3 ms·

The current "back to the moon" missions are built around the shuttle hardware, so I don't find this technical argument very convincing. The orbiter was just a c

The current "back to the moon" missions are built around the shuttle hardware, so I don't find this technical argument very convincing. The orbiter was just a convenient way to hang out in LEO and bring back some engines on each flight. It's like saying that since my truck is rated to tow 7000 lbs, any discussion around towing 8000 lbs is impossible. Using shuttle hardware to get beyond LEO requires compromises and design changes, but it isn't impossible. The RS-25 on paper appears to have a higher specific impulse than the F-1 engine. The Saturn V rocket family isn't some once in a civilization accomplishment. It's mostly just unique in that the safety record of it is really, really good.

panick21_ 1y ago
You analysis just complete ignores finances. Sure you can turn almost anything into anything else if you ignore costs. The Shuttle bound the US to LEO because while the Shuttle was active, its upkeep used up most of the budget and large projects to use that hardware for something else wasn't likely. And even if you went that route, the cost of such a redesign, has has been seen multiple times now, is so expensive and impractical that it cost more then designing something new. > The RS-25 on paper appears to have a higher specific impulse than the F-1 engine. Comparing individual parts of the architecture on one specific state isn't a useful analysis. > The Saturn V rocket family isn't some once in a civilization accomplishment. Nobody said it was. Even in 2011 every analysis NASA did suggest that a upgraded Saturn V was going to be cheaper and result in a far more powerful rocket far faster and with much lower long term operation cost. Despite this analysis NASA selected SLS because congress clearly wrote into legislation that existing contractors had to be selected. Feel free to look up those NASA studies. Many years ago on reddit I compiles a long post with all the sources for that stuff but I would have to look for it.
- sidewndr46 1y ago
  If we take finances into account, there is no way any manned space travel makes sense. You have to ignore the costs of manned space travel to even get started in it. It's just an endless pit you dump money into, so you can go "back to the moon"

panick21_ 1y ago

You analysis just complete ignores finances. Sure you can turn almost anything into anything else if you ignore costs. The Shuttle bound the US to LEO because while the Shuttle was active, its upkeep used up most of the budget and large projects to use that hardware for something else wasn't likely. And even if you went that route, the cost of such a redesign, has has been seen multiple times now, is so expensive and impractical that it cost more then designing something new. > The RS-25 on paper appears to have a higher specific impulse than the F-1 engine. Comparing individual parts of the architecture on one specific state isn't a useful analysis. > The Saturn V rocket family isn't some once in a civilization accomplishment. Nobody said it was. Even in 2011 every analysis NASA did suggest that a upgraded Saturn V was going to be cheaper and result in a far more powerful rocket far faster and with much lower long term operation cost. Despite this analysis NASA selected SLS because congress clearly wrote into legislation that existing contractors had to be selected. Feel free to look up those NASA studies. Many years ago on reddit I compiles a long post with all the sources for that stuff but I would have to look for it.

sidewndr46 1y ago
If we take finances into account, there is no way any manned space travel makes sense. You have to ignore the costs of manned space travel to even get started in it. It's just an endless pit you dump money into, so you can go "back to the moon"