Amazing. I recall the oil well fires at the first gulf war. And when I learned that to turn them off the fire, you blow it up! This would use the oxygen causing fire to turn off. Mind blown
Well... Soviet Union failed to create such powerful kerosene engine at that time. And yes - because of acoustic oscillations inside the chamber. Actual soviet answer was - let's use toxic UDMH. So Korolev rejected this approach and had to use many small kerosene NK-15 for soviet lunar LV N-1...
What about USSR developing oxygen rich engine and nasa using it??where was it used..have heard that nasa didn't have that tech coz their engine would corode...but USSR had some composite to avoid this
@@gokulsai901 There are 2 oxygen reach closed cycle soviet rocket engines that must be mentioned - NK-33 and RD-170. Let's dive a bit deeper into their story. After the fight with Glushko about UDMH Korolev asked plane designer of Kuznetsov bureau to build less efficient open cycle NK-15. N-1 needed 30 of them, compared to 5 F-1 at Saturn-V because of only 150 ton-force thrust. As I said - Soviet Union could not develop 700 tf rocket engine using kerosene. No wonder N-1 could not fly. Kuznetsov managed to create close cycle oxygen reach NK-33 only in 1969 after the US landing on the Moon. N-1 program has been closed and abandoned. Some amount of NK-33 was stashed and Orbital ATK has bought them for Antares LV. But in 2014 one of NK-33 blew up couple seconds after ignition effectively destroying the rocket... End of NK-33 story. RD-170 is the closed cycle oxygen reach rocket engine with 4 combustion chambers. F-1 has only 1 but almost the same thrust. RD-170 has been developed in the late 70-th for the Soviet LV Energia used for the Buran -- Soviet response to Space Shuttle. So it was developed later then F-1. The problem with oxygen reach closed cicle engines is not the corrosion. You feed turbine by almost pure oxygen with 800K temperature under 35 MPa pressure. Turbine is not corroding... It literally burns! And yes - there is some ceramic coating on it to prevent burning. RD-170 is undoubtfully an engineering masterpiece but extremely complex and expensive engine.
Air Force: "We want an engine with 1,5 mil pounds of thrust!!!" Rocketdyne: "We did it, here you have it" Air Force: "So guys, what are we gonna use it for???" Also Air Force: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@@astrobat81z45 Scott Manley's video on this subject was incredible. I learned so much more than I ever thought I would on how rocket combustion chambers work. He is also brilliant at presenting this type of information to the layman. I also highly recommend his video (heck, ALL of his videos for that matter, are great).
Wait so the airforce just randomly commissioned a really big engine and said "Yeah we'll just find something we can do with this later" and then just scrapped it? Quality use of funding right there
I suspect this has something to do with wanting the capability to send huge nuclear bombs on intercontinental ballistic missiles. In the late 50s, the zeitgeist was to build bigger and bigger bombs, until the army realized that is was more efficient to deliver a bigger number of smaller bombs. This might explain why they did not have a use for it once it was made.
It's amazing to imagine that only 20 years separate the 1940's and the 1960's. We tend to think that we live in times of rapid change and that it is only accelerating. But - in the time it took us to go from ICQ to WhatsApp, from home PCs to ipads and smartphones, mid 20'th century went from inventing the first long range missile to putting a man on the moon. From fighting WW2 with tanks and very basic airplanes to (relatively) affordable worldwide commercial flights on Boeing 737-100's (1964).
Its a balloon effect, like the expansion of the Universe, the faster it goes the more it accelerates. I just hope Humanity is responsible enough to adequately handle the very powerful technology that we are unlocking and have unlocked
We've changed where that innovation lies. Todays innovation is largely in computing tech. Look at the physical size of a Terabyte of data. In 2000 it was just under 4000 thumb drives. Today its 1 micro sd card. Look at computing power. in the year 2000 the worlds best super computer was the IBM ASCI White with a processing speed of 12.4 Teraflops. It cost $110 million and weighed 106 tons. in 2020 you can buy one single graphics card (RTX 2080 Ti) which performs better (14 Teraflops), costs less (~$1800), and weighs less (maybe like 6lbs). We have made HUGE advancements in the last 20 years. We just take it for granted.
It's certainly less obvious in the Saturn V's engines than the Soyuz rocket's engines. The latter is even limited to the V2's thrust level per nozzle, which is not a coincidence, and neither are the peroxide-driven turbopumps.
Best technical explanation of the F1 chamber combustion instability I have ever seen. I found this channel recently. It is a really good, no hype source of astro info!! 👍👍👍
100% success rate! I was looking for this *exact* video. I knew about the "bomblet" testing, but I didn't know about the V2 design solution. I know the injector holes were hand drilled. Master craftsman of their age!
I'm surprised that Vauhn Braun was not given credit for the "fix". Since he was then the head of Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, AL, and had led the development of the German V2 rocket program in WWII, it seems pretty obvious who was the genius behind the design and development of the Saturn V for NASA.
The effect of the multiple injection pots of the V2 eliminating instability was an unintentional and likely unknown effect. The injection design was from an earlier, much smaller, rocket. So they figured the quickest way to design the injection for the V-2 was to use multiple copies of a proven design.
The American moon programme was incredible. So many pieces of complex hardware had to execute flawlessly. Phenomenal numbers of people contributed to it. And yet it worked. Three men on top of a giant banger, two sent to the moon’s surface, and all returned safely.
What about the astronauts that died in the tests that didn't with flawlessly Point is, these things with flawlessly because of intense care, but also iterative design from a time when they didn't with flawlessly. Any large scale project that seems flawless never always worked, but the fact that people managed to continue, removing problems with each change, and ended up with a near flawless result (minus the Apollo computer abort problem) is inspiring.
@@DB-gh4nj Well yes there was a team of German engineers, most if not all were ex members of the Nazi party. Von Braun was even in the SS. However, there were huge numbers of American engineers, and many of those were Jewish.
Just to fill in some context--this video makes it seem like combustion instability was first identified on that June 1962 test. This is false. Combustion instability had been the primary problem that was being faced from 1959 on in the F-1. The tests up to that point were mainly pressure-fed thrust chamber-only tests. A number of 'fixes' had been made, and people thought that the instability was solved--that was why they were running the 'long duration' test of a fully integrated engine in the first place. Also, the statement that previous engines had not suffered instability 'because they were smaller' is false. Essentially every liquid rocket engine ever developed (with the exception of the SSME) has exhibited stability problems of one kind or another--it's just in their nature. The difference with the F-1 was that the instability problem (which occurred at around 400-500 Hz with injector designs that look anything like the 'final' one--NOT 2000 Hz) was much more tenacious than ever before.
Even though they'd solved the destructive instability there was still some surging in the early unmanned launches. It was quite bad on Apollo 6 and had to be fixed before the first manned launch, Apollo 8. www.nasa.gov/feature/50-years-ago-solving-the-pogo-effect
Uh they literally said German scientists designed the v2 to not have to deal with combustion instability in the mid 40's I don't think anyone thought it was discovered later
@@OK-ws7ti You're right. They did say that. And the statement is incorrect. The designers of the V-2 engine had no idea what combustion instability was.
Ok genius, tell us more about yourself. Your aggression in correcting such a small and unimportant fault in the video comes off as a lame attempt to appear intellectual. The narrator said that instability wasn’t a problem in smaller engines, and as you restated, it wasn’t, because they were too small. Indeed it always existed but was never a PROBLEM. If you enjoy this sort of meaningless peacocking of how smart you are, you would be more suited for a job as a lecturer rather than the TH-cam comments, where you’re more likely to find assholes like me instead of proper discourse.
Also programming in a nutshell. (Which I guess is engineering) But if the world only knew how much of everything we rely on was done by some dev sitting around, bashing his head, throwing random lines of code in just to see if something works, the world would lose its mind!
"they encountered combustion instability." Me as an aerospace engineer. "baffles. Throw some in there and see if it helps" "they engineered baffles to..... Etc etc" In any cylindrical thing baffles pretty much solve everything. Not enough turbulence? Baffles. Too much turbulence? Baffles.
I remember the time, when I was one of 500 people watching. Congrats man! I find your vids to have a lot of insight. Like; I saw this vid on releas. Now I got new things out of it. Thank you! The thing is; how genius were these engineers; they had to do most job at gut feeling. No simulations available.
@@primalspace Thank for keeping up the amazing work. True, they were just amazing. Like; the F1 engines can not be reproduced... If it was not for SpaceX, we would not have surpassed Apollo's feats till today.
I really appreciate the soviet way of solving this as well. With the RD-170 for example they clustered four smaller combustion chambers around a single turbine. And while the F-1 is the most powerful single chamber engine ever built (Thrust a sea level: 6,770 kN), the RD-170 is more powerful than that (Thrust at sea level: 7,257 kN)
That humans were able to reach space and the moon before the era of powerful modern computers, is one of the most remarkable achievements in human history.
Slide rules are severely underrated. It allows a person's mind to open up when you're using them. It doesn't just try to present the answer. After working with Engineers, especially the younger ones, they don't have the sense to understand that just because the book said it'll work. That it work the way the book says.
44 Hawk yeah, don’t know why they say stuff like “designed with a slide rule” as if a slide rule is inaccurate. Slide rules are as accurate as a machinist can machine a part. Really. How many parts need to be machined to less than 1micron?
@@gregculverwell it's not just about the thrust of a single engine. If engineers wanted, they could create an engine even more powerfull today. But 50 years later we have learned a lot and we know there are better solutions. Look at the Falcon 9 Heavy. The rocket to come closest today to lift capability of the Saturn V. It uses 27 engines on the first stage + boosters but allows for more precise control and efficiency.
This was pioneering work, so lots of mistakes of this nature were made. The same thing happened with computers, even decades later when development really accelerated during the 1970s and 1980s. There were ideas that seemed to make sense at the time but were superseded by something else or simply turned out to be dead ends.
Back in the 60s combustion instability was not completely understood. It would be interesting to learn what modern transient CFD (Compuational Fluid Dynamics) analysis has revealed.
If there's ever been a line that sums up the entirety of the profession of engineering it's at 4:09 "The engineers weren't convinced that the problem was fully fixed."
What amazes me the most is they looked back the V-2 rockets and found the solution. Even after all those years they still go back to the designs of Von Braun to discover this man was thinking ahead of them to begin with.
2:28 Its not the 'high' frequency of the oscillation that's directly responsible for catastrophic structural failure; it's the high amplitude! The frequency probably contributed in the sense that it was just right enough to latch onto the (one of several) frequencies of fluctuation of the flame's heat release rate.... which caused the amplitude of both heat release and chamber pressure to grow uncontrollably. But that's just a detail, great job on the video :)
If only NASA now had the passion and vision they had during the space race then perhaps we’d be exploring our solar system. Nowadays the only exploring that’s going to be accomplished is by private industry
When the Apollos were going to the Moon it was a time when anything seemed possible. Apollo was a time of tragedy and earth-shaking triumph. The men who went to the Moon knew that the game was rigged, that the dice were loaded against them, but, with their eyes wide open, they went anyway. It was a time that showed that, when the task is noble, America can achieve anything - as long as it keeps its eye on the ball, because it was also a time that showed, probably more than at any other time in America's history, that America, as a nation, has an attention span barely long enough to make it to the next commercial break. Apollo 11 landed on the Moon to a frenzy of American self-adulation and flag waving - and rightly so, because America had earned the right to wave flags and feel proud and it was the defining moment in the lives of my generation - but by the time Apollo 11 ticker tape parade had finished the party was over and America's short attention span was turning to other things. When Apollo 13 launched, the news media, which both influences and is enslaved by what the public thinks is interesting, could not even be bothered carrying news of the mission on their regular scheduling. Of course, that changed very quickly after the explosion, but the rot had set in. In 1971-72 I was working in New Guinea. All our news came via Australian sources and I didn't know that Apollo 16 had even gone to the Moon until it was halfway home. For various reasons, some technical, some financial, some political - politicians are very sensitive to what the public and the news media think is interesting - the last three Moon landings were cancelled. Had the momentum of Apollo been maintained, with the stimulus to science and technology, there would now be bases on the Moon and footprints on Mars. Today, if any American asks why there are no bases on the Moon or on Mars, instead of America being confined to low-Earth orbit, I just say "Look in the mirror".
@@konstantinNeoAccording to his daughter Kubrick was in Europe making movies at the time. She has also called the idea that her father helped the US government fake the moon landings a "grotesque lie". She has also referred to people like you as "malicious cranks" who go around spreading these lies about her father.
@@joevignolor4u949 Some "people" actually belive that the Apollo program was just filmed on Earth......they also believe that Mickey Mouse is real.....and yes these people live around us.....
Nowadays most of the early development is done with a computer. They could have tested hundreds of designs if they wanted. That they found anything that worked is a testament to their effort. Excellent video. Great animations! I just got the title pun....
Back then, the films were real on the spot and time. Nowadays, most of the videos are virtual with robotic voice, conveying to us the message as if they already established bases on Mars.
After the F1, nobody ever built an engine of that size with that level of thrust. The SpaceX SuperHeavy booster has double the amount of thrust of the Saturn V, but it use 33 engines, not 10. So, the Rocketdyne F1 remains unchallenged to this day. Partially because it is an open cycle engine, therefore of low efficiency; also, it had only 70 atm. of chamber pressure, vs the ~300 atm of an RD180 or a Raptor - both closed cycle. Also, because Rocketdyne - together with Wernher Von Braun and Sonny Morea - solved the instability by trial and error, by splitting the top flame front in many smaller fronts, so they couldn't start rotating in the chamber. But no rocket designer would risk today, especially because the technology of modern SRBs is more reliable and cheaper - but you can't turn off an SRB if there is a failure. Thanks for the historical video.
GENIUS, BRILLIANCE and PERSEVERANCE ! No CNCs, No Computer-modeling, no robotic welding. Its truly astounding. We sent men to the MOON in the 1960s-1970s. It remains one of the greatest engineering feats in human history.
I’ll be damned, I always wondered how the baffle plates worked to fix the instability, seems like it ended up being a remarkably simple fix. Of course, I’m sure it was ‘t that simple at the time for them 😆 Thank you for fo posting this.
So they spent years making sure the engines were stable and then in the 80's NASA just decided they could care less and let ice and bad gaskets go unnoticed..? Talk about some terrible oversight.
@H M Please detail how many times the engines on the Space Shuttle Orbiter failed (I assume you mean the SSME's); the nature of the failure, and the consequences. Okay - go ahead.......
Has everyone also forgotten about one of the first probes that was launched and landed on Venus in 1962 as well. This probe actually made it through the atmosphere and lasted a considerable amount of time on the surface.
It’s unfathomable that they didn’t have CAD for that engine. How did they do that on paper blueprints?! That’s incredible. This put MAN ON THE MOON! Every time I think about that it gives me chills, and now realizing that they didn’t have CAD, the chills are greater. We are so lucky to have what we have now. Just imagine what we’ll all have in 50 years.
I can't express enough my appreciation for the format of this documentary. The usual format is to use a few historic fragments and intersperse this with interviews with witnesses or experts in the present. This document however is using exclusive historic material with a voice-over telling the story. Why is this unique and is this format not understood by anyone else?
Quite simply astonishing. Narration is stellar. Live long and prosper. Subscribed. How did they even discover that it was 2000 cps? Jeeezzzzz. And I bet their factory floor wasn't even shiny clean. Have we in the present time ever constructed anything as impressive as the SR71 Blackbird, or this engine, w/o computers? Kelly Johnson, Marconi, Westinghouse, Edison, Whittle, Jobs, Goodyear et al... smh in awe.
The Soviets rushed ahead in the space race by ganging together a bunch of small rocket motors until they had the required thrust for their large rocket vehicles. Problem was, they got up to 42 (I think) small rocket motors on 1 vehicle and couldn't synchronize all those rocket motors and their rockets just kept blowing up. The US took the time to develop a large rocket motor which initially put them behind in the space race but allowed for much further progress in the long run. Slow and steady won the race.
can you imagine what the Saturn would be like if NASA had been allowed to incrementally improve it over time? . . . lighter, stronger propellant tanks . . . more power from each engine through better alloys and higher combustion pressures and temperatures . . . better control systems and pumps . . . you could launch the entire mass of the ISS in two throws (if you could just package it properly, but the modules would probably be fatter and longer instead . . . think long Skylabs} . . . a real crew escape system and none of those damned solid boosters!
@@RamsesTheFourth If NASA had been allowed to incrementally improve it over time, we would have something better then this primitive, chemical reaction thing.
@@kofola9145 probably yeah. Too bad most people dont seem to see anything interesting in space in general, thats why its space exploration so underfunded.
I think its only now seeing spaceX with all their fancy computer aided testing, design and concepts, we can truly say the guys building rockets in the 1960s were the true "rocket scientist". Slide rulers, test and measure, pen and paper, frustration at seeing your concept blow to bits.....WOW. Plus "Rocketdyne" Sounds kinda cool.
had NASA relied on Brilliant to teach them engineering we'd still be watching rockets explode on the pad more often than getting even a meter off the ground.
It's amazing how even if we wanted, even with the plans, we still couldn't build another Saturn V. The craftsmanship of that level has been lost to time. Truly the civilization is not a straight line forward, but has swings. We should be so happy we are on the upswing. If we continue to work, reach for the stars maybe our generation will be remembered with such grace as the NASA scientists and engineers of the Apollo era.
Great work, however "without any instability problems" is incorrect. The F1 engines caused pogo oscillations during some of the launches which were quite severe, however didn't damage the rocket. They were caused by combustion instability nonetheless.
As a preface, I am not placing the Soviet Union on a pedestal. Far from it, Nikita Khrushchev's rabid lust for progress at any cost made him directly responsible for the horrific end Vladimir Komarov met aboard the doomed Soyuez-1; an end which can only be characterized as a waking nightmare. With that being said, how is it that the US, having lost all other 'firsts' in space, decided itself to be the winner of the space race after reaching a goalpost that it set, one that only they considered valuable? The Soviet Union claimed every single first up until that point, but the US still declares itself victorious after having only gotten a single 'first' out of the whole raft of them.
yeah sure it is. why can't they make a reliable car,the more you pay for a german car the more it becomes a money pitt, even the half million dollar RR. although British it is a BMW
The Saturn V is mine, and I think a lot of other people's favourite rocket. If NASA were to redesign the Saturn V and fly it again, I'd literally sell my kidney for a flight on it.
And now imagine that today they don't know how to rebuild a functioning F1 rocket engine, although they need exactly that to get on the moon again. You see, the F1 is, to this very day, the only engine capable of doing what has been done so many years ago. There is no replacement. Today they may have the basic plans for construction, but they don't have the side notes of the engineers of that time. They need a functioning F1 to improve it, but there is none. With all of the engineers being already dead, they need to start from scratch.
They still have the blueprints but lack the skill of the craftsmen because the engines were basically custom made due to the lack of precise manufacturing methods. The old engine had something like 2000 parts. Based on those old blueprints, engineers have made a new version with only about 50 parts. And with modern manufacturing methods they will be cheaper and quicker to produce.
Something that tends not to get mentioned is the fuel being used. The F1s were designed to use kerosene, while most subsequent designs were built around hydrogen. Overall, hydrogen is a better fuel, particularly once you get beyond most of the atmosphere but it has one drawback: you need a bigger tank to store your propellant compared with kerosene. So that means the first stage of anything has to be bigger and you might also need additional solid fuel boosters just to get the same amount of thrust, all things being equal. There is a huge investment by NASA and the US aerospace industry in Shuttle-based technology though so that's why Artemis looks like it does and they didn`t go for an alternate F1b-based proposal back when they were looking at various SLS plans. They could have built a new F1b engine based on 1970s proposals to develop an improved F1a with modern technology a decade ago but chose not to.
Anyone ever think about how good our cad is these days? You can simulate real life models on a computer. Whats crazy is we went to the moon on sticks and stones basically.
If you must know , you dysfunction human being the technology was lost over time , many of this engine parts we're hand made by engineering, welders and manufacturing techniques, this people eventually retire and pass away and new method manufacturing parts come as new technology comes.
@@nox_chan ok the idiot with child stuff what about him? Nasa has around 17,000 people, is mathematics possible that here and there they are going to have bad apple, the other video about the man telling you about, we don't have the technology, again it is true we don't have the method of fabrication and the people that used to build , let me give a example the F-1 engine was hand build parts ok, now in today modern age we have the F-1B engine that slight better of preview version , thx better calculation and we have CMC machines that can do precires cuts and welding for faster ,cheaper and more durable parts, why now we are aim back to the moon
![HIWWHEE | OHM [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/OJJLtTLqLag/mqdefault.jpg)
By "looked back to the v2" I assume you mean they went upstairs and asked von Braun, right?
Correct
Ha. exactly. "Hey Werner, can you pop over?"
I was going to write a smartass commenet about Operation Paperclip, but instead I'll just like this comment.
Exactly. Von Braun designed the Saturn 5 and the V2!
Another 2 decades and everybody has forgotten the Nazis put America on the moon ^^
Placing a bomb inside a huge rocket engine and blowing it up while its on to check for instability is such a kerbal solution :D
Frosch Reiniger literally fighting fire with fire lol
@Peg Leg really now, it's always been my though process when testing something
@Peg Leg This couldn't be more true.
Well, we were in Kerbal mode that time. 10% of the entire tax budget and you have to get to the Moon before the decade is out? It's Kerbal time.
Amazing. I recall the oil well fires at the first gulf war. And when I learned that to turn them off the fire, you blow it up! This would use the oxygen causing fire to turn off. Mind blown
The world should be humbled by how they found and solve the problem with no CAD help nor simulations
They did it all with slide rules
Oh
No we are instead fighting over toilet paper at Walmart over a stupid virus the media said is gonna kill us all. This is the Pinnacle of humanity.
Yeah they stole the solution from the Germans dah
The problem was fixed decades earlier by German engineer. 🤔😂
Engines: "explode"
USSR: Well, add a more powerful turbo-pump and use 4 combustion chambers...
USA: *B O M B*
Well... Soviet Union failed to create such powerful kerosene engine at that time. And yes - because of acoustic oscillations inside the chamber. Actual soviet answer was - let's use toxic UDMH. So Korolev rejected this approach and had to use many small kerosene NK-15 for soviet lunar LV N-1...
What about USSR developing oxygen rich engine and nasa using it??where was it used..have heard that nasa didn't have that tech coz their engine would corode...but USSR had some composite to avoid this
@@gokulsai901 yes, that's true.
@@SergiyFakasProfile which ultimately doomed the n1 project
@@gokulsai901 There are 2 oxygen reach closed cycle soviet rocket engines that must be mentioned - NK-33 and RD-170. Let's dive a bit deeper into their story.
After the fight with Glushko about UDMH Korolev asked plane designer of Kuznetsov bureau to build less efficient open cycle NK-15. N-1 needed 30 of them, compared to 5 F-1 at Saturn-V because of only 150 ton-force thrust. As I said - Soviet Union could not develop 700 tf rocket engine using kerosene.
No wonder N-1 could not fly. Kuznetsov managed to create close cycle oxygen reach NK-33 only in 1969 after the US landing on the Moon. N-1 program has been closed and abandoned. Some amount of NK-33 was stashed and Orbital ATK has bought them for Antares LV. But in 2014 one of NK-33 blew up couple seconds after ignition effectively destroying the rocket... End of NK-33 story.
RD-170 is the closed cycle oxygen reach rocket engine with 4 combustion chambers. F-1 has only 1 but almost the same thrust. RD-170 has been developed in the late 70-th for the Soviet LV Energia used for the Buran -- Soviet response to Space Shuttle. So it was developed later then F-1.
The problem with oxygen reach closed cicle engines is not the corrosion. You feed turbine by almost pure oxygen with 800K temperature under 35 MPa pressure. Turbine is not corroding... It literally burns! And yes - there is some ceramic coating on it to prevent burning. RD-170 is undoubtfully an engineering masterpiece but extremely complex and expensive engine.
Air Force: "We want an engine with 1,5 mil pounds of thrust!!!"
Rocketdyne: "We did it, here you have it"
Air Force: "So guys, what are we gonna use it for???"
Also Air Force: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Haha
Hahaha XD
Hahahaha XD
Air Force: That was a gag guys. Who could imagine something with 1.5 millions Lbs of thrust! You guys think we want to go to the moon or something?
Space!!
I have heard about this combustion instability for quite a while, but never really fully understood it. This video was very insightful.
I was going to say the same!
Scott Manley done video in much more detail,worth to watch it.
@@astrobat81z45 Scott Manley's video on this subject was incredible. I learned so much more than I ever thought I would on how rocket combustion chambers work. He is also brilliant at presenting this type of information to the layman. I also highly recommend his video (heck, ALL of his videos for that matter, are great).
Resonance
Its the same reason why the fire ln a candle flickers
Wait so the airforce just randomly commissioned a really big engine and said "Yeah we'll just find something we can do with this later" and then just scrapped it? Quality use of funding right there
ThePandaKing it was a different day and age.
jeff lockaby for a long time only AF and Navy pilots could be astronauts
Super efficient, as any other state company
I suspect this has something to do with wanting the capability to send huge nuclear bombs on intercontinental ballistic missiles. In the late 50s, the zeitgeist was to build bigger and bigger bombs, until the army realized that is was more efficient to deliver a bigger number of smaller bombs. This might explain why they did not have a use for it once it was made.
ThePandaKing so they have the free money to do that but not the guts to make the seadragon
Neat video!
Jared Owen hey you’re here! Love your vids
Ayeee
Ah the legend himself
I like your animations there short informative and fun to watch
Oh hi Jared Owen!
BAFFLING engine problem, ah man i missed that, that was sneaky.
Very nice.
Osama Bin Laden, aren’t you dead?
@@quarans08 Aren't you from Reddit?
@@robertkiestov3734 Well actually, I made a Reddit account after seeing all the memes, so I’m from TH-cam, but you could say I’m from Reddit too.
Eng. 1. We’re baffled. Eng. 2 hears “where’s baffles” and proceeds to draw them in.
It's amazing to imagine that only 20 years separate the 1940's and the 1960's. We tend to think that we live in times of rapid change and that it is only accelerating. But - in the time it took us to go from ICQ to WhatsApp, from home PCs to ipads and smartphones, mid 20'th century went from inventing the first long range missile to putting a man on the moon. From fighting WW2 with tanks and very basic airplanes to (relatively) affordable worldwide commercial flights on Boeing 737-100's (1964).
This is one of the smartest and best comments I've seen in TH-cam in a very long time! Thanks for that!
Its a balloon effect, like the expansion of the Universe, the faster it goes the more it accelerates. I just hope Humanity is responsible enough to adequately handle the very powerful technology that we are unlocking and have unlocked
@@slinkerdeer Well, that's the thing - I'm not sure it accelerates at all.
exponential innovation
We've changed where that innovation lies. Todays innovation is largely in computing tech. Look at the physical size of a Terabyte of data. In 2000 it was just under 4000 thumb drives. Today its 1 micro sd card.
Look at computing power. in the year 2000 the worlds best super computer was the IBM ASCI White with a processing speed of 12.4 Teraflops. It cost $110 million and weighed 106 tons. in 2020 you can buy one single graphics card (RTX 2080 Ti) which performs better (14 Teraflops), costs less (~$1800), and weighs less (maybe like 6lbs).
We have made HUGE advancements in the last 20 years. We just take it for granted.
Those Germans were pretty knowledgeable when it comes to gas nozzles
Wonder why...
💀
chill.
What gas nozzles?
Yes I've worked with Germans nice guys but will never tell there secrets
Summary: engine unstable so they put an giant apple cutter on it.
a "nazi inspired" apple cutter at that
LMAO
I'll bet you make dialog comments in cat videos.
Says the guy who has no clue what baffles on the injector plate even do.
and then added B O M B S on it to test if teh engine is still unstable
American engineers: "Hey, can I copy your homework?"
German engineers: "Yeah, just don't make it too obvious."
Nice original comment.....
@@kimdenion9800 Nothing in this internet is original
It's certainly less obvious in the Saturn V's engines than the Soyuz rocket's engines. The latter is even limited to the V2's thrust level per nozzle, which is not a coincidence, and neither are the peroxide-driven turbopumps.
Best technical explanation of the F1 chamber combustion instability I have ever seen.
I found this channel recently. It is a really good, no hype source of astro info!! 👍👍👍
100% success rate! I was looking for this *exact* video. I knew about the "bomblet" testing, but I didn't know about the V2 design solution. I know the injector holes were hand drilled. Master craftsman of their age!
I'm surprised that Vauhn Braun was not given credit for the "fix". Since he was then the head of Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, AL, and had led the development of the German V2 rocket program in WWII, it seems pretty obvious who was the genius behind the design and development of the Saturn V for NASA.
I agree that is forgotten history that no one wants to bring up.
von Braun. His first name was Wernher.
The effect of the multiple injection pots of the V2 eliminating instability was an unintentional and likely unknown effect. The injection design was from an earlier, much smaller, rocket. So they figured the quickest way to design the injection for the V-2 was to use multiple copies of a proven design.
The American moon programme was incredible. So many pieces of complex hardware had to execute flawlessly. Phenomenal numbers of people contributed to it. And yet it worked. Three men on top of a giant banger, two sent to the moon’s surface, and all returned safely.
What about the astronauts that died in the tests that didn't with flawlessly
Point is, these things with flawlessly because of intense care, but also iterative design from a time when they didn't with flawlessly. Any large scale project that seems flawless never always worked, but the fact that people managed to continue, removing problems with each change, and ended up with a near flawless result (minus the Apollo computer abort problem) is inspiring.
Well those German engineers did a hell of a job in building America's space programm
@@DB-gh4nj Well yes there was a team of German engineers, most if not all were ex members of the Nazi party. Von Braun was even in the SS. However, there were huge numbers of American engineers, and many of those were Jewish.
I'm an engineering student who plans to work in the private space sector, and I just discovered your channel and I just wanted to say that I love it!
Just to fill in some context--this video makes it seem like combustion instability was first identified on that June 1962 test. This is false. Combustion instability had been the primary problem that was being faced from 1959 on in the F-1. The tests up to that point were mainly pressure-fed thrust chamber-only tests. A number of 'fixes' had been made, and people thought that the instability was solved--that was why they were running the 'long duration' test of a fully integrated engine in the first place. Also, the statement that previous engines had not suffered instability 'because they were smaller' is false. Essentially every liquid rocket engine ever developed (with the exception of the SSME) has exhibited stability problems of one kind or another--it's just in their nature. The difference with the F-1 was that the instability problem (which occurred at around 400-500 Hz with injector designs that look anything like the 'final' one--NOT 2000 Hz) was much more tenacious than ever before.
Even though they'd solved the destructive instability there was still some surging in the early unmanned launches. It was quite bad on Apollo 6 and had to be fixed before the first manned launch, Apollo 8. www.nasa.gov/feature/50-years-ago-solving-the-pogo-effect
Uh they literally said German scientists designed the v2 to not have to deal with combustion instability in the mid 40's I don't think anyone thought it was discovered later
@@OK-ws7ti You're right. They did say that. And the statement is incorrect. The designers of the V-2 engine had no idea what combustion instability was.
Ok genius, tell us more about yourself. Your aggression in correcting such a small and unimportant fault in the video comes off as a lame attempt to appear intellectual. The narrator said that instability wasn’t a problem in smaller engines, and as you restated, it wasn’t, because they were too small. Indeed it always existed but was never a PROBLEM. If you enjoy this sort of meaningless peacocking of how smart you are, you would be more suited for a job as a lecturer rather than the TH-cam comments, where you’re more likely to find assholes like me instead of proper discourse.
@@snoaa6141 I spent 20 years at Rocketdyne doing this kind of work. Maybe the presentation of details shouldn't be important to me, but they are.
"we're going to create an explosion inside of our other explosion to test the engine stability"
4:09 “but the engineers weren’t fully convinced that the problem was fully fixed.”
Engineering in a nutshell.
The moral is never be full on sure that a problem is fixed until you trew bombs at it and it survives
Also programming in a nutshell. (Which I guess is engineering) But if the world only knew how much of everything we rely on was done by some dev sitting around, bashing his head, throwing random lines of code in just to see if something works, the world would lose its mind!
"they encountered combustion instability."
Me as an aerospace engineer. "baffles. Throw some in there and see if it helps"
"they engineered baffles to..... Etc etc"
In any cylindrical thing baffles pretty much solve everything. Not enough turbulence? Baffles. Too much turbulence? Baffles.
Whats your point?
RoyBrown777 its kinda obvious aint it there chief
@@RoyBrown777 baffles
@@qualeb8164 guess he got baffled.
RoyBrown777 you baffle me....
Wow, you totally got be with that title.... A baffling problem fixed with some baffles. Third time watching this vid and just got it
I remember the time, when I was one of 500 people watching. Congrats man!
I find your vids to have a lot of insight. Like; I saw this vid on releas. Now I got new things out of it. Thank you!
The thing is; how genius were these engineers; they had to do most job at gut feeling. No simulations available.
Thanks for sticking around for so long! The engineering on Apollo constantly blows me away
@@primalspace Thank for keeping up the amazing work.
True, they were just amazing. Like; the F1 engines can not be reproduced... If it was not for SpaceX, we would not have surpassed Apollo's feats till today.
I really appreciate the soviet way of solving this as well. With the RD-170 for example they clustered four smaller combustion chambers around a single turbine. And while the F-1 is the most powerful single chamber engine ever built (Thrust a sea level: 6,770 kN), the RD-170 is more powerful than that (Thrust at sea level: 7,257 kN)
Yeah and the rd 170 was reusable
I am just as impressed about by how they figured out what the problem was, as to that the solution was.
I agree. Finding the problem was the real genius here.
I was taught years ago this "burning instability" was sound pressure. Of course at two thousand cycles per second it is sound.
That humans were able to reach space and the moon before the era of powerful modern computers, is one of the most remarkable achievements in human history.
absolutely
The whole thing was a computer
Slide rules are severely underrated. It allows a person's mind to open up when you're using them. It doesn't just try to present the answer. After working with Engineers, especially the younger ones, they don't have the sense to understand that just because the book said it'll work. That it work the way the book says.
44 Hawk yeah, don’t know why they say stuff like “designed with a slide rule” as if a slide rule is inaccurate. Slide rules are as accurate as a machinist can machine a part. Really. How many parts need to be machined to less than 1micron?
What kills me is when someone keeps saying we cannot ever recreate an engine like this. We do not need to because we have come up with better engines.
Not true - name one engine since with more thrust.
We have come up with better engines? You have contributed nothing but mouth!
@@gregculverwell it's not just about the thrust of a single engine. If engineers wanted, they could create an engine even more powerfull today. But 50 years later we have learned a lot and we know there are better solutions. Look at the Falcon 9 Heavy. The rocket to come closest today to lift capability of the Saturn V. It uses 27 engines on the first stage + boosters but allows for more precise control and efficiency.
Name one.
It's not just about thrust, F-1 has a very low efficiency compared to modern engines. Rocket can be smaller with more payload with better efficiency.
Going back to good ole Richard Feynman on the “place bomb inside chamber” like... if brute force does not work, you are not using enough
AF: “Make us an engine”
Rocketdyne: “Ok, here you go”
AF: “Thanks, but we have no use for that”
This was pioneering work, so lots of mistakes of this nature were made. The same thing happened with computers, even decades later when development really accelerated during the 1970s and 1980s. There were ideas that seemed to make sense at the time but were superseded by something else or simply turned out to be dead ends.
Back in the 60s combustion instability was not completely understood. It would be interesting to learn what modern transient CFD (Compuational Fluid Dynamics) analysis has revealed.
If there's ever been a line that sums up the entirety of the profession of engineering it's at 4:09
"The engineers weren't convinced that the problem was fully fixed."
Same time u can see some what look like monster turbos 😆
What amazes me the most is they looked back the V-2 rockets and found the solution. Even after all those years they still go back to the designs of Von Braun to discover this man was thinking ahead of them to begin with.
My dream is to witness a rocket launch some day...
Go to a SpaceX launch. They're doing pleanty of them 😉
Why not being inside one? When it launches
@@erblinbeqa6550 STARSHIP
Adrian Mulligan Experienced my first rocket launch a couple months ago with my dad! Highly recommend!
Rocket launches and solar eclipses are two of the most fantastic sights I've ever seen.
2:28 Its not the 'high' frequency of the oscillation that's directly responsible for catastrophic structural failure; it's the high amplitude! The frequency probably contributed in the sense that it was just right enough to latch onto the (one of several) frequencies of fluctuation of the flame's heat release rate.... which caused the amplitude of both heat release and chamber pressure to grow uncontrollably.
But that's just a detail, great job on the video :)
If only NASA now had the passion and vision they had during the space race then perhaps we’d be exploring our solar system. Nowadays the only exploring that’s going to be accomplished is by private industry
Don't forget the money. The big difference is their budget.
Yeah, I bet we would have freaking rovers on Mars by now if NASA were interested in space exploration..
When the Apollos were going to the Moon it was a time when anything seemed possible. Apollo was a time of tragedy and earth-shaking triumph. The men who went to the Moon knew that the game was rigged, that the dice were loaded against them, but, with their eyes wide open, they went anyway.
It was a time that showed that, when the task is noble, America can achieve anything - as long as it keeps its eye on the ball, because it was also a time that showed, probably more than at any other time in America's history, that America, as a nation, has an attention span barely long enough to make it to the next commercial break. Apollo 11 landed on the Moon to a frenzy of American self-adulation and flag waving - and rightly so, because America had earned the right to wave flags and feel proud and it was the defining moment in the lives of my generation - but by the time Apollo 11 ticker tape parade had finished the party was over and America's short attention span was turning to other things.
When Apollo 13 launched, the news media, which both influences and is enslaved by what the public thinks is interesting, could not even be bothered carrying news of the mission on their regular scheduling. Of course, that changed very quickly after the explosion, but the rot had set in. In 1971-72 I was working in New Guinea. All our news came via Australian sources and I didn't know that Apollo 16 had even gone to the Moon until it was halfway home.
For various reasons, some technical, some financial, some political - politicians are very sensitive to what the public and the news media think is interesting - the last three Moon landings were cancelled. Had the momentum of Apollo been maintained, with the stimulus to science and technology, there would now be bases on the Moon and footprints on Mars.
Today, if any American asks why there are no bases on the Moon or on Mars, instead of America being confined to low-Earth orbit, I just say "Look in the mirror".
Wow, fantastic video! I've watched several documentaries, but never heard about these explosion tests. Great content!
I would've loved to have been in that control room when they landed on the moon, the energy must have been exhilarating
lol
Yeah, you should have seen Kubrick's face, he was happy.
@@konstantinNeoAccording to his daughter Kubrick was in Europe making movies at the time. She has also called the idea that her father helped the US government fake the moon landings a "grotesque lie". She has also referred to people like you as "malicious cranks" who go around spreading these lies about her father.
@@joevignolor4u949 Some "people" actually belive that the Apollo program was just filmed on Earth......they also believe that Mickey Mouse is real.....and yes these people live around us.....
Nowadays most of the early development is done with a computer. They could have tested hundreds of designs if they wanted. That they found anything that worked is a testament to their effort. Excellent video. Great animations! I just got the title pun....
Primal space always does one of the best videos about space and history of space 😀👍👍
good timing as Scott Manley just posted a video about this too.
I love the fact that more and more TH-cam video makers are using these beautiful 70 mm shots from the Apollo 11 documentary.
Back then, the films were real on the spot and time. Nowadays, most of the videos are virtual with robotic voice, conveying to us the message as if they already established bases on Mars.
After the F1, nobody ever built an engine of that size with that level of thrust.
The SpaceX SuperHeavy booster has double the amount of thrust of the Saturn V, but it use 33 engines, not 10.
So, the Rocketdyne F1 remains unchallenged to this day.
Partially because it is an open cycle engine, therefore of low efficiency; also, it had only 70 atm. of chamber pressure, vs the ~300 atm of an RD180 or a Raptor - both closed cycle.
Also, because Rocketdyne - together with Wernher Von Braun and Sonny Morea - solved the instability by trial and error, by splitting the top flame front in many smaller fronts, so they couldn't start rotating in the chamber. But no rocket designer would risk today, especially because the technology of modern SRBs is more reliable and cheaper - but you can't turn off an SRB if there is a failure.
Thanks for the historical video.
When they explained the problem my initial idea was "smaller injectors," i'm glad that was one of NASA's first ideas too
Often times the simple approach is the best solution.
GENIUS, BRILLIANCE and PERSEVERANCE ! No CNCs, No Computer-modeling, no robotic welding. Its truly astounding.
We sent men to the MOON in the 1960s-1970s. It remains one of the greatest engineering feats in human history.
CNC machining has revolutionized the manufacturing industry since it was first introduced in 1952 in the form of the Cincinnati Milacron Hydrotel.
I’ll be damned, I always wondered how the baffle plates worked to fix the instability, seems like it ended up being a remarkably simple fix. Of course, I’m sure it was ‘t that simple at the time for them 😆 Thank you for fo posting this.
Excellent after action report (great backstory)
So they spent years making sure the engines were stable and then in the 80's NASA just decided they could care less and let ice and bad gaskets go unnoticed..? Talk about some terrible oversight.
@H M Please detail how many times the engines on the Space Shuttle Orbiter failed (I assume you mean the SSME's); the nature of the failure, and the consequences. Okay - go ahead.......
Thank you for explaining in 12 minutes a VERY complex problem. Keep it up
Has everyone also forgotten about one of the first probes that was launched and landed on Venus in 1962 as well. This probe actually made it through the atmosphere and lasted a considerable amount of time on the surface.
If you think they honestly did that in the 60s u are a brainwashed moron 👍
It’s unfathomable that they didn’t have CAD for that engine. How did they do that on paper blueprints?! That’s incredible. This put MAN ON THE MOON! Every time I think about that it gives me chills, and now realizing that they didn’t have CAD, the chills are greater. We are so lucky to have what we have now. Just imagine what we’ll all have in 50 years.
The engine executed a flawless burn (“aw, snap!”)
NASA's "Baffling" Engine Problem. Nicely Played, Nicely Played.
Hella insightful video! Very cool! 😎😉
I can't express enough my appreciation for the format of this documentary. The usual format is to use a few historic fragments and intersperse this with interviews with witnesses or experts in the present. This document however is using exclusive historic material with a voice-over telling the story. Why is this unique and is this format not understood by anyone else?
My Dad helped design those F1 engines.
Quite simply astonishing. Narration is stellar. Live long and prosper. Subscribed.
How did they even discover that it was 2000 cps? Jeeezzzzz. And I bet their factory floor wasn't even shiny clean. Have we in the present time ever constructed anything as impressive as the SR71 Blackbird, or this engine, w/o computers? Kelly Johnson, Marconi, Westinghouse, Edison, Whittle, Jobs, Goodyear et al... smh in awe.
That moment when you realize that the title is also a pun...
Kumquat Lord Except the baffles were the solution.
The Soviets rushed ahead in the space race by ganging together a bunch of small rocket motors until they had the required thrust for their large rocket vehicles. Problem was, they got up to 42 (I think) small rocket motors on 1 vehicle and couldn't synchronize all those rocket motors and their rockets just kept blowing up. The US took the time to develop a large rocket motor which initially put them behind in the space race but allowed for much further progress in the long run. Slow and steady won the race.
"This good idea, like all good ideas, was first had by the Germans in World War Two."
Why can't this vid be any longer? I mean i don't get bored while watching your content . Many thanks.
Most of this fottage is "borrowed" from the Apollo 11 documentry, I would highly recommend it.
Those awesome Saturn V rockets were big, good rockets-really good like those 1970’s Frigidaire 1-18 jet cone washers!
Nasa : let build a bigger rocket
*meanwhile*
Spacex : hold my rocket
Wow explained such a complex issue so easily...
can you imagine what the Saturn would be like if NASA had been allowed to incrementally improve it over time? . . . lighter, stronger propellant tanks . . . more power from each engine through better alloys and higher combustion pressures and temperatures . . . better control systems and pumps . . . you could launch the entire mass of the ISS in two throws (if you could just package it properly, but the modules would probably be fatter and longer instead . . . think long Skylabs} . . . a real crew escape system and none of those damned solid boosters!
But the poor senators wouldn't have their precious pork!
Especially ligther alloys, better computers...and if you would mass produce all the parts, it might be as cheap as today Falcon 9.
@@RamsesTheFourth If NASA had been allowed to incrementally improve it over time, we would have something better then this primitive, chemical reaction thing.
@@kofola9145 probably yeah. Too bad most people dont seem to see anything interesting in space in general, thats why its space exploration so underfunded.
These guys figured this out without any modern computers. Unbelievable.
Rabble Rabble Rabble...
“Okay, we’ll hit it with a bomb; if it survives, we send it. Cool?”
(Works every time 👊)
Nice details of difficulties about large scale rocket engines. The shuttle was apperantly similar problems.
Germany was ahead of their time when they put people on the moon, gotta admit.
Odd, I thought the Americans were the first one on the moon. Damn documentaries lied to me.
@@wtf-hc3tp yes, but using their technology
I think its only now seeing spaceX with all their fancy computer aided testing, design and concepts, we can truly say the guys building rockets in the 1960s were the true "rocket scientist". Slide rulers, test and measure, pen and paper, frustration at seeing your concept blow to bits.....WOW. Plus "Rocketdyne" Sounds kinda cool.
had NASA relied on Brilliant to teach them engineering we'd still be watching rockets explode on the pad more often than getting even a meter off the ground.
It's amazing how even if we wanted, even with the plans, we still couldn't build another Saturn V. The craftsmanship of that level has been lost to time. Truly the civilization is not a straight line forward, but has swings. We should be so happy we are on the upswing. If we continue to work, reach for the stars maybe our generation will be remembered with such grace as the NASA scientists and engineers of the Apollo era.
Great work, however "without any instability problems" is incorrect. The F1 engines caused pogo oscillations during some of the launches which were quite severe, however didn't damage the rocket. They were caused by combustion instability nonetheless.
Love the commentary!
3:06 "Shma̋ller~" Not gonna lie, that's how I sound when I need to say something important... :P
Joseph Dickson
Sounds like a German word
It was indeed a baffling engine problem - - until they realized it was an engine baffling problem.
First engineer "this combustion instability sure is a baffling problem" second engineer replies " eureka that's the solution."
As a preface, I am not placing the Soviet Union on a pedestal. Far from it, Nikita Khrushchev's rabid lust for progress at any cost made him directly responsible for the horrific end Vladimir Komarov met aboard the doomed Soyuez-1; an end which can only be characterized as a waking nightmare. With that being said, how is it that the US, having lost all other 'firsts' in space, decided itself to be the winner of the space race after reaching a goalpost that it set, one that only they considered valuable? The Soviet Union claimed every single first up until that point, but the US still declares itself victorious after having only gotten a single 'first' out of the whole raft of them.
So the solution is always German engineering huh
Ja.
Yep. And still.
You utter foooool!!! German engineering is ze best in ze voooorld!!!
@@benjaminmetz1707 shit,didn't expect the JoJo reference
yeah sure it is. why can't they make a reliable car,the more you pay for a german car the more it becomes a money pitt, even the half million dollar RR. although British it is a BMW
Great job! Excellent narrative and video montage!
"It contained the perfect solution (the final solution)"
Great video!
Saturn V.. The incredible rocket!
An absolutely fascinating vid and I can't thank you enough.
Thank you so much! So glad that you enjoyed it!
@@primalspace I really did. Best I've ever seen regarding the mighty F1.
4:10 I want to put that Engine in my truck.
“hey bro how should we test the rumble tumble of space flight?”
*“bomba”*
I need that TURBO!!! 💯💯💯😉🤯
I just realised that this video title was indeed an incredibly executed pun
The US has so much to thank Nazi Scientists for, when it comes to rockets.
@Joe Cosgrove please enlighten us
@@monster2slayer He wants to say that he thinks that Moon landing was faked
@Joe Cosgrove what? Lmao
@@irfandupovac8628 Yes lol. Bad ol' smokin man in a suit be hidin da twoof from him again hehe.
I heard a historical truism the other day on a show about libraries: A society that burns books will eventually burn people.
The Saturn V is mine, and I think a lot of other people's favourite rocket. If NASA were to redesign the Saturn V and fly it again, I'd literally sell my kidney for a flight on it.
Does anyone know whats going on at 0:50?
That is them trying to make a plate with holes to get fuel in
The injector plate has burned through in one area, probably due to high frequency pressure oscillations. They are cleaning it up to be repaired.
Nice video. I wish all the TH-cam channels are like this. 😊
Idk why they don’t just get a lot of helium balloons and tie it to a human
🤣😭😭😭🤣
a few dead guys could prob answer you
Helium balloons rely on buoyancy and will only work inside the atmosphere. So using helium balloons is not going to get you up high enough.
I'm so glad that today's brightest minds instead focus on keeping us glued to our timelines and clicking away like little hamsters
And now imagine that today they don't know how to rebuild a functioning F1 rocket engine, although they need exactly that to get on the moon again.
You see, the F1 is, to this very day, the only engine capable of doing what has been done so many years ago. There is no replacement.
Today they may have the basic plans for construction, but they don't have the side notes of the engineers of that time. They need a functioning F1 to improve it, but there is none. With all of the engineers being already dead, they need to start from scratch.
They still have the blueprints but lack the skill of the craftsmen because the engines were basically custom made due to the lack of precise manufacturing methods.
The old engine had something like 2000 parts.
Based on those old blueprints, engineers have made a new version with only about 50 parts. And with modern manufacturing methods they will be cheaper and quicker to produce.
SpaceX started from scratch. Look where they are now
Something that tends not to get mentioned is the fuel being used. The F1s were designed to use kerosene, while most subsequent designs were built around hydrogen. Overall, hydrogen is a better fuel, particularly once you get beyond most of the atmosphere but it has one drawback: you need a bigger tank to store your propellant compared with kerosene. So that means the first stage of anything has to be bigger and you might also need additional solid fuel boosters just to get the same amount of thrust, all things being equal. There is a huge investment by NASA and the US aerospace industry in Shuttle-based technology though so that's why Artemis looks like it does and they didn`t go for an alternate F1b-based proposal back when they were looking at various SLS plans. They could have built a new F1b engine based on 1970s proposals to develop an improved F1a with modern technology a decade ago but chose not to.
Anyone ever think about how good our cad is these days? You can simulate real life models on a computer. Whats crazy is we went to the moon on sticks and stones basically.
"We LOsT tHe teChnOLogY tO reTurN To thE moOn"
Yeah the tech just picked up and walked away, all the people who thought about it for years just forgot everything too
If you must know , you dysfunction human being the technology was lost over time , many of this engine parts we're hand made by engineering, welders and manufacturing techniques, this people eventually retire and pass away and new method manufacturing parts come as new technology comes.
@@ravenzero7222 or they're hiring these people th-cam.com/video/CGONo2seOQI/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/16MMZJlp_0Y/w-d-xo.html
@@nox_chan ok the idiot with child stuff what about him? Nasa has around 17,000 people, is mathematics possible that here and there they are going to have bad apple, the other video about the man telling you about, we don't have the technology, again it is true we don't have the method of fabrication and the people that used to build , let me give a example the F-1 engine was hand build parts ok, now in today modern age we have the F-1B engine that slight better of preview version , thx better calculation and we have CMC machines that can do precires cuts and welding for faster ,cheaper and more durable parts, why now we are aim back to the moon