Xref: utzoo sci.space:25644 sci.space.shuttle:6643
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!att!pacbell.com!mips!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jarthur!uunet!mcsun!ukc!cf-cm!cybaswan!iiitsh
From: iiitsh@cybaswan.UUCP (Steve Hosgood)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: New Shuttle Engines
Message-ID: <2154@cybaswan.UUCP>
Date: 18 Nov 90 17:32:30 GMT
References: <10948@milton.u.washington.edu> <1990Nov13.190528.5893@zoo.toronto.edu> <1990Nov14.071003.24567@cimage.com> <1990Nov16.175907.18177@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>
Reply-To: iiitsh@cybaswan.UUCP (Steve Hosgood)
Organization: Institute for Industrial Information Technology
Lines: 25

>>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:
>

For that matter, why would anyone want to revive the F1? OK, so maybe it
should never have been scrapped, but if the US suddenly needed a big F1 type
engine, they could just go and buy one off the Russians - or the ESA if the
former option is still too unpalateable to the powers-that-be in the US...

It would be better to look ahead - not back. And in future, don't scrap
known technology just because you want to move ahead.

Someone (Henry probably) once pointed out that the existing shuttle could 
be massively improved (and lightened) by use of newer computers,
newer engines etc etc. When asked though, NASA insisted on only more
of what it already had - even for building Endeavour.

*That* is not the way forward.

Steve                                             |  WALES: "Land of Song
iiitsh@pyr.swan.ac.uk                             |   and Rugby^H^H^H^H^H
..or in Britain, where we drive on the other side:|    Ice Hockey"
iiitsh@uk.ac.swan.pyr                             |