Xref: utzoo sci.space:25480 sci.space.shuttle:6601
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!umich!dgsi!gregc
From: gregc@cimage.com (Greg Cronau)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: New Shuttle Engines
Message-ID: <1990Nov14.071003.24567@cimage.com>
Date: 14 Nov 90 07:10:03 GMT
References: <10948@milton.u.washington.edu> <1990Nov13.190528.5893@zoo.toronto.edu>
Reply-To: gregc@dgsi.UUCP (Greg Cronau/10000)
Organization: Cimage Corp, Ann Arbor, MI
Lines: 12

In article <1990Nov13.190528.5893@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>The definitive Shuttle C proposal wanted to use life-expired shuttle engines
>in an expendable launcher.  The Hughes/Boeing Jarvis proposal also used
>expendable SSMEs, after they tried very hard to come up with a viable
>scheme for reviving the F-1 and J-2 and couldn't make it work.  The SSME
>is just too expensive to be a good expendable engine, though.

I can understand why reviving the Saturn program would be damn near impossible,
but what problems were encountered with reviving just the F-1 engine program?

gregc@cimage.com