5 ms·

>The design is now thoroughly outdated. Not really, fundamentals doesn't change that much. Starship is not equivalent, it is entirely new, different category.

>The design is now thoroughly outdated. Not really, fundamentals doesn't change that much. Starship is not equivalent, it is entirely new, different category. >better fuels, modern computers, etc... have made dramatic differences to the design and construction of these rockets. Saturn V used RP1 and LH2 fuels, both are still widely used. Gas generator cycles are also used in modern engines. You can have smaller computers now but I don't think this would change costs significantly. Really only thing that changed significantly are manufacturing processes, but that doesn't invalidate the entire design, that you cannot make 1:1 copy doesn't mean you cannot port it to modern manufacturing methods, like this proposal for F-1B: https://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/new-f-1b-rocket-engine-upgrades-apollo-era-deisgn-with-1-8m-lbs-of-thrust/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/new-f-1b-rocket-engi...

NickNameNick 5y ago
Gas generator cycle engines are definitely still in use, but a lot of next generation engines use a staged-combustion cycle. The effiency improvements seem to be good enough to be worth the engineering challenges, especially for larger rockets.
svachalek 5y ago
You're implying that it's in some different category that can't replace the Saturn V but what is that? What can't the Starship do that the Saturn V could?
jiggawatts 5y ago
RP1 deposits too much coke in the engines to allow reuse, or even extensive static test firing. LH2 is stupid dangerous to use, requires physically large rockets due to the low density, and as I mentioned, requires extensive leak detection to be integrated into the design. Super-chilled methane as used by Starship is "just better". You really should read through the Saturn V manuals and documentation. NASA put a lot of it up online. Technology has moved on from then. At the time, cost was no object, so they used approaches that wouldn't be acceptable now. For example, the cooling of the engines used hand-brazed tubing, which is crazy expensive to manufacture and test to the required safety level. Modern engines simply use CNC machining to cut channels into a solid wall, then a plate is brazed on top. Much simpler to manufacture, much cheaper, much safer. But CNC machining didn't exist back in the Saturn V days! This is the point. We wouldn't "do it that way" any more, because we have tools that they didn't have. Conversely, they had workers readily available that had skills that are not in demand any more, which would cause a hiring bottleneck if the construction of the rocket was attempted today. Designs don't exist in a vacuum, in some abstract space of "raw materials go directly into the finished product". Designs are made for the wider landscape of the industrial base and the available engineering skillset. There is no practical way to take the Saturn V design as-is and manufacture it today. It's possible, just not practical, let alone cost-effective.
- perilunar 5y ago
  > RP1 deposits too much coke in the engines to allow reuse Falcon 9's Merlin engines use RP1 and are re-used.
  - panick21_ 5y ago
    Yes but SpaceX is moving on from it because it is not optimal. RocketLab is also moving on from it because its not optimal. There is a different between 'can' and 'optimal'.

NickNameNick 5y ago

Gas generator cycle engines are definitely still in use, but a lot of next generation engines use a staged-combustion cycle. The effiency improvements seem to be good enough to be worth the engineering challenges, especially for larger rockets.

svachalek 5y ago

You're implying that it's in some different category that can't replace the Saturn V but what is that? What can't the Starship do that the Saturn V could?

jiggawatts 5y ago

RP1 deposits too much coke in the engines to allow reuse, or even extensive static test firing. LH2 is stupid dangerous to use, requires physically large rockets due to the low density, and as I mentioned, requires extensive leak detection to be integrated into the design. Super-chilled methane as used by Starship is "just better". You really should read through the Saturn V manuals and documentation. NASA put a lot of it up online. Technology has moved on from then. At the time, cost was no object, so they used approaches that wouldn't be acceptable now. For example, the cooling of the engines used hand-brazed tubing, which is crazy expensive to manufacture and test to the required safety level. Modern engines simply use CNC machining to cut channels into a solid wall, then a plate is brazed on top. Much simpler to manufacture, much cheaper, much safer. But CNC machining didn't exist back in the Saturn V days! This is the point. We wouldn't "do it that way" any more, because we have tools that they didn't have. Conversely, they had workers readily available that had skills that are not in demand any more, which would cause a hiring bottleneck if the construction of the rocket was attempted today. Designs don't exist in a vacuum, in some abstract space of "raw materials go directly into the finished product". Designs are made for the wider landscape of the industrial base and the available engineering skillset. There is no practical way to take the Saturn V design as-is and manufacture it today. It's possible, just not practical, let alone cost-effective.

perilunar 5y ago
> RP1 deposits too much coke in the engines to allow reuse Falcon 9's Merlin engines use RP1 and are re-used.
- panick21_ 5y ago
  Yes but SpaceX is moving on from it because it is not optimal. RocketLab is also moving on from it because its not optimal. There is a different between 'can' and 'optimal'.