 | | Re: Some good news for a change, maybe? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | (...) 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. (20 years ago, 23-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Some good news for a change, maybe? —J. Spencer Rezkalla
|
| | | | | (...) 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? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) (I should have said 'and infrastructure') (...) Nope. But if you get rid of one element then it becomes easier to justify getting rid of the rest. The tooling was just the last thing to go in a whole sorry parade of wanton waste and (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Some good news for a change, maybe? —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | (...) This whole tooling issue reminds me about the destruction of the early Lego moulds. (...) If they had kept this stuff, I expect their critics would have harangued them for wasting tax payer’s money maintaining and storing obsolete equipment. (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Some good news for a change, maybe? —J. Spencer Rezkalla
|
| | | | | | (...) Did it? Wasn't it Congress who wasn't too keen on buying more Saturns and cut the remaining moon missions and all the cool future Apollo applications projects that NASA DID want. The shuttle was then sold as a way to get more bang-for-the-buck (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Some good news for a change, maybe? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) True. But it's difficult if not impossible to divorce NASA and Congress. NASA does what Congress tells it to do. (...) You're sort of trying to put words in my mouth here and I have to correct you, I'm afraid... No, the point is why (in 1969) (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Some good news for a change, maybe? —J. Spencer Rezkalla
|
| | | | | | (...) Probably. But how many major aerospace endeavors come off exactly like they sound on paper? Hindsight is always 20/20. I certainly wouldn't call the shuttle program a huge mistake. Sure, it didn't deliver the promised goods, but I believe the (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Some good news for a change, maybe? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) Me either. At least not the idea of it, and the time was about right, or if anything. My issues are with the execution of it. Too many compromises for it to achieve the promised cost reductions that would have driven vastly greater usage.. (...) (20 years ago, 24-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Some good news for a change, maybe? —David Laswell
|
| | | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Some good news for a change, maybe? —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | (...) Costs money to store - does Ford still have the tooling for the Model T? And let me express at least some skepticism regarding the alleged motivation you attribute to NASA. -->Bruce<-- (20 years ago, 23-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Some good news for a change, maybe? —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) (URL) This> is interesting. "The Saturn 5 was also not cheap to operate... the launch cost of a single Saturn 5 at $431 million in 1967, or over $2.4 billion a launch in 2004 dollars... ...It’s not inconceivable that a new heavy-lift vehicle (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Some good news for a change, maybe? —David Laswell
|
| | | | (...) Yes, exactly! What's the point of developing a single-capacity heavy-launch system that's so prohibitively expensive as to restrict the range of customers to just Washington D.C.? I love the concept of strapping three D4's together to get a (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
