Subject:
|
Re: Some good news for a change, maybe?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 23 Jun 2004 19:10:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1249 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
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.
|
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.
|
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 would cost on the order of $15 billion to
develop and perhaps $1 billion per launch—more expensive than the
shuttle but still heavily discounting the perhaps anomalously high
Saturn 5 cost estimate.”
Scott A
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Some good news for a change, maybe?
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
