From: g_d_pusch_remove_underscores@xnet.com   
      
   Robert Heller  writes:   
      
   >   g_d_pusch_remove_underscores@xnet.com (Gordon D. Pusch),   
   >   In a message on 16 Jan 2004 09:44:27 -0600, wrote :   
   >   
   > GDP> Joann Evans  writes:   
   > GDP>   
   > GDP> > Rajesh Khanna wrote:   
   > GDP> >   
   > GDP> >> Who has the most powerfull rocket engine?  In terms of  Lifting   
   capability?   
   > GDP> >   
   > GDP> >    If I'm understanding you correctly, I think that would still be the   
   > GDP> > Saturn-5 first stage F-1 engines:   
   > GDP>   
   > GDP> Uh, that would be the answer to: "Who _HAD_ the most powerful rocket?"   
   > GDP> The Saturn V is now a lawn ornament --- not a rocket.   
   >   
   > Since the Saturn Vs were *never* reusable, each launch of a Saturn V   
   > used a fresh, brand new rocket.  There is no reason that NASA could not   
   > just build another Saturn V, other than the fact that it really is a lot   
   > of 'old' technology. Saturn Vs were not exactly mass produced, although   
   > some of the components probably were (are?).   
      
   My point was that the F-1 is now a _NON-EXISTENT_ rocket engine.   
   It has ceased to be. It is an ex-parrot, er, rocket...   
      
      
   -- Gordon D. Pusch   
      
   perl -e '$_ = "gdpusch\@NO.xnet.SPAM.com\n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)