Xref: utzoo sci.space:25590 sci.space.shuttle:6628
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!ukma!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!eagle!news
From: tohall@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Dave Hall (Sverdrup))
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: New Shuttle Engines
Message-ID: <1990Nov16.175907.18177@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>
Date: 16 Nov 90 17:59:07 GMT
References: <10948@milton.u.washington.edu> <1990Nov13.190528.5893@zoo.toronto.edu> <1990Nov14.071003.24567@cimage.com>
Reply-To: tohall@mars.lerc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Lines: 18
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4

In article <1990Nov14.071003.24567@cimage.com>, gregc@cimage.com (Greg Cronau) writes...
> 
>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?

In addition to lost documentation and tooling costs, two areas I am aware of
are:

1) Air pollution. The F-1 burns LOX and kerosene, producing a smoky hydrocarbon
exhaust. Not popular with environmentalists, especially in S. California where
the Rocketdyne test labs are located. 

2) F-1 production test facilities were located in the San Fernando valley 
(turbopumps at Rocketdyne/Santa Susana) and Edwards AFB (full-up 
engine tests). These
facilities are way past the inactive stage - they have been either torn
down or become completely derelict. You are talking 100's of millions of 
dollars (IMHO) to refurbish them.