Xref: utzoo sci.space:25484 sci.space.shuttle:6602
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: New Shuttle Engines
Message-ID: <1990Nov14.162826.23871@zoo.toronto.edu>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <10948@milton.u.washington.edu> <1990Nov13.190528.5893@zoo.toronto.edu> <1990Nov14.071003.24567@cimage.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 90 16:28:26 GMT

In article <1990Nov14.071003.24567@cimage.com> gregc@dgsi.UUCP (Greg Cronau/10000) writes:
>>... 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...
>
>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?

Basically, a subset of the problems with reviving the Saturn.  The hardware
was long out of production and quite a bit of tooling and knowledge about
production processes and operations had gotten lost.  It would have required
extensive re-engineering and re-testing to produce flight-qualified engines.

(Some people may not realize just how difficult it is to duplicate a modern
high-tech product without full manufacturing data.  The problem is not that
you can't figure out what shape the turbopump blades (for example) should be,
but that it's very hard to reverse-engineer the exact heat-treatment process
used to make them durable enough.  Especially if the subcontractor who made
them has gone out of business and all records have been lost.)

People who were involved tell me that Boeing tried *very* hard to use the
old engine designs, to avoid the SSMEs and SRBs, but just could not come
up with a plan that looked economically viable.
-- 
"I don't *want* to be normal!"         | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
"Not to worry."                        |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu   utzoo!henry