Saturn V engines recovered

[Captain Sierra]

Well, looks like we found two F1 engines sitting in the atlantic.

http://www.businessinsider.com/apollo-era-rocket-engines-in-atlantic-2013-3

Looks like they took a hard landing.

Still, most powerful egines ever built, and clearly tough enough to survive their splashdown from,(?) what altitude with the Saturn V drop the first stage at?

Anyways, thought I'd share and say it's cool we did find those. (yes. I know the article is a little dated but still fairly relevant)

[TheCanadianVendingMachine]

Oh good, NASA will now use those for science. As in, making a duplicate of them for the SLS

[peadar1987]

Oh good, NASA will now use those for science. As in, making a duplicate of them for the SLS

They still have the plans for the Saturn V, no need to reverse engineer them from 45 year-old space debris

[SargeRho]

Actually, as far as I know the Saturn V plans are largely gone. But there are still 2 Saturn V rockets left, they'd just need to be reassembled, checked, tested, refueled, and they would probably be ready to go again.

But an F-1B based liquid booster has been proposed for the SLS. And the Block II will use J-2X engines for the upper stage.

[DerekL1963]

Actually, as far as I know the Saturn V plans are largely gone.

Then you're woefully uninformed.

But there are still 2 Saturn V rockets left, they'd just need to be reassembled, checked, tested, refueled, and they would probably be ready to go again.

Seriously, you actually believe that it's that simple for hardware that's been unmaintained for over forty years? Not to mention that you're wrong, in particular there are no flight IU's known to survive.

Heck, I've seen equipment that was carefully packaged and stored that was utterly useless after a mere fifteen odd years. A replacement cable assembly for the MTRE MK6 used in the MK98/0 Trident missile fire control system. Purchased and stored in the early 70's when MTRE MK6 was introduced to the fleet as part of the MK88/1 Poseidon missile fire control system. When we opened the package in 1989 to replace a failed cable in one of the system trainers, the cable insulation had acquired a 'set', and when we unfolded it... the insulation just cracked and came off in chunks.

NASA had that problem after ten years... several of the fins on the Saturn-I's used for Skylab and ASTP had to replaced after cracks were found to have developed in the fins while the boosters were in storage.

[Virtualgenius]

Really good article on the Saturn V F1 engine how they are using parts and making 3D images of them and tearing down all the parts

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/how-nasa-brought-the-monstrous-f-1-moon-rocket-back-to-life/

[crazyewok]

Actually, as far as I know the Saturn V plans are largely gone.

Only NASA could lose perfectly good plans.

What's so difficult about documenting and fileing things in safe and sercure places.

Infact knowing NASA they probably spent $200 million designing a simple fileing cabinet and system only to cancel it after 99% of it was complete and a whole staff of clerks was hired.

Edited January 7, 2014 by crazyewok

[Brotoro]

Actually, as far as I know the Saturn V plans are largely gone. But there are still 2 Saturn V rockets left, they'd just need to be reassembled, checked, tested, refueled, and they would probably be ready to go again.

But an F-1B based liquid booster has been proposed for the SLS. And the Block II will use J-2X engines for the upper stage.

The Saturn V on display at Johnson Spaceflight Center was laying outside on its side in the terribly humid Houston weather for decades, and had become seriously deteriorated and corroded. It has since been restored to its original appearance and enclosed in a building to protect it, but some of its exterior detail parts were replaced by molded replicas. No way could this rocket be flown (and it is the only Saturn V display made from three stages that were actually meant to fly in space).

[Kryten]

Only NASA could lose perfectly good plans.

The plans were transferred to microfiche to save space; nothing was actually lost.

[Nibb31]

Only NASA could lose perfectly good plans.

What's so difficult about documenting and fileing things in safe and sercure places.

Infact knowing NASA they probably spent $200 million designing a simple fileing cabinet and system only to cancel it after 99% of it was complete and a whole staff of clerks was hired.

They're not gone. They're just irrelevant.

Many of the manufacturing techniques and materials are simply no longer available. You couldn't simply take those plans and rebuild an F1 like they did in the 60's. This is why they are developing the F1B based on the old F1 but with modern technology.

[OdinYggd]

They're not gone. They're just irrelevant.

Many of the manufacturing techniques and materials are simply no longer available. You couldn't simply take those plans and rebuild an F1 like they did in the 60's. This is why they are developing the F1B based on the old F1 but with modern technology.

Uh, yes you can. The same manufacturing tools they had in the 1960s are the basis for the modern equivalents and follow similar methods. Only now we can do it even faster than back then. I still look after machine tools from 1960s and 1970s in my line of work as well, if you really wanted to you could still obtain reconditioned machinery from the time period and do it the original way.

The only difference between then and now would be material- our metals are more highly refined, and we have more options for what to use where. Some conversion work would also be needed to replace obsolete materials like asbestos with modern equivalents, but the bulk of it is close enough between then and now to work acceptably well.

Edited January 7, 2014 by OdinYggd

[DerekL1963]

Uh, yes you can. The same manufacturing tools they had in the 1960s are the basis for the modern equivalents and follow similar methods.

Not really. "The basis for and following similar methods" isn't "the same as". You'd have to adapt your design and specification to current equipment and techniques. Not a trivial task.

Only now we can do it even faster than back then. I still look after machine tools from 1960s and 1970s in my line of work as well, if you really wanted to you could still obtain reconditioned machinery from the time period and do it the original way.

Not really. Much of the equipment was highly specialized (and long since replaced with newer stuff if it wasn't scrapped when the program went bust in the 60's or as the aerospace industry contracted in the 70's, 80's, and 90's) and some of the most important was purpose built for specific tasks. Even if you could get the machines, all of the jigs and tooling are long gone. It's not a trivial task to replace them.

The only difference between then and now would be material- our metals are more highly refined, and we have more options for what to use where. Some conversion work would also be needed to replace obsolete materials like asbestos with modern equivalents, but the bulk of it is close enough between then and now to work acceptably well.

Not really. Coatings have changed, insulation (electrical and thermal) have changed, seal materials have changed, safety requirements in the workplace have changed, new environmental regulations are in place, etc... etc... It's not a trivial task to crawl through the entire design checking each and every detail. A friend of mine works engineering electrical systems for nuclear submarines - he just got done with a project replacing a pair of generators (on each hull) from the 1970's with new ones of an entirely new design. Why? Because the all-new generators cost about three-quarters as much overall as redesigning the old ones with modern materials and processes and restarting the production of spare parts. All the spares were bought when the generators were bought back in the 70's. The first-of-class should have retired five years ago, and last was originally scheduled to decommission in 2020. Now the *first* won't even retire until 2027 and the last in 2039. When this started to become clear around 2005, they started looking ahead to avoid having the spares pool dry up and discovered the problems and costs with restarting production. (And no, with just a couple dozen of these generators in service... it didn't make sense to keep the production lines open to produce a few dozen spares (a couple each of hundreds of different parts) a year.) Replacing old stuff is hard. Much harder than many people think.

And there's another factor too... Rejiggering any one thing (say replacing the asbestos with fiberglass batts) is theoretically simple - but in the real world of engineering is that everything is tied to everything else. Changes in one place cascade through the system (and often in unexpected ways), and when you're talking a low margin, high performance, tightly integrated system like the Saturn V the headache is just worse.

That is why the Saturn V plans are irrelevant. The costs of changing the design to suit modern materials, equipment, and processes is just too high because of the costs of re-doing all the calculations, verifications, and validation is just too bloody high.

[OdinYggd]

Not really. "The basis for and following similar methods" isn't "the same as". You'd have to adapt your design and specification to current equipment and techniques. Not a trivial task.

Trivial task. I work in a machine shop that does exactly this on a daily basis, making the odd bits for other factories and machinery in the area. And it often involves examining the broken pieces of something that was brought in and going okay how can we make this without significantly changing its properties.

You just have to know what you are doing is all. Oh and if the blueprints really are intact, the exact methods used to produce it are irrelevant as long as the final properties are correct and within the specified tolerances. And the measuring equipment of today can do this far more accurately than anything back then- the original engines had a lot of custom-fitted parts that were specific to that engine serial number. Those same parts could be made accurately enough today to be interchangeable to a modern reproduction- or exactly reproduced to replace a failing original.

Not really. Much of the equipment was highly specialized (and long since replaced with newer stuff if it wasn't scrapped when the program went bust in the 60's or as the aerospace industry contracted in the 70's, 80's, and 90's) and some of the most important was purpose built for specific tasks. Even if you could get the machines, all of the jigs and tooling are long gone. It's not a trivial task to replace them.

The only major loss is the jigs. Assembly tooling is usually easy to replace, while modern machines can be substituted.

In the 1960s they didn't have the luxury of CNC milling machines, so they did it with manually-controlled ones and expert operators. A modern CNC mill could do the same job in half the time, and using far less skilled labor to do it.

Not really. Coatings have changed, insulation (electrical and thermal) have changed, seal materials have changed, safety requirements in the workplace have changed, new environmental regulations are in place, etc... etc... It's not a trivial task to crawl through the entire design checking each and every detail. A friend of mine works engineering electrical systems for nuclear submarines - he just got done with a project replacing a pair of generators (on each hull) from the 1970's with new ones of an entirely new design. Why? Because the all-new generators cost about three-quarters as much overall as redesigning the old ones with modern materials and processes and restarting the production of spare parts. All the spares were bought when the generators were bought back in the 70's. The first-of-class should have retired five years ago, and last was originally scheduled to decommission in 2020. Now the *first* won't even retire until 2027 and the last in 2039. When this started to become clear around 2005, they started looking ahead to avoid having the spares pool dry up and discovered the problems and costs with restarting production. (And no, with just a couple dozen of these generators in service... it didn't make sense to keep the production lines open to produce a few dozen spares (a couple each of hundreds of different parts) a year.) Replacing old stuff is hard. Much harder than many people think.

I know, I have firsthand experience with it. Among my charges are a 1971 Pratt & Whitney Star-Turn, a 1961 Lucas 441B-72, and a 1985 Cincinnati Autoshape. There are some parts you just plain can't replace, and that's where you have to go back to the drawing board and work out an equivalent replacement.

But they're all still young compared to the 1926 Nelson Bros that I keep. Spare parts for that do not exist at all- if I break something on it I have to create the replacement from scratch. Its not impossible, it just becomes an issue of how much effort are you willing to put into it.

And there's another factor too... Rejiggering any one thing (say replacing the asbestos with fiberglass batts) is theoretically simple - but in the real world of engineering is that everything is tied to everything else. Changes in one place cascade through the system (and often in unexpected ways), and when you're talking a low margin, high performance, tightly integrated system like the Saturn V the headache is just worse.

That is why the Saturn V plans are irrelevant. The costs of changing the design to suit modern materials, equipment, and processes is just too high because of the costs of re-doing all the calculations, verifications, and validation is just too bloody high.

You can still get asbestos, and they do still use it in applications where there just plain isn't anything suitable. Fiberglass is not a suitable replacement either, its temperature tolerance is not high enough. I'd want to use something more along the lines of Kevlar, or something from the rockwool family.

I've been working as an Industrial Systems Specialist for 5 years now, mostly on older machinery that had been cobbled to life over the years instead of being properly restored to original specifications. And that's a big deal in what I do for this equipment- I actually go back to the original prints wherever possible and try to either replicate the original hardware or match it up to a modern equivalent without triggering unintended consequences.

True nothing I deal with is quite as intense as a rocket engine, but the principles are still the same- and the NK33 heritage engines show that it isn't impossible either.

The NK33s were supposed to be destroyed, they were originally meant to push the N1 towards the moon. Instead of being destroyed at the end of the program they were warehoused, and now companies are rediscovering their capabilities. Modified to use modern control solutions and refurbished to offset the effects of their age, new and rebuilt engines springing from Russian stock are being used in the Antares booster and might find applications in other craft as well.

Because why just rebuild the F1 when you do have to at least partially re-engineer it anyway. Might as well factor in some of what we've learned since the originals were made, creating a greatly uprated version with a similar silhouette and capability.

[Nibb31]

Uh, yes you can. The same manufacturing tools they had in the 1960s are the basis for the modern equivalents and follow similar methods.

1960's manufacturing was very labor intensive. It wouldn't make sense to bring out 50 year-old mills and molds to make new F-1 engines because the cost of hand-welding and milling with 1960's tools would be prohibitive.

Many of the parts were welded or forged by hand. Modern manufacturing would use mostly CNC-machined parts or 3D-printing, which means that each part has to be redrawn on 3D CAD/CAM systems anyway. Since you'd be making new digital plans with modern techniques, you'll want to optimize the design and reduce the number of parts by combining them together into more complex shapes instead of welding lots of individual parts together like they used to.

The materials for CNC milling as opposed to casting are different, and so are the mechanical constraints on the parts. The alloys available today use different thermal and mechanical constraints.

All this means that every part needs to be individually redesigned with modern techniques and materials. Which is exactly what they are doing with the F-1B. The result is that where the old F-1 had 5000 parts, the new F-1B only uses 100 parts.

[Drunkrobot]

Changes to SLS's design to better imitate Saturn V is rather irreverent right now.

The opinions some people have on SLS make it seem that the thing is still just a powerpoint presentation that's sucking up money like Donald Trumps' Roomba, when the truth is that it is being built right now, and making changes to the finalized design would cost all the money.

Bonus picture: Rocketdyne F-1, with its' puny human slaves trembling before it.

[Kryten]

The NK33s were supposed to be destroyed, they were originally meant to push the N1 towards the moon. Instead of being destroyed at the end of the program they were warehoused, and now companies are rediscovering their capabilities. Modified to use modern control solutions and refurbished to offset the effects of their age, new and rebuilt engines springing from Russian stock are being used in the Antares booster and might find applications in other craft as well.

There are no new NK33s; every single one in existence was made back in the 70s. The Russians cancelled the program to restart production due to the problems you're saying don't exist, and are going to replace them with engines of a completely different design from a different manufacturer (RD-193).

[TBryson2]

Really good article on the Saturn V F1 engine how they are using parts and making 3D images of them and tearing down all the parts

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/how-nasa-brought-the-monstrous-f-1-moon-rocket-back-to-life/

EXCELLENT article! It's fascinating to know how many projects were done on the basis of engineering as they went. I've talked to people who helped develop the DC3 and they said the same thing about the wing during manufacturing. I've always wondered if a steam locomotive could be made a LOT more efficient (compared to the originals) with todays materials and tactics. But just like this giant work of art, they have seen their day come and go. Less parts = lighter and better hardware. Not to mention they can be tested BEFORE they are built!

Thanks for the link.

TB

[jwenting]

The plans were transferred to microfiche to save space; nothing was actually lost.

which were then destroyed to save space when the file archives they were stored in were closed to save money.

And they could never have been built because the plans for the tools and rigs needed to actually construct anything according to those plans were not saved.

[Kryten]

which were then destroyed to save space when the file archives they were stored in were closed to save money.

Suure. So how exactly are you proposing they got the plans to develop the F-1B from? Astral projection?

[Virtualgenius]

I believe the plans are still around but the originals do not have the the different variations that where made. They are taking the lessons learned from the 60's and applying them with 2014 technology, materials like mechanical valves replaced with electronic solinoids parts now made by cnc machine or 3d printed the F1B will be a direct descendant from the F1, the article I linked stated they where scanning all parts of the F1 and now have a complete cad model of it and its corelation, also alot of the saturn V was outsourced to lockheed and boeing and they would still have plans its just something you woudnt throw away.

Here is a link to another video on the nk33 which have progressed into the RD-180

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZnYr94aa9E

[TMS]

Pretty sure SLS will make use of RS25 SSMEs... on account of having well over 1 million seconds of collective burn time on the core design.

[OdinYggd]

There are no new NK33s; every single one in existence was made back in the 70s. The Russians cancelled the program to restart production due to the problems you're saying don't exist, and are going to replace them with engines of a completely different design from a different manufacturer (RD-193).

I'm not saying the problems don't exist- I am saying they aren't necessarily a show-stopper. It just becomes a question of how much time and money is willing to be put into it, which is where to date few production restart programs have gone through with it.

The engines I am talking about are being distributed by an American manufacturer. Its the basic NK33 design with much of the hardware being reconditioned NK33 components, modified into their AJ26 specification. Antares uses two of these in the first stage.

[Tiberion]

I'm not saying the problems don't exist- I am saying they aren't necessarily a show-stopper. It just becomes a question of how much time and money is willing to be put into it, which is where to date few production restart programs have gone through with it.

The engines I am talking about are being distributed by an American manufacturer. Its the basic NK33 design with much of the hardware being reconditioned NK33 components, modified into their AJ26 specification. Antares uses two of these in the first stage.

Yeah except they aren't making those NK-33s anymore. Orbital contracted Aerojet to refurbish stockpiled AJ-26s to supply the 16 scheduled NASA missions. It has another 20 or so beyond that, the original stockpile of NK-33s from the 60s and 70s is all that is left, they aren't being made anymore and the plans to restart production didn't go forward.

[Kryten]

The engines I am talking about are being distributed by an American manufacturer. Its the basic NK33 design with much of the hardware being reconditioned NK33 components, modified into their AJ26 specification. Antares uses two of these in the first stage.

It's not 'reconditioned NK33 components', it's literally an NK-33 with a gimballing mechanism bolted on. If you look carefully they're even still labelled 'ÃÂÃÅ¡-33'.

[lajoswinkler]

The plans for Saturn V aren't lost. It was a machine built by several companies using now obsolete methods. There was never a "grand plan" in existence. Each company knew what to do an had own plans.

It would be extremely expensive to build a working Saturn V replica. It would take reverse engineering of huge proportions. The tools for making the obsolete stuff are obsolete. The tools to make the tools are obsolete.

Most of the people working on it are dead.

I hope you all are aware that most of the calculations were made using this little guy here.

Just like Titanic, Saturn V can't be brought back. An imitation, yes. Identical copy, no.