NASA Redesigns Apollo F-1 as Lost Craftsmanship Blocks Direct Rebuild

Curious Droid

Engineers could not reproduce the Apollo-era F-1 rocket engine from surviving blueprints because 1960s manufacturing relied on undocumented manual adjustments and artisan craftsmanship that no longer exist.

AI-assisted summary of Why Can't we Remake the Rocketdyne F1 Engine? — original source. Check the original for full context.

Source published: 2018-07-24

Key ideas

NASA's SLS Advanced Booster Competition favored liquid-fueled engine concepts over solid boosters due to critical safety features like mid-flight throttling and shutdown capabilities. (0:00)
The persistent rumor that NASA lost the original Saturn V and F-1 blueprints is false; every design document remains preserved in agency archives. (1:34)
The true barrier to remaking the F-1 was lost institutional knowledge: 1960s engines were essentially handcrafted machines shaped by unrecorded manual modifications and trial-and-error testing. (1:34)
By reverse-engineering museum artifacts and applying modern manufacturing, engineers designed the F-1B, reducing the engine's part count from roughly 5,600 individual components to just 40 while delivering 1.8 million pounds of thrust. (3:45)

Detailed notes

## Background This video was written, presented, and published by Paul Shillito on the YouTube channel Curious Droid on July 24, 2018. According to the page description, the episode explores what happened when NASA engineers evaluated resurrecting the historic Apollo-era Rocketdyne F-1 engine to power the Space Launch System boosters, revealing how drastically aerospace manufacturing has evolved since the 1960s.

## TL;DR When evaluating expendable booster concepts for the Space Launch System, NASA examined whether the legendary Rocketdyne F-1 engine from the Saturn V could simply be put back into production. Despite persistent myths claiming the blueprints were lost, all original schematics remain preserved; the true barrier was the loss of the 1960s manual craftsmanship, undocumented workarounds, and bespoke assembly methods required to build them. Engineers instead reverse-engineered surviving museum artifacts using modern CAD modeling to conceptualize the F-1B, which matched the original's 1.8 million pounds of thrust while consolidating roughly 5,600 handcrafted parts down to just 40 major components. Ultimately, the project demonstrated that starting from scratch with modern manufacturing techniques is far more practical than attempting to replicate obsolete manual engineering.

## Atmosphere & style The presentation is brisk, informative, and engaging, led by host Paul Shillito's warm, matter-of-fact British narration and signature vintage style. Rather than relying on technical jargon or dry academic recitations, the video strikes an inquisitive, myth-busting tone that dismantles popular aerospace folklore with calm authority. The viewing experience feels like an insightful engineering post-mortem, contrasting the visceral, trial-and-error sweat of the 1960s Space Race against the clean, precise elegance of modern digital design.

## Bulletin - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovD0aLdRUs0&t=0s) NASA's SLS Advanced Booster Competition favored liquid-fueled engine concepts over solid boosters due to critical safety features like mid-flight throttling and shutdown capabilities. - [01:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovD0aLdRUs0&t=94s) The persistent rumor that NASA lost the original Saturn V and F-1 blueprints is false; every design document remains preserved in agency archives. - [01:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovD0aLdRUs0&t=94s) The true barrier to remaking the F-1 was lost institutional knowledge: 1960s engines were essentially handcrafted machines shaped by unrecorded manual modifications and trial-and-error testing. - [03:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovD0aLdRUs0&t=225s) By reverse-engineering museum artifacts and applying modern manufacturing, engineers designed the F-1B, reducing the engine's part count from roughly 5,600 individual components to just 40 while delivering 1.8 million pounds of thrust.

## Key takeaways - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovD0aLdRUs0&t=0s) NASA investigated liquid-fueled options for the SLS boosters to provide the ability to throttle back or shut down engines in the event of an in-flight anomaly. - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovD0aLdRUs0&t=0s) Solid rocket boosters cannot be extinguished once ignited, presenting distinct safety limitations compared to liquid propulsion. - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovD0aLdRUs0&t=0s) Repurposing complex and expensive Space Shuttle RS-25D engines for expendable, single-use SLS boosters was deemed financially and mechanically wasteful. - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovD0aLdRUs0&t=0s) The Apollo-era Rocketdyne F-1 was considered an ideal booster candidate because of its immense thrust, mechanical simplicity, and relatively low manufacturing cost. - [01:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovD0aLdRUs0&t=94s) Claims that NASA lost or destroyed the original Apollo program blueprints are completely untrue, as all schematics remain archived. - [01:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovD0aLdRUs0&t=94s) Original F-1 production relied on slide rules, physical trial-and-error firing tests, and extensive manual fabrication rather than computer-aided design. - [01:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovD0aLdRUs0&t=94s) Every Apollo-era F-1 was essentially a unique, bespoke mechanical sculpture featuring undocumented manual adjustments by specialized craftsmen. - [01:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovD0aLdRUs0&t=94s) Because critical manufacturing techniques were kept in the memories of 1960s technicians who have since retired or passed away, the original manufacturing process cannot be replicated. - [03:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovD0aLdRUs0&t=225s) Modern propulsion engineers scanned and tore down surviving museum F-1 engines to capture their underlying physics and design principles. - [03:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovD0aLdRUs0&t=225s) The resulting F-1B design was projected to produce 1.8 million pounds of thrust, matching the output of the unflown Apollo-era F-1A upgrade. - [03:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovD0aLdRUs0&t=225s) Advanced modern casting and manufacturing consolidated approximately 5,600 individual F-1 components down to just 40 major parts for the F-1B. - [03:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovD0aLdRUs0&t=225s) The engineering study demonstrated that redesigning a complex system from scratch with modern tools is often far more practical than attempting to recreate obsolete historical craftsmanship.

## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovD0aLdRUs0&t=0s) The SLS Booster Problem and the F-1 Legacy

As technology leaps forward, conventional wisdom suggests that recreating a half-century-old machine should be relatively straightforward. However, the realities of aerospace engineering prove far more complicated. When NASA began developing the Space Launch System (SLS), the agency hosted the Advanced Booster Competition to determine the propulsion system that would flank the heavy-lift rocket. Two of the three proposed configurations relied on liquid-fueled engines rather than solid rocket motors. Liquid-fueled boosters offered distinct safety advantages, most notably the crucial ability to be throttled back or shut down completely in the event of an in-flight anomaly—an option entirely impossible once a solid rocket booster has been ignited.

The logistical challenge came down to engine availability and expendability. Unlike the reusable Space Shuttle orbiters, the boosters designed for the SLS were designated as single-use hardware that would burn up upon re-entering Earth's atmosphere. There were simply no massive, production-ready liquid engines in active service capable of meeting the thrust requirements. While engineers could theoretically have clustered four modified RS-25D engines—the high-performance Space Shuttle Main Engines already earmarked to power the SLS core stage—doing so was widely seen as an extraordinarily wasteful sacrifice of an intricate, expensive, and exquisitely efficient piece of machinery.

Looking back through NASA's history, the obvious candidate for the role was the legendary Rocketdyne F-1, the towering powerplant that propelled the Apollo program's Saturn V rocket on journeys to the Moon. The F-1 was not only intensely powerful but comparatively simple in architecture, making it inexpensive enough to treat as an expendable asset. Despite these appealing traits, an F-1 had not rolled off an assembly line since the late 1960s, prompting the obvious question: why not simply put the original engine back into production?

- Two out of three entries in NASA's SLS Advanced Booster Competition favored liquid-fueled engine configurations. - Liquid rocket boosters can be shut down mid-flight if a catastrophic failure occurs, whereas solid rocket boosters cannot be extinguished once lit. - Repurposing additional Space Shuttle RS-25D engines for expendable booster duty was rejected as financially and mechanically wasteful. - As Paul Shillito observes: “The F-1 engines were not only extremely powerful but they were also simple which meant they were cheap enough to be disposable so why don't we just remake them.”

---

[01:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovD0aLdRUs0&t=94s) The Blueprint Myth and the Lost Art of Handcrafted Rocketry

A widespread urban legend insists that NASA somehow misplaced, discarded, or destroyed the original Saturn V and F-1 blueprints. In reality, this claim is pure fiction; every single design document and schematic generated across the Apollo program remains carefully cataloged and accessible in the agency's archives. If reviving the engine were merely a matter of pulling vintage microfiche out of storage and feeding it to a factory floor, aerospace contractors would have done so decades ago. The insurmountable hurdle was not the technical drawings themselves, but the fundamental divergence in how aerospace manufacturing has evolved over the intervening fifty years.

When modern propulsion engineers sat down to examine how the F-1 was physically built, they encountered a manufacturing philosophy radically alien to modern standards. In the 1960s, computer-aided design (CAD) did not exist. Rocketry was guided by slide rules, intuitive approximations, and iterative trial-and-error firing tests on physical test stands. Components were designed on paper, physically hammered or turned into metal, stress-tested, and then modified by hand on the shop floor before being approved. Subassemblies were stitched together from hundreds of discrete individual parts through painstaking manual labor, with master craftsmen spending entire shifts executing a single intricate, specialized weld.

What was entirely missing from the blueprints was the institutional knowledge—the undocumented oral tradition and personal adjustments made by the original workforce. Each F-1 engine was essentially a bespoke, handcrafted mechanical sculpture possessing its own distinctive tolerances, quirks, and mechanical idiosyncrasies. Under extreme political pressure to meet President Kennedy’s end-of-the-decade lunar deadline, technicians and fitters kept critical manufacturing workarounds stored in their memories or scribbled on loose scraps of paper that vanished long ago. Fifty years later, that generational cohort has retired or passed away, taking those obsolete manual arts with them, leaving contemporary engineers unable to reproduce the engines using the historical methods.

- Every original Apollo program blueprint and design document remains preserved in the archives; none were lost or destroyed. - Fabrication in the 1960s relied heavily on slide-rule calculations, trial-and-error testing, and manual modifications rather than computer simulation. - Single complex subassembly welds could consume an entire workday for an expert welder. - Paul Shillito dispels the persistent archival rumor directly: “Now there is a common myth which says NASA lost or threw away the blueprints which of course is complete rubbish every design document ever created for the Apollo program is still available but if it was just a case of wheeling out old designs they would have done that years ago.”

---

[03:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovD0aLdRUs0&t=225s) Reverse-Engineering the F-1B and Redesigning the Past

Rather than trying to blindly copy the past, modern rocket engineers undertook a forensic teardown of surviving F-1 engines housed in museum displays and long-term storage facilities. By scanning, measuring, and dissecting these historic artifacts with contemporary diagnostic instruments, the team extracted the core physics of the machine to draft an advanced descendant: the F-1B. Designed with the aid of computer fluid dynamics, finite-element modeling, and modern manufacturing technology, the reimagined F-1B was projected to equal the output of the uprated, unflown 1960s F-1A variant, generating a staggering 1.8 million pounds of thrust while achieving superior operational efficiency.

The dramatic advantage of modern manufacturing lay in parts consolidation. The Apollo-era F-1 required roughly 5,600 individual components to be manually mated, brazed, and welded together. Through advanced casting and modern fabrication methods, the F-1B design slashed that parts inventory down to a mere 40 major pieces. This staggering reduction eliminated hundreds of potential failure points, drastically reduced production overhead, and significantly increased reliability. Even though NASA ultimately selected traditional solid rocket boosters for the initial iterations of the SLS, the F-1 resurrection study yielded a definitive lesson for high-tech engineering: starting clean on a modern drawing board is often far easier than attempting to resurrect obsolete craftsmanship.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: F-1 to F-1B Evolution accDescr: Diagram illustrating the shift from manual 1960s F-1 construction to the modern CAD-driven F-1B redesign. subgraph Apollo["Apollo Era: Rocketdyne F-1"] A["Slide Rules & Trial-and-Error"] --> B["Handcrafted Components"] B --> C["~5,600 Individual Parts"] C --> D["Manual Hand Welds"] end subgraph Modern["Modern Era: F-1B Redesign"] E["Museum Engine Scans"] --> F["Modern CAD & Computer Modeling"] F --> G["Just 40 Manufactured Parts"] G --> H["1.8M lbf Thrust & Lower Costs"] end Apollo -.->|"Redesigning from Scratch"| Modern ```

- The modernized F-1B design matched the power of the Apollo-era F-1A upgrade, producing 1.8 million pounds of thrust. - Advanced casting and computer-aided fabrication reduced the total manufactured component count from approximately 5,600 parts to just 40. - Fewer parts and seams directly improved structural reliability while suppressing fabrication expenses. - Summing up the core engineering takeaway, Paul Shillito reflects: “Although in the end NASA selected the solid rocket boosters for the SLS, this exercise proved that it's sometimes easier to redesign something from scratch than it is to try and remake the past.”

## Notable quotes > [03:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovD0aLdRUs0&t=225s) it's sometimes easier to redesign something from scratch than it is to try and remake the past. — Paul Shillito

## Mentioned NASA, Space Launch System (SLS), Rocketdyne, Rocketdyne F-1, F-1A, F-1B, Saturn V, Apollo program, RS-25D, Space Shuttle, Paul Shillito, John F. Kennedy

## Video description When NASA was looking for a very large engine for the SLS boosters some of its engineers looked at resurrecting the Rocketdyne F-1 engines but what they found out might well surprise some people and just goes to show how things have moved on since the 1960's.

Patroen : https://www.patreon.com/curiousdroid

Patroens : Kosmonaut, Muhammad Tauha Ali, Pascal Hausammann Florian Hesse.

Also : Mark Orser, Jonathan Merage, Daniele Noacco, Dale Kirkwood, Alan Johns, Rodney Aries, Johan Roman, Morten Granvold Tim Allen, David Thomas, Robert Goldwein, Oscar Anderson, Collin Copfer, coolascats, Katy, Blair Leduc, La¡szla Antal, Chad Mellor, Giacomo Catenazzi, AMIR BLACHMAN, Larry Ackerman, Ara Kirakosyan, Johan Rombaut, Kevin Hinnen, Mitchel J. Mullin II, Hunter Schwisow, Cody Belichesky, Mogoreanu Daniel, Marcus Chiado, Jorn Magnus Karlsen.

This episodes shirt is the ‘Capo’ Paisley Mod Spear collar by Madcap England available from https://www.atomretro.com/madcap_england

Get 10% off using the code DROID10

Presented by Paul Shillito

Written and Researched by Paul Shillito

Footage and images NASA, Rocketdyne Dynetics

Music by Mike Mullen BMI www.positrosmic.com with James Zota Baker on guitar www.jameszotabaker.com

[Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovD0aLdRUs0)

中文简报

传统工艺失传阻碍直接复刻，NASA重新设计阿波罗F-1发动机由于20世纪60年代的制造高度依赖未被记录的手工调校与现已不复存在的工匠技艺，工程师无法仅凭留存的图纸复刻阿波罗时代的F-1火箭发动机。在为太空发射系统（SLS）评估一次性助推器概念时，NASA曾探讨能否直接重新投产土星5号所使用的传奇火箭达因F-1发动机。尽管一直流传着图纸遗失的说法，但事实上所有原始图纸都完好保存；真正的障碍在于，制造该发动机所需的20世纪60年代手工技艺、未见于记录的权宜调校以及定制装配工艺已经失传。工程师转而对博物馆馆藏实物进行逆向工程，借助现代CAD建模构思出F-1B发动机，不仅达到了与原版相当的180万磅推力，更将约5600个手工零部件大幅缩减至仅40个主要部件。该项目最终证明，采用现代制造技术从头重新设计，远比尝试复制过时的手工工程更为切实可行。 NASA的SLS先进助推器竞标倾向于液体燃料发动机概念而非固体助推器，原因在于其具备飞行中节流调速和关机等关键安全功能。 (0:00) 长期流传的NASA丢失了土星5号及F-1原始图纸的传言并非事实；该机构的档案馆完好保存着每一份设计文档。 (1:34) 重新制造F-1的真正障碍在于机构知识的断代：20世纪60年代的发动机本质上是手工制造的产物，经历过大量未记录的人工改装和反复试错。 (1:34) 通过对博物馆实物开展逆向工程并应用现代制造技术，工程师设计出了F-1B，在同样输出180万磅推力的同时，将发动机零部件数量从大约5600个大幅缩减至仅40个。 (3:45)

Reading summary

Curious Droid's Paul Shillito explains that while NASA preserved every Apollo-era blueprint for the Rocketdyne F-1 engine, directly rebuilding the machine proved impossible due to the loss of 1960s artisanal manufacturing skills. Modern engineers found that rather than trying to recreate obsolete handcraftsmanship, it was far more efficient to redesign the engine entirely using contemporary computer modeling and manufacturing techniques. Liquid Boosters and the Search for Expendable Power (0:00) During the development of the Space Launch System (SLS), NASA evaluated booster options in the Advanced Booster Competition, where two of the three proposed configurations featured liquid-fueled engines. Liquid propulsion offered major safety benefits over solid rocket motors, specifically the capability to throttle down or shut down completely in the event of an in-flight anomaly. However, the SLS architecture called for single-use boosters that burned up during atmospheric re-entry, making the expendable use of intricate, costly Space Shuttle RS-25D engines an unviable sacrifice. The Apollo program's Rocketdyne F-1 emerged as a compelling alternative because its simple, robust architecture made it powerful yet cheap enough to treat as an expendable asset. Despite these advantages, an F-1 had not been assembled since the late 1960s, raising the fundamental question of why NASA could not simply place the proven historical powerplant back into active production. The Fallacy of Lost Blueprints and Artisanal Assembly (1:34) A widespread urban legend suggests NASA lost or destroyed the Saturn V and F-1 blueprints, but Shillito clarifies that every design document created for the Apollo program remains fully preserved in agency archives. The barrier to remanufacturing was not missing drawings, but the fundamental divergence in aerospace manufacturing philosophies over the past fifty years. In the 1960s, engines were designed without computer-aided design (CAD), relying instead on slide rules, iterative test-stand firings, and manual shop-floor adjustments. Because of these vintage methods, each original F-1 was essentially a bespoke, handcrafted sculpture with its own unique tolerances. Critical manufacturing workarounds and fits were maintained in the memories of the technicians or on loose scraps of paper rather than standardized blueprints. Single complex welds could take an expert craftsman an entire shift to complete. Because the generational workforce that possessed this oral and tactile knowledge has passed away or retired, the manual fabrication techniques required to build the historical design were permanently lost. Modernizing the F-1 into the 40-Part F-1B (3:45) Instead of attempting to duplicate vintage techniques, propulsion engineers forensically scanned and dissected museum-preserved F-1 engines to capture their underlying physics. Utilizing modern computational fluid dynamics, finite-element modeling, and contemporary fabrication methods, the team designed the F-1B. The upgraded variant was projected to match the 1.8 million pounds of thrust delivered by the Apollo-era F-1A upgrade while operating with greater efficiency. The defining advantage of the modern redesign was radical parts consolidation. The 1960s F-1 required approximately 5,600 discrete components to be manually brazed, bolted, and welded together. Through modern casting and automated manufacturing, the F-1B reduced that inventory to just 40 major parts, cutting fabrication costs and substantially increasing reliability by eliminating hundreds of potential failure seams. Although NASA ultimately chose traditional solid rocket boosters for early SLS configurations, the F-1B project demonstrated that aerospace programs cannot simply resurrect retired designs from vintage schematics. As Shillito observes, the initiative proved that starting clean on a modern drawing board is often far easier than attempting to remake obsolete historical craft.

精炼阅读摘要

在开发太空发射系统（SLS）重型火箭的过程中，NASA曾评估重新制造阿波罗时代的罗克达因（Rocketdyne）F-1液氧煤油发动机作为助推器；然而，历史制造经验的断层与手工技艺的失传，促使工程师放弃机械复刻，转而通过现代制造技术将其完全重新设计。 SLS助推器选型困境与F-1发动机的价值 (0:00) NASA在为SLS重型火箭举办先进助推器竞赛时，三套竞标方案中有两套倾向于采用液体燃料发动机。相较于点火后便无法熄灭的固体火箭助推器，液体助推器具备显著的安全冗余，一旦在飞行途中发生灾难性异常，系统能够通过主动节流甚至完全关机来规避风险。然而，由于SLS的助推器被设计为单次使用并在再入大气层时烧毁，现役工业界缺乏能够直接量产、满足推力要求的大型液体发动机。若将用于SLS核心级的航天飞机RS-25D发动机并联充当一次性助推器，其高昂的造价与精密的复用构造被普遍视为极其严重的工程与资金浪费。土星五号（Saturn V）登月火箭使用的F-1发动机因此成为关注焦点。正如Paul Shillito所指出的，F-1发动机不仅推力极其强劲，而且内部架构相对简洁，成本低廉到足以作为一次性部件使用。尽管该型号自20世纪60年代末起便不再下线，但重新将其投入批量生产的提议一度引起了航天工程界的强烈兴趣。图纸神话与失传的手工航天制造体系 (1:34) 外界长期流传着NASA遗失或销毁了土星五号及F-1发动机图纸的传言。Paul Shillito明确反驳了这一观点，指出阿波罗计划的全部设计文档与图纸至今完好保存在官方档案中。重启生产的真正障碍并非资料缺失，而是半个世纪以来航天制造业生产范式的彻底转变。现代工业早已淘汰了旧日的制造生态。在没有计算机辅助设计（CAD）的1960年代，工程制造依赖计算尺、经验估算与台架物理试车反复修正。当时的部件由技师在车间手工捶打、车削和调整，复杂的子组件焊接往往需要高级焊工耗费整整一个工班。面对肯尼迪总统提出的十年内登月期限，大量临时性的装配微调与技术诀窍被工人储存在个人记忆或零散笔记中，并未载入工程蓝图。每台出厂的F-1实质上都是具备独特公差的“手工定制机械”。随着老一代产业工人的退休离世，这种高度依赖个体经验的工艺体系已经彻底断代，无法再依样画葫芦。逆向工程重构与大幅简化的F-1B方案 (3:45) 现代推进工程师并未强行模仿过去的制造手段，而是利用当代诊断仪器对博物馆和仓库中保存的F-1实物进行拆解、三维扫描与逆向工程分析。依托计算流体力学与有限元分析等现代建模技术，工程团队设计出了升级迭代版——F-1B。该型号旨在对标阿波罗时代未曾飞行的F-1A升级版，可提供高达180万磅的推力，并在运行效率上显著超越旧作。 F-1B最根本的跃进体现在现代铸造技术带来的部件精简。阿波罗时期的F-1包含大约5,600个需要人工对准、钎焊和组装的独立零件；而F-1B通过现代制造工艺将关键部件总数大幅压缩至仅40个。这一转变不仅消除了数以百计的潜在失效点，还极大降低了制造工时与财务开销，从本质上提高了推进系统的结构可靠性。尽管NASA最终在初期批次的SLS上沿用了传统的固体火箭助推器，但对F-1的逆向与改良实践表明，在面对技术演进与经验断层时，完全基于现代工具从零设计，往往远比试图复活已淘汰的历史手工业体系更为高效可行。

Detailed notes — zh

## Background 本视频由科普频道 Curious Droid（由 Paul Shillito 撰写、调研并主持）于 2018 年 7 月 24 日发布在 YouTube 平台。视频简介指出，当 NASA 为 SLS 助推器寻找超大型发动机时，工程师们曾考虑复活阿波罗计划的 Rocketdyne F-1 发动机，而他们的实际发现不仅令人意外，更生动展现了自 1960 年代以来制造业与工程实践发生的翻天覆地变化。 ## TL;DR 在为太空发射系统（SLS）的一次性助推器选型时，NASA 曾评估复刻阿波罗时期的 Rocketdyne F-1 液体燃料发动机，并彻底澄清了所谓“NASA 遗失图纸”的都市传说——所有原始设计档案至今完好无损。然而，现代工程师发现真正的阻碍在于工程文化的断代：原版 F-1 极度依赖手工试错、经验主义以及未见诸图纸的焊工手艺，包含多达 5,600 个微小零件，如今掌握这些古老技艺的工匠已不复存在。通过对馆藏发动机进行逆向测绘，工程师开发出了推力达 180 万磅、关键部件精简至仅 40 个的现代化 F-1B 方案，这一实践深刻揭示出“从头重新设计往往比照搬过去更容易”的工程定律。 ## Atmosphere & style 全片洋溢着冷静、理性而又充满思辨色彩的硬核工程科普氛围。主持人 Paul Shillito 以娓娓道来的英伦学者风范，剥开坊间流传的阴谋论表象，将视角精准锚定在冷酷的制造现实与时代变迁之上。叙事在感叹半个世纪前工匠纯手工拼焊的传奇技艺与反思工业经验失传之间游走，既有对阿波罗时代工程壮举的致敬，又带着现代工程师面对历史遗存时豁然开朗的务实感。 ## Bulletin - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovD0aLdRUs0&t=0s) NASA 在为 SLS 研发助推器时曾考虑复刻阿波罗时期的 Rocketdyne F-1 发动机，但发现图纸虽保存完好，当年高度依赖手工经验与试错的制造技艺却已彻底断代。 - [01:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovD0aLdRUs0&t=113s) 工程师通过逆向测绘博物馆遗存实物设计出现代化升级版 F-1B 发动机，关键零部件数量从原本繁琐手工拼焊的 5,600 个大幅缩减至仅 40 个。 - [01:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovD0aLdRUs0&t=113s) F-1B 发动机设计推力达到 180 万磅（约 816 吨），追平当年研制成功但未实际飞行的 F-1A，证明从零重新设计往往比照搬过去更容易。 ## Key takeaways - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovD0aLdRUs0&t=0s) NASA 在 SLS 先进助推器竞标中，提交的 3 项方案中有 2 项采用了具备主动关机安全优势的液体燃料发动机。 - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovD0aLdRUs0&t=0s) SLS 助推器采用一次性抛弃模式，若直接使用造价极其高昂的航天飞机 RS-25D 发动机将造成极大的资源浪费。 - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovD0aLdRUs0&t=0s) 阿波罗计划时期的 Rocketdyne F-1 发动机虽然结构相对简单且推力强劲，但自 1960 年代以来就已完全停产。 - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovD0aLdRUs0&t=0s) 坊间流传的“NASA 遗失 F-1 发动机图纸”纯属谣言，阿波罗计划的每一份工程图纸至今全部保存完好。 - [01:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovD0aLdRUs0&t=113s) 1960 年代的火箭工程缺乏计算机辅助设计（CAD），极度依赖计算尺、反复测试修改以及熟练工匠的高难度手工装配焊接。 - [01:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovD0aLdRUs0&t=113s) 原版 F-1 几乎每台都具有独特的个体差异，装配技巧与经验多留在工匠脑中或随手记录的废纸上，未形成标准文档。 - [01:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovD0aLdRUs0&t=113s) 随着半个世纪以来老一代技术人员退休离世，现代工业已无法按照 50 年前的手工作坊模式原样重造 F-1 发动机。 - [01:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovD0aLdRUs0&t=113s) 现代工程师通过对仓库与博物馆内的 F-1 实物进行逆向测绘与检查，提出了现代化的 F-1B 发动机设计方案。 - [01:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovD0aLdRUs0&t=113s) 借助现代计算机建模与制造技术，F-1B 将关键部件从 5,600 个合并精简至 40 个，大幅降低制造成本并提高可靠性。 - [01:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovD0aLdRUs0&t=113s) F-1B 的单台设计推力达到 180 万磅，成功追平了历史上未实际飞行的 F-1A 性能指标。 - [01:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovD0aLdRUs0&t=113s) 尽管 NASA 最终仍为 SLS 选择了固体火箭助推器，但复刻探索证明有时从头重新设计比复原历史老设计更为可行。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovD0aLdRUs0&t=0s) SLS 助推器选型与火箭发动机的重造困局随着现代科技飞速向前推进，人们普遍会下意识地认为，重新制造一套 50 年前的设计理应易如反掌，但事实绝非表面看起来那么单纯。在 NASA 开发太空发射系统（SLS, Space Launch System）期间，曾举办过一项“先进助推器竞争”（Advanced Booster Competition），旨在寻找全新的助推器方案。在提交的三项竞标方案中，有两项采用的是液体燃料发动机。液体燃料助推器具有明显优势：它们不仅更安全，而且在突发故障时可以主动关闭发动机；相比之下，固体火箭助推器（SRB）一旦点火便无法关机。然而，与航天飞机不同的是，SLS 的新型助推器全部为一次性使用，在重返大气层坠向地球时会被彻底烧毁。这就带来了一个严峻问题：当今世界上并没有正在服役且体量足够庞大的重型发动机。助推器固然可以采用四台经过改装的航天飞机主发动机 RS-25D（这些发动机也作为航天飞机的遗产库存用于 SLS 的核心级），但将这种精密、复杂、极度昂贵且高效的发动机当成一次性部件扔掉，无疑是巨大的资源浪费。此时，人们自然想到了阿波罗登月计划中曾将人类送上月球的 Rocketdyne F-1 发动机。F-1 发动机不仅推力强劲，而且机械结构相对简单、造价足够便宜以至于可以承受一次性丢弃，但它自 1960 年代以来就再未被生产过。坊间一直盛传着一个普遍的都市传说，称 NASA 不小心丢失或扔掉了 F-1 的工程图纸。主持人 Paul Shillito 明确驳斥了这种无稽之谈：“Now there is a common myth which says NASA lost or threw away the blueprints which of course is complete rubbish every design document ever created for the Apollo program is still available but if it was just a case of wheeling out old designs they would have done that years ago.” 真正的问题不在于设计图纸是否存在，而在于时代与制造环境自 1960 年代以来已经发生了翻天覆地的变化。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: SLS 助推器发动机方案抉择 accDescr: 对比 RS-25 与 Rocketdyne F-1 在 SLS 一次性助推器中的应用利弊 subgraph RS25["RS-25 发动机方案"] A["航天飞机遗产发动机 RS-25D"] --> B["性能极高且极其精密"] B --> C["一次性使用过于昂贵且极度浪费"] end subgraph F1["Rocketdyne F-1 方案"] D["阿波罗登月遗产 F-1 发动机"] --> E["推力强劲且结构简单便宜"] E --> F["图纸完整保留，但自 1960 年代起停产"] end C --> G{"SLS 助推器选型抉择"} F --> G ``` - SLS 先进助推器竞标的 3 项方案中有 2 项使用液体燃料发动机。 - 液体燃料发动机相比固体火箭具备可主动关机排除险情的安全优势。 - 阿波罗计划所产生的每一份设计图纸至今全部保存完好，图纸遗失完全是谣言。 --- ### [01:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovD0aLdRUs0&t=113s) 手工时代技艺的流失与现代化再设计的诞生当现代火箭工程师团队研究如何复刻标志性的 F-1 发动机时，他们很快意识到 50 年前的工程实践与今天存在着天壤之别。在那个完全没有计算机辅助设计（CAD）的年代，工程师只能依赖计算尺以及大量的试错测试。当时的零部件流程是先设计、制造、测试，然后通常需要经过修改才正式投入使用。复杂的发动机子部件是由成百上千个微小零件拼合焊接而成的，技艺高超的焊工有时要花上一整天才能搞定一条极其复杂的焊缝。虽然现代团队掌握着完整的原始图纸，但他们发现真正缺失的是工程笔记——每一台 F-1 发动机几乎都是纯手工打造的，每台之间都带有轻微的个体差异和独特的脾性。当年的工程师、装配工和焊工为了赶在严苛的工期前交差，许多调整技巧、装配诀窍并没有形成规范文档，而是留在工匠的脑子里，或是随手写在早已丢失的废纸片上。半个世纪过去了，这些身怀绝技的人员早已退休甚至辞世，其无形技艺与经验也随之消逝。由于现代制造工艺的演进，许多古老的纯手工作业早已被淘汰，现代社会已经找不到掌握这种手工技法的人才。面对这份 50 年前的古老图纸，现代工程师痛苦地意识到，行业内已经无人能够以当年的方式把它造出来。为了打破僵局，工程师们对博物馆和仓库中遗留的 F-1 发动机实物进行了极其详尽的逆向测绘与检查。他们在此基础上总结出的知识，足以支撑一款名为 F-1B 的全新现代化升级发动机。通过现代计算机建模和先进制造技术的加持，F-1B 不仅效率更高，而且推力达到了 180 万磅（约 816 吨），追平了当年研制成功但从未实际飞行的升级版 F-1A 发动机。更关键的是，现代制造工艺将关键部件的数量从原本繁琐的手工拼焊 5,600 个大幅精简至仅仅 40 个，在极大削减制造成本的同时显著提升了可靠性。尽管 NASA 最终在 SLS 上依然沿用了航天飞机衍生的固体火箭助推器，但这次重造探索清晰地揭示了一个工程铁律。正如 Paul Shillito 总结所言：“Although in the end NASA selected the solid rocket boosters for the SLS, this exercise proved that it's sometimes easier to redesign something from scratch than it is to try and remake the past.” ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: F-1 原始制造与现代 F-1B 方案对比 accDescr: 展示从 1960 年代手工试错制造向现代计算机辅助制造的演进 subgraph Past["1960 年代原始 F-1"] direction TB P1["计算尺与试错制造"] --> P2["高难度手工焊接"] P2 --> P3["约 5,600 个繁杂零部件"] P3 --> P4["经验存于头脑，工匠断代"] end subgraph Modern["现代 F-1B 升级方案"] direction TB M1["计算机建模与先进制造"] --> M2["精简整合制造结构"] M2 --> M3["零部件降至仅 40 个"] M3 --> M4["推力 180 万磅，可靠性与成本大幅优化"] end Past -->|"实物逆向工程分析"| Modern ``` - 原版 F-1 发动机包含约 5,600 个零部件，复杂的拼焊工艺常需熟练工匠连续操作一整天。 - 现代 F-1B 方案依托计算机建模与现代制造，将零件数量缩减至仅 40 个。 - F-1B 发动机设计推力达到 180 万磅（约 8000 千牛 / 816 吨），媲美 F-1A。 - 导致无法直接重造 F-1 的核心症结，是 1960 年代高度依赖个人手艺的手工作坊式制造模式与工匠人才的彻底断代。 ## Notable quotes > [01:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovD0aLdRUs0&t=113s) Although in the end NASA selected the solid rocket boosters for the SLS, this exercise proved that it's sometimes easier to redesign something from scratch than it is to try and remake the past. — Paul Shillito ## Mentioned NASA, SLS, Rocketdyne, Rocketdyne F-1, F-1A, F-1B, RS-25, RS-25D, Paul Shillito, Apollo program, Dynetics ## Video description When NASA was looking for a very large engine for the SLS boosters some of its engineers looked at resurrecting the Rocketdyne F-1 engines but what they found out might well surprise some people and just goes to show how things have moved on since the 1960's. Patroen : https://www.patreon.com/curiousdroid Patroens : Kosmonaut, Muhammad Tauha Ali, Pascal Hausammann Florian Hesse. Also : Mark Orser, Jonathan Merage, Daniele Noacco, Dale Kirkwood, Alan Johns, Rodney Aries, Johan Roman, Morten Granvold Tim Allen, David Thomas, Robert Goldwein, Oscar Anderson, Collin Copfer, coolascats, Katy, Blair Leduc, La¡szla Antal, Chad Mellor, Giacomo Catenazzi, AMIR BLACHMAN, Larry Ackerman, Ara Kirakosyan, Johan Rombaut, Kevin Hinnen, Mitchel J. Mullin II, Hunter Schwisow, Cody Belichesky, Mogoreanu Daniel, Marcus Chiado, Jorn Magnus Karlsen. This episodes shirt is the ‘Capo’ Paisley Mod Spear collar by Madcap England available from https://www.atomretro.com/madcap_england Get 10% off using the code DROID10 Presented by Paul Shillito Written and Researched by Paul Shillito Footage and images NASA, Rocketdyne Dynetics Music by Mike Mullen BMI www.positrosmic.com with James Zota Baker on guitar www.jameszotabaker.com [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovD0aLdRUs0)

Source quotes

[1:53] Paul Shillito: Although in the end NASA selected the solid rocket boosters for the SLS, this exercise proved that it's sometimes easier to redesign something from scratch than it is to try and remake the past.

Source quotes

[3:45] Paul Shillito: it's sometimes easier to redesign something from scratch than it is to try and remake the past.

Original transcript

[0:00] As we advance our technology ever forward you would think that remaking a [0:04] 50-year old design should be easy but things are not quite as simple as they [0:09] first seem. [0:15] When the Space Launch System or the SLS was in development NASA ran the advanced [0:21] booster competition to find a new booster system and two of the three [0:25] entries used liquid fuel engines. Liquid fuel boosters would be safer and could [0:31] be shut down in the event of a problem unlike the solid rocket boosters which [0:35] cant. However unlike the space shuttle the new boosters would be single-use [0:41] only and would burn up when they fell back to earth but which liquid fuel [0:47] engines would be powerful enough there really aren't any massive engines in use [0:52] today. The boosters could use four same modified RS-25D the engines those left [0:59] over from a space shuttle program which would also be used the SLS's main core [1:04] stage but that will be very wasteful of a complex expensive and yet highly [1:09] efficient engine. Now we've already had an engine capable of doing the job, [1:13] the mighty Rocketdyne F-1 the huge engines which took men to the moon with the [1:19] Apollo program but they haven't been built since the 1960s. The F-1 engines [1:25] were not only extremely powerful but they were also simple which meant they [1:29] were cheap enough to be disposable so why don't we just remake them. Now there [1:35] is a common myth which says NASA lost or threw away the blueprints which of [1:39] course is complete rubbish every design document ever created for the Apollo [1:43] program is still available but if it was just a case of wheeling out old designs [1:48] they would have done that years ago. No the problem is not the design but it's [1:53] for way in which the world has moved on since the engineers first created those [1:58] F-1 engines back in the 1960s. When a group of present-day rocket engineers [2:04] looked at how they could recreate the iconic F-1 engines they soon realized [2:09] just how differently things were done some 50 years ago when there was no [2:14] computer-aided design just slide rules and trial and error testing. Components [2:21] were designed, built and then tested and then often modified before being used. [2:27] Complex engines sub assemblies were welded together from sometimes hundreds [2:32] of smaller parts with skilled welders taking sometimes a day to complete one [2:37] complex world. Although they had the original blueprints what they found that [2:43] was missing was the notes made by the engineers as they effectively [2:47] handcrafted every engine, each one slightly different with its own quirks [2:52] and foibles. The original builders of the F-1 engines were highly skilled engineers, [2:58] welders and fitters they did almost everything by hand because often that [3:03] was the only way to do it back then and in the rush to meet deadlines they kept [3:08] many of the tricks that they used to get things to work and go together in their [3:13] heads or scribbled down on scraps of paper long since lost. Roll on 50 years [3:19] and all of those skilled people have long since retired and many have passed [3:23] away taking their skills and knowledge with them. With the advent of modern [3:29] manufacturing techniques many of those skills are no longer in use and few [3:34] people today have them so faced with 50-year old blueprints we find we just [3:39] don't have the people with the skills that can make them in the same way [3:44] anymore. By detailed examination of the remaining [3:48] F-1 engines from museums and storage our new engineers did discover enough to [3:54] create a new F-1B engine should it ever be built. Using modern computer modeling [4:01] and manufacturing techniques the new engine could not only be more efficient [4:05] it would be just as powerful as the uprated but unflown F-1A at 1.8 million [4:12] pounds of thrust but more importantly it would reduce the number of [4:17] manufactured parts from some 5,600 to just 40 and increase its reliability and [4:25] decrease costs in the process. Although in the end NASA selected the solid [4:31] rocket boosters for the SLS, this exercise proved that it's sometimes [4:35] easier to redesign something from scratch than it is to try and [4:40] remake the past. So what do you think of remaking the F-1 engines and also this [4:46] new short video format let me know in the comments and I just [4:50] like to take time to thank all of our patrons for their ongoing support and [4:53] thank all of you for watching and please subscribe, rate and share.