Why Can’t we Remake the Rocketdyne F1 Engine?

Why Can’t we Remake the Rocketdyne F1 Engine?

As we advance our technology ever
forward you would think that remaking a 50-year old design should be easy but
things are not quite as simple as they first seem. When the Space Launch System or the SLS
was in development NASA ran the advanced booster competition to find a new
booster system and two of the three entries used liquid fuel engines. Liquid
fuel boosters would be safer and could be shut down in the event of a problem
unlike the solid rocket boosters which cant. However unlike the space shuttle
the new boosters would be single-use only and would burn up when they fell
back to earth but which liquid fuel engines would be powerful enough there
really aren’t any massive engines in use today. The boosters could use four same
modified RS-25D the engines those left over from a space shuttle program which
would also be used the SLS’s main core stage but that will be very wasteful of
a complex expensive and yet highly efficient engine. Now we’ve already had
an engine capable of doing the job, the mighty Rocketdyne F-1 the huge engines which took men to the moon with the Apollo program but they haven’t been
built since the 1960s. The F-1 engines were not only extremely powerful but
they were also simple which meant they were cheap enough to be disposable so
why don’t we just remake them. Now there is a common myth which says NASA lost or
threw away the blueprints which of course is complete rubbish every design
document ever created for the Apollo program is still available but if it was
just a case of wheeling out old designs they would have done that years ago. No
the problem is not the design but it’s for way in which the world has moved on
since the engineers first created those F-1 engines back in the 1960s. When a
group of present-day rocket engineers looked at how they could recreate the
iconic F-1 engines they soon realized just how differently things were done
some 50 years ago when there was no computer-aided design just slide rules
and trial and error testing. Components were designed, built and then tested and
then often modified before being used. Complex engines sub assemblies were
welded together from sometimes hundreds of smaller parts with skilled welders
taking sometimes a day to complete one complex world. Although they had the
original blueprints what they found that was missing was the notes made by the
engineers as they effectively handcrafted every engine, each one
slightly different with its own quirks and foibles. The original builders of the
F-1 engines were highly skilled engineers, welders and fitters they did almost
everything by hand because often that was the only way to do it back then and
in the rush to meet deadlines they kept many of the tricks that they used to get
things to work and go together in their heads or scribbled down on scraps of
paper long since lost. Roll on 50 years and all of those skilled people have
long since retired and many have passed away taking their skills and knowledge
with them. With the advent of modern manufacturing techniques many of those
skills are no longer in use and few people today have them so faced with
50-year old blueprints we find we just don’t have the people with the skills
that can make them in the same way anymore.
By detailed examination of the remaining F-1 engines from museums and storage our
new engineers did discover enough to create a new F-1B engine should it ever
be built. Using modern computer modeling and manufacturing techniques the new
engine could not only be more efficient it would be just as powerful as the
uprated but unflown F-1A at 1.8 million pounds of thrust but more importantly it
would reduce the number of manufactured parts from some 5,600 to
just 40 and increase its reliability and decrease costs in the process. Although
in the end NASA selected the solid rocket boosters for the SLS, this
exercise proved that it’s sometimes easier to redesign something from
scratch than it is to try and remake the past. So what do you think of
remaking the F-1 engines and also this new short video format
let me know in the comments and I just like to take time to thank all of our
patrons for their ongoing support and thank all of you for watching and please
subscribe, rate and share.

100 thoughts on “Why Can’t we Remake the Rocketdyne F1 Engine?

  1. I’m still dumbfounded by this explanation. Humans are becoming more helpless as individuals as our technology increases.

  2. If you say it cant, Ill say it can, I know a group of people that can and they'll do it all night long. Money talks, now it might not be economically feasible to build it, but to say the skills aren't there, that's just not true, we can weld, machine, fit and fabricate anything.

  3. It's all bullshit we are under a molten glass dome.
    It can not be penetrated.
    We tried to blow a hole in it with nukes. Didn't work.
    Google it. The sun is not a tangible object it is the hot spot under the magnifying glass or dome if you will. The sun is under the dome and very, very close.

  4. Volunteer bro, that's what God told me to tell you.
    U been asking him to give you a sign.
    This is your sign.
    I am a messenger sent by
    the Lord. He said children.

  5. To develop and produce new F1b engines, would be a sensible and logical choice, as it is an investment for the future space missions. The cost, power and usefulness of this rocket engine, would be so advantageous! And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work that out!

  6. the problem is those kids need to watch space cowboys and learn a thing or two about not needing all that fancy math bullshit I'm in the process of R&D of a liquid cooled computer that only uses thermosiphon but will have a pump for backup

  7. I always have doubts about Nasa when these questions come up, somehow 50 years ago we could build these essentially crude rockets and capsules and go to the moon, yet nowadays its considered impossible to do the same job with 50 years advancement. They had spacesuits that function perfect in space yet modern ones are clumsy and don't work well. We havn't put a man higher than low earth orbit in 50 years when nowadays people other than Nasa could verify that so its suddenly impossible. All we have done is send unmanned robots to other planets yet none to the moon again

  8. If you have the actual blueprints then you have all the parts. C&C can make all the parts. The machine works and it works well. There's a reason is not being made but that's probably a political reason Not a logical reason.

  9. Engineers would take Decades developing the skills. Nowadays, Cacademia cranks-out glorified 'Bean-Counters' who have to compete with their foreign counterparts to get the lowest-bidder contracts.

  10. So why can’t they just follow blueprints build a working model and run computer simulations to find design flaws and improve on them before an actual prototype is built

  11. As well ask, "Why aren't we making Model T's, or rotary telephones?"
    Aside from NASA's distractions with issues unrelated to space exploration?
    Technology has moved on and fuels have improved. 😉
    Today, private companies, around the world, are building rockets faster and cheaper.
    We're witnessing a version of Moore's Law as applied to rocket science. 😉

  12. Great video but as you say all knowledge is lost once the tradesmen have passed on! BUT how many people have copied other engines just by looking at them and copying them Rocketdyne must have records!

  13. 🤦‍♂️wake up..🤽‍♀️🤽‍♀️🤽‍♀️🤽‍♀️🤽‍♀️🤽‍♀️🤽‍♀️the earth is 70% water..Test and prove all things….water does not curve 🤽‍♀️🤽‍♀️🤽‍♀️🤽‍♀️🤽‍♀️L🌎🌏K into it! The earth is flat! You have a father in heaven!

  14. It can’t be done because we’ve gotten dumbed down over the years. Public Schools and Universities have been a big failure.

  15. That is the most ridiculous excuse I have ever heard. This almost tops the “we taped over all the original Apollo telemetry data to save money” BS.

  16. Bottom line kids used to play with blocks and Erector Sets the skill-set over young people has been lost do do iPhones and computers

  17. Excellent presentation that fully explains in a very easy to understand way why this old technology is impractical to redo again. The world of rocket science as moved on to other but not necessary better things.

  18. many antiques can't be remade to its exact specification, or the antiques won't be valuable anymore. Either you do it the old way which no one knows how anymore. Or you invest in the time/effort in doing it the new way but with the end product similar (but never exactly the same) to the old ones. Then it's easier to do it from scratch as opposed to trying to resolve all of the old vs new conflicts while creating something of value. Coders all know the fixing code is way harder than writing something from scratch.

  19. In one company I ask why new machine have much worst quality then machine builds 50years ago. I for funny question. You know steel have not same quality like in past 😉 the real reason is much easier:)

  20. The concept of "Technical Debt" that has been coined and refers to the progressive and steady "obsolescence" of software over time would apply to the erosion and loss of engineering and construction capability to recreate the Rocketdyne F-1 engines used in the Saturn V rocket for NASA's Apollo program.

  21. The way you describe the craftsmanship on the F1 from 2:16 onward, it is impossible to believe the F1s were in ANY way "cheap" to make.

  22. If we continue with our present liberal education system (outputing students that cannot even multiply a few numbers and don’t even ask them to change a flat tire), our country and civilization is doomed!
    The people who expanded our country and settled into the land of our frontiers had skills unmatched by our video game playing idiots growing up today.
    God help our Country.

  23. So u can't rebuild it, and the people who could didn't tell u how to replicate it.
    They genocided the germans took their scientists claimed it for their own ever gave proper credit said they went to the moon 60 years ago and never went back. Such a disgusting group of fake intellectuals.

  24. No need to remake these overly complex machines. Just make a simple 400 ft tall bottle rocket, light fuse,run away,problem solved

  25. I have always wondered about the F-1s in storage.

    My father was a Leadman in charge of a crew building the F-1s in Canoga Park. He told me a couple years before he died that they had made 65 engines that were never used. So why not see if they can be used?

  26. Next video please, we can do WITHOUT the loud shirt, its an eye sore… but here is a recommendation, Get a Dr. Evil suit.. More hits guaranteed… thanks..!

  27. The Rocketdyne F1 Engine is the same to what happened to the Pyramids of Egypt, they took thier skills and know-hows to thier graves.

  28. Everything in life got way more complicated than need to be since 1960. Yes remaking the fabulous F-1 engine with only 40 parts compared to the 5000 parts complex is definitely a winner.

  29. So basically humans are smarter but only cause of phones they are less capable of common sense and can do less cause we are fatter and not smart like that and have no real skills.

  30. Why They recreate Something thats never gone to The Moon at first place and lost They money for nothing and its New age of so powerull teleskops that gona watch now that landing that cannot be Done gg

  31. It's deeply saddening to know that true craftsmanship is a thing of the past. I almost want to take it slightly personal because I put myself through school to be a rocket propulsion engineer by welding and fabricating and working with a generation of men and women who took extensive pride in their work. Now that my projects are a little different I have the daunting task of finding skilled craftsmen to work on advanced propulsion systems and I can rarely find any. That's just one of the reasons our world is becoming fully automated.

  32. why would you want to make an old part the same way they did a long time ago, when you can build it better, cheaper, and more reliable with modern science?

  33. The Soviets had an even better engines- Karolyevs baby- we bought surplus engines from storage. They were ahead of Americans.

  34. Dig the short vid. 40 parts my ambition would be make this as small a working engine as can be. The automobile industry is a con. Engineer a vehicle around the reengineered engine design fly craftsman. In the story of flight someone glued feathers on their arms.

  35. You're so full of shit, just like NASA and its lot of NAZI'S! Wernher von Braun was given a spit shine and presented to the public for consumption and Jack Parsons was a Satan worshipping occultist! Yah, a group of people I'd trust! You're all a bunch of scum bags!

  36. They not only have the original blueprints, they still have fully built engines that they could reverse engineer. I know of at least five at the Johnson Space Center just southeast of Houston…

  37. As an engineer I find it inconceivable that a modern-day version of the F-1 could reduce the parts count from 5600 to 40. Surely some error.

  38. Thanks to the. GERMANS..and later. The RUSSIANS, and sadly but true in 3rd place the United States of America..😥😥😥😥😭😭😭😢

  39. A prime example why a nation should NEVER forsake its engineering/manufacturing, either by outsourcing or abolishing completely. Once experience, techniques, tools, teachers and craftsmen are gone, it's near impossible to get these back.

  40. You have plus or minus tolerances all over the place. Same as a car engine. Different thicknesses for like rod bearings and such. So what’s the problem? I’m sure these same tolerances exist in these rocket engines. You just need a bigger hammer. Are they hiring? I can rig one to work safely I’m quite sure. Oh yeah and I smoke a pipe. You can see it hanging in my mouth on my profile pic both hands on the guitar "working".

  41. The reason the cant make them today is it was all a Disney film, it was all smoke and mirrors. We have better technology, better materials to work with, robots to weld, computer operated machines. It has been 60 years of improvements and we still cant make it, go to Disney they will make a film showing it working.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *