"Christopher" wrote in message
...

Intersting. However would the launch cost's be the same or lower for
a kero-lox fueled shuttle?

Considering the fuel costs are "in the noise" that wouldn't change. Most of
the shuttle costs are support costs, things like paying for the janitors in
the VAB, painting the MLPs, etc.



That's nasty, I don't like that, not very nice of NASA, P&W didn't
deserve it, as they to have to make a living. However, I [and maybe
lots of other people] was under the impression that the SSME was
cutting edge in rockets, ah well, I suppose that title is still held
by that Russian engine they developed for their moon rocket.

Bleeding edge might be more appropriate. At this point rather than fighting
for every last bit of ISP, we'd be better off designing engines that are as
re-usable as your car engine. I.e. extremely. (and in fact you'll find some
of the more recent SSME upgrades go a long way to safety and reliability at
the cost of a little performance.)


The improvements to be had are (with possible minor exceptions) not in
new
fuels, but in better engines -- higher expansion ratios with altitude
compensation, lighter weight, longer operating life, lower costs.

So, what your saying is rocket engines could be developed like the
internal combustion engine has been, in that the car engine of 1963 is
a totally primative engine compaired to the 2003 car engine as we have
seen 40 years of development take place?

Right general idea, except that I would compare today's rocket engines to
the car engines of 1903, or maybe 1893, not 1963.

It seems we haven't advanced that far since Dr Goddard's first liquid
fueled launch in 1926, just increased the size of the engines or 77
years of more or less stationary progress.

Well, effeciency-wise we've come some ways. In terms of serviceability,
cost to manufacture, etc, we've got a long ways to go.






Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill