I’m no engineer I’m just familiar with the mess of reinventing things in general and am leery of making a “new” SaturnV
Well they've already done most of the theory work involved, the F-1D is a thing and even very recently they took apart an old F-1 and fired up the turbopump to see what made it tick. They could've given Aerojet Rocketdyne $2.9bn still, but changed the invoice from RS-25 to F-1D. It would change how SLS looks and works, like it wouldn't need the super-sized SRBs cos the core is now producing a lot more thrust/TWR and can come away earlier. Obviously there are arguments against, the RS-25 is a bloody good engine, spanking F-1 for efficiency at any altitude and would actually be an interesting swap for the J-2 for the second and third stage on the Saturn V.
I don’t care about cost, waste I can do without; we could easily double the NASA budget or better if we wanted to
Yes, totally agree. The mission can cost all it likes, as long as it's good.
Weren’t you just arguing SaturnV as a cost saving measure?
...yeah...? Using Saturn V is still not using cost as a guide, even if it is the 'cheaper' option. Its the better rocket, use it. I'm saying SLS is over-priced
and under performs. My point with STS is it is over-priced, but it
did perform. Same with Saturn V. The adjusted for 2020 Saturn project price (as opposed to individual unit on the pad prices) makes designing SLS look like pocket money, but considering it's the first and performed to a standard still held as the benchmark, the end result was worth the cash and cos it's already spent, the outlay is less cos the units are cheaper and you need less of them.
Use performance, not cash to guide what systems you use.
I think the same should've been done to both platforms, the Saturn V and STS. Rather than cancelling the projects out of no reason other than cost, use / upgrade (including making them cheaper to make) them.
Once they've been upgraded as much as they can and begin to become outdated, or their uses have been expended (and no one can sit and tell me either wouldn't have had further uses, money aside, the past 10 - 40 years).
Then hold a proper competition for a replacement or a phased retirement with a new mission statement that over-laps or interlocks the current capability retirement timeline.
Cancelling the sts was completely stupid; dangerous and expensive at it was, it was ours and it was great and if it weren’t for our greatest immigrant taking up the slack we’d be looking damn foolish right now
Yes. I remember seeing a meme shortly after the Baumgartner jump, 'imagine having a drinks company with a better space program than NASA'. Although Musk freely admits that NASA helped SpaceX a lot with expertise and advice, it was a bit stupid for the US to decide that it'd rely entirely on commercial and foreign launch systems to sustain its own commitments in space.
So, you are saying that NASA will stay with the SLS until Starship puts them out of business?
Yes. it's put a lot of eggs into the SLS basket and will be counting on the Block II version and the monopoly to keep it in contention as it's the only current decent weight lunar delivery vehicle. That'll fly out of the airlock when people realise that Starship can do lunar/Martian deliveries with a fuckton more weight (numbers claimed depend on however much Elon is smoking that day, and i've heard anything from 100 to 300t to the moon), without the 2bn price tag and sack using commercial SLS for the shiny loadbays of SpaceX.
The day civilians can get to the moon is the day NASA stops becoming a delivery service.
By out of business though, I mean the rocket building business. NASA still owns some of the best training and launch grounds in the world and is responsible for so much more than over-sized fireworks.
In the concept of loaning services, facilities and expertise, -
NASA can focus on science
- I think NASA will do very well cos they're rather good at that part.
In related news, SpaceX has fired a raptor on a Starship hull for the first time a few days ago.
