I'm literally stunned after watching that. The F1 was an absolute masterpiece - and to think of 60+ (must still be lying on the ocean floor from 13 SatV launches makes me want to cry...
I was 18 miles away and still my body was pummeled by the sound pressure. Apollo 8, December 1968. All I could think about was that there were three humans on that thing....Borman, Lovell and Anders. Thank you guys for a memory I will keep for the rest of my days.
I stood beside an F1 Engine in the Rocket Garden at the KSC in Florida, it's huge! , i had no idea then the engineering that had been achieved to make this engine so thank you for making me understand , I was also impressed by the SSME on my visit to KSC .
I believe the Apollo missions and subsequent lunar landing have been the greatest engineering feat ever achieved by the human race. It was such a magical era for achievement and bold dreams. If only we could reproduce something like that again..... (sigh)
just imagine how they did all these things with slide-rule....and with early computers...mind-boggling.....that is why some people to this day don't believe that the moon landing ever happened...they are just so awestruck beyond belief that they refuse to believe.......
The computer voice almost always leads me to quit a video as soon as I notice it. In this case, though, the result was worth sitting through it. The subject matter makes a great deal of difference.
It took 55,000 horsepower what they called a gas generator to run just the fuel pump on one engine. 55,000 hp just to run the fuel pump WOW WOW. This is a perfect example of what my father would say that, this vehicle (saturn5) was built by man but is not of this earth. There was nothing to compare it to nothing it was so out of this world. 55,000 hp just to run one fuel pump. That is 275,000 hp to run the fuel pumps on all 5 f-1 engines Would consume 40,000 lbs of fuel or 5,500 gal a sec. have the kinetic energy release of 500,000 lbs. of TNT every second for 2:30 minutes To stand in the presents of that monster I will never forget it.
The power in a rocket motor borders on fantasy. Taking more modern technology as an example, the turbine that drove the high pressure hydrogen pump in a Space Shuttle Main Engine developed 76,000 horsepower, and that was just one of four pumps on that engine.
671 gallons of fuel/oxidizer PER SECOND. So basically three firehoses' worth of LOX being shot full blast into three firehoses' worth of fuel and instantly igniting every second the engine's running. Takes off with 85% of the volume of an olympic sized swimming pool on its back, and burns all of it (better than a half a million gallons) in 2.5 minutes. Best part? Even THAT isn't nearly enough to get the capsule into space. You've still got two more stages to go!
The ssme was a engineering masterpeace shame they will be thrown away on sls when they had also been desighned to be reusable :( I had hoped sls would use an human rated variebt of the rd 69 from the delta 4 heavy.
John Mierz you were fortunate to have experienced that my friend. I would have loved to have seen it, heard it, felt it, etc. Good for you man! Seriously, you experienced one of the things that I wish I could go back in time to live. I’m a little envious.
@@MarsFKA Still the F1 engine was operated in a very conservative way... Von Braun said it was 25% down of it's max. capabilities, since 5 F1 engines at 75% of thrust were enough for the 3000 ton rocket to pull up from the launch pad. Let's not forget how in efficient the F1 was! Fuel dampener it was. There were future plans for a second version F1 engine that would have utilized 25% more efficiency and 30% more thrust! Now imagine that!!!! The F1 still is the father and boss of all rocket engines!
The Saturn was a great launch vehicle but the real engineering was the lunar excursion module. Butt ugly but think about it. Environmental, navigational, temp. extremes it needed to land and then take off. Strong with major weight restrictions. In my opinion, absolutely magnificent.
The whole Moon landings programme was magnificent and the fact that it was created purely for political and Cold War propaganda points scoring does not detract from that. Apollo showed the world that, when the task is noble, America can achieve anything - as long as it keeps its eye on the ball, because Apollo also showed the world that, as a society, America has an attention span barely long enough to make it to the next commercial break. Apollo 11 landed to a frenzy of American flag waving and self-adulation - and rightly so, because America had earned the right to feel proud - but when the ticker tape parade was over, so was the party and Apollo was effectively running on inertia. By the time Apollo 13 launched, the TV networks, which influence, and are influenced by, public opinion, could hardly be bothered covering it. Of course, that changed abruptly after the explosion, but the rot had set in and the rest of the Moon landings were, to a public that needs Disneyland every day, boring. Apollo gave my generation the defining moment in history and I have always counted myself fortunate to have witnessed it.
@@MarsFKA One other major reason for the Apollo program, and the space program in general, was to advance missile and weapons tech. Sad but true. Once the military got what they wanted, and the politicians got the win over Russia they wanted, the program was lucky to continue past the first landing. Almost immediately there were calls to cut funding and end the program. Unbelievable. And now here we are 50ish years later talking about going back because of the economic potential of mining. And yet, we could have just continued back then and who knows where we'd be technologically?
An amazing and awesome piece of engineering. Just doing some back-of-the-envelope calculations on this engine... The specific impulse (Isp) of this engine ranged from 260-263 seconds. So, the engine exhaust velocity was in the range of: Ve = Isp x g0 = (260 s) x (9.80665 ms^-2) = (approx) 2550 ms^-1 = (approx) 8,365 fps = (approx) 5,700 mph (!!) From Tsiolkovsky equation, the speed of Saturn V at end of 1st stage burnout is approximated by: dV = Isp x g0 x ln(m0/mf) ... this is theoretical maximum because doesn't take into account drag of atmosphere and other effects and inefficiencies...assuming all 5 engines. m0 = mass of Saturn V at launch = (approx) 2,950,000 kg (from NASA) mf = mass at 1st stage empty = (approx) (1-0.78) x m0 = 649,000 kg numbers: dV = (260 s) x (9.80665 ms^-2) x ln(2,950,000/649,000) = (approx) 3,860 ms^-1 = (approx) 12,666 fps = 8,636 mph. Again, this is theoretical max at stage 1 burnout and does not take into account drag, etc., so actual speed will be less... let's say 30% or so... or, just north of 6,000 mph at end of stage 1. Amazing! Just awe-inspiring. Thank you for posting!
The most important factor reducing the actual speed at first stage burnout compared to the theoretical maximum wasn't atmospheric drag, but *_gravity._* At lift-off, the Saturn V's thrust-to-weight ratio was about 1.2, meaning that 83 % (1/1.2) of the thrust went into fighting gravity, while only 17 % went into producing acceleration. That ratio did of course improve greatly during the first stage burn as fuel was consumed and most of the acceleration changed from vertical to horizontal as the rocket gradually pitched over. I'm not an expert on this, but I'll guess that smaller rockets are less affected by gravity since they tend to have a better thrust-to-weight ratio at lift-off, but they are probably more affected by atmospheric drag than the Saturn V was.
@@slinq Respect for people who made the most powerful engine that mankind ever built, when they do not even have computational fluid dynamics, heat transfer softwares. Today we are building RS-25 engine, fully inspired by this baby. And if you are into mechanical engineering, this video will be literally a porn to you. You can be sure of that.
And the goofy units…. show some respect. It was an American effort. Give the thrust in pounds and the speed in feet per second or miles per hour or Mach numbers.
This has to be my most favourite video on RUclips. Forget the banal documentaries on TV, the feat of physics, chemistry and engineering explained in less than four minutes which in reality would take a lifetime of study. The feat of the men and women who designed and built Apollo must stand as one of the greatest achievements of mankind to date.
the bottom of the two pumps shown at 1:30 is spinning in the wrong direction. Or rather, its vanes are spiraled the wrong direction. Those are centrifugal pumps, so the fluid should move from the narrow portion to the wide, radially exiting portion.
As a partly-deaf person, I find the background muzak is an acoustic fog that impairs understanding already made difficult by the synthesized voice. Had to watch several times to get the message. Good animation though.
Still the best looking engine when it fires up. I get it, H2 and LOX is more efficient but it doesn't look nearly as good when it lights off, just looks like a bunch of steam, which is precisely what it is. There's no mistaking a Saturn 5 lift off. When those flames shoot out from the trenches, it's awe inspiring power.
It is not the most powerful rocket engine, it's the most powerful singe combustion chamber rocket engine. The most powerful is the rd-170 which is in use for the zenit rocket and was also used for the energia boosters
The entering solutions themselves are great but not mind blowing, its the fact that they managed to execute such physical mechanical structures of that scale, accuracy and tolerance in the 1960's!!! fantastic.
Nah, Blue Origin's New Shepherd and capsule is sexier.. really look at it and you will see what I mean. But it isn't as big and tall as the Saturn V, I will grant you that.
He got a lot of ideas from Robert Goddard, including components for the V-2 rocket. Von Braun was indeed a genius, but Goddard deserves a lot of credit for his innovations.
Just curious, how chinese did find black powder? Why need to mix those materials right way and then ignite that compound? Maybe this was some mistake and then came heureka moment, like fleming had whith penicillin?
With its 160 million horsepower, the F1 engine was not only "... the most powerful ... rocket engine ..." but the most powerful engine or motor ever built.
1960's this huge powerhouse tech should not have been possible. We enjoy many huge benefits for what that great generation did in spite of world social crisis
Ну вот на 2м30сек видео хорошо показано как развивается неустойчивость горения на огневой панели. А почему, да потому, что топливо смешивается с окислителем только в камере сгорания после огневой панели из которой выходит много тонких трубочек с топливом и окислителем. Из-за этого в камере сгорания развивается неустойчивость горения. Из-за этой неустойчивости горения топлива двигатель F-1 не мог развить мощность выше 40-60% так как неустойчивость горения вызывала стоячую волну в камере сгорания (топливо пыхало с резонансной частотой) из за чего были сильные вибрации и плохое сгорание топлива. При мощностях к 100% двигатель F-1 просто разваливался и взрывался. У российского РД-170 который и сейчас закупают США топливо с окислителем смешивается предварительно в специальном насосе смесителе и в камеру сгорания через специальные винтовые сопла-форсунки подаётся уже горючая смесь, которая чисто сгорает прямо за форсунками. Это обеспечивает 100% сгорание топлива, отсутствие развития неустойчивости горения в камере сгорания и хорошую тягу двигателей. Даже в обычной газовой плите газ смешивается с воздухом предварительно перед конфоркой, а в конфорку поступает уже смесь газа с воздухом, поэтому пламя в конфорке голубое, газ сгорает тихо без вспышек и не коптит как двигатель F-1. А попробуйте зажечь газ напрямую без предварительного смешивания с воздухом, он будет коптить, пламя будет красное из-за плохого сгорания и будет наблюдаться горение вспышками. Все это и происходило в двигателе F-1. Он дико коптил коксом от не сгоревшего керосина, пламя было вспышками, цвет пламени красный с копотью (это видно на всех официальных видео НАСА). Из-за плохой тяги и неустойчивости горения американцы отказались от двигателя F-1 в дальнейшем, а по настоящему он им был нужен для постановочных полетов Аполлонов 1- 17. Так как на старте заправлялась и обмерзала только первая ступень, а остальные ступени были муляжом, который падал после скрытия с глаз зрителей в Атлантическом океане. А теперь американцы рисуют мультики заменяя ими официальные видео, т.к. по конусу Маха в атмосфере специалисты легко определили, что скорость ракеты при отделении 1-й ступени была в 2-3 раза ниже расчётной!!! США желаю успехов в дальнейшей закупке Российских двигателей РД-170
Each F-1 engine was a hand tuned unit. No two were alike in final tune condition. Nozzles, aperture size and placement were unique to each motor. Those final notes went with the individual engineer with their personal notes at the end of the program. Flame combustion instability is the number one problem as rocket engines get larger. We solved it by insanely delicate final tuning. Russia just used a big pump to supply many smaller rocket chambers. Ones that were simple to keep burning. That made them very stable and dependable. Who was right? Don't ask me. Each had their good points too.
When people get all excited about a Space X launch below is my standard reply. The Saturn V rocket, first test launched in 1966, and later took men to the moon, remains the most powerful rocket ever. It had 7.6 million pounds of thrust and could place 260,000 pounds into Earth orbit. 53 years later, I'm still waiting for something better. 50 years ago man landed on the moon, today we get excited by a satellite launch. Zzzzzzz....
Plus, out batting average on killing astronauts is nothing to write home about. While there was a terrible and lethal fire inside the command module prior to launch early in the program, and the famous close call on Apollo XIII, the Apollo program came and went, it achieved the goal set forth by President Kennedy and aside from those notable exceptions, we did all that without killing astronauts. This nation has had its share of things to be ashamed of, the fact that the slide-rule technology of the 1960’s did something that many believe couldn’t be done today … partially because no on remembers how to do it, and partially because it might dump too much CO2 into the atmosphere, it might violate the rights of some sand fleas, and the legislation keeps getting sent back because it contains gender-specific language.
It's an excellent and completely suitable style to explain such an extraordinary piece of technics like this. There had been the chance to catapult the whole mankind to a REALLY another century. WHERE are those diamonds nowadays. We want to fly to the mars, now. The time has come. (For best audio output you need a good device and 5.1)
Well faster anyways ;) They where expensive to build and for the payloads going up today Other rockets can do it on the cheep. I agree with you that we should revive the "space race" as it did usher in most of the technology we take for granted today. The moon is our next logical step in learning what really works if we are going to go to Mars. We have been working with the F-1 for a possible rebirth for deeper space exploration but what we really need to get this done is a much larger cash flow into research for not just the F-1 but new types of propulsion to get going where we want to go in a much shorter time.
The F-1 engine is on its way back. A remaining Apollo F-1 engine has been retrieved by NASA from the Smithsonian. The gas generator has been removed and test fired on a test stand. Other components of the same legacy engine are being laser scanned so that they can be 3D printed. Someday ungraded F-1 engines are to be used to boost the new SLS rocket off the launch pad as replacements for the shuttle derived solid rocket boosters that will be used on the initial flights.
Not a chance.. it only had enough fuel to go into orbit some maneuvring and come back.. the highes it ever whent was 650km for delivering and servicing the Hubble telescope.
The helium didn't only pressurise the fuel tank. Bubbles of helium were deliberately introduced into the fuel feeds from the tank to the engines to make the fuel compressible. In doing so, this dampened the pogo oscillations that had plagued the first few (unmanned) Saturn V test flights.
Our greatest generation (Im proud to say my Dad was USMC and did Guadalcanal and iwo Jima and my mom was in high school. The greatest generation not only whipped Japan and Germany asses, but also with a slide rule, pencils and paper, sent men to the moon and back! But when Apollo 13 f----d up, brought them back safely.. Alot to be said about Our Greatest Generation
I hope to be there with my kids to see it. A friend of mine in my neighborhood got to see a Saturn V (Apollo 14, if I remember correctly) launch when he was a teenager because his dad was a high ranking faculty member at the University of Florida. As he put it, he was closer than Cronkite (but not by much). He said he could feel the sound through his entire body. I've experienced a low, fast pass by a couple of F-4s and heard 150 dB Formula 1 V-10s at over 18,000 RPM, but seeing something like that launch would be incomparable.
I just came across your comment. You might be interested to know that I have experienced both types of assaults on your senses that you have described. I would say they are quite different; the higher pitch of the F1 car passing by at close range is felt more in your head, like an arrow passing through your head (looking back now, I should have taken more precaution in protecting my hearing) while the lower rumble of the Saturn V and the Space Shuttle is felt in your feet and gut. I saw the last two Apollo launches and about a dozen Shuttle launches. I remember the last Shuttle launch I saw set off car alarms in the parking lot behind me, and that was from about 11 miles away! Both types of experiences would raise goosebumps on my arm!
Well, that's good to 2m30sek video shows how the combustion instability develops in the fire panel. Why? Because the fuel is mixed with an oxidizing agent only in the combustion chamber after firing bar from which a lot of thin tubes with fuel and oxidant. Because of this, in the combustion chamber of combustion instability occurs. Due to this instability fuel combustion engine F-1 could not develop a 40-60% higher power because combustion instability standing wave induced in the combustion chamber (fuel blaze with the resonance frequency) due to strong vibrations which have poor combustion and fuel. When power to the 100% engine F-1 just collapsed and exploded. The Russian RD-170 which is now purchasing US fuel with an oxidant pre-mixed in a special mixer and pump into the combustion chamber through a special screw-injector nozzle is supplied already combustible mixture that burns cleanly right behind the nozzles. This provides 100% combustion, the absence of combustion instability within the combustion chamber and good traction motors. Even in a conventional gas cooker gas is mixed with air before pre-burner and the burner in the gas mixture is already supplied with air, so the blue flame burner, combusted gas quietly without smokes and flares engine F-1. And try to ignite the gas directly without mixing with the air, it will smoke, the flame will be red because of poor combustion and burning flares will occur. All of this occurred in the motor and F-1. He wildly smoked coke from unburned kerosene flames were flashes of color red with flame soot (it can be seen in all the official NASA video). Due to poor traction and combustion instability Americans abandoned the F-1 engine in the future, but for now he needed them for staging the Apollo missions 1- 16. Since the start refuel and frosted only the first step and the remaining steps were a hoax, which fell after hiding from the eyes of viewers in the Atlantic Ocean. And now the Americans draw cartoons replacing their official video, as by Mach cone in the atmosphere easily specialists determined that the velocity of the rocket in the separation stage 1 was 2-3 times lower than the estimated !!! US wish success in his future purchase Russian RD-170 engine
I'd like to see animation like this for the shuttle rocket system I'm totally fascinated with rocket propulsion I watch the shuttle launch in slow motion a lot from the water sound compression to the sparks to catch unused nitrogen love it all.
If i'm not mistaken the fuel inducer is actually pumping the fuel back into the tank according to this animation. But otherwise very well done. The F1 is the hot-bulb engine of the space age. As simplified as anything can get. Hmmm... I wonder what we are gonna use as lubricant for the turbo pump. Answer: rocket fuel. Hmmm... I wonder what we are gonna use as hydraulic fluid for tha gimballing pistons. Answer: rocket fuel. And take it directly from the turbo pump and skip any extra hydraulic pump. The 5 turbo pumps combined produced 5000 more horse powers than the USS Nimitz throttling at full speed. And thats just to feed the engines with oxygen and fuel. A mindblowing little factoid.
All F-1 Rocketdyne saturn F-1 engines assembled in finall configuation were 90% tested at Mississippi Test Facility in Hancock County 20 miles from Picauyne Mississippi and approximately 30 miles from Gulfport or Bay Saint Luis Mississippi. Most were tested fom 1966 thru 1972 when the Ap came to a close! olo
No. At a minimum, the injector plate would have to be redesigned. More likely, the entire engine would end up being redesigned; better to start over with a blank sheet and build new.
This is very nice that this information was saved by NASA; now all they have to do is find the blueprint specs for materials used to get through the Van Allen Radiation Belts - (whether they went through a thin section of the VABs or not).
The Apollo astronauts received less than 5% of the yearly allowed dosage for workers in a nuclear plant. Basically about as bad as a chest x-ray. It was relatively easy for NASA to design the Apollo's course to avoid the highest flux areas when passing through. In other words, it was not a big deal.
+Goldpenny1 stopping radiation from belts is easy some aluminum or plastic to stop most of it. the real problem is modern electonics which doesnt like radiation. So they have to develop system so that they can use the modern stuff instead of stuff from 60s.
A couple years ago NASA completely reverse engineered this engine and made 3d drawings of everything, including optimizing and improving large aspects of it.
stand next to one of these amazing engines and consider Werner Von Braun influence and commitment to space flight. At Huntsville AL and Cape C, FL, you can stand next to, dwarfed by these amazing machines and know we (USA) accomplished great things when cohesively focused on goals. Can we ever again?
id like someone to explain why the burn at sea level looked so terrible in videos we have of saturn v's launching. i know the injector plate had alot of issues in development and by luck they found one design that worked, maybe not aswell as they would have liked but atleast engines werent turning into thousands of pieces like they were with the previous injector plates. i have a feeling its efficiency was extremely low at sea level and didnt really reach a good burn until higher altitudes when they could throttle the engines up to full power.
Here's something to remember. Question: What's the most difficult foot that a rocket has to travel? Answer: The first one. At liftoff the rocket is near its maximum gross weight because of all the propellants its carrying. As such lifting the rocket up the first foot off the launch pad is the most difficult work the engines need to do. From there the rocket gets progressively lighter and lighter so lifting it up higher and higher gets easier and easier. Accordingly the F-1's were designed to produce maximum thrust at sea level to lift the enormous load of the entire fully loaded vehicle. I'm not sure what you mean by "terrible" but in fact the F-1 engine's performance at sea level was optimized to produce the most thrust and lift to get the Saturn V off the launch pad. The problems associated with designing the injector plate that you referred to had nothing to do with efficiency. They had to do with a problem called "combustion instability". In larger rocket engines acoustical standing waves can and do form inside the larger combustion chamber. These waves can intensify as they flow back and forth across the surface of the injector plate and eventually they can blow a hole in the wall of the combustion chamber. The eventual solutions on the F-1 were to adjust the angles of the holes drilled in the plate to move the propellant mixing and initial combustion a sufficient distance away from the surface of the plate. They also added acoustical fences onto the injector plate. The fences essentially split the entire surface of the large plate into 13 smaller segments. These design enhancements eliminated the formation of the standing waves inside the combustion chamber that had destroyed earlier test versions of the engine. Also, the F-1 engines were not throttleable. You might be thinking of the Space Shuttle Main Engines, which were throttleable. There was a need to reduce the thrust of all 5 F-1 engines later in the burn due to excessive acceleration as the propellants burned off, but this was accomplished by shutting down the center inboard engine early to limit the acceleration.
Why does it look 'terrible'? For one thing, it's kerosene, not hydrogen... so that's why you get the big orange flame. For another, you are seeing the dark part... that's the turbine exhaust, cooling the chamber walls of the expansion cone... the dark band is by design. Extensive work was done on the combustion chamber to damp resonances... the final configuration would self-damp in 1/10th of a second, they tested using explosive charges to upset the combustion dynamics. Nothing terrible at all about this engine or the way it performed.
If you mean why the flame is so dark, it is because you see the fuel-rich exhaust from the turbo-pump turbine being dumped around the periphery of the bottom skirt to cool it and protect it from the hotter gases emanating from the main burn within the engine itself. Joe Vignolo below has explained the F1 engine's performance efficiency well but I'd like to add that it is a open cycle engine i.e. it's turbine exhaust is dumped outside the injector plate. Open cycle engines are inefficient compared to closed cycle engines that extract more work out of the engine by dumping the turbine exhaust through the injector plate but they are much more complicated to design and build.
Sorry for the Error in my last comment I meant to say" When Apollo came to a close". Also I know this because my Dad was a test Engineer and Technician for Rocketdyne from 1957 to 1987 and we lived in Picauyne because he worked at Mississippi Test facility from 1966 to 1972 and later transferred to Nasa Facility Michoud in "New Orleans, Louisiana" in 1972 and we later moved to California to the main facility at Canoga Park California.!
It's a shame NASA can't use the mighty F1 rocket engines on the SLS instead of the Congressionally mandated and hugely expensive RS-25 SSME. Another example of Congress using their highly superior engineering know-how and intellects to complicate a simple issue.
The video cites 65 Giga Watts... that would be the same power level being developed as 65 (qty) 1GW nuclear power plants., that's right 65 nuclear reactor power plants... but for like less than 3 minutes running.
toffersify,,, I just watched an old NASA video (well I guess more precisely an old NASA film) that said "the Saturn V energy output would be enough to power any three western states, including Texas, if converted into electricity." I know they used less electricity back in the late 1960s but that is still an amazing amount of power! P
I'm literally stunned after watching that. The F1 was an absolute masterpiece - and to think of 60+ (must still be lying on the ocean floor from 13 SatV launches makes me want to cry...
They actually recovered the Apollo 11 F1 engines from the ocean and are on display!
You can't make an omelette, without breaking eggs!
I was 18 miles away and still my body was pummeled by the sound pressure. Apollo 8, December 1968. All I could think about was that there were three humans on that thing....Borman, Lovell and Anders. Thank you guys for a memory I will keep for the rest of my days.
I stood beside an F1 Engine in the Rocket Garden at the KSC in Florida, it's huge! , i had no idea then the engineering that had been achieved to make this engine so thank you for making me understand , I was also impressed by the SSME on my visit to KSC .
I believe the Apollo missions and subsequent lunar landing have been the greatest engineering feat ever achieved by the human race. It was such a magical era for achievement and bold dreams. If only we could reproduce something like that again..... (sigh)
Wait for Elon Musk, glorious resurrector of the Space Race
amen!!
just imagine how they did all these things with slide-rule....and with early computers...mind-boggling.....that is why some people to this day don't believe that the moon landing ever happened...they are just so awestruck beyond belief that they refuse to believe.......
justgjt yeah, now we're just sending cars into space for Facebook likes
A good slide rule is good to 3 decimals. That ain't so bad for the big stuff.
Cool video but is it REALLY that much trouble to get a f***ing human to narrate them?
And make RUclips pay for it!
Andork Kuomo
Who cares? I'm pretty sure they weren't going for an Oscar nomination.
The computer voice almost always leads me to quit a video as soon as I notice it. In this case, though, the result was worth sitting through it. The subject matter makes a great deal of difference.
Bro it's a free video. Quit your damn whining. You can't have it your way.
stupid people... like you.
Whats more impressive is that they designed all this using pencils on paper, no computer models or simulators.
It took 55,000 horsepower what they called a gas generator to run just the fuel pump on one engine. 55,000 hp just to run the fuel pump WOW WOW. This is a perfect example of what my father would say that, this vehicle (saturn5) was built by man but is not of this earth. There was nothing to compare it to nothing it was so out of this world. 55,000 hp just to run one fuel pump. That is 275,000 hp to run the fuel pumps on all 5 f-1 engines Would consume 40,000 lbs of fuel or 5,500 gal a sec. have the kinetic energy release of 500,000 lbs. of TNT every second for 2:30 minutes To stand in the presents of that monster I will never forget it.
The power in a rocket motor borders on fantasy. Taking more modern technology as an example, the turbine that drove the high pressure hydrogen pump in a Space Shuttle Main Engine developed 76,000 horsepower, and that was just one of four pumps on that engine.
671 gallons of fuel/oxidizer PER SECOND. So basically three firehoses' worth of LOX being shot full blast into three firehoses' worth of fuel and instantly igniting every second the engine's running. Takes off with 85% of the volume of an olympic sized swimming pool on its back, and burns all of it (better than a half a million gallons) in 2.5 minutes.
Best part? Even THAT isn't nearly enough to get the capsule into space. You've still got two more stages to go!
The ssme was a engineering masterpeace shame they will be thrown away on sls when they had also been desighned to be reusable :( I had hoped sls would use an human rated variebt of the rd 69 from the delta 4 heavy.
John Mierz you were fortunate to have experienced that my friend. I would have loved to have seen it, heard it, felt it, etc. Good for you man! Seriously, you experienced one of the things that I wish I could go back in time to live. I’m a little envious.
@@MarsFKA Still the F1 engine was operated in a very conservative way... Von Braun said it was 25% down of it's max. capabilities, since 5 F1 engines at 75% of thrust were enough for the 3000 ton rocket to pull up from the launch pad.
Let's not forget how in efficient the F1 was! Fuel dampener it was. There were future plans for a second version F1 engine that would have utilized 25% more efficiency and 30% more thrust! Now imagine that!!!!
The F1 still is the father and boss of all rocket engines!
The Saturn was a great launch vehicle but the real engineering was the lunar excursion module.
Butt ugly but think about it. Environmental, navigational, temp. extremes it needed to land and then take off. Strong with major weight restrictions. In my opinion, absolutely magnificent.
😂😂😂
The whole Moon landings programme was magnificent and the fact that it was created purely for political and Cold War propaganda points scoring does not detract from that.
Apollo showed the world that, when the task is noble, America can achieve anything - as long as it keeps its eye on the ball, because Apollo also showed the world that, as a society, America has an attention span barely long enough to make it to the next commercial break.
Apollo 11 landed to a frenzy of American flag waving and self-adulation - and rightly so, because America had earned the right to feel proud - but when the ticker tape parade was over, so was the party and Apollo was effectively running on inertia. By the time Apollo 13 launched, the TV networks, which influence, and are influenced by, public opinion, could hardly be bothered covering it. Of course, that changed abruptly after the explosion, but the rot had set in and the rest of the Moon landings were, to a public that needs Disneyland every day, boring.
Apollo gave my generation the defining moment in history and I have always counted myself fortunate to have witnessed it.
It also housed the most powerful and compact computer of it's day.
@@MarsFKA One other major reason for the Apollo program, and the space program in general, was to advance missile and weapons tech. Sad but true. Once the military got what they wanted, and the politicians got the win over Russia they wanted, the program was lucky to continue past the first landing. Almost immediately there were calls to cut funding and end the program. Unbelievable. And now here we are 50ish years later talking about going back because of the economic potential of mining. And yet, we could have just continued back then and who knows where we'd be technologically?
@@effervescentrelief What weapons did Apollo advance?
An amazing and awesome piece of engineering. Just doing some back-of-the-envelope calculations on this engine... The specific impulse (Isp) of this engine ranged from 260-263 seconds. So, the engine exhaust velocity was in the range of:
Ve = Isp x g0 = (260 s) x (9.80665 ms^-2) = (approx) 2550 ms^-1 = (approx) 8,365 fps = (approx) 5,700 mph (!!)
From Tsiolkovsky equation, the speed of Saturn V at end of 1st stage burnout is approximated by:
dV = Isp x g0 x ln(m0/mf) ... this is theoretical maximum because doesn't take into account drag of atmosphere and other effects and inefficiencies...assuming all 5 engines.
m0 = mass of Saturn V at launch = (approx) 2,950,000 kg (from NASA)
mf = mass at 1st stage empty = (approx) (1-0.78) x m0 = 649,000 kg
numbers: dV = (260 s) x (9.80665 ms^-2) x ln(2,950,000/649,000) = (approx) 3,860 ms^-1 = (approx) 12,666 fps = 8,636 mph.
Again, this is theoretical max at stage 1 burnout and does not take into account drag, etc., so actual speed will be less... let's say 30% or so... or, just north of 6,000 mph at end of stage 1. Amazing!
Just awe-inspiring. Thank you for posting!
The most important factor reducing the actual speed at first stage burnout compared to the theoretical maximum wasn't atmospheric drag, but *_gravity._*
At lift-off, the Saturn V's thrust-to-weight ratio was about 1.2, meaning that 83 % (1/1.2) of the thrust went into fighting gravity, while only 17 % went into producing acceleration. That ratio did of course improve greatly during the first stage burn as fuel was consumed and most of the acceleration changed from vertical to horizontal as the rocket gradually pitched over.
I'm not an expert on this, but I'll guess that smaller rockets are less affected by gravity since they tend to have a better thrust-to-weight ratio at lift-off, but they are probably more affected by atmospheric drag than the Saturn V was.
and, drum roll please, the turbo pumps, were rated at 55,000 HP ! Yikes
For me as student of mechanical engineering this is pure porn...
YEP
Same, even though I'm mastering in industrial economics and not in any type of mechanics. Lol.
as a student of aerospace engineering I have same feelings..
@@metehantasc3362 are those feelings of pure respect because the rocket scientists of today can reproduce them?
@@slinq Respect for people who made the most powerful engine that mankind ever built, when they do not even have computational fluid dynamics, heat transfer softwares. Today we are building RS-25 engine, fully inspired by this baby. And if you are into mechanical engineering, this video will be literally a porn to you. You can be sure of that.
could have been a cool video. soon as I hear the voice synth, I'm out.
Ya, the synth voice is sooo annoying. IDK why so many RUclipsrs use it.
And the goofy units…. show some respect. It was an American effort. Give the thrust in pounds and the speed in feet per second or miles per hour or Mach numbers.
AI , I’m outta here
Agree 100%
This has to be my most favourite video on RUclips. Forget the banal documentaries on TV, the feat of physics, chemistry and engineering explained in less than four minutes which in reality would take a lifetime of study. The feat of the men and women who designed and built Apollo must stand as one of the greatest achievements of mankind to date.
Greta video, if you can ignore the awful robot narration. A real human voice would have been much more engaging.
As powerful as those engines are they’re not near as powerful as the brain power it took to create these engineering marvels. Good job America.
the bottom of the two pumps shown at 1:30 is spinning in the wrong direction. Or rather, its vanes are spiraled the wrong direction. Those are centrifugal pumps, so the fluid should move from the narrow portion to the wide, radially exiting portion.
As a partly-deaf person, I find the background muzak is an acoustic fog that impairs understanding already made difficult by the synthesized voice. Had to watch several times to get the message. Good animation though.
Still the best looking engine when it fires up. I get it, H2 and LOX is more efficient but it doesn't look nearly as good when it lights off, just looks like a bunch of steam, which is precisely what it is.
There's no mistaking a Saturn 5 lift off. When those flames shoot out from the trenches, it's awe inspiring power.
Ok, I didn't realise they were still the most powerful. I liked all the detail on how it worked, very impressive piece of engineering!
It is not the most powerful rocket engine, it's the most powerful singe combustion chamber rocket engine. The most powerful is the rd-170 which is in use for the zenit rocket and was also used for the energia boosters
Humans hit a peak for our species with the manned space program to land on the moon.
That is mind blowing! Excellent animation.
Nice animation.. horrible narration voice.
lol, agreed -it's akin to having a huge and beautiful house with a city dump as your yard of choice
Text to voice... -_-
The voice was excellent. The writing was excellent. Go back to your videogames
I agree! The voice was very soothing, nice dramatic background music too
>tfw can't find a real gril to narrate vid.
>kills self
The entering solutions themselves are great but not mind blowing, its the fact that they managed to execute such physical mechanical structures of that scale, accuracy and tolerance in the 1960's!!! fantastic.
Beautiful engineering. Thanks for sharing.
my _GOD_ that's a sexy peice of engineering.
Took the words out of my mouth.
Nah, Blue Origin's New Shepherd and capsule is sexier.. really look at it and you will see what I mean. But it isn't as big and tall as the Saturn V, I will grant you that.
Blue Origin's rockets seem like giant dildos
It is, man. The SaturnV and F1s are my favorite things of ALL the things.
I totally agree with raffmaxi. Am blown away with the degree of technological development that was the '60s
Is nobody gonna talk about how the voice sounds universal?
incredible engineering feat.
Pretty awesome machine thanks to the great Werner Von Braun
The fuck are you two trying to say? State your arguments and explain you points of view instead of insulting each other
Werner had nothing to do with the F1, it was initially developed seperately to what he was doing and later picked up by him for the Saturn V.
such heartfelt narration
Thanks. I truly never set foot on the moon. But we did.
Thank you. Short, simple, comprehensive.
And just think....we built this in the 60s!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wow!!!!
Fascinating...
That is a frucking technical master piece is what that is.
This engineering is so INSANE! Absolutely incredible!
This is really cool and informative. I would like to see on like this about SpaceX's Raptor engine.
Computer voices still suck.
Von braun was genios..
He got a lot of ideas from Robert Goddard, including components for the V-2 rocket. Von Braun was indeed a genius, but Goddard deserves a lot of credit for his innovations.
+Sean Trevathan like einstein said, i only stand on shoulder of giants.. He ment newton and others, work continues, only workers do change.
That quote is actually from Newton.
innovations are like tree, every work is based to someone elses work. this F-1 engine has came long way from chinese blackpowder rockets...
Just curious, how chinese did find black powder? Why need to mix those materials right way and then ignite that compound? Maybe this was some mistake and then came heureka moment, like fleming had whith penicillin?
Great video. I believe the low pressure inducer screw at the RP-1 intake manifold (from tank) is running backward.
With its 160 million horsepower, the F1 engine was not only "... the most powerful ... rocket engine ..." but the most powerful engine or motor ever built.
La tecnologia in assoluta,motori inimmaginabili della potenza che hanno Insuperabili questa è l’America
It must have sucked knowing that they were building such a complex and powerful engine only to be used *ONCE* and then trashed.
Peppe Ddu we were in a race, no thought of sustainability back then
That's the way of most missiles/rockets.
1960's this huge powerhouse tech should not have been possible. We enjoy many huge benefits for what that great generation did in spite of world social crisis
Ну вот на 2м30сек видео хорошо показано как развивается неустойчивость горения на огневой панели. А почему, да потому, что топливо смешивается с окислителем только в камере сгорания после огневой панели из которой выходит много тонких трубочек с топливом и окислителем. Из-за этого в камере сгорания развивается неустойчивость горения. Из-за этой неустойчивости горения топлива двигатель F-1 не мог развить мощность выше 40-60% так как неустойчивость горения вызывала стоячую волну в камере сгорания (топливо пыхало с резонансной частотой) из за чего были сильные вибрации и плохое сгорание топлива. При мощностях к 100% двигатель F-1 просто разваливался и взрывался. У российского РД-170 который и сейчас закупают США топливо с окислителем смешивается предварительно в специальном насосе смесителе и в камеру сгорания через специальные винтовые сопла-форсунки подаётся уже горючая смесь, которая чисто сгорает прямо за форсунками. Это обеспечивает 100% сгорание топлива, отсутствие развития неустойчивости горения в камере сгорания и хорошую тягу двигателей. Даже в обычной газовой плите газ смешивается с воздухом предварительно перед конфоркой, а в конфорку поступает уже смесь газа с воздухом, поэтому пламя в конфорке голубое, газ сгорает тихо без вспышек и не коптит как двигатель F-1. А попробуйте зажечь газ напрямую без предварительного смешивания с воздухом, он будет коптить, пламя будет красное из-за плохого сгорания и будет наблюдаться горение вспышками. Все это и происходило в двигателе F-1. Он дико коптил коксом от не сгоревшего керосина, пламя было вспышками, цвет пламени красный с копотью (это видно на всех официальных видео НАСА). Из-за плохой тяги и неустойчивости горения американцы отказались от двигателя F-1 в дальнейшем, а по настоящему он им был нужен для постановочных полетов Аполлонов 1- 17. Так как на старте заправлялась и обмерзала только первая ступень, а остальные ступени были муляжом, который падал после скрытия с глаз зрителей в Атлантическом океане. А теперь американцы рисуют мультики заменяя ими официальные видео, т.к. по конусу Маха в атмосфере специалисты легко определили, что скорость ракеты при отделении 1-й ступени была в 2-3 раза ниже расчётной!!! США желаю успехов в дальнейшей закупке Российских двигателей РД-170
Each F-1 engine was a hand tuned unit. No two were alike in final tune condition. Nozzles, aperture size and placement were unique to each motor. Those final notes went with the individual engineer with their personal notes at the end of the program. Flame combustion instability is the number one problem as rocket engines get larger. We solved it by insanely delicate final tuning. Russia just used a big pump to supply many smaller rocket chambers. Ones that were simple to keep burning. That made them very stable and dependable. Who was right? Don't ask me. Each had their good points too.
The combustion instability was cured by the installation of baffles on the injector face.
I hope they will build it again soon!
Never going to happen. It’s done. Another will take its place.
When people get all excited about a Space X launch below is my standard reply.
The Saturn V rocket, first test launched in 1966, and later took men to the moon, remains the most powerful rocket ever. It had 7.6 million pounds of thrust and could place 260,000 pounds into Earth orbit. 53 years later, I'm still waiting for something better. 50 years ago man landed on the moon, today we get excited by a satellite launch. Zzzzzzz....
Plus, out batting average on killing astronauts is nothing to write home about. While there was a terrible and lethal fire inside the command module prior to launch early in the program, and the famous close call on Apollo XIII, the Apollo program came and went, it achieved the goal set forth by President Kennedy and aside from those notable exceptions, we did all that without killing astronauts. This nation has had its share of things to be ashamed of, the fact that the slide-rule technology of the 1960’s did something that many believe couldn’t be done today … partially because no on remembers how to do it, and partially because it might dump too much CO2 into the atmosphere, it might violate the rights of some sand fleas, and the legislation keeps getting sent back because it contains gender-specific language.
2,840 tons.... That's just, well, out of this world, literally !
UNREAL!!!!
It's an excellent and completely suitable style to explain such an extraordinary piece of technics like this. There had been the chance to catapult the whole mankind to a REALLY another century. WHERE are those diamonds nowadays. We want to fly to the mars, now. The time has come. (For best audio output you need a good device and 5.1)
I'm dumbfounded by this! Raw power
Why dont they make a updated version of this rocket. Imagine a Saturn V first stage with two solid fuel boosters.
An astounding piece of machinery.
If we brought back the F-1 Engine, we could make America great again.
Well faster anyways ;) They where expensive to build and for the payloads going up today Other rockets can do it on the cheep.
I agree with you that we should revive the "space race" as it did usher in most of the technology we take for granted today. The moon is our next logical step in learning what really works if we are going to go to Mars. We have been working with the F-1 for a possible rebirth for deeper space exploration but what we really need to get this done is a much larger cash flow into research for not just the F-1 but new types of propulsion to get going where we want to go in a much shorter time.
The F-1 engine is on its way back. A remaining Apollo F-1 engine has been retrieved by NASA from the Smithsonian. The gas generator has been removed and test fired on a test stand. Other components of the same legacy engine are being laser scanned so that they can be 3D printed. Someday ungraded F-1 engines are to be used to boost the new SLS rocket off the launch pad as replacements for the shuttle derived solid rocket boosters that will be used on the initial flights.
Joe Vignolo I know about that, but the project has already been scrapped. The RS-25 + SRBs will be used on the SLS.
Not just the Shuttle SRB's uprated ones that will make them one of the most powerfull srb's ever made.
Not a chance.. it only had enough fuel to go into orbit some maneuvring and come back.. the highes it ever whent was 650km for delivering and servicing the Hubble telescope.
The helium didn't only pressurise the fuel tank. Bubbles of helium were deliberately introduced into the fuel feeds from the tank to the engines to make the fuel compressible. In doing so, this dampened the pogo oscillations that had plagued the first few (unmanned) Saturn V test flights.
Very neat.
If someone simply narrates over this video what the voice is saying and reuploads it will be superior.
Well done in every respect! Thank you!
Time to build this at my backyard
Our greatest generation (Im proud to say my Dad was USMC and did Guadalcanal and iwo Jima and my mom was in high school. The greatest generation not only whipped Japan and Germany asses, but also with a slide rule, pencils and paper, sent men to the moon and back! But when Apollo 13 f----d up, brought them back safely.. Alot to be said about Our Greatest Generation
For a second I thought the thumbnail was a bunch of Daleks
Can't wait to see the first flight of the SLS. The SLS heavy lift will be bigger then the Saturn V.
I hope to be there with my kids to see it. A friend of mine in my neighborhood got to see a Saturn V (Apollo 14, if I remember correctly) launch when he was a teenager because his dad was a high ranking faculty member at the University of Florida. As he put it, he was closer than Cronkite (but not by much). He said he could feel the sound through his entire body. I've experienced a low, fast pass by a couple of F-4s and heard 150 dB Formula 1 V-10s at over 18,000 RPM, but seeing something like that launch would be incomparable.
Maybe larger, but the Saturn V had a bigger payload.
I just came across your comment. You might be interested to know that I have experienced both types of assaults on your senses that you have described. I would say they are quite different; the higher pitch of the F1 car passing by at close range is felt more in your head, like an arrow passing through your head (looking back now, I should have taken more precaution in protecting my hearing) while the lower rumble of the Saturn V and the Space Shuttle is felt in your feet and gut. I saw the last two Apollo launches and about a dozen Shuttle launches. I remember the last Shuttle launch I saw set off car alarms in the parking lot behind me, and that was from about 11 miles away! Both types of experiences would raise goosebumps on my arm!
but it says here that they are looking to use the f-1 engine to power it..lolol..so much for modern technology
Who's here after SLS and Starship made their debut flights?
Well, that's good to 2m30sek video shows how the combustion instability develops in the fire panel. Why? Because the fuel is mixed with an oxidizing agent only in the combustion chamber after firing bar from which a lot of thin tubes with fuel and oxidant. Because of this, in the combustion chamber of combustion instability occurs. Due to this instability fuel combustion engine F-1 could not develop a 40-60% higher power because combustion instability standing wave induced in the combustion chamber (fuel blaze with the resonance frequency) due to strong vibrations which have poor combustion and fuel. When power to the 100% engine F-1 just collapsed and exploded. The Russian RD-170 which is now purchasing US fuel with an oxidant pre-mixed in a special mixer and pump into the combustion chamber through a special screw-injector nozzle is supplied already combustible mixture that burns cleanly right behind the nozzles. This provides 100% combustion, the absence of combustion instability within the combustion chamber and good traction motors. Even in a conventional gas cooker gas is mixed with air before pre-burner and the burner in the gas mixture is already supplied with air, so the blue flame burner, combusted gas quietly without smokes and flares engine F-1. And try to ignite the gas directly without mixing with the air, it will smoke, the flame will be red because of poor combustion and burning flares will occur. All of this occurred in the motor and F-1. He wildly smoked coke from unburned kerosene flames were flashes of color red with flame soot (it can be seen in all the official NASA video). Due to poor traction and combustion instability Americans abandoned the F-1 engine in the future, but for now he needed them for staging the Apollo missions 1- 16. Since the start refuel and frosted only the first step and the remaining steps were a hoax, which fell after hiding from the eyes of viewers in the Atlantic Ocean. And now the Americans draw cartoons replacing their official video, as by Mach cone in the atmosphere easily specialists determined that the velocity of the rocket in the separation stage 1 was 2-3 times lower than the estimated !!! US wish success in his future purchase Russian RD-170 engine
genius.
I'd like to see animation like this for the shuttle rocket system I'm totally fascinated with rocket propulsion I watch the shuttle launch in slow motion a lot from the water sound compression to the sparks to catch unused nitrogen love it all.
If i'm not mistaken the fuel inducer is actually pumping the fuel back into the tank according to this animation. But otherwise very well done.
The F1 is the hot-bulb engine of the space age. As simplified as anything can get. Hmmm... I wonder what we are gonna use as lubricant for the turbo pump. Answer: rocket fuel. Hmmm... I wonder what we are gonna use as hydraulic fluid for tha gimballing pistons. Answer: rocket fuel. And take it directly from the turbo pump and skip any extra hydraulic pump.
The 5 turbo pumps combined produced 5000 more horse powers than the USS Nimitz throttling at full speed. And thats just to feed the engines with oxygen and fuel. A mindblowing little factoid.
the First shot looks like a Dalek Convention
All F-1 Rocketdyne saturn F-1 engines assembled in finall configuation were 90% tested at Mississippi Test Facility in Hancock County 20 miles from Picauyne Mississippi and approximately 30 miles from Gulfport or Bay Saint Luis Mississippi. Most were tested fom 1966 thru 1972 when the Ap came to a close!
olo
Thought the whole presentation was excellent and I quite liked the voice, just goes to show personal opinion can so easily differ.
Thanks internet...
I'm curious, can the F-1 eventually use Hydrogen instead of that RP-1 Propellant?
No. At a minimum, the injector plate would have to be redesigned. More likely, the entire engine would end up being redesigned; better to start over with a blank sheet and build new.
Humans built it...human must narrate!
This is very nice that this information was saved by NASA; now all they have to do is find the blueprint specs for materials used to get through the Van Allen Radiation Belts - (whether they went through a thin section of the VABs or not).
The Apollo astronauts received less than 5% of the yearly allowed dosage for workers in a nuclear plant. Basically about as bad as a chest x-ray. It was relatively easy for NASA to design the Apollo's course to avoid the highest flux areas when passing through. In other words, it was not a big deal.
+Goldpenny1 stopping radiation from belts is easy some aluminum or plastic to stop most of it. the real problem is modern electonics which doesnt like radiation. So they have to develop system so that they can use the modern stuff instead of stuff from 60s.
A couple years ago NASA completely reverse engineered this engine and made 3d drawings of everything, including optimizing and improving large aspects of it.
Radio Bikini
F1B
Why can't they use miles, feet, mph, etc for us old timers that can'r relate to metrics?
The majority of people watching over thirty still go by feet, mph. Sorry
Cool animartion - but would be far far better with a real voice doing narration!
Your turbopump shaft is spinning backwards... you're pumping fuel into the tanks...
If it wasn't for the stupid logo in the background, this would have been hands down my favourite video on youtube
Interesting how they describe the height in meters, but the weight in tons
1 metric tonne = 1000 kg
stand next to one of these amazing engines and consider Werner Von Braun influence and commitment to space flight. At Huntsville AL and Cape C, FL, you can stand next to, dwarfed by these amazing machines and know we (USA) accomplished great things when cohesively focused on goals. Can we ever again?
Very cool.
Wow! Very informative! Thanks!!!
You can do It!
id like someone to explain why the burn at sea level looked so terrible in videos we have of saturn v's launching. i know the injector plate had alot of issues in development and by luck they found one design that worked, maybe not aswell as they would have liked but atleast engines werent turning into thousands of pieces like they were with the previous injector plates. i have a feeling its efficiency was extremely low at sea level and didnt really reach a good burn until higher altitudes when they could throttle the engines up to full power.
Here's something to remember. Question: What's the most difficult foot that a rocket has to travel? Answer: The first one. At liftoff the rocket is near its maximum gross weight because of all the propellants its carrying. As such lifting the rocket up the first foot off the launch pad is the most difficult work the engines need to do. From there the rocket gets progressively lighter and lighter so lifting it up higher and higher gets easier and easier. Accordingly the F-1's were designed to produce maximum thrust at sea level to lift the enormous load of the entire fully loaded vehicle. I'm not sure what you mean by "terrible" but in fact the F-1 engine's performance at sea level was optimized to produce the most thrust and lift to get the Saturn V off the launch pad.
The problems associated with designing the injector plate that you referred to had nothing to do with efficiency. They had to do with a problem called "combustion instability". In larger rocket engines acoustical standing waves can and do form inside the larger combustion chamber. These waves can intensify as they flow back and forth across the surface of the injector plate and eventually they can blow a hole in the wall of the combustion chamber. The eventual solutions on the F-1 were to adjust the angles of the holes drilled in the plate to move the propellant mixing and initial combustion a sufficient distance away from the surface of the plate. They also added acoustical fences onto the injector plate. The fences essentially split the entire surface of the large plate into 13 smaller segments. These design enhancements eliminated the formation of the standing waves inside the combustion chamber that had destroyed earlier test versions of the engine.
Also, the F-1 engines were not throttleable. You might be thinking of the Space Shuttle Main Engines, which were throttleable. There was a need to reduce the thrust of all 5 F-1 engines later in the burn due to excessive acceleration as the propellants burned off, but this was accomplished by shutting down the center inboard engine early to limit the acceleration.
Why does it look 'terrible'? For one thing, it's kerosene, not hydrogen... so that's why you get the big orange flame. For another, you are seeing the dark part... that's the turbine exhaust, cooling the chamber walls of the expansion cone... the dark band is by design. Extensive work was done on the combustion chamber to damp resonances... the final configuration would self-damp in 1/10th of a second, they tested using explosive charges to upset the combustion dynamics. Nothing terrible at all about this engine or the way it performed.
If you mean why the flame is so dark, it is because you see the fuel-rich exhaust from the turbo-pump turbine being dumped around the periphery of the bottom skirt to cool it and protect it from the hotter gases emanating from the main burn within the engine itself. Joe Vignolo below has explained the F1 engine's performance efficiency well but I'd like to add that it is a open cycle engine i.e. it's turbine exhaust is dumped outside the injector plate. Open cycle engines are inefficient compared to closed cycle engines that extract more work out of the engine by dumping the turbine exhaust through the injector plate but they are much more complicated to design and build.
wonder if we could get an indepth look
Sorry for the Error in my last comment I meant to say" When Apollo came to a close". Also I know this because my Dad was a test Engineer and Technician for Rocketdyne from 1957 to 1987 and we lived in Picauyne because he worked at Mississippi Test facility from 1966 to 1972 and later transferred to Nasa Facility Michoud in "New Orleans, Louisiana" in 1972 and we later moved to California to the main facility at Canoga Park California.!
Very good summary of a very sexy piece of hardware. Bigger IS better ;-)
may I reproduce this video in my channel?
Could someone tell me why the F1 does not seem to have a converging section and throat?
Oh, they most certainly do. The exterior graphics here don't really show the inside flow contour.
Great cooling system
Good 3D work.
Makes a lot more sence with that female robot voice.
lmao!
Brilliant.
Nice work, well done!
Hi, what program did you use to create these models and animations? thx.
It's a shame NASA can't use the mighty F1 rocket engines on the SLS instead of the Congressionally mandated and hugely expensive RS-25 SSME. Another example of Congress using their highly superior engineering know-how and intellects to complicate a simple issue.
The SLS is meant to be reusable. Nasa is using engines advanced from a reusable craft. Don't know what's wrong with that.
The video cites 65 Giga Watts... that would be the same power level being developed as 65 (qty) 1GW nuclear power plants., that's right 65 nuclear reactor power plants... but for like less than 3 minutes running.
toffersify,,, I just watched an old NASA video (well I guess more precisely an old NASA film) that said "the Saturn V energy output would be enough to power any three western states, including Texas, if converted into electricity." I know they used less electricity back in the late 1960s but that is still an amazing amount of power! P
No mention of the thermal insulation, anyway, a fine presentation nevertheless.
I love “rocket science”
Awesome
love it! metric... hashtag sigh... metric is cool, but how to share with norms?