Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!uunet!mcsun!ukc!icdoc!mvax.cc.ic.ac.uk!sund!umapu02 From: umapu02@sund.cc.ic.ac.uk (D.A.G. Gillies Supvsr Dr K.J. Bignell) Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle Subject: Re: Dumb question #652 Message-ID: <1990Jun7.171305.10419@cc.ic.ac.uk> Date: 7 Jun 90 17:13:05 GMT References: <2792@syma.sussex.ac.uk> Sender: news@cc.ic.ac.uk (USENET News System) Reply-To: umapu02@cc.ic.ac.uk (David Gillies) Organization: Imperial College Computer Center, London, UK Lines: 22 In article <2792@syma.sussex.ac.uk> andy@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Andy Clews) writes: >From article , by shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer): >> I went down to the runway for an SCA/Shuttle takeoff once and it >> wasn't exactly zooming off into the wild blue yonder. It's pretty >> heavy and, being a older 747, a little lacking in thrust compared >> to the later models. > >What's to stop NASA spending a few quid on a set of more powerful >engines for the SCA, i.e. as fitted (?) to the later 747's? Is there >some sort of compatibility problem? > The thing stopping NASA spending a few quid on a set of more powerful engines is that more powerful engines cost around the ten to thirty MILLION quid mark EACH.With their paltry $15 billion budget (admittedly about 1000 times UK's shameful contribution to esa) underpowered SCA's are probably the least of their worries.Also SNECMA turbojets (as per Concorde) don't fit! (smiley) Wot I want to know is - when's this bloody PEACE DIVIDEND thingy (ie lotsa cash 'cos we love Gorby now) going to start flowing into NASA's budget? Or will they let Congress whittle Freedom down to a thing the size of a dustbin with an astronaut in it every other month? David Gillies (umapu02.cc.ic.ac.uk)