/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16092709

>>15957346
*F-1B

>>15690797

>>15052089
Friendly reminder that development of the F-1B never started and it is complete vaporware.

>>14815927

>>12768402

>>12767711
All the tooling is gone and rebuilding it exactly to spec would be stupid anyway.
Revising it with modern manufacturing techniques, materials, and electronics would be so much work that you might as well just start from scratch.

They did do some work on a proposed F-1B engine though, pic related. Ultimately it's pretty foolish to develop any new expendable rocket right now though.

>>12680113
ligma balls. We can make em' better.

>>12256937
Source on that $15M price estimate. Sounds too good to be true.

>>12235454
that's the fuel-rich gas generator exhaust. they funneled it through the nozzle to cool it instead of having a separate pipe like most gas generator kerolox engines do (f1b for comparison)

The future we could've had.

>>12179208
It was a lot more, from 5000 unique components in F1 to around 50 in the F1b. Not only that but the F1b was computer designed with computer optimized tolerances and significant simplifications in plumbing without significant losses in ISP. There would have been almost no need for humans to spend extra man hours checking it's fittings after initial assembly whereas the original F1 demanded up to 500 man hours of careful tuning and testing by hand before it was ready to fire. It would have been much cheaper to manufacture and easier to refurbish if desired.

This is what they took from you, it is worse than the SSME - it is may Allah forgive me for uttering the name - a Solid Rocket Booster.

>>12092327
F

>>11752680
Idunno my ultra brainlet popsci parroting friend, Pratt&Whitney-Rocketdyne and Dynetics who designed and proposed the F1-B modern F1 variant would probably disagree. This is just a guess but I think they might know just a little bit more about the F1 than you have deluded yourself into believing you do.

>>11714203
>liquid boosters with F1-B engines
Press F for the F-1B.

>>11510619
TBF, the F-1 can be made today and even better than what was used for Apollo. It's just that NASA has no interest in using them.

>>11454437
Probably because of Challenger. That and the F-1 got cucked because of them.

>>11409561
>and very soon there will be advances in battery technology which would even make mechanically simple electric turbomachinery on the large scale practical.
It might be easier to just stick with gas generator turbines but make them bigger, simpler, and cheaper.

>>11177110
>but I struggle to see the Merits of a F-1 as a sustainer engine...
What if it was an F-1B?

>>11126625
Here's some more to make NNN harder for you.

>>10856011
Don't say stuff like that, it's too painful to think about...

A methalox RD-170 would also be pretty insane, too bad the Russians are so broke.

This could be a possible improvement.

I know that some people romanticize Saturn V alot, especially the F-1. But it's a shame that the F-1Bs didn't get developed upon.

(1/4)