Article View: sci.space
Article #7754Why not F-1s for Jarvis? -and- Is TAU a boondoggle?
From: ESG7
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1986 10:48
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1986 10:48
69 lines
2966 bytes
2966 bytes
This note concerns Henry Spencer's posting in Vol. 7, No. 45 in Space
Digest. I would like to begin by offering my thanks to Henry for his
distillations from Aviation Week. I'm located in Goettingen, West
Germany (AVA-DFVLR). The DFVLR library doesn't receive Aviation Week
until fairly late, so Henry's efforts are greatly appreciated. Also it
seems that Henry does a much better job of reading Aviation Week than I
do, since he's always finding tidbits that I missed. Henry's last
postings raised two questions in my mind. Why is it, that to
remanufacture the old F-1 engines is more expensive than using SSMEs?
It seems ludicrous to be throwing a reuseable SSME into the sea when a
cheaper and higher performance F-1 (which is designed to be
use-once-throw-away) is the obvious choice. Admittedly there is an
initial tool up expense. However it is hard to believe that this
expense couldn't be quickly offset by the lower launch cost for an F-1
based Jarvis. I've always thought that the F-1 engine was one of the
more important technologies to come out of the Apollo program, and
its premature obsolesence was a serious error. On another
subject the TAU (Thousand Astronautical Unit) spacecraft smacks of being
a boondoggle. Who in his right mind would want to fund a multimillion
dollar spacecraft that literally goes nowhere? If you want to argue
that it is a test bed for a high preformance nuclear-ion propulsion
system, then my snappy comeback is the money could be better spent
on a comet rendevous using the same technology. An even better mission
would be a Pluto orbiter. I've always thought that Pluto might well be
an example of a "rogue planet" which was created outside of the solar
system. The theory is that Pluto approached the solar system on a
hyperbolic trajectory, (which by definition means it would have escape
velocity), but was captured because it had a near miss with the moon
Triton orbiting Neptune. Both Triton and Pluto have very irregular
orbits, and Pluto does intersect with Neptune's orbit. Therefore this
theory isn't as nutty as it first sounds. When Voyager flies by Triton,
we'll have more evidence to fuel or quench speculation. On any event
this TAU mission strikes me as a misuse of limited planetary exploration
funds.
Gary Allen
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<8611171047.AA09235@s1-b.arpa>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!styx!mordor!sri-spam!sri-unix!hplabs!ucbvax!DFVLROP1.BITNET!ESG7Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!styx!mordor!sri-spam!sri-unix!hplabs!ucbvax!DFVLROP1.BITNET!ESG7 From: ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Why not F-1s for Jarvis? -and- Is TAU a boondoggle? Message-ID: <8611171047.AA09235@s1-b.arpa> Date: Mon, 17-Nov-86 05:48:43 EST Article-I.D.: s1-b.8611171047.AA09235 Posted: Mon Nov 17 05:48:43 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 17-Nov-86 20:53:08 EST Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 69