PDA

View Full Version : Retiring the space shuttle and the ISS



ishmael
03-11-2008, 05:57 PM
I'm trying to get my head around this. The shuttle is our last heavy lift vehicle. An elegant if aging machine. The Russians have held on to their heavy lift rocket, and if the shuttle is retired will be the only ones able to pull the slack.

Two years from now, the shuttle is destined for the mothballs.

Von Braun wept, openly, when Senator William Proxmire didn't just cancel the Apollo program, but passed legislation to destroy all the tooling. A very strange ideological stance which he won. The tooling was destroyed! An epitome of rocketry and space science, the life long commitment and work of thousands, and all of us, destroyed by the stroke of a pen.

But, where is this going now?

Bob Adams
03-11-2008, 07:26 PM
Like you said, we had the heavy lift technology, the mighty Saturn V. I hope they have the sense to keep a shuttle or two in "mothballs",instead of museums, able to be reactivated if needed. Wait, what am I saying....the government is involved!

George Roberts
03-11-2008, 07:44 PM
I suspect there is a lot of unwritten knowledge that is necessary for the safe operation of the shuttle. (Unwritten in the sense that it is not readily available if needed.)

cs
03-11-2008, 07:47 PM
Here are the last lines of the aritcle I read.


NASA has planned 17 more shuttle flights before the program ends in 2010.

The next-generation vehicles are expected to be ready no later than 2014.

Most of the nearly 15,000 NASA and contractor employees at the space center work on the shuttle program, but they likely will be unaffected by the retirement of Atlantis, Buckingham said.

It appears that they are retiring the current shuttles in lieu of maintance while the next generation is being deployed. From what I gathered that if maintance was done (at a high cost) there would probably be very few flights before the next generation took over.

Chad

JTA
03-11-2008, 08:03 PM
The shuttle is well past its useful lifespan. The next generation planning is on the way but there will be a significant gap when we depend entirely on the Russians for getting supplies to Station.
The new lift technology will be tested at Stennis Space Center (where I work) right here in South Mississippi. Construction is underway for a new test stand. The "new" technology will utilize quite a bit from the Saturn era.

On a different note, Barack Obama has declared that he will cease any major funding for NASA if elected.

ishmael
03-11-2008, 08:06 PM
"It appears that they are retiring the current shuttles in lieu of maintance while the next generation is being deployed."

What next generation? I don't have my ear to the tracks, but I don't see any next generation in serious development. 2014? That's six years off. We went from Kennedy's declaration to the moon in six years, but that took a plan, and the commitment of extensive resources.

If I'm wrong, please tell me, but what is the plan? Next generation? I don't think it's gotten beyond the drawing board.

stumpbumper
03-11-2008, 09:23 PM
Nope, your right. The Ares rocket system was supposed to replace the shuttle. Many of its critics are urging it be scrapped in favor of the Atlas V401, which is already successfully being used to launch spy sattelites, and could easily be converted to manned flight.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1272859/future_is_not_bright_for_space_shuttle_replacement/index.html

skuthorp
03-11-2008, 09:48 PM
"but that took a plan, and the commitment of extensive resources."

They've already pi**ed those resorces up the wall in Iraq, and if Iran's on the menu..............
Didn't know about Obama and NASA, do you have a link?

Bob Adams
03-11-2008, 10:10 PM
On a different note, Barack Obama has declared that he will cease any major funding for NASA if elected.

Really? That drops him from my consideration.

skuthorp
03-11-2008, 10:18 PM
Found this, seems OK but I haven't the time to read it properly and it seems to come from his support base.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=26647

"Barack Obama believes that the United States needs a strong space program to help maintain its superiority not only in space, but also here on earth in the realms of education, technology, and national security. Over the years, NASA technology has been applied to improve everything from computers and medical technology to baby formula and automobiles. Work done at NASA, whether here on earth or in outer space, impacts the daily lives of all Americans.

Develop the Next-Generation of Space Vehicles: The retirement of the Space Shuttle in 2010 will leave the United States without manned spaceflight capability until the introduction of the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) carried by the Ares I Launch Vehicle. As president, Obama will support the development of this vital new platform to ensure that the United States' reliance on foreign space capabilities is limited to the minimum possible time period. The CEV will be the backbone of future missions, and is being designed with technology that is already proven and available.

Complete the International Space Station: The International Space Station is an example of what we can accomplish through international cooperation. Barack Obama is committed to the completion of the International Space Station. "

etc, etc

The Bigfella
03-11-2008, 11:07 PM
Didn't the Europeans just test their heavy lift capability?

The Bigfella
03-11-2008, 11:10 PM
Here we are:



9 March 2008
ESA PR 15-2008. Jules Verne, the first of the European Space Agency’s Automated Transfer Vehicles (ATV), a new series of autonomous spaceships designed to re-supply and re-boost the International Space Station (ISS), was successfully launched into low Earth orbit by an Ariane 5 vehicle this morning.



http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMDYOK26DF_index_0.html

When will you guys figure out that the world doesn't stop at the Statue of Liberty and Catalina Island?

JTA
03-12-2008, 04:40 AM
Didn't know about Obama and NASA, do you have a link?

I heard it on the news one day. A quick Google search turns up this site space politics (http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/11/20/obama-cut-constellation-to-pay-for-education/)
Disclaimer, I know NOTHING about this site, or how truthful it is. It was just one of the first hits. My Google search was "barack obama nasa"

My original statement should be revised somewhat.
Jack

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
03-12-2008, 04:46 AM
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/news/newswire.php/news/reuters/2008/03/09/topnews/european-cargo-rocket-takes-off-for-space-station.html

Better description:
http://www.politicsandcurrentaffairs.co.uk/Forum/world-events/46809-giant-european-space-freighter.html

Tylerdurden
03-12-2008, 06:11 AM
I think NASA needs to be ****e canned.

Take one half the funding and give it to Burt Rutan and tell him to do more.

Then we will have a space program to be proud of.

ishmael
03-12-2008, 08:40 AM
I guess all of ours aren't on the drawing board.

Found this brief article.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/203327_bigrocket11.html

Destroying the tooling for our Saturn rockets has to be one of the most foolish decisions ever taken by our Congress. Cut the program, fine, we were probably at a point of diminishing returns with our manned moon missions. But destroy the tooling? Goofy, petulant stuff on the part of Senator Proxmire. "We're not just going to cut the program, we're going make sure this horrible waste of money can never be revived." I mean, what would it have taken to round up the tooling and store it in a warehouse with detailed instructions? LOL.

peb
03-12-2008, 08:47 AM
The space shuttle has hampered our space program for way too long. It should have been ditched a long time ago. After the Challenger disaster in 87, that would have been a smart time. The shuttle is THE reason we have accomplished so little in space since the 70s. The cost of operations of the shuttle is huge. A long time ago we should have developed a much less costly option for getting men in/out of orbit and developed a separate and less costly heavy lift vehicle.


flame on.

Oyvind Snibsoer
03-12-2008, 08:48 AM
There was an article in SciAm back in the '90s about the different technology approaches taken by NASA and the Russians.

Whereas NASA goes for hi-tech apporaches, precision engineering and difficult-to-handle liquid hydrogen fuel, the Russians have chosen the simple route.

Their launch vehicles are simple enough to be built in a shipyard, (at least that's what the article said,) and they use regular kerosene in place of hydrogen fuel. Kerosene is much less efficient than hydrogen, but they compensate for this by simply making their rockets much bigger.

Bottom line: The Russians can do more for less because they use simpler, cheaper technology.

IIRC, the article concluded by saying that NASA should pray that the Russians started to go for the hi-tech approach, as that would be the only way to get ahead of the Russians in therms of launch costs.

Gonzalo
03-12-2008, 11:25 AM
The shuttle is THE reason we have accomplished so little in space since the 70s. I can't agree with peb that little has been accomplished in space. Unmanned vehicles have explored all of the planets to some extent, advanced the study of Earth's climate and geography, put long-term probes on Mars, landed on an asteroid, photographed the far edges of the universe and advanced cosmological theories, found new planets outside our solar system, started a revolution in navigation and avionics that is only just beginning, revolutionized communications and made hundreds of worthless TV channels available to all points of our globe. Furthermore, there is a shadowy unmanned military space program that has contributed to advanced technology (cost being little object) and who knows what else it has accomplished?

It is the manned space program that has accomplished little, for the simple reason that there is still very little that men can do in space that unmanned vehicles, instruments, and robots cannot do better. Most of the cost of sending people into space is in the systems to keep them alive in a very hostile environment, not in producing results. Likewise, most technology developed by the manned spaced program has been in life support systems.

Even during the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo efforts of the 60s most of the technology was adapted from the military and unmanned programs. There was, of course, some valuable work done in orbital mechanics that has had payoffs in subsequent manned and unmanned missions.

I was as excited about those early manned programs as anyone, and I still have many books on early space exploration. Public interest died after Apollo because it became clear that there simply wasn't very much reason to go to the moon except to beat the Soviets and to say we'd been there. I doubt very much whether there ever would have been a moon program if it weren't for the Soviets' early lead in space exploration. It was fairly clear after the 6 moon landings that not much was being accomplished there, and the program was rightly curtailed, although I don't condone destroying the tooling.

People have complained for decades about the shuttle not having a mission, and that is true. It is true of the space station as well, and of all manned exploration at this point.

If we want to find a role for people in space, we should focus on unmanned exploration of the moon, the near planets and asteroids to find resources to be exploited. Any program that sends people to the moon or Mars for no reason other than to go there will never have long-term support for the vast funding it will require. Note that there is little political opposition to unmanned exploration (in spite of occasional very public flubs,) while the costs of manned exploration has always been controversial.

Please understand I am not advocating stopping space exploration, only that we focus our resources and attentions where we have a better chance at accomplishing something.

peb
03-12-2008, 12:04 PM
Gonzalo, I agree that some of our unmanned programs have really been cool and have been well worthwhile. But lets face it, after reaching the moon in 10 years and then after 40 years to have only sent a cool robot rover to mars and some space probes, it seems a little weak. We could have done 10 times the amount of unmanned exploration in the last 30 years if we did not have the shuttle program taking up all of the resources.

Now, having people in space is also important. Why? Vary intangible benefit. We are an exploring species. It seems that God made us that way. Getting a man to the moon is beyond just cool, it is an accomplishment of mankind. Getting a man to mars would also be such an accomplishment.

BTW, although no doubt there has been some spin off technology that has benefited our economy, in general I think we get very little economic gain (and probably a loss) out of all of our space activity. We should accept this and move one.

If it costs $400 billion to get a man to the moon. Lets see, that is roughly about $3000/above-poverty level family if this country did it by itself. Now, lets spread that out among other industrialized countries and assume we only need to cover a third of it ourselves. Divide it over 10 years. Are you saying you would not pay 100/year for the next 10 years so that you could watch the news coverage of a mars landing at that time? no brainer.

peb
03-12-2008, 12:57 PM
I don't view it as 'cool'. Ya wanna know what would be cool? Curing cancer.... developing an ecologically sound and efficient energy source which obsoletes fossil fuels.... bringing lasting peace to the Middle East.... all of those things would be overwhelmingly more beneficial to mankind, than manned space exploration.

Well, all those things are overwhelmingly more beneficial to mankind than your fancy sailboat also. I don't think your sailboat and peace in the Middle East are mutually exclusive.

LeeG
03-12-2008, 01:05 PM
I'd prefer the 400-800Billion estimated for a manned Mars mission was devoted to a half dozen big projects here on earth of direct benefit to Americans and the planet.

At least 200Billions for infrastructure efficiencies. Hell our contribution to the ITER fusion project is less than the funds allocated for armored vehicles in Iraq.

Keith Wilson
03-12-2008, 01:08 PM
While the space effort has indeed resulted in spin-off benefits, and some other intangible benefits, I think it's closer to the truth in saying that manned space exploration, while necessary in the 60s, is pointless in the 21st century, except for the purposes of ego gratification. We can get 90% of the science, at maybe 1% of the cost, with unmanned exploration.I disagree completely. Think longer term. It's far more important to start moving out. We're using up the resources we have (yes, we can be much more efficient, but think longer term) and over the long term the species is very vulnerable on only one orbiting rock. We are (at the risk of sounding mystical and wacko) Gaia's spore-producing organs. Time to get to work.

And BTW, Proxmire deserves a particularly uncomfortable place in hell for the destruction of the Saturn V tooling.

LeeG
03-12-2008, 01:21 PM
I disagree completely. Think longer term. It's far more important to start moving out. We're using up the resources we have (yes, we can be much more efficient, but think longer term) and over the long term the species is very vulnerable on only one orbiting rock. We are (at the risk of sounding mystical and wacko) Gaia's spore-producing organs. Time to get to work.

And BTW, Proxmire deserves a particularly uncomfortable place in hell for the destruction of the Saturn V tooling.


resources will be used up regardless and the form of "humanity" that can saddle up the wagons and move to the next planet probably won't look anything like you and me.

I'm thinking some form of machine/human intelligence will be making the jump to other planets along with the same occupying other niches here on earth in another 100yrs. INstead of spending 300million for a fighterbomber jet we'll spending it on the next version of homo sapiens.

Gonzalo
03-12-2008, 01:23 PM
...in general I think we get very little economic gain (and probably a loss) out of all of our space activity. It is undoubtedly true that planetary exploration returns little if anything in economic gain. Most scientific research has long horizons in terms of payback, but I don't think that is why we do it, whether it is with men or robots. As you say, we are an exploring, inquiring species.

I don't think the same is true for the commercial space activity, primarily in communications. GPS has generated a lot of economic activity even though it was originally developed for the military; the implications for commercial aviation are enormous. I also think there have been tangible results from earth exploration from space through improved understanding of climate and geography, though I'd hate to have to justify the returns vs. cost at this point.

My niece's ex-boyfriend works for JPL on the Mars rover program, and I was ultra fascinated to see the photos and listen to his stories during his visits. I would probably be very absorbed in seeing men on Mars and reading all about their efforts. However, I don't think that is a very good reason to sink that kind of money into going there just to go there, and I don't think a project with no more significant reason to exist would develop and maintain sufficient support to be completed.

If you look at the Apollo program, the design of the project was deeply compromised by the narrowly-defined mission of getting men to the moon and returning them to earth again by the end of the decade of the 1960s. It was pretty shocking to those working on Apollo when Max Faget (I think) showed that the only way to accomplish the goal in the time allowed would be to pare down the program so that all other potential objectives were effectively sacrificed. (Though of course a limited amount of exploration was accomplished.) I think the same thing would happen if a Mars landing were developed around the empty goal of getting there and back again. This is logical, because how could the mission and hardware be configured for unknown, undefined objectives?

If, on the other hand, Mars (or other places) were effectively explored by robots until (and if) a practical objective for sending people there could be formulated, the mission could be defined around that objective, and the objective would serve to sustain the enormous economic and political support that would be required.


Edited to add: By the way, peb, I agree that the shuttle has been counterproductive to space exploration, for the most part.

Gonzalo
03-12-2008, 01:51 PM
It's far more important to start moving out. This doesn't sound much different that "go for the sake of going." It would be far more productive to can manned space flight altogether until we could figure out what to do and why to do it before sinking more cost into programs without clear objectives. As I said earlier, a program configured around clear objectives is much more likely to succeed.

It looks like there might be some economic returns in commercial manned space flight, if only for a type of tourism. I say go for it. Any program that has a clearly defined reason to exist will be more likely to succeed, even if the reason is only to take rich folks a few miles into space. It will also be more likely to spawn other programs with clear objectives.

George Roberts
03-12-2008, 01:58 PM
I expect that the US is thinking that private enterprise will be better suited for handling normal space stuff in the near future.

The population seems to be against death in space related accidents.

peb
03-12-2008, 02:03 PM
No, but then again, my sailboat didn't invoke a multiple trillion dollar cost, the lives of nearly 4,000 American soldiers, and tens of thousands of casualties, either, like the war in Iraq.

When it comes to the scale of money needed for these ambitious space programs, I'm sorry to say that yes, there ARE mutually exclusive priorities.

Your logic gets more confused by the day. Don't you think your sailboat and everyone else's luxury toy cost a heck of a lot more put together than a trip to mars. And what the hell does a trip to mars have to do with the cost the lives of 4,000 soldiers, tens of thousand of casualties?

Oh well, on to your second paragraph:

Of course there are prioritization of large scale projects, no doubt. So why is curing cancer, peace in the middle east, and economical and environmentally friendly energy mutually exclusive with a trip to mars???? It is not due to the cost of the trip to mars. A trip to mars will cost you much less than your fancy sailboat, yet you apparently had no problem spending money on a such a large luxury item.

martin schulz
03-12-2008, 02:21 PM
The next generation planning is on the way but there will be a significant gap when we depend entirely on the Russians for getting supplies to Station.

Not quite really:


Europe's "Jules Verne" - one giant leap for van-kind

http://www.spaceflight.esa.int/users/technical/transport/image/transfer/vehicles/atv/atv.jpg

European space scientists are patting themselves on the back after launching a unique giant delivery van into orbit. But this is no ordinary van. Named the Jules Verne, the 20-tonne 'Automatic Transfer Vehicle' was launched on an Ariane 5 rocket from French Guyana to deliver food, oxygen and other essential supplies to the International Space Station.

Jean-Yves Le Gall, the head of the rocket company Arianespace said: "Europe is celebrating another success with Ariane 5's perfect placement in orbit of the ATV. The credit belongs first and foremost to the European Space Agency, which conceived, financed and developed the ATV mission.

Just a few weeks after European Columbus laboratory was installed at the ISS, the launch of the ATV shows once more that thanks to the ESA, Europe is a major player in the field of manned space flight."

At the moment, the Transfer Vehicle is parked in orbit 260-kilometres above the earth. The vessel, which is about the same size as a double-decker bus, is due to dock automatically with the space station on 3 April, no mean feat considering both objects are moving at 45,000 kilometres per hour.

Once the astronuats have removed the supplies, they will fill the vehicle with their rubbish. It will then break away, and is designed to burn-up on re-entry into the earth's atmosphere.

More:
http://www.spaceflightnowplus.com/index.php?k=atvpreflight&s=date&t=Automated+Transfer+Vehicle

Gonzalo
03-12-2008, 02:41 PM
So why is curing cancer, peace in the middle east, and economical and environmentally friendly energy mutually exclusive with a trip to mars? The main argument presented in this thread for sending people to Mars is amusement. "Are you saying you would not pay 100/year for the next 10 years so that you could watch the news coverage of a mars landing at that time?"

Norman has a right to spend his money on amusements of his choice. When it comes to spending public money on projects without practical objectives, then prioritizing those expenditures against other objectives like curing cancer and developing alternative energy sources seems very reasonable to me. Given constraints on the public budget, we might indeed find that they are mutually exclusive.

peb
03-12-2008, 02:54 PM
The main argument presented in this thread for sending people to Mars is amusement. "Are you saying you would not pay 100/year for the next 10 years so that you could watch the news coverage of a mars landing at that time?"

Norman has a right to spend his money on amusements of his choice. When it comes to spending public money on projects without practical objectives, then prioritizing those expenditures against other objectives like curing cancer and developing alternative energy sources seems very reasonable to me. Given constraints on the public budget, we might indeed find that they are mutually exclusive.


Amusement is not quite right, but I'll admit it is close. I guess you could say that a person reads a science magazine or visits the grand canyon for amusement. Perhaps experiencing a sense of wonder/accomplishment would be more accurate. Mankind needs to branch out and keep exploring. Its in our nature. It may keep us occupied enough to not do too many stupid things.

BTW, I would not rule out extensive unmanned exploration of mars first. That would be fine. But the key word is extensive. So far, all we've done are some lousy orbiters and landed in a couple of spots. I guess I shouldn't say lousy. They were actually quite cool. I got a LOT of amusement out of them. But taken as a hole, not much to write home about considering how much money and time we have spent on the space program lately.


And Norman does have a right to spend his money on amusements of his choice. In a democracy, we have a right, as a public to spend money on amusements as the public chooses (think big footbal stadiums). Prioritization is reasonable, but until that is done, how do you know they are mutually exclusive. That is my problem with Norman's post. He makes the immediate assumption that a trip to mars is mutually exclusive with some of his pet causes. And then somehow links the issue to the Iraq war????

ishmael
03-12-2008, 03:18 PM
Well, I don't know the answers about manned v unmanned exploration, but I did learn something from this thread. The Europeans have their space van up and running, and that will pick up some of the slack when the shuttle retires. I'd guess the main virtue of the shuttle at this point is getting the rest of the modules to the ISS, something that van couldn't accomplish.

Interesting discussion. I guess I'm in favor of both manned and unmanned flights. There does seem to be something intangible accomplished when humans actually see and touch other worlds. If we could quit our idiot bickering here on Terra, put our resources into spaceflight rather than weapons, we could actually afford that. Wouldn't that be peachy? I ain't holding my breath.

peb
03-12-2008, 03:32 PM
Now, you're probably going to say that the magnitude of the cost of the space program is small in comparison to some of these other issues, and therefore will have minimal impact. That might be the case, but then again, the sum total of all congressional earmarks per year ($20 billion) is less than the cost of a number of other critical programs....would you suggest that we ignore the problem of earmarks simply because $20B is a small number relative to others?


Actually, I have never been convinced there is a problem with congressional earmarks. There definitely is not a problem with them in theory, perhaps in reality it doesn't work out. But here is my argument:

Okay, we have an elected group of congressmen, answerable to the people decided the lower level details of a budget

...or

We have unelected bureaucrats, who are pretty much guaranteed a job for life, deciding the lower level details of a budget.


Let's see. I'll choose democracy.

Gonzalo
03-12-2008, 03:45 PM
Peb, I agree that "amusement" isn't quite the right word, but that it is close. No insult or belittlement was meant by my use of that word. I am struggling a bit with why I don't find most of the high-minded arguments for manned space exploration very compelling. Indeed, exploration is in human nature, and the need to explore is deep in some individuals. Those individuals (like me and maybe like you) who can't or don't indulge ourselves to explore much, get a lot of vicarious enjoyment and satisfaction in the explorations of others. It is something akin to amusement, if it isn't quite the same thing.

It isn't space exploration per se that I object to, or even public supported exploration. Otherwise, I would probably object to NASA funded unmanned space missions as well. For me it is just the lack of objectives in manned spaceflight when compared to the great returns from unmanned projects at a fraction of the cost.

JTA
03-12-2008, 03:57 PM
...
Now, you're probably going to say that the magnitude of the cost of the space program is small in comparison to some of these other issues, and therefore will have minimal impact. That might be the case, but then again, the sum total of all congressional earmarks per year ($20 billion) is less than the cost of a number of other critical programs....would you suggest that we ignore the problem of earmarks simply because $20B is a small number relative to others?


I actually don't have much of a problem with earmarks, either... but mostly because, even though many of them are genuinely wasteful, they simply don't total up to enough money to be al lthat significant a factor.....

However, that avoids the argument. In a deficit spending situation, it's entirely fair to rank and prioritize expenditures, and I am simply saying (opinion, remember) that on a prioritization basis, manned space flight isn't justified, when weighed against other pressing needs.

If your $20B earmark number is correct, it is more than NASA's $17B budget, so by default it is not enough money to be all that significant a factor ...

Jack

peb
03-12-2008, 04:06 PM
However, that avoids the argument. In a deficit spending situation, it's entirely fair to rank and prioritize expenditures, and I am simply saying (opinion, remember) that on a prioritization basis, manned space flight isn't justified, when weighed against other pressing needs.

And I disagree.

peb
03-12-2008, 04:08 PM
Peb, I agree that "amusement" isn't quite the right word, but that it is close. No insult or belittlement was meant by my use of that word. I am struggling a bit with why I don't find most of the high-minded arguments for manned space exploration very compelling. Indeed, exploration is in human nature, and the need to explore is deep in some individuals. Those individuals (like me and maybe like you) who can't or don't indulge ourselves to explore much, get a lot of vicarious enjoyment and satisfaction in the explorations of others. It is something akin to amusement, if it isn't quite the same thing.

It isn't space exploration per se that I object to, or even public supported exploration. Otherwise, I would probably object to NASA funded unmanned space missions as well. For me it is just the lack of objectives in manned spaceflight when compared to the great returns from unmanned projects at a fraction of the cost.

A very fair argument. Of course, I haven't seen the unmanned projects on a large scale.

SamSam
03-12-2008, 06:17 PM
Destroying the tooling for our Saturn rockets has to be one of the most foolish decisions ever taken by our Congress. Cut the program, fine, we were probably at a point of diminishing returns with our manned moon missions. But destroy the tooling? Goofy, petulant stuff on the part of Senator Proxmire. "We're not just going to cut the program, we're going make sure this horrible waste of money can never be revived." I mean, what would it have taken to round up the tooling and store it in a warehouse with detailed instructions? LOL.

This might help. Written by
Dwayne A. Day is a writer and historian and no rocket scientist.Thunder in a bottle:the non-use of the mighty F-1 engine

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/588/1