!!!  Oh yea, if you can find any.  When will this country realize that when it comes to complex system developement we have killed the senior engineering cadre that laid many a golden egg not to mention the engineering spirit that allowed the realization of difficult endeavors.  Not sure you could ever recover from this state.  This country can build a Facebook, but it won’t never create an F-1 or RD-180 equivalent in this country any time soon. 

  3. A_J_Cook says:
    0
    0

    I thought by now a resurrected F1 would have to compete with a proposed Merlin D…

    • John Gardi says:
      0
      0

      Anthony:

      Nine Spacex Merlin engines have about the same thrust as a single F1… and would probably still be cheaper (especially if Spacex masters reusability). The Falcon Heavy is akin to a first stage with three F1 engines. A Falcon Heavy with five core stages would be as powerful as the Saturn V.

      Since Spacex’s first stage reusability relies on a single throttled Merlin during powered landing, you can nix the F1 being used in the same way. There was a design for a ‘Fly-back F1’ that would glide Shuttle-like to a runway landing but they didn’t implement it then and I don’t expect them to implement it now.

      So, I don’t think that the F1 will ever fly again. While they are resurrecting this dinosaur (probably with taxpayers dollars), others will be moving forward.

      tinker

      • no one of consequence says:
        0
        0

        There was a design for a ‘Fly-back F1’
        Actually, flyback S1-C. What started the Shuttle project…
        < http://media.photobucket.co

        And recoverable S1-C:
        http://www.collectspace.com

      • A_J_Cook says:
        0
        0

        Thank you for your informative reply. I realize now that what I meant to post was that a resurrected F1 would have to compete with a proposed Merlin 2, with which SpaceX is aiming for about the same thrust as the upgraded F1. I am only a fan of–not an expert about– rockets, but it seems to me that the price of a government mandated SLS could be brought down if its components were completely open to competitive bids. But I guess that’s not the reason that a government mandated SLS is in the works…

        • spaceflight says:
          0
          0

          It will be ineresting to see if Space X proposes in 2015 to NASA when a booster competition will ensue.  They did not submit a proposal for the Advanced Booster risk reduction efforts.  Seeing how a Merlin 2 would deal with combustion instability (like the original F-1s) will be one of their biggest issues.  Of course, having a FAR based contract for a non-commercial procurement of a development/production booster and engine also could have its own issues.

      • Steve Whitfield says:
        0
        0

        Tinker,

        I see lots of comments about using a “resurrected” F-1 in terms of what it can theoretically lift and how that lift compares to other options, but I don’t see much about the biggest issues with the F-1 — 1) how difficult it is to make, requiring long-extinct, oversized tooling, and 2) the sheer size of the thing, which requires oversized stacking/erection facilities.

        Also consider that using F-1-equipped LVs will mean retaining the huge VAB and Crawler requirements, which means we’ll be limited to KSC only for launches for ever, which represents major costs and risks added to every future launch. I firmly believe we should be looking at using small- and medium-sized LVs that can be launched from and recovered to almost anywhere, safely and cost-effectively. Assuming that we, one day, get past LEO, there are always going to be requirements for collecting and assembling components at the destination(s), so the need for mega-lifters is not as real as many would have us believe. By assembling, in whole or in part, at intermediate destinations (e.g., Earth-orbit assembly, which goes back to proposals from day one), we can, if we choose, move “large” units as one to the final destination, but if it is a surface destination, the assembled units would only have to be disassembled again and landed independently, anyhow (there is simply no envisioned scenario where you can have a mega-lifter to start and a mega-lander to finish — especially if you are looking at a return mission). And putting huge F-1s into orbit just to boost Earth orbit spacecraft/payloads up to escape velocity and then shutting them down for cruise doesn’t make any sense to me, even considering braking at the other end. About the only reason I can imagine for an F-1 is if there were some permanent, ongoing use(s) for it at the destination, which I can’t so far imagine.

        The entire history of launch vehicles (NOT missiles) argues for cascading proven small/medium units to get high lift when really needed, from the R-7 (Soyuz) to the Titans, Atlases and Arianes. The whole SLS and F-1 detour is, in my humble opinion, idiotic and is being brought on by people who would rather play than progress. If we don’t effectively argue against them and get them both canned ASAP, especially in the current budget/debt situation, we’re throwing away our future.

        Steve

      • DTARS says:
        0
        0

        Tinker if Spacex is going to use the one engine return with a cluster of 8 engines around it for the reusable boosters? I fail to see why they would want a Merlin 2 to be so big?  Guess they would start using different size engines on one booster in the future???
        imagine 8 merlin 2s around one merlin2 dropped down
         
        Thats a BF Booster lol
         
        Wouldn’t something 2 or 3 times as big as a merlin be cheaper and better. easier to work with??? build, mount,
         
         

      • Rune says:
        0
        0

        In fact, it would quite better than a Saturn, if you measured it in LEO weight. There the S-IVb doesn’t add anything, so no third stage for the Saturn V.

        But doing parallel staging with five cores and crossfeeds would make that Falcon at least a 3 stage vehicle… without counting the upper stage with the single Merlin (I reckon it would need more with the payload weight). It could probably deliver a heftier payload even without it, though I haven’t run numbers. But at same T/W and first stage thrust, three stages beat two any day in throwed mass.

    • Vladislaw says:
      0
      0

      NASA is giving a few pennies to SpaceX to work on the merlin 2. An engine comparable to the F1.

  4. DocM says:
    0
    0

    Another chapter of “How to spend the maximum amount of money before program cancellation.”

  5. Bernhard Barkowsky says:
    0
    0

    Another sign that NASA is no longer cutting edge. NASA has been reduced to a re enactor of past glories. Mars will not be visted by retro spam cans. They will also re create “The Saturn 5 minute” As well

  6. Rune says:
    0
    0

    I’m very seriously surprised that PWR hasn’t dusted off the RS-84 and allied itself with someone else to propose a flyback booster for this competition. I mean, the F-1 has all the legend about it, but in all seriousness it is quite an obsolete design, the russkies have been doing wonders with kerolox since then. The RS-84 is a much more modern design, and takes into account those lessons. Aerojet is even proposing scaling up NK-33’s!

    Isp improvement alone would offset the weight penalty of flyback systems, IMO, and you get the sexy PR of really trying something “new and advanced”.

    • hikingmike says:
      0
      0

       Please keep talking 🙂 How is F-1 obsolete design? What if is updated (a la J-2X)? How about the RS-84 plan? I see on wikipedia- “It would have been the first reusable, staged combustion cycle, liquid rocket engine produced by the US to use a hydrocarbon fuel.” So that’s like the RD-180/RD-170? Scale up NK-33? Sounds pretty ambitious. Have they test fired anymore of those recently?

      • Rune says:
        0
        0

         How is F-1 obsolete ? Well, let’s start with the ridiculous T/W compared to modern gas generator cycles like Merlin 1D, for starters, without getting into how the russians managed to make staged combustion work at awesome isp’s while still managing much greater T/W ratios. Enough? A lengthy visit to encyclopedia astronautica can make you as acquainted with engine families as I am anyway.

         RS-84 just adds big enough margins (so the whole thing can be reused easily and safely) to the metallurgic technology capable of handling an oxygen-rich “power pack” that the russians demonstrated a long time ago with RD-170, NK-33 and their various derivatives. Plus, it’s an american design from the ground up, which should give it political points. And also, it was specifically sized for first stage/reusable booster applications. It was developed for the space launch initiative, after all.

        • hikingmike says:
          0
          0

           Thanks! I just wanted to hear more. I have been to that site before but I’ll have to go back.

        • hikingmike says:
          0
          0

           Interesting:

          ST. LOUIS, Dec. 09, 2003 — Boeing [NYSE:BA] has successfully tested a key component of its RS-84 prototype rocket engine, reaching pressures never before attained in an American-built engine of this type.

          http://www.boeing.com/news/

          • Rune says:
            0
            0

             http://en.wikipedia.org/wik
            Check that out. The guy behind the competition to PWR’s RS-83 and 84 was Tom Mueller, which is the guy behind SpaceX’s Merlin, which “incidentally” uses the same injector and overall design. However, performance-wise, the thermodynamic cycle (gas generator) is quite poorer, while also quite easier to build.

            Messing with turbopumps running on oxygen-rich pre-combustor exhaust can do wonders, but it is quite the technological feat.

            Does anybody know what happened to the reusable booster program of the Air Force? It’s the direct descendant of all this things, but I haven’t heard about it in years.

          • Yusef says:
            0
            0

            Air Force reusable booster? Well, about 6 months before Shuttle ended, we were asked by our NASA counterparts to rustle up all our data for liquid flyback booster and put a bow on it and give it to the Air Force. When I inquired what it was for, I was met with silence. They are up to something. I’m thinking some sort of quick response vehicle.

          • Rune says:
            0
            0

             Well, that sounds good, Yusef. Thanks for the info (or lack of it, which is equally significant). At least things were happening as of last year.

            And yeah, quick response launcher is the golden goose the Air Force has chased since the chinese tested their first ASAT weapon, probably even earlier. The US armed forces are way too satellite dependent, and growing more so by the day.

    • spaceflight says:
      0
      0

      The #1issue is lack of funding for a new engine development. There simply is not enough $$ to  continue developing an engine that has never flown and have it ready to support SLS after its initial flights.  Same reason J-2X was started, but it will likely be slowed down to save money and spend such $$ on stages.  NASA’s budget is flat and so is  SLS funding.  Hard to do a development program with such constraints.  Hence, you go with what you will get you there the quickest, although it may not be most technically advanced. 

      • Rune says:
        0
        0

        Are you sure the F-1 would be any cheaper? At this point they are hoping to start working on manufacturing samples and small-scale test firing of subcomponents with the F-1. Which is exactly the same point at which the development of the RS-84 was stopped, subcomponent test-fires to retire risk for the program.

        Both engines will need ample amounts of money to establish a production line. If anything, testing an engine with 65% throttle and 100 full mission firings on its design should be way easier than the F-1 monsters.

        • no one of consequence says:
          0
          0

          They aren’t remotely comparable. F-1 is a quickie low pressure “hope we get enough” disposable – the game to pull it off is understanding, “mini maxing” changes … because you won’t get a second chance. FYI, SSME/J2 needed second, third, fourth chances … some even say more.

          RS-84 is a much higher pressure, higher performance reusable that less needs modernization and more needs a iterative cycle with successive, indefinite development/testing to prove reusable with performance goals – hard to bound.

          Please show me the plan for SLS reusability. Not RSRMB “salvageablity”.

          By the way, its likely that such a Kerolox strap-on could be made light enough that recovery with chutes like:
          http://www.collectspace.com

          Only thing I’m not sure of is if you can create a thrust structure light enough to support the SLS core like the solids. Perhaps if you constructed slightly asymmetical tanks and reversed LOX/ Kero top to bottom … might do it and keep to mass fraction needed.

          • Rune says:
            0
            0

            And yet both would need the same kind of tests  of manufacturability and figuring out the ultimate and working loads of each part, and the operating life too. Lots of manufacture samples and test fires for both, ending in full duration test fires of a production prototype. If anything, the F-1 will have more design work, since they are going to change pretty much the way every part is made, while the production work of the RS-84 should be directly applicable.

            And I would bet a lot of money (if I had it), the first thing they will redesign is chamber pressure in the “new” F-1. That starts by redesigning the power pack like they are doing now. It’s the fastest way of improving both T/W and isp, and it’s exactly what the “new and advanced materials” are good for.

            Of course, a reusable booster would have a much greater development cost, but that’s because of the recovery systems, not the engines.

            Oh, and it would have one little advantage you might find useful: a reusable booster would have a greater structural weight for reasons of service life and reentry requirements (offset by isp gains), so it would handle the weight of the core that much easier.

          • Anonymous says:
            0
            0

            It’s the fastest way of improving both T/W and isp, and it’s exactly what the “new and advanced materials” are good for.

            I am reminded of the old saying by the that the enemy of the good is the perfect.

            Who cares if the T/W is not good compared with new engines?  Look at the debacle of the J2-X.  If they had just rebuilt the J2-S we would have saved a billion dollars and had an engine by now.

            We have, as the person said above, two F1A’s that could be on the test stands in six months.

            It will take a decade to build a new design engine.  We could have an F1A flying in a test very soon.  Just replace the RD-180 on the Atlas body and go for it.  I used to read about how easily the Germans changed configurations and all kinds of changes mixing and matching existing components.

            I just don’t get this desire to re-engineer every single thing to get a few percentage points of extra performance.   The EXISTING F1’s were fired on the test stand at MSFC at 1.7 million pounds thrust just to show what the margins were.  Apollo 17 launched with the F1’s running at 1.65 million lbs thrust.  No one worried about bumping up against performance constraints as they knew the system was robust enough to handle it.

            At some point you shoot the damn engineers and start production!

            _____________________________

            Added content.

            Excellent project. Incompetent “product” – which is how people would judge it.

            MSFC, back in the day before Goldin destroyed the PD department there, had this design done already for an Atlas V type vehicle with the F1A.

            I had an interesting discussion with someone deeply in the know about the Atlas V as well as the Saturn and he says that the Russians still like checks and are more than happy to sell us RD-180’s. It seems that LMSC paid the Russians a fair sum of cash to develop that from the RD-170. Pratt could build that engine here and has the rights to do so, but it would be twice as expensive to build here than buy from the Russians.

            This exercise at Dynetics is, lets say an exercise in politics.

          • no one of consequence says:
            0
            0

            Let me introduce you to the doctrine of incrementalism.

            First listen to Dennis.

            Next, you budget for ongoing development, experimentation, and testing. Phasing in upgrades and accepting schedule/program risk.

            People don’t want incrementalism because they are impatient , want the vending machine to cough up the perfect thing on demand irrespective of the cost, and to then use it forever the same without disappointment.

            E.g. people are “ultraconsumers”, having taken the consumer mentality too far into crazyland. But you can’t tell them … anything. They know … better! Heh, snark.

            add:
            We could have an F1A flying in a test very soon. Just replace the RD-180 on the Atlas body and go for it.
            Excellent project. Incompetent “product” – which is how people would judge it.

            Note – thrust structure and engine controller changes to compensate for greater structureal changes you wouldn’t do.

            Now, couple two of these per side with a top thrust beam, all you’d need is some way to get the bottom lift to the thrust beam and you’ve got your RSRBV replacement. Or just drop the RSRBV’s, lose the top thrust on the core, stiffen the core isogrid for self support and fly 10T more payload.

          • Rune says:
            0
            0

            #Dennis:
            I never said it was a good idea, but that is politics for you. Nasa wants an advanced booster based on “legacy technology” “updated for greater efficiency”. I’m sure it all sounds familiar. That’s why I said I was betting. Sad, but predictable.

            All I’m saying is, as long as you are doing that, you might as well do the smartest possible thing.

            Now, if my money was riding on that and I had any say, I would buy russian RD-170’s and save boatloads of cash. If I had to do it in America, I would get the guys at Pratt & Whitney to do their magic importing thing.

      • no one of consequence says:
        0
        0

        The #1issue is lack of funding for a new engine development.
        Always true.

        Due to outsourcing engines to a separate company – root economic reason. Obvious market dynamics/forces.

        Hard to do a development program with such constraints.  Hence, you go with what you will get you there the quickest, although it may not be most technically advanced.
        Absolutely. The only way you can do it is to subset develop as a “one-shot” using parts on hand, then test the hell out of it, and pray to god that you chose wisely.

    • no one of consequence says:
      0
      0

      Actually, using the F1 (not the F1A BTW) can work for this purpose. Because you can get the channelized nozzle w/o the need for the absurd manufacturing facilities – modern fabrication’s a much better choice. Since its a low pressure engine, assuming you don’t change the combustion chamber at all, it’ll be easily qualifiable. The work is in modernizing/replacing the power pack and engine controller – look at Merlin for what to do. The gimbals would be a nightmare, but you don’t need them for stage 0.

      If you can’t get the combustion chamber, game over.

      add:
      We have become a little better at modeling combustion chambers
      … but combustion processes are still poorly understood at best.

      So while we can model better because we can handle finer voxels and vorticies and chaotic flows, the reactive speciae of combustion reactants/products limits how well the model works.

      Why we blew up things then, was that we were searching for stable approximations that were “good enough”, without understanding macro/micro catalytics we knew we couldn’t solve.

      • Rune says:
        0
        0

        We have become a little better at modeling combustion chambers since then. I mean, we are not blowing up test stands all the time like they did during F-1 development.

  7. Dewey Vanderhoff says:
    0
    0

    I think it was Winston Churchill who said ” after they have exhausted all other options, Americans will do the right thing…”.   While speaking of global events and human  affairs, this also applies to vintage rocket engines .  We should have never quit building and using F-1’s and more importantly the F-1 A uprated engines that were never flown.  I’ve long been an advocate of going back to those big kerosene burners and staging them , at the same time as we were developing hydrogen SSME’s and the RS-68 etc, and those horrendous SRB pipe bombs. The F-1 king of engines is dead…Long live the F-1 !

    Americans will eventually do the right thing; hopefully in time to also do ” accomplishments” ..

    P.S.  I forget who it was responding to the question of why or how did the Americans beat the Soviets to the Moon , starting in a come-from-behind position in 1961  that came up with this zinger :  ” Our Germans were better than their Germans”, referring to von Braun and his team , of course.

    • Vladislaw says:
      0
      0

      ““You can always count on Americans to do the right thing – after they’ve tried everything else.”” Winston Churchill.

      Unless this is just a way to try and get ATK to come in line of some realistic prices?

      If rocketdyne is going to be sold, will the new owner what to finance this?

      • no one of consequence says:
        0
        0

        If ATK was certain about SLS, wouldn’t they have bought Rockedyne? It’s all about brinkmanship.

    • Scott says:
      0
      0

      Not sure what the truth on that quote is, but in “The Right Stuff”, it was portrayed as having been Von Braun himself who said it (in the aftermath of Yuri Gagarin’s historic flight):

      LBJ: “Was it them?! Was it their German scientists that got them up there first?!”

      VB: “No, Mr. Vice President! Our Germans are better than their Germans!”

      A classic line if there ever was one 🙂 

      • no one of consequence says:
        0
        0

        “Their Germans” were the implementors, dominated by “hochschule” engineers.

        “Our Germans” were the “universitat” designers.

        First set gets you the operational platforms, second buys you the future. As it did. As long as we overlook the slave labor underground manufacturing and what it implies about the entire effort …

    • Ralphy999 says:
      0
      0

      The F-1 engine was designed for the Air Force in by Rocketdyne in 1955. The compnents of the engine started testing in 1957. The turbo pump for the engine was designed/calculated by Ernest Lamont. Thus sayeth Wikipedia:
      “Designer of the pump for the E-1/F-1 for Rocketdyne was Ernest A. Lamont. His hand written original calculations are part of the family archives and available for display. He stated that the design of the rocket engine hinged on the question of whether the pump design was viable”. 

      Please note that there was no statement of Werner being involved in the F-1. The F-1 was an Air Force reject.  Ernest Lamont was probably an American. I think Werner’s genius was the Saturn stack containing the capsule, the lunar lander and the command module. Werner put all of that together. But it was American enginering that accomplished the task.

      My step-dad was one of the telemetry techs for the Saturn V and he worked for Boeing. He maintained and operated the equipment that recorded the signals from the guidance ring that was developed by IBM. An incredible amount of money and human resources were spent in developing the guidance ring. It was a major part of the Saturn V contract. Of course that would not be the case nowdays due to complete digitalization and minturization of guidance controls for the new rocket. It will be a piece of cake compared to the Saturn V.

      I remember seeng my step dad cry when men landed on the moon in July of 1969. I had never seen him cry before. He was laid off by Boeing on November 1969. Six months later he found work with Technicolor at Cape Canaveral launching satellites. He retired from there. Just my thoughts – Ralphy

      • no one of consequence says:
        0
        0

        This brings back many memories. They have the IU  at the Udvar Hazy, and the F-1 in NASM on the mall:

        Saturn V Instrument Unit

        Saturn V F-1 engine

        It was an interesting experience explaining both to my students, although reconciling the development of the SSME following the F-1 was … hours.

        It was an emotional experience for my entire family too with the landing, as we were an aerospace family. The layoffs were going full bore by that time, so very bittersweet a victory for many.

        Thank you Ralphy – A+

  8. Ralphy999 says:
    0
    0

    Hey, wait a minute, I thought the general consensus on this forum was that the contract had already been let for ATK and solid boosters? Wassup with that? It seems we’re still down in the trenches thinking about the final configuration of the SLS and the contract has NOT been let. Geez.

    • no one of consequence says:
      0
      0

      Here’s the deal – you can only bid a replacement for ATK’s product … if its “plug compatible”.

      Gives a terrific advantage to ATK’s products. Effectively they are the ones to displace from already being designed in.

      What does this specifically mean? Well, solids are … solid. SLS like Shuttle holds up the launch stack by using the solids as pillars … the core stage “hangs” from them. Not unreasonable given they are like … stone. Extremely heavy. But this disadvatanges liquids, who have extremely light structures that primarily distribute weight and thrust across larger geometries.

      For the taxpayer, they get slammed later when you redo the core vehicle later to optimize for all liquid fuel, because … you get higher maximum performance by not having any of the solids structural nonsense in the first place. Kind of like doing the wrong thing first, because then you’ll do the right thing later … why not just do the right thing first?

      Next part of this is that ATK’s / Shuttle solids lift from the top, while all other designs lift from the bottom. So part of the nonsense mentioned prior is a thrust beam that everything hangs off of … that isn’t needed if you lift from below. And the attachment points also are in the wrong places for liquids, the wrong design, and make things clumsy in general.

      Next up is the flame trenches / MLP holes – you can’t do them wide enough for say, an already built EELV first stage used duplex (or a Falcon Heavy on each side!). There are three existing (two have flown, third will fly in a year) first stages that can be easily repurposed to well serve the need – but because of the disadvantaged bidding requirements, none of these are applicable, to serve the need of catering to ATK’s “congressional design win”.

      These requirements cost the taxpayer $40B that otherwise wouldn’t need to be paid, and push back the schedule for SLS by five years, to accommodate lobbyists to Congress.

      But, in the end, I don’t think ATK will get the SLS, if built, long term. Congress underestimated many aspects of the SLS development, which will suffer delays because of the solids, which will also have scope creep as new issues arrive, so the net effect is we’ll see liquid boosters in the end anyways, and another $20B future redesign to remove all the solids design requirements from the stack, as a colossal reduction in parasitic weight and performance enhancement.

      The long, slow, and costly way round the barn. But hey, its government – what do you expect?

      add:
      Almost forgot – one advantage of the liquids here is no need for engine gimbals. ATK’s solids need them to handle thrust “taper off” – they “burp” near the burnout chaotically and swerve, so the momentum needs to be canceled by adjusting vectors.

      • F3Victor7 says:
        0
        0

        why dont liquid engines need gimballing? saturn V liquid engines were gimballed, shuttle engines gimballed, falcon 9 merlin engines gimballed….

        • no one of consequence says:
          0
          0

          The center engine was fixed, not gimballed.

          For the strap on’s they don’t. Because the liquid core, which does and already has them, has enough control authority for the entire stack.

          In fact, something that many miss, is that you need a subset F-1 capability for the strap-on boosters, which means you can take shortcuts in development that you couldn’t if they were on the core like the Saturn V. There are many other engine components / dependencies you can also radically simplify.

          You can even “borrow” some of the Merlin developments in useful ways, because there is a distant relationship. In particular, engine controllers would follow a similar strategy.

          One small item – my favourite nuance of F-1 development was the means that they used to perturb the combustion chamber to discover resonance / instabilities – they intentionally detonated charges under test to see what happened… 

      • Steve Whitfield says:
        0
        0

        Mr. C,

         I can’t help but point out, yet again, that it all comes down to one thing; and you kept using the word in this post — requirements. Whenever you don’t start with requirements first — real requirements, and all of them — you end up with a mess like SLS, with all of the unnecessary costs, delays, redesigns, cancellations,… In a sane engineering world, everything flows from the technical (performance) requirements. SLS has been a spit in the face of this most basic of engineering principles and continues to be so.

         If we could draw up an accurate list of costs associated solely with accommodating ATK and large solid boosters in the last 30 years, I feel sure it would be a staggering sum that would absolutely enrage people on both sides of the fence. And yet, on and on it goes… If we could summarize the ATK/solid costs since Constellation cancellation alone, it would be outrageous. Where does it all end?

         As for the F-1 (perhaps the most beautiful thing of its kind and time), I can appreciate a little irony as much as the next person, but there have to be limits! I suspect (and hope) that the idea of resurrecting the F-1 will fade away as quickly as it reappeared. If nothing else, the politicians should force it to be dropped so as to save America from becoming a laughing stock. There is a time and place for everything. Those for the F-1 have long come and gone. Oh, man; they’ll be resurrecting Flash Gordon next. This is just more LEGO thinking, and a refusal to accept that there are no short-cuts.

         Steve

        • no one of consequence says:
          0
          0

          Whenever you don’t start with requirements first — real requirements, and all of them — you end up with a mess like SLS, with all of the unnecessary costs, delays, redesigns, cancellations,… In a sane engineering world, everything flows from the technical (performance) requirements. SLS has been a spit in the face of this most basic of engineering principles and continues to be so.

          Yes sir, Mr. Steve. And … you allow policy makers to play with lobbyists in the absence of requirements. This is exactly how the taxpayer and space advocate gets screwed alike. And the political mob leaders exploit false “unfair games” to drum up support by selling absurd dreams of glory – boy do I hate this.

          If we could summarize the ATK/solid costs since Constellation cancellation alone, it would be outrageous.
          Yes. Ever wonder why they spend so much on PR and lobbying – it’s like 4:1 of other similar firms. They even … er, “influence” … certain bloggers / sites – which I despise. As you see they bought Jay Barbee. Some on the right would say this is just “free speech” expressed by corporations, which are people too…

          Those for the F-1 have long come and gone.
          It is remote I’ll grant. To be honest, if you got anything, it would be “F1 derived subset engine”.

          Steve Cook isn’t an idiot for doing this. I’m the last to defend him over Constellation – frankly I wanted his head for a bowling ball.

          The first mistake was in the requirements though. As always. Blame the policy makers for caving.

          • Anonymous says:
            0
            0

            The first mistake was in the requirements though. As always. Blame the policy makers for caving.

            There is much blame to go around but from my perspective, from where I was seeing things, it was when O’Keefe, who was close to the president, and who was letting a true requirements development process go forward under a high level umbrella of goals, left the agency.

            All you have to do is to look at the H&RT and CE&R contracts to see what was, and then see how all of it morphed into the monster rocket that Griffin wanted, and damn the hindmost as a famous brit once said.

            Griffin even refused to send any but low level reps to the final CE&R briefings.  There was some good stuff there and if we had went forward with that, coupled with the lunar polar outpost, we would be far along the path today.

      • mmeijeri says:
        0
        0

        But but but … the “Tea Party” In Space told me (“respectfully”) that SLS was practically commercial now that the advanced boosters would be competed. How will this affect my pony?

        • no one of consequence says:
          0
          0

          The theory of “commercial” not actual “commercial” in practice.

          I guess in politics you don’t have to mean what you say, and say what you mean.

          All you have to do is say you’re commercial … and magically you are!

          I thought the liberals did “magical thinking” … and the conservatives actually cleaved to reality.  Never did get these political types … used to working on deterministic things that work, not illogical rhetoric.

          Now you understand why I can’t stand certain libertarians … they suffer from the same weaknesses as those they claim they are different from. Is it due to influence or competence, who can say. I’ve been suckered by them, suckered by “arsenal space”, suckered by the DIRECT guys … so I only believe things that are (soon) built and fly. And I can work the economics to see that they are realistic. 

          Respectfully,
          no one of consequence

      • John Gardi says:
        0
        0

        noofcq:

        Thus my idea of a heavy lift booster with a payload canister at the bottom of the stack, the fuel or oxidizer tank (whichever is larger ) above the payload canister and the booster stages around the payload canister. This way, the payload canister can be bolted to a launch table and the booster stages could be attached around the perimeter using common fittings. The boosters would be small enough to recover (each stage could use a different recovery system) while the payload canister and tank go to orbit.

        So, basically, I’m saying that new heavy lift launcher designs should be as ‘clean sheet’ as the Falcon 9.

        tinker

        BTW: I’ve mentioned this launcher idea before and I’d appreciate your learned opinion on whether ‘it would fly’.

        • Steve Whitfield says:
          0
          0

          Tinker,

          You didn’t ask, but here’s my 2 cents, for what it’s worth:  I think you’re looking at a lot of changes relative to what it percieved as the state of the art.  So, I think you’d have to propose a very through test program to sell the idea.

          I believe it will work, and work well (structurely), but it is going to take slow and steady rethinking, and anybody involved who even hints at saying “that’s not how it’s done here” would need to be fired, immediately, with no pitty.

          Steve

          • no one of consequence says:
            0
            0

            anybody involved who even hints at saying “that’s not how it’s done here” would need to be fired, immediately

            I’d expect most seasoned professionals who do this for a living would say, “no, not viable”.

            Because they’d notice the lack of relevant to them details, assume that by that absence the worst, not see enough of an advantage to bother to wast the time correcting someone else’s “incomplete homework” to explain why.

            They expect you to be complete from the start, think through all the angles … or you’re a poser or worse.

            Because they get suckered too by what turns out to be the wrong thing later. And kick themselves for not being critical enough in kicking harder the dumb idea.

            Because I do … the same.

          • Steve Whitfield says:
            0
            0

            anybody involved who even hints at saying “that’s not how it’s done here” would need to be fired, immediately

             Mr. C.,

             ”Immediately” was my tongue-in-cheek way of saying it’ll never happen.

             And I think this project, likewise, would never happen — not because of the technical challenges; they can be dealt with and I think it would be worth doing. No, this project would never come off because of the way that people think, or refuse to as the case may be.

             Engineers tend to pride themselves on being logical and more practical than others, yet their behavioral bad habits are no less ridiculous and limiting than anyone else’s. I suspect that some of the best projects of all simply never happened, because of not-done-here thinking. Personally, for whatever it’s worth, my best engineering successes over the years almost all resulted from doing what wasn’t to be done (more than once against the advice/orders of someone who “knew better”), and I wouldn’t hesitate to consider going outside conventional wisdom again in the future. Experience is the ultimate teacher, but endlessly repeating the same dance is anathema to both progress and survival.

             Right! Enough philosophy for one night.

            Regards

             Steve

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            Steve

            Tinker has said that he thinks like an architect.  I think the Space industry needs  Designers as well as engineers.

            It is so sickening to look at the SLS picture and see this old fashion rocket. When it is so obvious that if a few simple design rules like. Form follows function were followed with a little imagination that so many cool better things are possible.

            Remember when I suggested Tinker call James Cameron and get his lifter put in the next Avatar movie. Well he should!!!
            Maybe that will make it more believable if people see it blast off in 3D.

            I’m still waiting for Mr. C’s answer to Tinkers question!

            Again Steve as you say it’s about people. If Tinkers better lifter Is technically better and could work (which it can), for you to not take it seriously because you don’t believe others will except it is just giving up!

            We are only cattle in that herd if we choose to be.

            I believe that we can convince the world that we could build a better heavy lifter. 

            Things wont change if we let THEM influence our thoughts

            Want-a-be Kook

            PS what do you think of my planned tourism idea????

            Governments provide utilities for towns all over the world now. Why not LEO??? Lololol

            There is a way I KNOW IT!  🙂

          • Steve Whitfield says:
            0
            0

            Replying to DTARS from 07/28/2012 04:30 AM,

            George,

            I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said, and I like Tinker’s idea. But I feel it’s important to recognize the forces in a given time and place that are aligned against your goals, and take them into account. Only by understanding the lay of the land can you keep from banging your head against the wall by “making your move” at the wrong time. This time next year conditions and attitudes may be more favorable to your success, so that’s when you strike hard, which does a lot more for your credibility than speaking out at the wrong time. I think Tinkers proposal has definite technical merit, but a main structural aspect of it is completely different from what anybody is doing now or has done in the past for a large LV. So, engineers being the type they are, this proposal would almost certainly — at this point in time — be dismissed out of hand by both the engineers and the decision makers in management, because “that’s not how it’s done.” It has absolutely nothing to do with technical right or wrong; it’s strictly a matter of human behavior.

            Where I differ from some of the more seasoned posters here is in that I don’t see us as “forever doomed.” People and situations do change over time (and back and forth again, over and over), and success can be a simple matter of selecting your timing carefully. Those who have been entrenched in the aerospace/government for many years generally seem, to me at least, to be more fatalistic; they believe that they understand the workings of the system and the minds of those around them, and they are quite probably right. But at the same time, they, on average, seem to believe that the way things are now is the way that things will always be, and that the people (within the system) will always behave as they are seen to behave now. I’m a little more optimistic. I believe that people, individually and collectively, can be made to act, or can choose to act, more sensibly and cooperatively, but they need to “nudged” the right ways at the right times to make it happen, and not pushed too hard at other times. The hard part to deal with in this characteristic of human nature is that the closer people are to the center of major events, the more “entrenched” they become, and the harder it is to make them act out of character. It’s like the stereotype die-hard General in all of the B-class sci-fi movies; his answer to the problem is to blow something up, and the more stars he has, the more adamant he is that blowing it up is the answer. Unlike the movies, where the General sees the error of his ways, in D.C. they always seem to go ahead and “blow it up.” no one of consequence, for all his wisdom and experience, admits that he’s inclined to status quo thinking himself, even though he sees it for what it is, wishes it wasn’t so, and has seen it as well in all the people he’s worked with in D.C. (assuming I’ve understood him correctly).

            The difference with people like you and I is that we have no Beltway reputation to maintain, so we can speak our minds, based on sensible thoughts, without endangering our work-related status. We are free to hope and dream without fear of consequences. But when we are talking about the D.C. crowd and what they’re doing and saying, we have to consider them and evaluate them based on what they are and how they think, both of which are very different from us, and some times that can be depressing.

            Steve

        • no one of consequence says:
          0
          0

          Sure thing.

          Reminds me of one of the unusual ideas to add an unpressurized cargo at the bottom of the Shuttle’s ET, which would allow large geometry payloads that could not fit into the payload bay.

          So, we’re agreed on the advantages, including OTRAG like staging. So yes it could work … because it has worked.

          But ask yourself why we didn’t use it? Wasn’t for a lack of payloads, because among other things, you could launch an all assembled human scaled centrifuge … half a hundred times!

          Think of the CONOPs from beginning to end. Also realize that the Shuttle was very sensitive to CG. And realize that once you’ve completed your ET burn, you’d have to detach, grapple, and complete OMS burn(s). Or burn while still attached,  then detach later (complicating ET disposal).

          Depending on what the rest of the CONOPs are for your concept, it might / might not work out.

          When you analyze, you have to have a full picture of everything to see the flaws. It can be down to minor details.

          Years back, there was an attempt to do a “two payloads, one Shuttle launch” – after completing delivery of one payload, the Shuttle would depart ISS, rendezvous with a EELV lofted second payload, and would transport the second payload detaching it from its second stage stabilized inertial platform to the ISS, a matter of 50-100 miles at most.

          Sounds great right? Multiple payload capacity for the fraction of two Shuttle flights. Didn’t work because the forward reaction control system ran out of props before the rear reaction control system (they have to be separated) .

          Did I answer you well?

          • Anonymous says:
            0
            0

            Sounds great right? Multiple payload capacity for the fraction of two Shuttle flights. Didn’t work because the forward reaction control system ran out of props before the rear reaction control system (they have to be separated) .

            I can’t believe that they could not find a solution to that one.  I can think of a couple right off the top of my head.

          • no one of consequence says:
            0
            0

            So did I. But trust me, nobody would let you link FRCS with ARCS through the payload bay, or increase tankage however creatively done – violates protocols.

            Best was reducing the consumption profile by maneuvers / having the second stage approach closer. The issue is in approaches to ISS with out of CG loads not leaving enough props for departure.

            Its because of the compromises in Shuttle design – both in the limitation and in the consumption pattern.

            This was accepted as a compromise. There were hundreds of compromises. Which made the Shuttle a kind of camel.

            add:
            I could go into pages of detail here, but you can get same or better from your sources.

            The experience caused me to wonder if the whole gambit was to deny EELV to favor more Shuttle flights, to feed longer those hungry stomachs.

            Oh, and they didn’t want the US anywhere near the KOS due to contamination / plume impingement.

          • Anonymous says:
            0
            0

            Best was reducing the consumption profile by maneuvers / having the second stage approach closer. The issue is in approaches to ISS with out of CG loads not leaving enough props for departure.

            Considering that EELV can put a payload within +/- 100 meters of an intended orbit makes that part a no brainer.  A couple of extra batteries on the upper stage (which has been done many times), and you could do active control all the way to very close to the station, then deorbit the stage, plenty on margins on EELV for that.

            As far as STS prox ops, there are ways to skin that beast as well, including precluding a second docking and just handing over the payload to the ISS RMS.  I simply refuse to believe that this could not have been done technically within the rules.

            Managerially, that is another question.  Infuriating actually. I am going to check into this further with my sources.

          • mmeijeri says:
            0
            0

            Interesting, why did they have to be separated? Not even an interconnect / crossfeed option? And what if they had revived the OMS kit concept? I believe the plumbing, SW support and switches were still there, but simply had never been used. Could an OMS kit have fed the forward RCS as well?

          • no one of consequence says:
            0
            0

            Interesting, why did they have to be separated?
            Think of the lines you’d need to run. Remember also ARCS is relied upon for reentry – protocol says not to mess with it.

            And what if they had revived the OMS kit concept?
            Too costly to recertify for flight.

            Could an OMS kit have fed the forward RCS as well?
            Look at FRCS runs/tankage. Its tied in adjacent to crew. Does this tell you something about contingent risk?

            This was the chief trouble with the Shuttle – it was hard to improve, out of fear/cost of introducing new flaws.

            Too much was on a knife’s edge. And much of this was known when we built it. “A bridge too far”. Back during ALT tests, watching it land at Dryden, I wondered if it was the last of its kind … seeing the first of its landings. Magnificent but … strange. Had the same misgivings when my friend invited me to the glass foam tile tests …

          • John Gardi says:
            0
            0

             noofcq:

            The whole point of my ‘aft payload’ design is to also loft the largest tank possible to orbit… to use a real estate. ‘Wet lab’ stuff… only the size of a small office building instead. The initial payload could be integrated with the tank and carry all the service fittings for it, enough gear to make it operational. Leave the moving in to moving companies.

            Also my design would use the final stage boosters as tugs to deliver the payload (and tank) to it’s final destination, detach and re-enter for reuse.

            The only similarity to ORTEG is that my central core has no engines of it’s own.

            Go back through my posts for details. Radical, yes, but very rational because everything can be recovered and reused or re-purposed (as in the large core tank). I’ve spent a decade refining the concept, including assembly and integration as well as what to do with those big tanks on orbit.

            tinker

          • no one of consequence says:
            0
            0

            It is not a bad concept. Nor was OTRAG. Or wet workshop.

            So my take on wet workshop – “not going to happen”. Why? Two big reasons – “some assembly required” on orbit is a big costly deal, and fear of compromised launch or living space due to combining both.

            There’s a entrenched fear of incrementalism in the profession. Believe its rooted in funding that never consistently develops, and being suckered into inept compromises because of an incomplete model of operations.

            This is also why SpaceX drives the same people a little crazy. Constantly changing working things works against building up the almighty flight history. Counterproductive.

            So what your design works for … is an environment where orbital construction becomes dominant.

            Look how much with Webb they were willing to do … to avoid orbital assembly. Its even the biggest single block to Exploration Gateway Platform and Nautilus-X.

            Personally I think its mostly about avoiding blame. But for bigger than Webb, they’ll have to stomach it.

            There are a lot of people who wanted to use ET’s incredible volume – but combining tanks into structures of any kind is not easy. Remember, station components require fewest EVAs to combine, and one should remember some of the issues with coolant leaks in thermal control systems requiring astros to bake off ammonia so as to not contaminate ISS. Our skills are still very limited.

            Dates back to surprises with EVAs with Gemini, which caused AF to scale back manned space plans.

            add:
            My crisp answers summarize to fit in this postage stamp comment box. MacNamara’s means to beat back the Pentagon beast centered on “non-operationality” which he indisctiminantly beat back all takers. Gemini was the touchpoint for this case. You have to read this against black projects of the time that were nuttier, many with nuclear weapons. Why he scaled back to obvious things you rightly point out. “Destabalizing” was his words for taking us off mission needs, where R&D elsewhere mattered more. But once descoped from defense, there was no priority.

            Yes it negatively affects X-37 / others.

            As to on-orbit assembly, always more repairable b/c you used same skills when you assembled it … Really it’s don’t add schedule risk by doing something new.

          • Anonymous says:
            0
            0

            Dates back to surprises with EVAs with Gemini, which caused AF to scale back manned space plans.

            Uh, (I hate not being able to thread this properly).

            This is not the reason that the AF scaled back its manned space plans.  Find the reference in my chapter in space power theory about the adoption of the MADD doctrine.  MacNamara decided that anything that was not remote sensing or communications for the military was “destabilizing” and would have to be abandoned by the military.

            That mindset persists to today with the criticisms of the X-37. 

            station components require fewest EVAs to combine,

            Another bad decision that has actually increased the number of EVA’s over the ISS lifetime. The original open truss, assembled on orbit would have been far easier to service than the ground integrated truss that is currently used. JSC is bitching terribly about this now.

      • Anonymous says:
        0
        0

        Almost forgot – one advantage of the liquids here is no need for engine gimbals.

        Another advantage of liquids….

        Total impulse…

        Von Braun killed solids in 1962 for this reason….

  9. bobhudson54 says:
    0
    0

    I thought the F-1 was already being reconfigured for SLS use. This has been reported in several articles over the past few years and now we hear that NASA is just now considering the idea? Seems there is definitely a communications problem among the NASA hierarchy. Talk about being stupid.

  10. Jonna31 says:
    0
    0

    Can’t ever imagine why you’d ever want to Man-rate the SLS. If the point is to get big objections into orbit, it’ll do that. But in support of a manned space program, just put Orion on top of Delta IV heavy and have it dock with whatever assembly the SLS launches into space. 

    Of course I don’t know why you’d ever take a capsule and heat shield meant for Earth re-entry to Mars, or really anywhere else aside from local Earth-space. If you need a “control center” for any space vehicle, launch that, reuse it for any mission you need by attaching modules to it but just use the most barebone of capsules designed purely for taxing to get people to and from it. 

    Man-rating the SLS is like trying to use a PANAMAX Container Ship as a fishing boat. 

    • no one of consequence says:
      0
      0

      It goes back and forth. Used as a political football when you need something.

      So the “big risky booster” justified 1.5 launch and Ares I immediately, with a huge booster later.

      When Ares I failed “thrice” … then SLS needed to launch capsule as well. Actually, the non human rating never happened to Ares V in reality. Only gave us the RS-68 nonsense and “base heating” issue.

      So it was all disingenuous. If it was genuine, Orion would have flown on EELV 5 years ago, and you’d see a kerolox first stage, hydrolox second stage “big dumb booster” – no solids at all.

      add:
      There isn’t any NASA HLV that will ever not be human rated. If there ever is a need for a non-HR LV, it will be RFP/RFQ’d and completely done out of house.

      • DTARS says:
        0
        0

        Lol reason for Spacex success so far.

        They truly want to fly in space.

        Isn’t it really that simple?

    • mmeijeri says:
      0
      0

      Can’t ever imagine why you’d ever want to Man-rate the SLS.

      Makes more sense to me than using it for cargo, though still not a whole lot of sense. If you use an HLV to lob an insanely large cargo through a relatively low delta-v then you’re obviously fleecing the taxpayers. If you throw a large capsule-sized payload through a larger delta-v, you’re at least buying some simplicity and perhaps safety. Still not a good idea, but at least now you have something of a reason.

      EDIT: if the HLV is a good idea for other reasons, such as EELV Phase 1 for the ACES upper stage, which would make an excellent EDS for Mars, or Falcon Heavy, which isn’t really an HLV except to LEO, then launching crew to L1/L2 in one launch without needing a space station in LEO may turn out to be an excellent idea.

  11. rajjie says:
    0
    0

    Ah, the venerable F-1 super kerolox engine. Glad to see it (hopefully) making a comeback. A really slick engine design–couldn’t be simpler–one humongous turbopump running both the LOX and the kerosene pumps. Too bad von Braun and his geniuses in the Future Projects Group at MSFC didn’t figure out in 1960 that using four F-1-powered strap-on boosters around the S-II stage (with the S-IVB stage on top of the S-II) was a much better option than his gigantic series stage Saturn V. The Saturn V was a doomed ELV that was useful for only one task–placing 250,000 lb payloads into LEO. The problem is that the only customer for these gigantic payloads is Congress, which is notorious for changing it’s mind about funding large, expensive programs like Apollo/Saturn. With the modular F-1 strap-ons, von Braun could have used a pair of them along with the S-IVB to launch about 82,000 lb payloads to support a LEO space station with cargo and crew. Too bad this didn’t happen–instead we endured 40 years trapped in LEO with the now defunct space shuttle. Live and learn.

    • the doctor says:
      0
      0

      All this talk about Aerojet, F1, RS-68, RS84 etc may be moot. Rocketdyne is moving out of the facility that built F1 and Shuttle engines and not taking the furnaces or large machines with them. Aerojet will be deeply in debt, with austerity measures that are sure to force older rocketdyners to retire and younger ones to leave for decent pay and benefits. Without a near term contract that encourages aerojet to offer competitive wages and benefits, they will only get the shell of rocketdyne, unable to stand on its own, or even pay the interest on the loans. Over half the staff left, voluntary or otherwise, after reductions in benefits and merits under UTC, with the remainder sized to support current programs, not new ones.

      • rajjie says:
        0
        0

        Yep, Rocketdyne has moved some staff to another facility in Canoga Park. So far the manufacturing infrastructure seems to be intact. If Aerojet is on the ball, they’ll stick with my friend Jim Maser to run Rocketdyne during the transition period. He’s a seasoned pro (ran SeaLaunch in the 1990s, was President and COO of SpaceX for about a year before taking the Rocketdyne job).

        • no one of consequence says:
          0
          0

          If Aerojet is on the ball, they’ll stick with my friend Jim Maser to run Rocketdyne during the transition period
          My thoughts exactly.

  12. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    A commercial idea 

    How could we use government now to help make a tourism economy soon first in Leo.

    Come on   down/up   to sunny/beautiful    Florida/Low earth Orbit.

    Not like we don’t have places that  have tourism economies now.

    Steve couldn’t this idea be the first course of block in the inner solar system railroad. Shouldn’t most of our effort be going to something like this?

    Mr. C please answer  Tinkers lifter question, very curious to hear your thoughts on that.

    Tinker once said something like we have lots of capability we just don’t use it lol
    Steve said we need to recycle everything lol

    Sooooooo

    The Leo tourism business model

    Many here say that a tourism business model for outer space is ages away or not possible. 

    I disagree

    The other day I looked at the cargo ship Japan sent to ISS and thought this thing is going to just be used to burn up trash???

    Well what if we had a simple plan!

    Our goal could be making flying people to space and housing them there as cheap as possible.

    Spacex is already workings on bringing down the cost of space flight to Leo and of course NASA/NACA R and D could help. But that’s not the part I’m talking about.

    Lol The garbage scow mini robot factory program designed to help  permanent  settlement in LEO.

    Each cargo trip to ISS is now wasted!

    Just like when we trashed shuttle ET’s we now waste cargo flights!

    Each and all cargo flights should be flown with a planned mission to  increase capability with each flight! 

    Each non returnable vehicle should be designed to use a part of it’s mass to create LEO micro factories that make stuff that a space culture would need or a way to completely reuse/recycle what they have. Do to the great travel expense. Recycling and manifacturing to reduce mass up makes all kinds of sense. 

    Growing food and recycling waste the most important of these.

    What if we had a plan to house several hundred people in Leo in the near future. And we did EVERY thing possible to create a self sustainable community now with each and every flight. You can’t tell me that a Leo tourism economy is impossible. 

    How many people could you launch on a recoverable falcon heavy with the right space liner on top again????

    Cancel SLS

    Let’s do Marcels step number one NOW!!!!

    Solve affordable flight to LEO and Settle LEO in an affordable sustainable way.

    All you need is a smart PLAN and just do it!! 

    On ISS they like to test stuff. Well I say let’s design a planned community of x workers and x tourist that could be self sustainable and just start NOW!!!

    • Vladislaw says:
      0
      0

      DTARS wrote:

      “Not like we don’t have places that have tourism economies now.”

      If aliens studied earth from space it would be something like this:

      “Sir, our analysis has concluded they love to explore and are friendly” – “How did you arrive at that conclusion?”

      “Their number one planetary economic activity is tourism, they all want to visit new places and meet new people, we should fit right in”

      It will never be a question of will space tourism happen, the only question is when and what will be that ‘netscape moment’ that tips us over the edge and the TRILLIONS of investment dollars sitting on the sidelines right now come pouring in.  When it does happen, the capital flows will make NASA dollars look like chump  change.

      • DTARS says:
        0
        0

        So my point is let’s do all we can now to create that community now with each launch to reach that tipping point.

        Government puts in the utilities so that business can flourish.

        Plasticville 101 lolol

        • no one of consequence says:
          0
          0

          Congress doesn’t want to risk “arsenal of democracy” … for the kooky “space industrialization” economic development.

          Even though … they don’t have to.

          Listen to the Jay Barbee whine. Carefully.

          • Anonymous says:
            0
            0

            Senior military officers that I know, already know that the arsenal of democracy is in serious trouble.

          • no one of consequence says:
            0
            0

             My primary concern.

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            Not clear what either of you mean here?? What kind of trouble? What concerns and why?

          • Anonymous says:
            0
            0

            DTARS

            Not for public discussion.

          • Anonymous says:
            0
            0

            DTARS

            Read this….

            http://www.parabolicarc.com

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            Mr. C

            First I’m told that something like a tourism LEO space economy is forever in the future.

            Soooo

            I come up with a possible way to do it soon, only to be told that this will not be aloud.  🙁

            Sure will be cool when d o d  declassifies those hypersonic stealth first strike troop carriers, so that we can do horizontal launch to orbit one day.
            With all this glacier melt we want to be able to keep those future dehydrated countries in line you know. 

            Arsenal Space 🙂

            2030 age of the water wars begins.
            THE COMPANY owns most of the desalting stations on the planet.
            YOU WANT A LITTLE DRINK???

  13. Todd_Martin says:
    0
    0

    One intent of SLS is to use, wherever possible and practical, heritage parts & equipment. Using an F-1 or F-1A based liquid rocket booster (LRB) would allow SLS to use existing flight qualified engines. There are five F-1’s in storage at Michoud, all having been previously test fired. The engine numbers are F-4023, F-5036, F-6045, F-6049 and F-6090. Two F-1A engines (F-10404 and F-109-4) and other F-1 engines in museums are available.

    If it makes sense to use Orbiter parts and spare SSME’s, it may also make sense to use spare F-1’s to put stuff up.

    No one doubts that 2 F-1 engines aren’t powerful enough to replace 2 SRB boosters, the only question is price.

  14. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    New adage 

    You can’t achieve what you are not trying to do!

    Mr. C

    Below once again you are the bearer of reality. And the picture of reality you paint seems to be that there really is little reality to the idea that we even have a real human space program at all. It is looking like it is a just a big expensive joke of arsenal space.

     I read some of Jays work as you suggested maybe not enough to see. But your comment said clearly enough the concept of settling space is out, because we dare not let humans settle the high ground!!!
    So in truth THEY, our great protectors in congress, senate, or  d o d  will never let us live Greason’s dream of Space Settlement, nor will they let Elon’s multi planet dream go unchecked. At some point he will be stopped out of FEAR.

    Our fear of each other!!! 

    You know how I like stories and future what ifs. Well I have had some ideas for novels that I dare not even suggest here for fear they could come true.

    Sooo what has Joe Q learned here on NASA watch.

    I have learned that the reason that the dream on my lunch box has not been realized is because in truth our goal has never been to realize it at all!!!

    Part of the reason for super expensive Space flight is to keep it out of the hands of real Joe Qs.

    On to your response to Tinker.

    no one of consequence
    2 hours ago
    It is not a bad concept. Nor was OTRAG. Or wet workshop.

    So my take on wet workshop – “not going to happen”. Why? Two big reasons – “some assembly required” on orbit is a big costly deal, and fear of compromised launch or living space due to combining both.

    There’s a entrenched fear of incrementalism in the profession. Believe its rooted in funding that never consistently develops, and being suckered into inept compromises because of an incomplete model of operations.

    This is also why SpaceX drives the same people a little crazy. Constantly changing working things works against building up the almighty flight history. Counterproductive.

    ELON HAS BUT ONE LIFE TIME TO GET US TO MARS. HE MUST DEVELOP FAST.

    PUBLIC SPACEX OUT OF HIS CONTROL WON’T DO IT.

    So what your design works for … is an environment where orbital construction becomes dominant.

    Look how much with Webb they were willing to do … to avoid orbital assembly. Its even the biggest single block to Exploration Gateway Platform and Nautilus-X.

    Personally I think its mostly about avoiding blame. But for bigger than Webb, they’ll have to stomach it.

    There are a lot of people who wanted to use ET’s incredible volume – but combining tanks into structures of any kind is not easy. Remember, station components require fewest EVAs to combine, and one should remember some of the issues with coolant leaks in thermal control systems requiring astros to bake off ammonia so as to not contaminate ISS. Our skills are still very limited.

    THANKS FOR THAT ABOUT ET 

    Dates back to surprises with EVAs with Gemini, which caused AF to scale back manned space plans.

    Mr. C

    Lolol so what you are saying is with all the money spent we really have not learned to work in space.

    I recall the difficulty in the first Gemini space walks. I listened and watched each one closely. They were scary. I seem to recall one walk that was canceled early to put better hand grips on the next flight so the walker could get bet to his jet back pack.

    I recall the pods in the 2001 Space odyssey movie lolol They never got out of the movie, lol but sure could have. And think of today what humanoid robots can do or modern work pods could do.
    Smart tech could over come those difficulties 

    All great ideas like Tinkers lifter crushed by FEAR

    NASA Fears flying in space, could cut off funding. Lessoned learned in the shuttle program.

    NASA fears space walking. What if an astronaut dies that could endanger funding. 

    Seems commercial will have to settle space, learn to build/work in space if they are allowed.

    Public Space is sure to chicken  s£&@ to do it.

    Fear fear fear

    What religion are you??? Are you a bomber??? We are making hyper speed stealth first strike troop carriers that can get you!!!!!

    We have nothing to fear but fear it’s self. 

    Winston Churchill

    Mr. C 🙁

    My lunch box is just a dream. 🙁

    just a dream 🙁

    a dream 🙁

    dream 🙁

    🙁

    Snuffed 

    out

    !

    Only fear remains

    • DTARS says:
      0
      0

      The safe space suit.

      Mr. C

      You remember the steel diving suits used to take  hard hat divers to great ocean deeps and still be at sea level pressure so they could work at depth all day. Well think of that. A bell that is part suit, part mini spaceship/pod, part air lock.

      Couldn’t the back of your hard suit dock to a hatch in a station or  spaceship? The space walker pilot just climbs into the 4 ft by 4 ft by 4 ft chamber in the back. Then slips into the feet and arms and looks through the visor to do his or her work? Plus this suit could have extra robotic arms for doing specialized jobs like welding or just about anything.

      Controlled by mini dracos I guess.

      And of course you have more than one suit and hatch on each station so rescue is possible.

      Of course these little suits can be driven remotely as well, for extra safety, should humans fine motor skills not be required.

      Why should space walking be dangerous unless we just want it to be ???????

      See NASA doesn’t want to work in space it’s just a joke.

      I’m so sick of this can’t do mentality.

      The truth is we just want to build foolish war machines.

      Shade tree inventor lol

      PS Elon, add mini Draco controlled hard space suits to your to do list to go to mars. We may need some to build the Aldrin Von Braun Mars recycler that we assemble in space after lifting the parts to L1  with the Spacex Tinker reusable methane  heavy lifter.

      Imagine adding a suit beam to a station with ten of these suits all docked to it. Maybe your beam is built from dragon trunks 🙂 Space walker  Pilots floating into their suits closing the hatch driving for their 8 hour shifts. Each back pack pressure chamber has a head and food supplies as well there is a hatch from backpack to leggings too for emergencies. Each suit can carry two people in emergencies too.

      We have never made safe little vehicles to do work in LEO all these years WHY NOT ??????

      Maybe you throw one of these suits in the trunk on each dragon cargo trip to ISS to build future construction capability.

      Next excuse !!!!!!!!

      NASA R and D construction safe hard space suit/pod test program.

      Lolol the astronauts nick named these things TICKS lolol

      • no one of consequence says:
        0
        0

        The root problem is we don’t exploit space for what it can give us, but for what we want to bend it to our will to extract from it. In the bending it to our will, we forget that this consumes us, and so no yield.

        Just like Gemini astros, exhausting themselves as they fought themselves in a frictionless, forceless environment.

        It is our lack of comprehension of correct, natural opportunity that is the issue.

        • Steve Whitfield says:
          0
          0

          Mr. C.,

          If that’s true, are you suggesting that it’s a universal lack of comprehension, and that only handful of people can see it? Or are you suggesting that our collective memory is so poor that we can’t concentrate on why we were working on something so large?

          I hesitate to be adversarial, but I don’t see how the situation results from anybody forgetting anything. I think, rather, that it’s a result of a small number of people (with the power to make key decisions) consciously deciding what will and will not be done in space by government agencies, and by “private” companies to the extent that government can exercise control over those companies, which is quite extensive considering that “the government” is pretty much their sole market outside of private communication satellite activities.

          The question that your statement begs is, to what extent are the populations of “space” nations themselves responsible for the situation, considering that they have essentially let this situation come into being and persist for years on end without making any significant effort to affect change? This seems to be what you are suggesting is the root problem, but how can you apportion blame to “us” collectively, when, for most of us, almost all, it is a completely intangible situation? I’ve been asking questions and making suggestions for many years with respect to “the people” getting involved and making a difference, and not once have I got back any suggestions or ideas that weren’t ineffectual boilerplate.

          An additional consideration might be, are the economic conditions within the “private” space companies really “it’s this or nothing,” or are they just taking the easy road? SpaceX’s policy statements and Boeing’s profit margins each suggest, to me at least, that perhaps there are alternatives to government-style space.

          I believe I see why you gave DTARS the answer you did, but I think, in all honesty, you’re being all too forgiving by apparently sharing the blame amongst “us/we.” The decision making and the control are happening in places where “us/we” are not allowed to participate, and it’s been that way for a very, very long time. That is why it gets disappointing for sincere people like George; because he knows, inside, that this is the situation denying him his dreams and fighting against what he sees as his nation’s welfare. And he knows, as we all do who bother to think it through, that there’s nothing within the processes and laws of our self-declared democratic countries that permits the individual or groups to make a difference. So, right at the outset, we who care about “space” have to ask ourselves, “do we want an effective way to affect our nation’s activities in space?” or “do we want an effective way to gain and retain the right to affect important issues like our nation’s activities in space?” The latter potentially leads to the former, but is a much larger issue, with a much lesser chance of success.

          I think the simplest answer to the question would have been, there’s no simple answer to this question. But which question? I don’t think George, or the rest of us, really want to know how we got to this state of affairs, where the activities undertaken in the name of exploring space, settling space, whatevering space, are not those we would want, and are not relevant to the motivations of space advocates and fans. And we don’t really want to know how we as democratic citizens became totally powerless in the decision processes that mean so much to us. I think that what George, and the rest of us, want to know is, how do we fix the space problem? How do we get back some control, some participation in decisions and events? How do we get a space program that achieves benefits for the entire population, not just special interest groups who bought their involvement? How do we get a space program that will result in a spacefaring nation? How do we fix the problem? In all honesty, I don’t think anybody knows. And when we come right down to it, I guess those last two sentences were all I really need to type.

          Steve

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      George,

      Don’t you ever let go of that lunch box. Ever!

      Steve

  15. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    Steve didn’t have time to finish reading your F1 to big, post  but I have the same conerns about the merlin 2 being to big too, same as I did about single cores that Spacex showed in their rocket family picture which is why I started with my falcon 6 pack junk under a truss for big payload.

    Thanks for the kind words nice to know someone else gives a C#$%

    It doesn’t take a rocket scientist

    just people who care

    Out!!!!!!!!

  16. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    I think it was Mr. That said a reason not to build a lifter like tinkers is because you can do a half a hundred launches do it.

    Well let me get my 100 dollar telescope out and please tell me were to look in the sky to see this big wheel we have built.

    I may be naive but to me I haven’t seen a better way to do heavy lift than a TInker Tanker.

  17. Nox Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    I see a lot of comments here that are long winded. If you have a good argument it should be able to be written concisely.

    I think this kind of news is just a big decline in NASA and the SLS. I’m sorry if you are working on the SLS – but I don’t think the SLS will get humanity anywhere. My only hope is SpaceX and China.