From: earlcp@idirect.com   
      
   henry@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) :   
      
   > In article <433F6EE2.E1192B83@nospam.com>,   
   > Andrew Nowicki   wrote:   
   > >...This means that large rocket engines   
   > >cannot be reusable and they are suitable for nuclear missiles only.   
   >   
   > This would surprise the people who built the F-1, whose specs demanded   
   > that it be reliably capable of 20 starts and a total run time exceeding   
   > half an hour, even though its operational use required one start and a run   
   > time of 2.5 minutes.  Demonstrating the rated life required six test   
   > engines to achieve more than double it without incident, which they did.   
      
   Question, are not the engines of the Space Shuttle considered large engines?   
   It is my understanding that they are presently up to 4 firings before being   
   refurbished.  And the inspections after each flight are just that,   
   inspections.  They are not needed, but NASA being a government organizations   
   knows that if there is a failure and they had not done an inspection that   
   heads will roll so they spend the extra money to cover thier butts not   
   because they are needed.   
      
                  Earl Colby Pottinger   
      
   --   
   I make public email sent to me!  Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,   
   SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC.  What happened to   
   the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)