4 ms·

No, we can't replicate it because there is simply not enough description. For example, there aren't even specs for parts. The entire thing would have to be re-

No, we can't replicate it because there is simply not enough description. For example, there aren't even specs for parts. The entire thing would have to be re-designed from scratch with modern manufacturing process in mind. And for things like F1 engine the available manufacturing methods have a lot of influence on the design, so the result will be basically a different engine than F1.

treeman79 5y ago
My dad was in the airline industry. Engineers kept lots of secret techniques to prevent them from being replaced. One had to due with adding strings to some foam mixture to get it to set correctly. Not documented anywhere. When cheap labor was brought in they couldn’t reproduce the work. So old people had to be hired back at a lot more
skissane 5y ago
Rocketdyne proposed an updated F-1, the F-1B, as part of the SLS Advanced Booster Competition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocketdyne_F-1#F-1B_booster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocketdyne_F-1#F-1B_booster https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50339.0 https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50339.0 Obviously it is not exactly the same as the F-1, it is rebuilt using modern parts and manufacturing techniques. But the F-1B aimed to have at least as good performance as the F-1. It appears the proposal was not successful in convincing NASA to adopt it for an SLS liquid rocket booster, and NASA is currently planning on sticking with solids even into SLS Block 2. (And Block 2 SLS is probably never going to fly.) But Rocketdyne owns the IP to F1B and could resurrect it again in the future if there was a demand for such an engine. They were working on it within the last 10 years so unlikely that much knowledge has been lost. This serves as a counterexample to the often repeated claim that we can't rebuild the F-1 because we've forgotten how. Rocketdyne and NASA had enough institutional knowledge to design a modern successor.

treeman79 5y ago

My dad was in the airline industry. Engineers kept lots of secret techniques to prevent them from being replaced. One had to due with adding strings to some foam mixture to get it to set correctly. Not documented anywhere. When cheap labor was brought in they couldn’t reproduce the work. So old people had to be hired back at a lot more

skissane 5y ago

Rocketdyne proposed an updated F-1, the F-1B, as part of the SLS Advanced Booster Competition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocketdyne_F-1#F-1B_booster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocketdyne_F-1#F-1B_booster https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50339.0 https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50339.0 Obviously it is not exactly the same as the F-1, it is rebuilt using modern parts and manufacturing techniques. But the F-1B aimed to have at least as good performance as the F-1. It appears the proposal was not successful in convincing NASA to adopt it for an SLS liquid rocket booster, and NASA is currently planning on sticking with solids even into SLS Block 2. (And Block 2 SLS is probably never going to fly.) But Rocketdyne owns the IP to F1B and could resurrect it again in the future if there was a demand for such an engine. They were working on it within the last 10 years so unlikely that much knowledge has been lost. This serves as a counterexample to the often repeated claim that we can't rebuild the F-1 because we've forgotten how. Rocketdyne and NASA had enough institutional knowledge to design a modern successor.