3 ms·

I think I read somewhere that we actually lost the technology to build the Saturn V; the fab tools, the blueprints, and the skilled labor isn’t there anymore. I

I think I read somewhere that we actually lost the technology to build the Saturn V; the fab tools, the blueprints, and the skilled labor isn’t there anymore. It’s like Damascus steel or Roman concrete or Greek fire. We may have to reinvent it.

ricardobeat 7y ago
To be honest I don’t know enough about this, but my understanding was that both the Delta IV Heavy and Falcon Heavy have the ability to execute a moon mission, plus the Boeing SLS is already in development. Is there a need to start from scratch?
- nradov 7y ago
  No one had proposed starting from scratch and building new Saturn V's. That would be totally impractical. But none of those new rockets have actually demonstrated the ability to lift enough payload for a manned lunar mission. They might be able to do so eventually but years of development work remain.
- ForHackernews 7y ago
  Maybe if you're willing to do multiple launches and Earth-orbit rendezvous. Neither the Falcon Heavy nor the Delta IV Heavy matches the payload of the Saturn V: https://money.cnn.com/2018/02/06/technology/future/biggest-rockets-falcon-heavy-comparison/index.html https://money.cnn.com/2018/02/06/technology/future/biggest-r...
  - a3n 7y ago
    Smaller risk in multiple respective baskets?
mikeash 7y ago
It would be very difficult to build a new Saturn V just because any product of any complexity is inherently embedded in the economic ecosystem it came from. If the plans specify a #5 Widget and nobody has made a #5 Widget in the past 30 years, then you’re kind of stuck even if the vastly superior #8 Widget is currently available in any hardware store. What you say is true but it’s not correct to frame is as a step backwards as is often done. The Saturn V would be hard to build today because technology has moved forward a great deal. This is an important distinction because it means that building a new rocket with the capabilities of the Saturn V is still very much possible. SLS and Super Heavy are two rockets in active development that will exceed the Saturn V. SLS is taking forever but that’s just a matter of not putting resources into it. It’s expensive, but Saturn V was too. Super Heavy is a little more speculative but it looks promising and its capabilities will blow Saturn V’s out of the water if it actually flies, and for far less money.
- gpm 7y ago
  > that’s just a matter of not putting resources into it. And Boeing consistently missing deadlines they agreed to. But that's a matter of them being in the business of milking taxpayers not a matter of technology.
- wolf550e 7y ago
  EDITED The Constellation program cost $12B between 2005-2009 [1] and includes Ares V, an earlier version of SLS (but also Orion and Ares I). SLS under the current name (without Orion) has cost $14B 2011-2018 [2]. No idea about 2009-2011. It will cost several billion per year until it is cancelled. It uses existing (flown in space) shuttle engines, shuttle main tank tooling, 5 segment version of shuttle's 4 segment boosters (also 15 years in development), etc. It requires no new technology and it is not trying to be better than anything. It has all the money it wants. They even took money away from commercial crew to pay SLS, a few years ago, which made commercial crew late which forced them to pay more to the Russians. The problem with SLS is that it is designed to burn money. It is not designed to fly, to achieve a mission of any kind. It is optimized to cost as much as possible, because its success is defined as "raised average wage in my congressional district for as long as possible" by the people who ordered it done. 1 - http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2016/20160801-horizon-goal-part-2.html http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2016/20160801-hor... 2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System#Funding_history_and_planning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System#Funding_hi...
  - mikeash 7y ago
    Where does that $50 billion figure come from? I found a NASA report from last year that says $11.9 billion. That’s an average of somewhat less than $2 billion/year so far. In contrast, the Saturn V took about five years from start to first flight, and development cost something like $6-9 billion/year. I wouldn’t be surprised if SLS ended up costing more in the end, precisely because spending is lower. A project with less funding that drags on forever costs more than one with better funding that’s finishes quickly.
    - 7y ago

ricardobeat 7y ago

To be honest I don’t know enough about this, but my understanding was that both the Delta IV Heavy and Falcon Heavy have the ability to execute a moon mission, plus the Boeing SLS is already in development. Is there a need to start from scratch?

nradov 7y ago
No one had proposed starting from scratch and building new Saturn V's. That would be totally impractical. But none of those new rockets have actually demonstrated the ability to lift enough payload for a manned lunar mission. They might be able to do so eventually but years of development work remain.
ForHackernews 7y ago
Maybe if you're willing to do multiple launches and Earth-orbit rendezvous. Neither the Falcon Heavy nor the Delta IV Heavy matches the payload of the Saturn V: https://money.cnn.com/2018/02/06/technology/future/biggest-rockets-falcon-heavy-comparison/index.html https://money.cnn.com/2018/02/06/technology/future/biggest-r...
- a3n 7y ago
  Smaller risk in multiple respective baskets?

mikeash 7y ago

It would be very difficult to build a new Saturn V just because any product of any complexity is inherently embedded in the economic ecosystem it came from. If the plans specify a #5 Widget and nobody has made a #5 Widget in the past 30 years, then you’re kind of stuck even if the vastly superior #8 Widget is currently available in any hardware store. What you say is true but it’s not correct to frame is as a step backwards as is often done. The Saturn V would be hard to build today because technology has moved forward a great deal. This is an important distinction because it means that building a new rocket with the capabilities of the Saturn V is still very much possible. SLS and Super Heavy are two rockets in active development that will exceed the Saturn V. SLS is taking forever but that’s just a matter of not putting resources into it. It’s expensive, but Saturn V was too. Super Heavy is a little more speculative but it looks promising and its capabilities will blow Saturn V’s out of the water if it actually flies, and for far less money.

gpm 7y ago
> that’s just a matter of not putting resources into it. And Boeing consistently missing deadlines they agreed to. But that's a matter of them being in the business of milking taxpayers not a matter of technology.
wolf550e 7y ago
EDITED The Constellation program cost $12B between 2005-2009 [1] and includes Ares V, an earlier version of SLS (but also Orion and Ares I). SLS under the current name (without Orion) has cost $14B 2011-2018 [2]. No idea about 2009-2011. It will cost several billion per year until it is cancelled. It uses existing (flown in space) shuttle engines, shuttle main tank tooling, 5 segment version of shuttle's 4 segment boosters (also 15 years in development), etc. It requires no new technology and it is not trying to be better than anything. It has all the money it wants. They even took money away from commercial crew to pay SLS, a few years ago, which made commercial crew late which forced them to pay more to the Russians. The problem with SLS is that it is designed to burn money. It is not designed to fly, to achieve a mission of any kind. It is optimized to cost as much as possible, because its success is defined as "raised average wage in my congressional district for as long as possible" by the people who ordered it done. 1 - http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2016/20160801-horizon-goal-part-2.html http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2016/20160801-hor... 2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System#Funding_history_and_planning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System#Funding_hi...
- mikeash 7y ago
  Where does that $50 billion figure come from? I found a NASA report from last year that says $11.9 billion. That’s an average of somewhat less than $2 billion/year so far. In contrast, the Saturn V took about five years from start to first flight, and development cost something like $6-9 billion/year. I wouldn’t be surprised if SLS ended up costing more in the end, precisely because spending is lower. A project with less funding that drags on forever costs more than one with better funding that’s finishes quickly.
  - 7y ago