Xref: utzoo sci.space:25464 sci.space.shuttle:6596
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!know!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!rex!rouge!dlbres10
From: dlbres10@pc.usl.edu (Fraering Philip)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: New Shuttle Engines
Message-ID: <DLBRES10.90Nov13163343@pc.usl.edu>
Date: 13 Nov 90 22:33:43 GMT
References: <10948@milton.u.washington.edu>
	<1990Nov13.190528.5893@zoo.toronto.edu>
Sender: anon@rouge.usl.edu
Followup-To: sci.space
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern LA, Lafayette
Lines: 14
In-reply-to: henry@zoo.toronto.edu's message of 13 Nov 90 19:05:28 GMT

In article <1990Nov13.190528.5893@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

HS>in an expendable launcher.  The Hughes/Boeing Jarvis proposal also used
HS>expendable SSMEs, after they tried very hard to come up with a viable
HS>scheme for reviving the F-1 and J-2 and couldn't make it work.  The SSME
HS>is just too expensive to be a good expendable engine, though.
   
?

I was under the impression that the reason Jarvis was not built,
in either 'incarnation,' was because of political reasons. After all,
isn't the shuttle the most capable vehicle ever built?

Phil