3 ms·
> Simply evolving the Saturn 1B (which was cheaper, per lb of payload to orbit, than the Saturn V) could have easily beaten the Shuttle's economic performance.
by kbenson 6y ago
> Simply evolving the Saturn 1B (which was cheaper, per lb of payload to orbit, than the Saturn V) could have easily beaten the Shuttle's economic performance.
I don't know how much it applies, but sometimes evolving something requires switching out components for other ones, which are more expensive. Not everything scales. Marketing isn't the only reason why 50% more capability often costs 100% more. I imagine with rocketry, you're often operating at the edge of the capability for certain materials and approaches.
- pfdietz 6y agoWe have an example of a better component, that is otherwise very similar: the first stage engines of the Saturn IB and the Falcon 9: H-1: https://en.wikpedia.org/wiki/Rocketdyne_H-1 https://en.wikpedia.org/wiki/Rocketdyne_H-1 Merlin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Merlin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Merlin The Merlin has considerably higher specific impulse and thrust/weight ratios. It also has very fast throttling, a necessity for vertical landing. And, it's remarkably cheap (less than $1M per engine). I don't have the figure for the inflation-adjusted cost of the H-1, but I suspect it was much more expensive.
- mcpherrinm 6y agoThere is a typo in the H-1 link It should be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocketdyne_H-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocketdyne_H-1