Talk:Rocketdyne F-1

message: 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)
thread_title:  The thrust from a single F-1 is simply amazing 

message: 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)
thread_title: Heat resistance

message: 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  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)
replies: text: I've skimmed through a bunch of NASA documents -- e.g. the Saturn V news reference, press kits, and post-mission Saturn V launch reports -- and most of them say roughly where the S-IC would or did hit the sea, but none esimate how fast. Boeing expected to get the impact speed down to around 100 feet per second if they attached parachutes to recover it, but that only sets a lower limit. There's also the question of whether the stage would have hit the sea intact, or broken up in flight; the Boeing recovery plan wanted to use drag flaps at the bottom of the stage to keep it flying nose-first rather than engines-first. With said drag flaps they estimated it would go subsonic at 32,000 feet before the parachutes were opened. Mark Grant (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  <I>"The stage obviously started its fall with a great deal of speed"</I>: yes, but upwards. Then it had to decelerate to vertical velocity zero and then it began to fall down (free fall). But also the horizontal velocity component must be considered. 194.174.76.21 (talk) 17:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but WP:Wikipedia is not about winning. The point is, absent a reliable source, we're whistling in the dark trying to guess. It's moot because the speed was removed from the article. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  How fast did the engines hit the water? 

message: 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)
replies: text: In particular the claims for the RD-170(171) are doubtfully. When we compare SL with SL then (1 - 6.909/7.257)x100 is only 4.8% and not 20%. Then is the claim doubtful that a cluster is only one engine. The only reason that the Russians use cluster is the never solved the Pogo-instability in a big single combustion chamber feed with a kerosine LOX mixture. --HDP (talk) 12:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  RD-170? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Specific Impulse 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reference number 5 for thrust comparison - and few dates for a timeline 

message: Angles, rates, actuators ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  What can we say about  the gimballing for thrust vectoring 

message: If this is going to be put in, it needs a lot of work, and attention to some basic Wikipedia policies:
*WP:Verifiability: WP:Reliable sources need to be cited, to ensure avoidance of WP:Original research.
*MOS:PERSON Encyclopedic tone forbids the use of first-person chattiness and article referring to itself: "mostlly not known about'; "why this section has so little information"; "Let's imagine for a moment"; "First, let's start with reality".
*"In an alternate reality": WP:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; we don't speculate on "alternative realities".
Plus, there are numerous spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a proposal (from Boeing) to recover the S1-C by parachute, but it was intended that the engines would be replaced, not reused. - Rod57 (talk) 11:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reusability addition 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Used baffle 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Source of Vacuum Thrust? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Oklahoma City display