Subject:
|
Re: Some good news for a change, maybe?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 23 Jun 2004 11:18:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
977 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> What tooling have they destroyed?
All of the Saturn tooling is no more.
NASA admitted they did that on purpose to "focus efforts on the shuttle".
Arguably the Saturns would have been really great Big Dumb Boosters if heavy
lift was something that NASA was really interested in.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Some good news for a change, maybe?
|
| (...) Well of course they did. Is there any reason to spend money to preserve and maintain the tooling viability for a rocket that can no longer be launched? All the existing Saturn launch infrastructure was modified for shuttle use. The launch (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Some good news for a change, maybe?
|
| (...) Saturn V rockets would have, admittedly, had a lower cost per payload pound, but who would have been able to take advantage of that capacity besides the government? Commercial enterprise needs greater cost efficiency, not greater capacity. (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Some good news for a change, maybe?
|
| (...) What tooling have they destroyed? The shuttle cargo thing was bad because of the very thing that happened: JPL knew that any problem (as in loss of crew) meant long delays that could be avoided by using non-crewed launch vehicles. And there (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
81 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
