The supposed derived engine from Apollo isn't going to be very derived after all:

"This one has to generate more than 290,000 pounds of thrust," said Mike Kynard, J-2X program manager. "Not only is the J-2X going to be more powerful, it's going to be different. Time has seen to that. This engine has its roots in Apollo, but we aren't just lifting their work. It's almost a new engine."

This notion that we were going to save money with all these new vehicles by "deriving" them from existing hardware and designs was always kind of a scam (and it's gotten more so as the designs have departed further from the original ESAS concepts). A five-segment SRB is also essentially a new motor relative to a four-segment one, in terms of understanding the structure and stresses, particularly when all of the loads (at least for The Stick) will be compressive, rather than some from the side as they are in the current Shuttle stack. The only thing really being preserved is the very costly, but politically essential "heritage workforce." It may be necessary for political preservation of the program in Congress, but it does nothing to reduce costs of access to space, or truly open up the frontier.

[Update a few minutes later]

Thomas James is similarly unsurprised.

[Update a few minutes later yet]

Thomas also has further thoughts on whether or not space is the new Australia (with some comments on the history of northern Michigan).

I don't know if you can chalk it all up to pork barrel shuttle politics. Flimsy "heritage design" arguments have been used for years to make risky procurements look safe. Look at the vehicle they call the Atlas V and see how much it has in common with the Atlas ICBM. Same goes for Delta. I've seen people call the Delta II booster the "strengthened extra-extended long tank Thor" - that's like calling a 787 a "strengthened extra-extended long fuselage DC-3". And the Delta IV has as about much in common with the Delta II as Delta II has with a boomerang.

Whatever the next expendable launch vehicles look like, you can be sure they'll be called Delta and Atlas. Ownership of those names is one huge advantage ULA has over any potential competitor. In 2057, we'll be flying the Atlas 12, building on a 100-year tradition of Atlas reliability and featuring the proven Centaur 9 upper stage with the heritage RL10J-6-3L engine, which burns praseodymium in a silicon nanotube chamber but is really just an updated version of the good old RL10.

If they're going to use a 'new' engine why not go all out and use the M-1. A little over powered for what they need but still!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-1_%28rocket_engine%29

"The Stick"? Surely you mean The Shaft?

I think the only "heritage item" remaining on the Shaft design may be the clevis pins holding the SRB joints together.

And my misgivings about the "J-2X" were confirmed last year when P&W Rocketdyne decided to hire 300 software engineers in Huntsville to work on the engine. The original J-2, of course, had no software (only a hard-wired ladder logic controller). The only thing besides the name that is common are the propellants.

The "heritage design" label is partly a political cover, but there really are some advantages to starting from a design that works rather than a blank sheet of paper (or creating a new solid model, as is more likely.) What you gain is experimental data on parts tolerancing, fluid mechanics & heat transfer data on a functioning design, and some durability data. Of course a lot of stuff ends up changing - as the article points out, there's 40-50 years of advances in materials science & manufacturing technology. The bigger question is whether there are significant changes in the mechanical and thermodynamic design. Mess with that stuff too much, and you've thrown away all of the advantages of a heritage design in the first place. And misgivings about incorporating a computer? C'mon - even though a car engine like a 454 or a hemi is basically the same block as 40 years ago, they still take advantage of modern controls technology!

The reason the Hemi messes with fancy controls is not peformance or function but environmental. The J-2 (and J-2S) worked fine as they were. Yes, materials and processes change but the 2X engine is a complete redesign. All I am saying is that it is dishonest on the part of NASA. But hey, what's new?