5 ms·

Sure, the Saturn V and STS were much less safe than smaller rockets. Still, they blew up an awful lot less than other rockets of their size like N1 or Starship.

by fsh 1y ago

nomel 1y ago
> Still, they blew up an awful lot less than other rockets of their size like N1 or Starship. I think the only reasonable comparison would be after cost equivalency. The Starship has a long way to go, to catch up.
- jeroenhd 1y ago
  Cost equivalency ignores the R&D and decades of scientific progress and advancements in tooling capability. The prices of materials have shifted, but designing and manufacturing a precise propulsion system with modern CAD and simulation tools is a lot cheaper than the hand work hundreds of people used to be doing to verify much simpler engine designs. Precision machining and tools to inspect metal fatigue and imperfections have also come a long way. Of course commercial rockets are always going to be as shoddy as they can get away with rather than as good as possible, but if it still takes SpaceX or Boeing as much money to build a rocket as it did back in the Saturn V days, they're doing something wrong.
  - Aeolun 1y ago
    If you use that as an argument any comparison becomes meaningless by default.
b112 1y ago
Many Saturns blew up during testing. Starship is still in testing. Your arguments are strange, a mirage concocted to fit a narrative of denigration and darkness. You mock with zeal, yet have no point to the mocking. Always with the mocking, you cause an ache which cannot be balmed. Cease, I pray you. Stop these machinations, this mad canter. Falcon was built the same way. It blew up many times too, explosions aplenty. Now it is the most successful lift on the planet.
- ubercore 1y ago
  Would love to read about Saturn V explosions during testing. Have a link?
  - b112 1y ago
    I recall reading the engines blew up in testing, the rockets on the pad, on and on. And why wouldnt it? No one has ever built a plane, or even a car without breakage during testing. The very idea is absurd. There's a whole profession called "test pilot". I don't know why anyone would suggest otherwise. I'm sure there are links aplenty, but the absurd suggestion here would be building a rocket and having zero incidents of failure. That beyond weird. That's what needs a "do you have a link" question.
    - rsynnott 1y ago
      > I recall reading the engines blew up in testing, the rockets on the pad, on and on. And why wouldnt it? You're recalling wrong, or you were reading nonsense. Lots of engines were destroyed in testing (particularly before computer modelling, this was basically how rocket engines were _developed_), but no, no Saturn V ever exploded on the pad. Prior to this incident, the most-impressive on-pad boom was one of the N1s. No fully assembled Saturn V ever failed, though a few of them had near-misses.
      - b112 1y ago
        Well we're discussing testing only here, so are you sure none explpded on a test a pad? It's a weird debarc point to discuss non testing craft vs testing. And "fully assembled", when spacex is flying non-final builds on purpose, using a different test methodology.
        rsynnott 1y ago
        > Well we're discussing testing only here, so are you sure none explpded on a test a pad? Yes! I am sure! That did not happen! Early development of Saturn V rocket engines involved destructive testing, but a whole rocket would not have been involved at that point. Here's some later ground testing of final engines: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rP6k18DVdg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rP6k18DVdg

Sure, the Saturn V and STS were much less safe than smaller rockets. Still, they blew up an awful lot less than other rockets of their size like N1 or Starship.

by fsh 1y ago

Sure, the Saturn V and STS were much less safe than smaller rockets. Still, they blew up an awful lot less than other rockets of their size like N1 or Starship.

nomel 1y ago

> Still, they blew up an awful lot less than other rockets of their size like N1 or Starship. I think the only reasonable comparison would be after cost equivalency. The Starship has a long way to go, to catch up.

jeroenhd 1y ago
Cost equivalency ignores the R&D and decades of scientific progress and advancements in tooling capability. The prices of materials have shifted, but designing and manufacturing a precise propulsion system with modern CAD and simulation tools is a lot cheaper than the hand work hundreds of people used to be doing to verify much simpler engine designs. Precision machining and tools to inspect metal fatigue and imperfections have also come a long way. Of course commercial rockets are always going to be as shoddy as they can get away with rather than as good as possible, but if it still takes SpaceX or Boeing as much money to build a rocket as it did back in the Saturn V days, they're doing something wrong.
- Aeolun 1y ago
  If you use that as an argument any comparison becomes meaningless by default.

b112 1y ago

Many Saturns blew up during testing. Starship is still in testing. Your arguments are strange, a mirage concocted to fit a narrative of denigration and darkness. You mock with zeal, yet have no point to the mocking. Always with the mocking, you cause an ache which cannot be balmed. Cease, I pray you. Stop these machinations, this mad canter. Falcon was built the same way. It blew up many times too, explosions aplenty. Now it is the most successful lift on the planet.

ubercore 1y ago
Would love to read about Saturn V explosions during testing. Have a link?
- b112 1y ago
  I recall reading the engines blew up in testing, the rockets on the pad, on and on. And why wouldnt it? No one has ever built a plane, or even a car without breakage during testing. The very idea is absurd. There's a whole profession called "test pilot". I don't know why anyone would suggest otherwise. I'm sure there are links aplenty, but the absurd suggestion here would be building a rocket and having zero incidents of failure. That beyond weird. That's what needs a "do you have a link" question.
  - rsynnott 1y ago
    > I recall reading the engines blew up in testing, the rockets on the pad, on and on. And why wouldnt it? You're recalling wrong, or you were reading nonsense. Lots of engines were destroyed in testing (particularly before computer modelling, this was basically how rocket engines were _developed_), but no, no Saturn V ever exploded on the pad. Prior to this incident, the most-impressive on-pad boom was one of the N1s. No fully assembled Saturn V ever failed, though a few of them had near-misses.
    - b112 1y ago
      Well we're discussing testing only here, so are you sure none explpded on a test a pad? It's a weird debarc point to discuss non testing craft vs testing. And "fully assembled", when spacex is flying non-final builds on purpose, using a different test methodology.
      - rsynnott 1y ago
        > Well we're discussing testing only here, so are you sure none explpded on a test a pad? Yes! I am sure! That did not happen! Early development of Saturn V rocket engines involved destructive testing, but a whole rocket would not have been involved at that point. Here's some later ground testing of final engines: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rP6k18DVdg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rP6k18DVdg