Re: Space funding (was Re: Hillary needs to quit)

On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 12:04:21 -0500, pv+usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (PV) wrote:

>and I don't
>remember for sure whether it was the J2 or the F1 engine that NASA has
lost
>the paperwork on. 

That's probably because it never happened. The J-2 and F-1 detailed
designs are still around, the problem is that no one builds aerospace
machinery with those tools anymore (J-2 dates from the early 1960s) so
the plans have to be redeveloped for contem****ary manufacturing
anyway. (This also answers the common question, "Why don't we just
build Saturn V again?")

The X-33 was to be powered by surplus J-2 turbomachinery in the 1990s.
NASA is using the same hardware now in development for the new J-2X,
which is a much more modern version of the original J-2.

The F-1 plans are still around too. It was most recently considered
for use in Liquid Flyback Booster for the Space Shuttle around the
turn of the century. It was also a contender to power the Advanced
Launch System / National Launch System, a rocket concept that rose out
of the Challenger disaster, but eventually was abandoned in the early
'90s.

Rocketdyne (now part of Pratt & Whitney) still has plans for both
engines. So does NASA.

>They're both the best examples of high-energy rocketry
>ever produced though, 

No, they're not. F-1 was a brute force engine, but was not
particularly sophisticated. The latest Russian Kerosene/Oxygen engines
have much higher iSp (a measure of efficiency) and thrust-to-weight
numbers. That's why Lockheed uses a Russian engine in Atlas 5. 

J-2 is a fine engine, but it is in a weird performance class... too
small for a first-stage engine and too big for most upper stages.
J-2's iSp and thrust-to-weight is surpassed by SSME and Europe's
Vulcain (Ariane 5).

Brian