3 ms·
Agreed. I think one of the key things to recognize about this sort of thing is that while, yes, we could do it "better" with today's tech than we could have wit
by skywhopper 13y ago
Agreed. I think one of the key things to recognize about this sort of thing is that while, yes, we could do it "better" with today's tech than we could have with the Saturn V, that's unlikely to mean "cheaper". A new heavy-lift system that performs better than Saturn V will, in the absence of a total revolution in technology, cost more even after adjusting for inflation. Because to squeeze that extra 40% performance out of the same amount of weight and fuel, we'll be putting in 80% more work by 50% more people who are paid 30% more using 120% more expensive materials. The reason being that these programs don't operate on mass production. Each of these launch vehicles is very labor intensive to produce. The only real way around those numbers is to go for massive economies of scale, but then you're talking trillions of dollars spent on tens or hundreds of thousands of launch vehicles, but that's the only way to get to true cost savings.
- greglindahl 13y agoYou might want to check out what SpaceX is doing.
- ericd 13y agoWe should really pour that money into a space elevator...
- LearnYouALisp 13y agoThe problem, as far as I last knew, is that we do not know of any materials strong enough!
- ericd 13y agoNanotubes are strong enough, but we haven't gotten them to sufficient lengths (we need ~1-2 meter nanotubes iirc)
- Gravityloss 13y agoOr then have each vehicle doing multiple flights...