F-1 The Engine That Nearly Stopped the Apollo Moon Missions
Vložit
- čas přidán 18. 07. 2019
- brilliant.org/CuriousDroid
It 50 years since the first man stepped foot on the moon but to get there a massive new engine was needed the power the Saturn V rocket. The Rocketdyne F-1 would be that new engine but was so unstable it would almost be the downfall of the whole Apollo program. So how did the F-1 go from zero to hero.
This video is sponsored by Brilliant.org : brilliant.org/CuriousDroid
Presented by
Paul Shillito
Written & Researched
By Paul Shillito
Images and Footage
NASA, Rocketdyne, SpaceX
Music from the CZcams library
Light years away by Dug Maxwell
The Shining in Dubai by Unicord Heads
Cosmic Groove by Cooper Cannell
Dreaming Blue by Sextile
Jack Rabbit by Geographer - Věda a technologie
worked on the Rocketdyne F-1 Engines and they were spectacular and demanded Total dedication from Everyone who designed and built them. I consider my work on the F-1 was the thing I'm most proud of in my 76 years.
Thank you for the work you did
VERY cool indeed ! ;)
@Enzzo omg lol what's is this
@Enzzo wth
You done a fine fine job there young man!!!
My Grandfather Ray Robbins was part of that team of engineers. He explained that the T* position (point of highest pressure) of the nozzles was in the wrong location for such a large engine. The Rocketdyne folks kept trying to explain to NASA that this was the issue, but NASA told them not to go down that path. My Grandfather, some machinists, and technicians worked nonstop over an extended holiday shutdown to made the necessary modifications to extend the baffle plates without telling NASA and Sr. Management at Rocketdyne. Everyone was amazed when for the very first time they were able to run at full power without blowing the engine and teststand up. After the engine was ran, and safe, everyone went down to see what had changed. When they realized that the baffle plates had been modified to place the T* position in the correct location, the folks at NASA wanted Rocketdyne to fire my grandfather. The head of Rocketdyne told the NASA folks that they should be greatful as this solved a problem they had been chasing for years, saved millions of dollars, and that they could now get back on schedule for the Apollo Missions. Needless to say, my grandfather kept his job.
That's a great example of what we see every day -- management not trusting professionals. While we need management to set high-level goals, cut through red tape, and insulate employees from constant distractions, most management these days seems to think its primary job should be getting involved on the ground floor.
@@kentslocum Marketing and Accounting staff .. mental midgets with too much control over the scientists and engineers that make such grandness possible ..
Listen to the engineers dammit! Management unfortunately consists of people who are usually not competent. But the head of Rocketdyne is definitely a great man - at that time had the spine to stand up for his engineer.
My initial thoughts were (on reading your comment), “was there a group of people who didn’t want this work to proceed”, an active attempt to halt the Apollo program?
@richardbaxter2057 I think it's just a common quality of certain people in charge who think they know better. I deal with it in tech all the time. Yep, all of us engineers who know how the whole system works are wrong and stupid and the CEO knows better!
The F-1 baffled the engineers, so the engineers baffled it.
Good ome broo
Brilliant
Comedy gold
NOICE
In America, engine doesn't baffle you, you baffle engine.
Those five F-1 rocket engines turned the night into daylight on Apollo 17. At 17 years old I was awestruck at the vibration in my chest even at 3 miles away.
/Unbelievable ...
A lot of the vibration and all of the crackling was from the huge turbopump. They needed a huge turbopump because the F-1 was a very inefficient 'tubular' design made of brazed thinwall tubes. This gave the turbopump huge pumping losses to overcome in pumping the fuel through those tiny tubes and limited the combustion chamber pressure to 70bar max. These issues, combined with the straight through injectors in the injector-plate made for a very inefficient, dirty burn. You can even see soot on it on the rescued plate (Bezos).
For context: In the same year the Soviet NK-33 was managing an oxygen rich closed cycle design with swirling injectors and a 200 bar chamber pressure.
The best bit of the F-1 motor was the turbopump.
@@G-ra-ha-m I'm not a scientist, but it appears to me that the "rich" mixture was on purpose to reduce combustion chamber temperatures.
@@otpyrcralphpierre1742 You could be right, there was _some_ reason for the straight through injectors. It's bad for thrust but would probably burn cooler (more reliable) and look more impressive. It really was great for show, which by that time was it's sole function.
I remember watching Apollo 17 here in Titusville as a kid. It's something you never forget. I will probably never see something that powerful take off again in my lifetime sadly.
@@tonydove5569 your not gonna watch SLS launch next year?
What giants those engineers were! Solving these problems with slide rules and ingenuity was a mighty feat!
It boggles the mind.. rulers, pencils, coffee and a lot of intuitive trial and error.. those guys are like 90 or 100 years old now.. absolute geniuses.
They were absolute monsters in their fields.
And film cameras operating in harsh environments.
…or was it just how experts worked in pre-digital-dementia days?
When the word "Expert" still meant "Smart person, but especially smart in one field", other than today's "Person able to do one thing only"?
If Germany won the war, we would have went to mars and back by now.
Engineer 1: "The engine keeps exploding how do we stop that??"
Engineer 2: "WHAT IF WE PUT A BOMB INSIDE OF IT"
That's not what they did. As knowledgeable as Curious Droid is he got this one wrong. The bombs were used to test the baffle solution they got by looking at Wernher Von Braun V-2 engines.
hahahahahahh lol
@Paul Hogsten Totally agree! If they had all this why NASA buys RD180 for their rockets until now? Why Soyus is the only vehicle that takes people to the ISS?
Lateral thinking FTW!
@rico ingles millions of people watched the Saturn V take off safely like a dozen different times. The Soviet N1 Rocket kept exploding. You’re an idiot
That picture of Werner Von Braun standing next to the cluster of F1’s on the Saturn V’s tail end is the definition of greatness.
Maur1c1oQ Another channel described that picture as "industry standard Werner von Braun for scale" .
Yes, the Germans who came and worked for the Americans were certainly better than the Germans who went to work for the Soviets :-)
(Though it was without doubt German technology which got the whole thing going, there were many very dedicated and clever Americans and Soviets who worked on the space projects on both sides!)
@@anthonyowen1556 Worth pointing out that the Soviets had their own home-grown smarts. They managed quite fine without von Braun.
That picture of von Braun was taken on the backside of the US Space and Rocket Center at Huntsville, Alabama, von Braun’s home from about 1950 to 1970. Fortunately, that Saturn V was moved from outside (in the elements) to a beautifully enclosed building called the Davidson Center. While the Saturn V looked big outside, once they brought it inside it looks huge! It’s a must see and worth a trip to North Alabama. Inside the Davidson Center there are engineers who actually worked on the Apollo program who are more than happy to answer your questions. Great stories from those men and women of science who got us to the moon!
@@lawrencedoliveiro9104
They didn't manage to get a man beyond LEO, and they tried.
My uncle was an engineer who was on the F1 project in the early to middle 1960's. He told me that the larger the engines get, the more finicky they get. Just the tooling wear when making the injector plates made them run differently. Each one was a completely new, different puzzle and they all were hand tuned one at a time on the test stand.
(With no computers or modeling. We actually used chalk boards and mechanical, hand crank calculators.)
3200 full tests!? Incredible! Thank you for creating this content.
In grad school, I met one of the engineers on one of the design teams. Intense vibration was also a huge problem while the engines were reaching full thrust. That vibration was so bad, it interfered with attitude control which was essential to keeping the whole rocket balanced. One of the engineers noticed that the vibration dropped significantly, once max thrust had been reached by all 5 engines. So, the solution they devised was not very intuitive: they added enough fuel to the fuel capacity, so that the entire rocket weighed more than the max thrust of all 5 engines. As the fuel was burned at max thrust, the weight of the entire rocket slowly decreased, while max thrust had minimized the intensity of all vibrations. This, in turn, prevented the interference with attitude control which was otherwise occurring during the period between ignition and max thrust.
....No. I don't doubt that there was a solution to vibration problems that had something to do with the engines reaching full thrust. But the Saturn 5 was never loaded heavier than it could lift itself.
At launch, the whole rocket was around 6 million pounds fully loaded, and had 7.5 million pounds of thrust. It lifted off the pad with 1.2 g of acceleration.
I have laid my hands on 5 F1 engines, stood directly beneath 3 with the other 2 to my left and right mounted to an Apollo Saturn V S1C first stage. To stare straight into their giant nozzles is something to behold.
The F-1 engine is truly an engineering masterpiece and is just plain beautiful as well. My hat is forever off to those engineers.
Technically the 1962 design F-1 was obsolete even in 1965. From an engineering perspective it is a disaster.
NASA thought so too and never used it or any similar design ever again.
@@G-ra-ha-m Except they did use the F-1 to go to the moon. Not really a disaster.
@@therealuncleowen2588 That's what NASA tell us. For such a great rocket that took 7 years of R&D they abandoned it rather quickly - Skylab was basically a hollow unloaded Saturn V. No one does that.
Andrew Montz The F-1 was a big, dumb engine. There were pluses and minuses with this philosophy. I could be equated to a big, lazy Cadillac V8, compared with other engines like the NK-33, which was a highly-tuned sports car by comparison. The RL-10 is more like a Toyota Prius. The reason it was not very sophisticated was that it was disposable.
@@G-ra-ha-m regardless it served its purpose and it was reliable for its original intent. Next!!
Wow, this information about the explosive inside the engine is completely new to me.
Keep up the good work.
There was a town not too far from the test stand. They are hero's too! Imagine listening to 2800+ tests of 1.5 mlion pounds of boost sometimes exploding the engine?!?
There are a few documentaries on CZcams about the F1 development. They are outstanding as well, and go into far more depth.
Our engines keep blowing up.
Rocket-scientist: stick a bomb in it.
@@damondziewiontkowski5623
Don't forget that they were lighting all 5 at once sometimes too
But honestly, I'd consider getting to hear that a reason to move there. Lol
@@damondziewiontkowski5623 I would have loved to hear those engine tests lol.
Even to this day, the amount of fuel that goes though each engine every second still blows my mind.
@@damondziewiontkowski5623 all I can think of is what the poor dogs in the town must have been like. They were probably all losing their fur from the stress. Like the 4th of July gone totally f****** wrong.
Laughing my ass off just thinking about it.
Didn't you like upload a video just a few days ago. And STILL PRODUCE QUALITY CONTENT.
GENIUS I SAY
Doodling the World exactly what I asked myself!!!
He probably had this ready for a little awhile, in anticipation of the 50-year anniversary.
This content is produced by an MI7 like outfit, that endeavours to control public opinion and dissuade genuine critiquing of the establishmnent's claims. They steal, rape, pillage, lie, and kill for money and power. Just ask Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, "we lied, we stealed, we stole...it reminds you of the American experiment" who was also CIA director not long ago or ex CIA director James Angleton, who said, "The founding fathers of U.S. intelligence were liars," he mused near the end of his life. "The better you lied and the more you betrayed, the more likely you were to be promoted." He called Dulles and a few others "grand masters," adding that "if you were in a room with them, you were in a room full of people that you had to believe would deservedly end up in hell. I guess I will see them there soon."
@@rutexas7157 You sound like someone who went to junior college, was talked to by an older boy, and now is spouting off crap you can't support with any data. That's called "smearing". And it makes you look like a fucktard.
Can't beat instability?
Create it!
If you can't tame chaos..... create it!!! LOL
If you can't beat them, join them.
Sometimes you've gotta break a few F-1s to make a Saturn.
way ahead of ya - i create instability all the time!!
Can you imagine building a test stand capable of staying anchored to the ground with *3750 TONS* of thrust pushing upwards?
We can actually see the stand bend in the video.
You just need a test stand that weighs 3751 tons.
@@970357ers If the structure were perfectly rigid and uniformly loaded, it would have been that simple. But that is not reality and weight is only part of the solution. Nothing is rigid, everything is a spring (to some minute extent); and rockets are more akin to point loads which introduce flexing and bending.
Still sounds like a fun design challenge.
During the relatively short-lived British space programme, I think we got around that problem by making the rocket its own test stand, as it were - basically we filled up the rocket with fuel, and fired the engines with it clamped down on its launch pad (or something very like its launch pad - the test stands were in Cumbria and on the Isle of Wight; the actual launch site was in Australia).
just build two rockets that push against each other
there were 400,000 people work on the Saturn program I am proud to say I am one of those !!
It really was rocket surgery back then. Cool shirt Paul. Thanks for posting!
Heh, more like rocket alchemy.
They really over simplified this....my grandfather ran the vibration and acoustic lab at Marshal and his college roommate was the chief engineer on the F1 for NASA...the black powder testing was basically like "if we can survive this, we can handle anything". They did much, much more to modify this engine. When they did the cluster test on the large test stands at Marshal, they were sued by cities all the way into Georgia, over 200 miles away for breaking windows, vases, etc. It registered on seismographs all over the south east....just remember, these engines dwarf the shuttle engines. Fuel lines were 36" in diameter and had the same flow rate as cutting the bottom out of a water tower.
To be fair, it’s a bit hard to condense 5 or 6 years of exhaustive test and development into an 8 minute video and he didn’t really imply that this was all there was to it. It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to realise that there was a lot more to it.
Wow! Great story and analogy. Thank you.
@@thethirdman225 I understand the video wasn't meant to be comprehensive...I just know a lot of stories about testing done on these amazing engines. If you ask guys that worked on Apollo and the shuttle, which one was their bigger accomplishment, everyone of them has told me it was the SaturnV that they consider their life's work...my grandfather actually has the SaturnV on his headstone.
AlabamaPanther 1776 I don’t doubt that for a minute. There was only one Apollo program. The Saturn program was at the core of it.
@Paul Hogsten You are a special kind of crazy.
Thank you for helping to allow the general public become more knowledgeable about aeronautics, space, and thermodynamics. This channel is forged in the spirit of knowledge.
Rocketdyne engineer: "Let's blow the damn thing up!" 2 days later: "I can't believe that fixed it!"
It was a lot easier to fix combustion instability in the F-1 than to fix psychological instability in a flat earth moon landing denier.
I'm sure a lot of those deniers are just trolls. Monetizing youtube for profit. Unfortunately, they don't really care whether their incredulity and ignorance are harming the next generation of potential scientists and engineers. We need to ensure young people get the truth, not the nonsense these trolls are spewing.
@@elpfan4202 i doubt future scientists and engineers are such idiots to bow their ear at some paranoid schizophrenic delusions. At most they will get a jaw luxation from laughing.
@@elpfan4202 I spend a lot of time on CZcams debating deniers. I do it for just the reason you stated. I don't want young people to start believing the moon landings were not real. It's harmful. That's why I strongly feel that defending the Apollo legacy is is worth my time.
Putting a bomb inside a denier should should solve that instability issue.
@@blyndrotor the freedom to say something does not mean it should be said. Try not to answer radicals with radicalism.
This is my favorite episode of your show. The deeper you go into the F-1, the more interesting things get. Thank you 🙏🏼
I was in high school in Huntsville at the time of the tests; the noise was amazing, with windows rattling and the plumes of exhaust rising into the air. Good times. My father worked for Boeing on the second stage and I watched two moon launches at Canaveral; they were amazing.
Rocket engineer 1 : " This instability issue is baffling"!
Rocket engineer 2 : "Eureka !"
I only they had that conversation at the start .....
these landings were so spectacular i keep watching them over and over
My friend's father (rip) was part of the team working on the the injector angles. His stories of working in Huntsville were so intoxicating for me.
Your videos, "Moon Machines 1-6," and "Apollo 11: What We Saw" are all the best look into that era that I have found to date.
Moon Machines is the best technical sided doc. It is really great for giving the story through the engineers side. The best doc from the astronauts side is Moon Shot.
@@joshhill5932 I hadn't heard of Moon Shot. Will definitely check it out, thanks man
I learn so much watching this channel and I'm amazed at the people that pioneered what we take for granted today ... Great shirt!
Whaaat..? That was fast. Let's call it your new upload schedule.
It’s only due to apollo 11’s 50th anniversary. It’s nasa frenzy this week.
F1 - the engine that has beaten the N-1
falafel dürüm Ironically, the N-1 engines are still going while the F-1 is not.
I just can't enough of the engineering that went into the F-1 engine. They are just simply a marvel of human effort. And thank you Curious Droid for doing this. Your YT drops are so interesting.... I think I need to buy you a shirt.
Another excellent video! Clear, succinct, to the point, well edited. It's an absolute joy to watch.
Good work curious Droid glad I found this channel.
this, in my eyes, is one of the most fascinating machines in the entire project. You should also cover the pumps... the engineering and statistics are absolutely jaw-dropping. Just looking at one of the pumps is inspiring.
Lets all be honest, the name *F-1* is so unintentionally fitting, it really is the F1 of rocket engines.
Man it must be amazing to just sift through mountains of old footage, compile it into a story, turn it into a video and (hopefully) make a decent living off of it.
I've been a fan for a long time and I just truly enjoy the quality of the content, the depth and the storytelling.
I am still thoroughly enjoying the shirts, Paul.
Thank you again Paul for another great video! It's amazing how much work these people put into the Apollo program. That's why it enrages me when I hear idiots who deny that we went to the moon. Such an incredible achievement!
G Rosa me too. I just want to strangle all
of them. Ungrateful and ignorant bastards.
I think it's because in a lot of cases the virtues of hard work and perseverance are sneered on now because the counter culture of 1969 has finally become mainstream.
Many people now just can't get their heads around the sheer skill, will and effort of the monumental Apollo programme.
@@veritasvincit2745 That counter culture is going to be the downfall of the USA. Look at the effort the main stream media has put into trying to bring down the US president these last few years. Today we worship the Kardashians, Meryl Streep and Oprah Winfrey while simultaneously saying that the Apollo moon landings were filmed in a Holywood studio. What a joke of a generation this is. Meanwhile, the Chinese are eating our lunch.
@@gregkinney2565 just don't forget that this generation was raised by previous one... So part of the problem lies there....
@@gregkinney2565 It's exactly the same situation here in Britain in this respect. You're not alone.
It strikes me that all great civilisations reach a certain point then they turn in on themselves and degenerate over a number of generations until they become a mere shadow of their former self or potential.
I look around me and I don't recognise too much progress now. Some, yes, but the optimism and self belief has gone only to be replaced by entitlement, a parasite attitude and the spread of toxic and destructive socialism.
I want a blanket patterned exactly like your shirts
I knew you'd do something special for the Apollo anniversary. Thank you :)
Wow. That was the smoothest glide into an ad I’ve ever seen! Great attention to detail, as always. Keep em coming 👍
Those 5 engines got thousands of tons heavy saturn to break sound barrier under a minute. I always wander how the hell do they manage to keep them fixed during the test.
watching these amazing videos about the incredible feats of these people makes me even more angry on the idiots denying the lunar landings. They literally piss on these people's achievements and terrible efforts and sacrifices required to achieve such amazing results ...
But isnt it fun how we still can't get back to the moon? NASA 1958. 11 years to the moon. Today they have worked for 20+ years and they can't even send people to the space station.
@@realshompa it's not that we can't, there's no incentive in our capitalist society. Every time something is proposed it's all about "what's the profit ?". I listened once to the current NASA director and it almost made me sick, he sounded like your typical CEO, talking about quarterly earnings, profit, etc etc . There's no pioneering/adventure spirit left in space exploration, maybe except Musk. I am pretty sure space exploration will pick up when corporations will have an interest, harvesting resources and what not.
Ignore them , they don't have the mind to comprehend engineering as something other than magic.
@@realshompa Besides the fact that there's nothing material to gain from the human exploration of the Moon (at least for the moment), the yearly budget of NASA is 10 times less of what it was in the 60's and there are many missions going on that take a good cut of that money.
@@realshompa NASA, School projects, NORAD is the real government organisation.
Why you cry today???? Meant Elon Musk, better let private parties do this!
Still hands down one of the best, if not, the best informative CZcams channel. Quality was and is still superb.
Hey mate just wanted to say you're doing great work with these videos. Been a fan for a long time and its been great to watch the videos keep getting better and better. Keep it up!
I was 9 years old when we went to the moon.Live in huntsville ala.remember the test of the F 1 and they were often.shook the whole town and the earth really rumbled and shook and windows rattled,Felt nothing but pride when i felt them.
My uncle worked at Marshall in Huntsville during the testing of those F1 engines. He actually saw some of the tests......he said it was amazing.
Happy anniversary Apollo!
This is my favorite episode of CD yet. Thank you!
“The shaking could even shake the engine apart” that is the real life deep-space kraken at work
What's up keep up the great content 😄😄 I've watched those Apollo moon landings , what a technological breakthrough, since only 80 year's earlier it was horse and cart.
Yup, and I hate to admit it but those nazi V2 engineers were brilliant and way ahead of their time with rocket and rocket engine design.
Just think of this, your smartphone is a million times faster than the computer that assisted landing on the moon. Theoretically, if u have all the resource, your phone can assist to land u in the moon or other planets
@@voongnz yes ,love it or hate it , war develops technology , especially in physics, look at the 20th century, breakthroughs in rocketry and atomic energy this pioneered man's space travel, without the V2 rockets we wouldn't have gone into space, dark dynamics of nature should not be underestimated.
@@doodskie999 I see your point, the mainframe computers of the time were as large as a room, now we have a million times memory in a device that fits in your pocket 🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@doodskie999 Yes, but your phone is far less reliable than the simple computers used on Saturn, which were designed and exhaustively tested for radiation, vibration, temperature, and redundancy before being cleared for flight, not to mention the extremely strict software configuration control, resulting in a near-zero error rate in the code, something no phone app developer has to worry about. If those computers don't work, they can kill the entire crew. I would never trust a cheap smartphone to do that task.
Happy 50th Apollo anniversary Paul!
Thanks for putting this video out on my 50th birthday. I guess that’s why I always loved the space programs. Good job. 👍
Hello!
I recently discovered this channel and I'm so glad I did!
These are some top-notch videos!
F1 is my favorite Rocket Engine of all time...I would love to see a newer Computer designed F1 back in use for revisiting the Moon or lifting Heavy Payloads for a Mars Mission....Congratulations to the Apollo 11 astronauts and the team of workers and Engineers that worked so hard to get man on the moon, and safely home...50 years ago today...👍🇺🇸
@Deckard_9732 The SLS is probably half-dead at this point due to intense competition, cost overrun and abysmal delays. I wouldn't be surprised if NASA's moon mission is launched by a spacex rocket.
Thats the F-1b, that put it forward as the propulsion for the new SLS bu the 5 segment SRB's won the competition, i did a video which partially covers that here czcams.com/video/ovD0aLdRUs0/video.html
It appears that all the successful engines of today burn liquid methane and liquid oxygen. If you notice they all burn clean with no smoke .
This is one big reason why the Soviets were never really a contender in the Moon race.
They took a reasonably reliable, but much, _much_ smaller engine of theirs and just put over 30 of them onto the N1's first stage.
Didn't work..
Excellent channel looking forward too anymore videos u make I've binge watched them all 👍
Bravo. No many people can offer me completely fresh content about Apollo. Five stars.
An absolute unit of an engine! It's my favourite one, besides the Spacex Raptor engine.
laxpors FAVORITE 😉😂
@@davestaniforth1840 , words like colour and favourite are how the English spell them.
@@rickgpz1209 And Canadians!
if at first you don't succeed ... go to the moon
@Phoenix aah yes I remember those days
If at first you don't succeed keep sucking until you do succeed.
Amazing video. Thanks for some great background info on the F1.
another really great and understandable to all,well done,Bill
This is such a great channel.. I honestly watch these videos right when I get the notice.
Thanks
I agree... Paul makes it look easy, but a lot of research goes into each video.
You forgot your world-famous, tried and tested 100% reliability conclusion to your videos there, Curious Droid. How am I supposed to subscribe, thumbs up, and share if I don't receive the automated input? Now I have to go in manual! Houston, we have a problem! AAAH!
Your shirt embodies the 60's for sure. Great choice as always.
Glad you're back Paul! Haven't seen any of your videos in a while
interestingly, the baffle design on the fuel injector plate was also the only classified piece of technology on the F1 rocket engine. According to one of the Apollo engineers I spoke with at the US space and rocket center, they always put a vault door cover over the injector plate when giving tours to show the rocket engines.
That’s an awesome piece of historical info. Thanks.
@paul austin I don't think so tbh, you don't need an engine as large as the F1 for and ICBM, so that would have been a waste. Besides the russians had different solutions, like multi nozzle engines such as the RD-170. Granted this was a lot later, but still the point is that such a baffle wasn't the only solution to get bigger rocket engine. Furthermore, they'd already poured too much money at this point into trying to get the 30 NK-15 engines on the N1 to work as intended and wouldn't be able to realistically back-track to an F1esque design.
@@p5rawQ LOL. We were in a technology race with Russia. You don't share technology with your "enemy's".
@paul austin A standard Soyuz would/is enough to deliver most nukes at the time on a sub orbital trajectory. Granted it can't deliver something like the Tsar Bomba but thats exceptionally large even by cold war nuke standards. I agree openly shareing the F-1 wouldn't have been a bright idea, but imo strict secrecy long after apollo mission wasn't 100% necessary. I mean the US never once strapped a massive nuke to saturn v, whos' to say the russians would either. Both countries were well aware of the conciquences of launching a nuclear warhead and ultimately didn't want to.
@paul austin what a load of crap, which Russian ICMB was ever hindered by it's engine power ?
I wish I had seen this a few days ago when I could have asked Mr. Lee Solid retired from North American Rocketdyne who worked as company site manager during Apollo when he gave his talk in Titusville July 16th. I knew of the instability problem but didn't know enough to ask particulars. Thanks for the information. Too bad it wasn't a few days earlier.
Too bad Curious Droid got his facts mixed up. According to Sonny Morea the Apollo F-1 engine project manager and Ronald E. Tepool the Apollo F-1 test engineer the problem was solved by looking at Wernher Von Braun's V2 engine design and the bombs were not used to create the problem but used to test the solution to the combustion instability.
@Zhu Bajie: Lee Solid is a name I heard mentioned many times when my parents were discussing their work. He was the "go to guy" for any issues with Rocketdyne flight hardware at the Cape. Not sure how much he would have known about about the combustion instability issues with the early F-1 development engines.
@@dragonmanmark--You seem to have misunderstood the self-serving, revisionist NASA history.
I love this kind of information that is hard to get in such a condensed state. Good Job. Want more.
I am throughly enjoying all the Apollo vids truly amazing feat
Think that’s your best shirt to date.
...oh, and good report on the F1......
Best shirt yet!
Wow... I am *_never_* disappointed by this channel! From the subject matter to the facts and to the presentation!
This is a quality video. Other documentaries sort of gloss-over the instability problem without going into detail......as if the F-1 development was just a "small" in the total Saturn V development. This is probably the best video ever made talking about the F-1.
I have so much respect for the men and women that created and built these rockets....🇺🇸
I’ve heard that they are unable to build them today because the skills were lost when the technicians passed,🇺🇸
🇺🇸
That is correct. Those nazi scientists were geniuses. The V2 rocket designed by von Braun traveled into space in 1944.
Erick Cisneros true we cant build the F1 anymore as theres hardly any physical blueprints of designs for the engine since there where no ways to save data and such back in those days like we do today . They just passed it on word of mouth and on scraps of paper that are not easy to understand now . But tbf we could likely design somthing much better nowadays . Would love to see aerospike engines used personally
@@peatmoss4415They definitely work at a slower pace these days.
@@Husker5454 All the blueprints exist as to many parts. The methods of manufacture used back then don't exist now, that's a big part of the problem. People thing designing the rocket is hard but designing the production system is even harder still. They have a modern design, the F-1B.
neil ogborne stupid comment
I would give anything to go back and have the opportunity to be super close to the Saturn V Launch.... 275 dB 😎
I really wish they had finished development of, and found use for the epic M-1 Engine.
275 DB would kill You
BASIS If that’s the cost I’m willing to pay it...
A most proper and well presented bit of appreciated information. Jolly good presentation.
Video very well done - all videos very interesting and the narrator does an excellent job - nice speaking pace and not dull enough to put you to sleep - this is one of my favorite channels
Amazing that we're still having these vibration problems to this day, according to spaceX the new Starship raptor engine had vibrations in the 600 hertz area coming from the turbine on the sn6 that destroyed the engine. There's a pretty good video about these problems on "what about it!?" page. I'm sure though that spacex will solve this problem quickly :)
I think that was solved before they even announced it. twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1147790758449012736?s=20
Hey curious do a video about the Gemini project
that's some rapid fire content right now, keep 'em coming paul! i love it!
I Love Curious Droid... His strange appearance just adds to the expertise of his knowledge and interesting presentation...
I guess I figured how to fix my Toyota Corolla when it starts to shake
We now have a third weapon in the arsenal. Previously it was just more struts and boosters, now we add bombs as well!
A lot of the stock footage of the "F1" is actually the J2 (you can see the blue flame and the shock diamond that is typical of high pressure H2/LOX engines)
You can also see the yellow flame of stage 2 of the Apollo 11 separation, indicating that they were not even using a J-2 for the 2nd stage of that launch, but probably an H-1. There's quite a bit of evidence that no complete Saturn-V was ever launched and they were all modified 1Bs. This theory is backed by NASA dumping the Saturn 'V' ASAP.
@Michal Zušťák No. The Moon is definitely real, try looking up - it's right there on most night. BTW if it's raining don't worry - it's not disappeared - it's just clouds in the way.
HTH
Wow, a couple of days in a row! I love this channel!
Your work is extraordinary. I hope you're getting the recognition that you deserve.
Why not just use the n1 rocket???
You have instabilities in the engines, YOU BECOME THE INSTABILITY
I remember watching your other video on it where they theoretically replicated the F1 recently and they could not replicate the original as an exact duplicated match but instead reduced the number of components in the alternative to create something comparable. There just aint the skills to create the original F1 and the blueprints are a little sketchy wilth many of the techniques in the heads of people who have since retired or passed away.
I also saw that one recently, and made me remember about this really interesting article explaining the whole project. arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/how-nasa-brought-the-monstrous-f-1-moon-rocket-back-to-life/?amp=1
They set out to take the F-1 design and make a modern version of it. Not only do they have complete blueprints of the F-1, they also have the blueprints of the F-1B which was an upgraded F-1 that never was used. In addition to that, there are several unused or sample F-1 engines in museums around the country, which they disassembled and 3-D scanned for complete computer models of the engines. With all that information in hand, they then set out on the goal of their project, which was to create a new version that uses modern fabrication techniques, such as 3D printing to make a simpler and more reliable F-1, called the F-1C. In the 1960s, making complex cast shapes was difficult, so the engines were made from multiple cast parts that were painstakingly welded together, which made the engines tremendously expensive, because of all the hand assembly they needed. By creating the 3D models they were able to simplify all of the castings to larger parts that could be built without all of the welding and labor. The redesign was done to bring the cost down by removing as much of this labor as possible. The F-1B was proposed for use on a liquid fueled side booster for the second generation of the SLS, which was intended to replace the solid fueled boosters (borrowed and from the space shuttle, and tweaked), since the proposed liquid boosters would allow more payload due to their higher thrust. Ultimately, work on the 2nd generation of the SLS was put on hold and no progress has been made on the F-1B since around 2015, when it was decided to focus on the SLS with solid boosters only.
@@USWaterRockets Of course they had blueprints and actual engines from museums to work from yet people like to believe that the engingineers were so advanced when the F-1 engines were built that they can't be reproduced today because today's technology is so primitive. People admire the skills back then so much they lose sight of reality.
@@dragonmanmark I think the confusion comes from the fact that certain skills and infrastructure have been replaced by automation or obsoleted completely, so only a handful of people know how to do it. It would be like saying that making vacuum tubes is impossible today because the skilled designers and manufacturers are all gone. People like to romanticize the past, so they assume this means that people then were smarter or more talented and therefore the ability to make tubes is impossible. Today, what they learned is still documented, and the only reason we don't have skilled tube makers all over the world is because there's no demand for tubes. If someone came up with a compelling reason to make them again, you can be sure that new people would very quickly become proficient at making them, based on the documentation made years ago.
There is an organization in NZ which builds replicas of old design airplanes(e.g. WW I style) from original blueprints. They rarely modify the designs because they realize the original engineers incorporated knowledge not documented in the blueprints ( "we did it this strange way because ......" )
Wow. Just wow. What a brilliant and dedicated people behind the engine.
4:45 wow! Being just a little to the side in this shot somehow really stood out to me. I like it
Amazing what NASA was able to achieve so many decades before Kerbal Space Program was released.
If engine is vibrating put small bombs to correct it. 😂
They really over simplified this....my grandfather ran the vibration and acoustic lab at Marshal and his college roommate was the chief engineer on the F1 for NASA...the black powder testing was basically like "if we can survive this, we can handle anything". They did much, much more to modify this engine. When they did the cluster test on the large test stands at Marshal, they were sued by cities all the way into Georgia, over 200 miles away for breaking windows, vases, etc. It registered on seismographs all over the south east....just remember, these engines dwarf the shuttle engines. Fuel lines were 36" in diameter and had the same flow rate as cutting the bottom out of a water tower.
Absolutely LOVE your videos! Great content and wonderful research! Always look forward to your next video!
What an explanation, superb. Just shows the scale of the achievment
Seeing F1 in the title; one could be forgiven for thinking that we were listening to Murry Walker. Wot-wot?
Yes, blah, blah, blah, ..., great content (which everyone knows). But, man! Your shirts always super!
Thanks Paul. Missed it, but belated congratulations for achieving 100 million views!
That shirt....EPIC..!!!! On Paul's channel you learn things you will never hear about anywhere else and presented in such a easy to understand way and yet never feel like it was dumbed down for you
As always a Proper Boss Video Phil !!
👍💯👌
That was excellent thank you. The kind og content that keeps me coming back to your channel :)
Wow, I thought I've learned almost everything the average person can about the major problems with Apollo and the F1 but this is something ive never heard a word about. Thanks Paul, you always amaze me.
Good thing you're back on track,nice voice sir