Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!osu-cis!att!ihlpl!knudsen
From: knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Heavy Lift Capacity Boosters
Summary: Reliability!
Message-ID: <7052@ihlpl.ATT.COM>
Date: 5 Oct 88 17:37:29 GMT
References: <677@eplrx7.UUCP> <2240@ssc-vax.UUCP> <1402@viper.Lynx.MN.Org> <28994@think.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois
Lines: 19

One problem nobody's mentioned yet with respect to the idea
of building a family of launchers out of old SSMEs:
the plan was stated as using up SSMEs that had been used 10 or more times
so they were no longer considered "man-rated."

OK, so let's suppose I design this terrific Neptune probe whose
launch requires 4 SSMEs in the 1st stage, 1 more in the 2nd and a 3rd
one to send that probe off into deep space.  That's 6 engines,
all of which are officially deemed too unreliable any more
to trust human life (or an Orbiter) to.

If any ONE of those engines fails, there goes my nice big probe
into the ocean.  Do you expect me to be enthusiastic about the
upcoming launch?

OK, so losing the probe isn't as bad as losing an Orbiter plus
the public effects of losing its crew, but somehow using
officially untrustworthy engines for anything other than John Denver
seems foolish.  Especially if more than 3 are required.