🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec31.172110.10616@cs.ucf.edu>, clarke@next1.acme.ucf.edu () writes...
>9Wanting to refresh my somewhat rusty remembrance of things rocket,
>
[stuff deleted]

>Now, I have been led to believe that the SSME is a large
>advance over previous engines. The above seems to imply
>that with a little work the 6 J-2s could have powered
>the shuttle quite nicely.  Perhaps a 6:1 mixture would have
>given it the same Isp as SSME - the J-2 thrust and thrust/weight
>would have then been 246,000 lbs and 71.5.
> 

>Now, the F-1 does not replace an SRB one for one, but its
>no too far off.  Given its good record maybe the F-1 could
>have been rerated to 135% throttle to equal the SRB.
>

The F1A Engine has been qualified to a flight thrust of 1.75 million lbs. On
the test stand at NASA Marshall Space Flight center the original F1's were
fired to 110% of rated thrust to establish emergency margins (1.65 million lbs).
It is a heck of an engine.

>Hence the question in the title of my post:  What was NASA
>thinking about?  Apparently the Saturn engines could have
>been used to build the shuttle vehicle.  Why weren't they?
> 
>A shuttle with 5 or 6 J-2s using 2 uprated F-1s in the recoverable
>boosters would have taken advantage of a history of literally
>dozens of successful flight firings.  Plus there would
>have been a much wider range of abort modes.
> 
>Happy new year.  Let's hope for more rational future designs

Tom what you are describing IS the original shuttle idea, except that they
wanted to reduce the number of engines and realize "cost savings and airline
type reservicing of the engines". Sound familiar? The original Shuttle would
have basicially been the upper stages of a flyback modification of the Saturn
V first stage. The shuttle with its high ISP LOX/H2 engines would have been
the upper stage. This was the plan before the congressional budget office
and the Office of Budget and Managment (Caspar Weinburger) got ahold of the
shuttle budget.  In order to lower the costs of developemnt to the mandated
development budget, the operational costs of the shuttle were sacrificed. 
Wales Larrison posted a wonderful summary of the idiocy that ended up with the
politicans designing the shuttle instead of the rocket scientists.  Most of
the problems that Allen so crys about are the result of that ill considered
budget process.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville