This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article states how one F-1 has more thrust that three SSMEs. However, I noticed a while back something else that was stunning. Each F-1 has more thrust than ALL of the rockets and thrusters in a Saturn V/Apollo J combined (aside from the other F-1s). Even if you include all of the ullage thrusters, manuvuering thrusters, Launch Vehicle Escape System thrusters, retro rockets, etc; a single F-1 still has more thrust. That is one strong engine.-- Will 04:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't the first paragraph read something like '... the most powerful single-nozzle liquid fueled rocket engine ever *flown*'? The M-1 being more powerful but never progressed beyond its development phase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.55.55 ( talk) 12:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
This is further explanation of my rv of the removal of the "time to fill/drain a swimming pool" as an illustration of F-1 turbopump flow rate. This is a common illustration used in many popular-level sources (including the official Pratt & Whitney / Rocketdyne web site: [1]) for illustrating the extreme propellant flow rates of large rocket engines. There's nothing "drivel" about it, rather it's an easy-to-understand illustration that's appropriate and approachable for the common readership of a general encyclopedia. The same illustration has been used for decades in various educational books, programs and literature on the space program. Joema 18:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Just thought I'd weigh in. I think there *is* a historical justification for the use of the swimming pool illustration... namely, that it was a frequently used illustration at the time. If you really want to justify it in the text of the article, you can say something like "Rocketdyne promotional material boasted that the F-1 could empty a swimming pool in (however many) seconds." That contextualises the statement and makes it clear that it's not something that the Wikipedia editor just made up. MLilburne 10:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I just read a journal article by V. Yang that and remember seeing the chamber pressure was 1250 psi. this is much more than the 70 bar listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.232.118.89 ( talk) 03:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
How does this rocket's nozzle and combustion chamber keep from disintegrating under that amount of massive heat and energy? - Rolypolyman ( talk) 21:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Regenerative cooling- ( User) WolfKeeper ( Talk) 02:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
http://history.nasa.gov/ap15fj/01launch_to_earth_orbit.htm
As a "finger in the air" comparison of scale to other systems, would anyone care to estimate the power of an F-1 (or a Saturn V at liftoff) in Watts? I'm not confident to do it myself, because I'm aware that it's not a simple unit conversion and simple thrust/power conversions always involve some whopping great assumptions. I guess looking at the PE change on the Apollo stack during launch would be best?
This arose because of a recent deletion at Watt. I'd like to restore this, but really it needs to go back with a footnote of explanation as to how the figure is derived.
Thanks Andy Dingley ( talk) 11:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Brian Walker writes in his CNN blog-article about Jeff Bezos' recovery of an engine, "After doing their work, the rockets plummeted into the ocean at 5,000 miles per hour, where they have been undiscovered for four decades ..." And of course, he gives no citation. The Saturn V page cites the Saturn V flight manual as saying the stage is traveling at 2,300 meters per second (5,100 mph) at cutoff, so I thought 5,000 mph might be reasonable (I thought I remembered seeing something like 6,300 mph somewhere) and quoted Walker (maybe he just assumed the in-flight figure held?) An IP user felt this was wrong (so sue me :-) and took a guess and modified it to 500 mph, but we don't have any more verification of that, either.
If you look down in the discussion below Walker's article, a big argument ensues about the true number, not much of it well informed. There's a fallacy in assuming terminal velocity applies; that is for a stationary object that starts free-fall with essentially zero vertical velocity (such as jumping out of a plane.) Comparing it to the "terminal speed of a bullet" is equally fallacious. The stage obviously started its fall with a great deal of speed, and calculating the velocity when hitting the water is only possible if you know its aerodynamic drag characteristic (as well as the weight.) We would have to probably rely on some source e.g. NASA publishing this. JustinTime55 ( talk) 19:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The RD-170 is mentioned at several inappropriate points in this article, such as the header and in the design section. The placement of these statements suggests that someone feels the characterization of the F1 engine as world's most powerful is not fair. Regardless, this article is about the F1 engine, not the RD-170, so these statements should be removed or moved into a comparison section that stands on it's own. 71.85.231.179 ( talk) 07:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
IP user 86.46.186.19 added this to the caption of the test firing photo:
This has several things wrong with it:
There's got to be a better way to present this. JustinTime55 ( talk) 20:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
The figure at the top of the summary shows the Specific Impulse to be "260 SEC MIN" and "263 MIN". Does that "MIN" stand for "minimum"? 260 sec or 263 sec would make perfect sense. -- Armchairastronaut ( talk) 11:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
The sentences preceding that reference compare the power output of the F1 to the combined power output of the Space Shuttle engines. The actual reference is strictly about the shuttle engines and makes no reference to the F1 engine, making the comparison dubious.
The other thing I want to mention is although I think this is a well done page it lacks dates and it's hard to put timeline on the things that were being discussed. I can't spend forever reading it but I came here just trying to find when the last time one had actually been fired since Trump has announced but he wants NASA to go back to the Moon. (Allow me one bit of sarcasm? Make the moon great again!) I'm not against the idea, I was against the idea of not finishing the missions they had planned.
But like I said as I look through the article it's hard to draw a timeline on the Development and Construction and use of the engines. Jackhammer111 ( talk) 22:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Angles, rates, actuators ? - Rod57 ( talk) 11:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Apparently the 4 outer engines could gimbal enough to cope with an engine out but in none of the actual flights was more than 10% of max angle needed. Quora. Would be nice to add the angles to the Specification section. - Rod57 ( talk) 11:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
While mostly not known about (which is why this sections has so little information) it is beleived that at one point during Saturn 5 development, the chief designer, Dr. Wernher Von Braun originally intended to make the engines reusable due to the cost of about $60 million in todays American money. Unfortunately, due to time, research and cost needed for implimenting recovery systems that would need to be put in place on the Saturn V, the idea was cast aside because the engines were cheap enough to be disposible, unlike the much more expensive Space Shuttle (RS-25) main engines.
However, let's imagine for a moment what recovery might have been like. First, lets start with reality. Once the S1-C (name of the Saturn V first stage) was out of fuel, it would be jettisoned and fall back to Earth as the second stage rocketdyne J-2 engines took over. Following it's path back down to earth, the S1-C would eventually crash down into the water and be mostly destroyed. It would remain undisturbed in the Atlantic Ocean, off the coast of Florida until Jeff Besos and his teams recovered the remains of the damaged engines 50 years later.
In an alternate reality, the S1-C would have parachutes and deploy them, once back into the atmosphere and after being slowed down by drag. It would then softly land in the Atlantic Ocean abd be recovery by boats. After being toed back to Kennedy it would under go inspections and refurbishment for reflight at a later time, much like the Space Shuttle did and Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy do.
If this is going to be put in, it needs a lot of work, and attention to some basic Wikipedia policies:
Plus, there are numerous spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors. JustinTime55 ( talk) 19:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
This is a picture of the used F-1 baffle that was on display at the Museum of Flight in Seattle.
Gah4 ( talk) 07:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
I've been trying to cite the info contained in the infobar for a report and I can't actually find 'any' source that corroborates the vacuum thrust figure contained there. I'm not saying it's wrong, but does anyone have any idea where that comes from? – Jadebenn ( talk · contribs · subpages) 01:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello there is a [citation needed] on "An F-1 engine is on a horizontal display stand at Science Museum Oklahoma in Oklahoma City."
I was there last week and it's true, the F-1 is there. What to do in this case? I have a picture. https://www.sciencemuseumok.org/news/moon-landing-anniversary-events-set-science-museum-oklahoma http://heroicrelics.org/omniplex/index.html
2620:149:5:2202:D4EA:892E:25CD:EBE5 ( talk) 23:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article states how one F-1 has more thrust that three SSMEs. However, I noticed a while back something else that was stunning. Each F-1 has more thrust than ALL of the rockets and thrusters in a Saturn V/Apollo J combined (aside from the other F-1s). Even if you include all of the ullage thrusters, manuvuering thrusters, Launch Vehicle Escape System thrusters, retro rockets, etc; a single F-1 still has more thrust. That is one strong engine.-- Will 04:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't the first paragraph read something like '... the most powerful single-nozzle liquid fueled rocket engine ever *flown*'? The M-1 being more powerful but never progressed beyond its development phase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.55.55 ( talk) 12:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
This is further explanation of my rv of the removal of the "time to fill/drain a swimming pool" as an illustration of F-1 turbopump flow rate. This is a common illustration used in many popular-level sources (including the official Pratt & Whitney / Rocketdyne web site: [1]) for illustrating the extreme propellant flow rates of large rocket engines. There's nothing "drivel" about it, rather it's an easy-to-understand illustration that's appropriate and approachable for the common readership of a general encyclopedia. The same illustration has been used for decades in various educational books, programs and literature on the space program. Joema 18:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Just thought I'd weigh in. I think there *is* a historical justification for the use of the swimming pool illustration... namely, that it was a frequently used illustration at the time. If you really want to justify it in the text of the article, you can say something like "Rocketdyne promotional material boasted that the F-1 could empty a swimming pool in (however many) seconds." That contextualises the statement and makes it clear that it's not something that the Wikipedia editor just made up. MLilburne 10:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I just read a journal article by V. Yang that and remember seeing the chamber pressure was 1250 psi. this is much more than the 70 bar listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.232.118.89 ( talk) 03:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
How does this rocket's nozzle and combustion chamber keep from disintegrating under that amount of massive heat and energy? - Rolypolyman ( talk) 21:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Regenerative cooling- ( User) WolfKeeper ( Talk) 02:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
http://history.nasa.gov/ap15fj/01launch_to_earth_orbit.htm
As a "finger in the air" comparison of scale to other systems, would anyone care to estimate the power of an F-1 (or a Saturn V at liftoff) in Watts? I'm not confident to do it myself, because I'm aware that it's not a simple unit conversion and simple thrust/power conversions always involve some whopping great assumptions. I guess looking at the PE change on the Apollo stack during launch would be best?
This arose because of a recent deletion at Watt. I'd like to restore this, but really it needs to go back with a footnote of explanation as to how the figure is derived.
Thanks Andy Dingley ( talk) 11:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Brian Walker writes in his CNN blog-article about Jeff Bezos' recovery of an engine, "After doing their work, the rockets plummeted into the ocean at 5,000 miles per hour, where they have been undiscovered for four decades ..." And of course, he gives no citation. The Saturn V page cites the Saturn V flight manual as saying the stage is traveling at 2,300 meters per second (5,100 mph) at cutoff, so I thought 5,000 mph might be reasonable (I thought I remembered seeing something like 6,300 mph somewhere) and quoted Walker (maybe he just assumed the in-flight figure held?) An IP user felt this was wrong (so sue me :-) and took a guess and modified it to 500 mph, but we don't have any more verification of that, either.
If you look down in the discussion below Walker's article, a big argument ensues about the true number, not much of it well informed. There's a fallacy in assuming terminal velocity applies; that is for a stationary object that starts free-fall with essentially zero vertical velocity (such as jumping out of a plane.) Comparing it to the "terminal speed of a bullet" is equally fallacious. The stage obviously started its fall with a great deal of speed, and calculating the velocity when hitting the water is only possible if you know its aerodynamic drag characteristic (as well as the weight.) We would have to probably rely on some source e.g. NASA publishing this. JustinTime55 ( talk) 19:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The RD-170 is mentioned at several inappropriate points in this article, such as the header and in the design section. The placement of these statements suggests that someone feels the characterization of the F1 engine as world's most powerful is not fair. Regardless, this article is about the F1 engine, not the RD-170, so these statements should be removed or moved into a comparison section that stands on it's own. 71.85.231.179 ( talk) 07:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
IP user 86.46.186.19 added this to the caption of the test firing photo:
This has several things wrong with it:
There's got to be a better way to present this. JustinTime55 ( talk) 20:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
The figure at the top of the summary shows the Specific Impulse to be "260 SEC MIN" and "263 MIN". Does that "MIN" stand for "minimum"? 260 sec or 263 sec would make perfect sense. -- Armchairastronaut ( talk) 11:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
The sentences preceding that reference compare the power output of the F1 to the combined power output of the Space Shuttle engines. The actual reference is strictly about the shuttle engines and makes no reference to the F1 engine, making the comparison dubious.
The other thing I want to mention is although I think this is a well done page it lacks dates and it's hard to put timeline on the things that were being discussed. I can't spend forever reading it but I came here just trying to find when the last time one had actually been fired since Trump has announced but he wants NASA to go back to the Moon. (Allow me one bit of sarcasm? Make the moon great again!) I'm not against the idea, I was against the idea of not finishing the missions they had planned.
But like I said as I look through the article it's hard to draw a timeline on the Development and Construction and use of the engines. Jackhammer111 ( talk) 22:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Angles, rates, actuators ? - Rod57 ( talk) 11:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Apparently the 4 outer engines could gimbal enough to cope with an engine out but in none of the actual flights was more than 10% of max angle needed. Quora. Would be nice to add the angles to the Specification section. - Rod57 ( talk) 11:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
While mostly not known about (which is why this sections has so little information) it is beleived that at one point during Saturn 5 development, the chief designer, Dr. Wernher Von Braun originally intended to make the engines reusable due to the cost of about $60 million in todays American money. Unfortunately, due to time, research and cost needed for implimenting recovery systems that would need to be put in place on the Saturn V, the idea was cast aside because the engines were cheap enough to be disposible, unlike the much more expensive Space Shuttle (RS-25) main engines.
However, let's imagine for a moment what recovery might have been like. First, lets start with reality. Once the S1-C (name of the Saturn V first stage) was out of fuel, it would be jettisoned and fall back to Earth as the second stage rocketdyne J-2 engines took over. Following it's path back down to earth, the S1-C would eventually crash down into the water and be mostly destroyed. It would remain undisturbed in the Atlantic Ocean, off the coast of Florida until Jeff Besos and his teams recovered the remains of the damaged engines 50 years later.
In an alternate reality, the S1-C would have parachutes and deploy them, once back into the atmosphere and after being slowed down by drag. It would then softly land in the Atlantic Ocean abd be recovery by boats. After being toed back to Kennedy it would under go inspections and refurbishment for reflight at a later time, much like the Space Shuttle did and Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy do.
If this is going to be put in, it needs a lot of work, and attention to some basic Wikipedia policies:
Plus, there are numerous spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors. JustinTime55 ( talk) 19:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
This is a picture of the used F-1 baffle that was on display at the Museum of Flight in Seattle.
Gah4 ( talk) 07:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
I've been trying to cite the info contained in the infobar for a report and I can't actually find 'any' source that corroborates the vacuum thrust figure contained there. I'm not saying it's wrong, but does anyone have any idea where that comes from? – Jadebenn ( talk · contribs · subpages) 01:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello there is a [citation needed] on "An F-1 engine is on a horizontal display stand at Science Museum Oklahoma in Oklahoma City."
I was there last week and it's true, the F-1 is there. What to do in this case? I have a picture. https://www.sciencemuseumok.org/news/moon-landing-anniversary-events-set-science-museum-oklahoma http://heroicrelics.org/omniplex/index.html
2620:149:5:2202:D4EA:892E:25CD:EBE5 ( talk) 23:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)