• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wishing for a US-Made Heavy Lift Rocket Won’t Make It So

Deuce said:
Oh for ****'s sake. We're done here.
Click to expand...

Okaaaaay.

So when I ask you to back up your statement with proof...you run off.

Noted.


Have a nice day.
 
matchlight said:
Yes, it is. When you've already designed, built, and proven a machine which is better than anything else at lifting heavy loads, why not make a few more of them?
Click to expand...

Because today it would cost billions more than in the 60's not to mention the tech is outdated. Solid fuel is far more reliable and cost effective for 1st stages at least.
 
DA60 said:
Not due to NASA directly...DUH.

But are you saying that money that goes to NASA could not assist homeless veterans? Are you seriously that out of touch with reality? Or do you just not care about veterans who risked their lives for their country?

Really? Where is your link to unbiased, factual proof that every, single American veteran living on the streets has plenty of access to help for mental and physical disabilities and access to adequate funding to cover all their medical, living, food, psychological needs? And that shows that funding for all these needs has been deemed more then adequate by all respected veteran affairs organizations?

'However, since the Department of Veteran Affairs does not receive enough funding, care is rationed based both on the Veteran’s service history and current net worth and income.'

Veterans Health Care | Help for Vets needing Care


Also, you do realize there is a massive government deficit right now? Or are you one of those people that believes no deficit is too big? If that is the case...then put me down for a check for a billion dollars from the government please.
Click to expand...

Why not kill the F-35 fighter instead? It is outdated before it is even being made and is full of bugs. The VA should be funded by defense cuts anyway.
 
DA60 said:
Okaaaaay.

So when I ask you to back up your statement with proof...you run off.

Noted.


Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

Listen, genius, you invented an argument for me and demanded that I prove an argument you invented. And an a stupid, childish, insulting one at that.

Don't hide behind this fake tone bull****. "Oh, oh then I guess you don't want to have an adult discussion over why I think redheads should be exterminated. Have a nice day, good sir. We shall speak again once you grow up a bit."

Prove that not a single penny of military spending is wasted. I know you never said every penny of military spending is a good idea, but I demand you prove it anyway. Can't do that? Oh, I see. I guess I won the argument. Have a nice day. I guess you can't back up your statements.
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
Why not kill the F-35 fighter instead? It is outdated before it is even being made and is full of bugs. The VA should be funded by defense cuts anyway.
Click to expand...

He can't prove every penny of the F-35 project was well-spent, so that means every wasted penny on the F-35 was food taken out of the mouths of poor children. Clearly, he desires the deaths of poor children.
 
Dittohead not! said:
1. It was partially about that, but mostly about showing the world that we could do what the godless Commies couldn't. Competition motivated us to go to the moon.

2. That was with old technology. Let's build a new one with 21st. century technology.

3. Exactly why we should build one. The materials research will prove useful in many different applications. Let's start with carbon nanotubes. Breakthroughs are not magic, they are based on research and experimentation.
Click to expand...

Old technology? The Russians had the old technology (vacuum tubes and transistors) we had microprocessors.
They just happen to be the backbone of EVERYTHING used today.

But your point is well taken, imagine what we can do now.
Elon Musk is leading the way but there's still lots of room for NASA.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Old technology? The Russians had the old technology (vacuum tubes and transistors) we had microprocessors.
They just happen to be the backbone of EVERYTHING used today.

But your point is well taken, imagine what we can do now.
Elon Musk is leading the way but there's still lots of room for NASA.
Click to expand...
I would use the phrase "leading the way" with privately-funded space travel seeing as how they're only very recently doing low earth orbit stuff. If they landed a human being on the Moon tomorrow they'd still be nearly fifty years behind NASA. NASA has laser-wielding robots with twitter accounts driving around Mars.

That isn't to say they aren't capable of doing so. After all, NASA does a lot of things in conjunction with private industry. But businesses have different motivations. To them, research is another form of investment, one they only engage in if they expect some sort of return. I doubt we'd have the network of global communications satellites we have now if NASA hadn't paved the way with 50 years of experience figuring out how the hell to make space travel a matter of routine. Imagine a business wanting to put up satellites to transmit HBO easier but to do so they have to invent space travel. Not gonna happen.

Now that the groundwork has been laid, we're seeing private industry start to tool around with some basics to see what they can do. They'll want to figure out passenger space travel and asteroid mining and all that. A worthy undertaking for sure.

But we should remember who really lead the way, and is continuing to do so.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
The shuttle and the solid rockets were reusable.
Click to expand...
Not really. The heat tiles on the fuselage had to be replaced after every launch and the engines had to be rebuilt too. I guess the only thing that was really reusable was the cockpit and the cargo bay doors.

PIPEWRENCH said:
The Saturn V was designed for trips to the moon and further.
Click to expand...

Saturn V launched spacelab and with more than 5 times the payload of the SS it could have set up the ISS with only a handful of launches. SS also lost 40% of its fleet due to accidents and the ISS project was nearly scrapped because of year long delays.

iguanaman said:
Because today it would cost billions more than in the 60's not to mention the tech is outdated. Solid fuel is far more reliable and cost effective for 1st stages at least.
Click to expand...

Actually the Russians still use 60's technology on their rockets, and they use these very rockets to bring US astronauts up to the ISS. Cost per launch of Saturn V would be roughly on par with what it cost to launch around 2-3 SS launches based on today's inflation (if you include the R&D costs and the cost of replacing lost orbiters due to accidents as well as total payloads being sent to orbit then Saturn V would have definitely been cheaper). Saturn V capabilities have yet to be matched by today's launch vehicles.
 
Deuce said:
I would use the phrase "leading the way" with privately-funded space travel seeing as how they're only very recently doing low earth orbit stuff. If they landed a human being on the Moon tomorrow they'd still be nearly fifty years behind NASA. NASA has laser-wielding robots with twitter accounts driving around Mars.

That isn't to say they aren't capable of doing so. After all, NASA does a lot of things in conjunction with private industry. But businesses have different motivations. To them, research is another form of investment, one they only engage in if they expect some sort of return. I doubt we'd have the network of global communications satellites we have now if NASA hadn't paved the way with 50 years of experience figuring out how the hell to make space travel a matter of routine. Imagine a business wanting to put up satellites to transmit HBO easier but to do so they have to invent space travel. Not gonna happen.

Now that the groundwork has been laid, we're seeing private industry start to tool around with some basics to see what they can do. They'll want to figure out passenger space travel and asteroid mining and all that. A worthy undertaking for sure.

But we should remember who really lead the way, and is continuing to do so.
Click to expand...

---No argument there, absolutely none.
All of the microprocessor tech we enjoy today is pretty much because of NASA and the desire to beat the Russians.
It was the kind of "war" you wish we had more of, because even if we had lost, we still won, and so did the entire world.
The benefits we got from The Moon Race was the largest single technological leap forward in the history of mankind.
 
iguanaman said:
Because today it would cost billions more than in the 60's not to mention the tech is outdated. Solid fuel is far more reliable and cost effective for 1st stages at least.
Click to expand...

Whether a machine is outdated is irrelevant, if it does the job well. Which the Saturn V certainly did--it was extremely reliable, as well as extremely powerful. Its 7.6 million pounds of thrust can launch payloads into orbit that no other rocket could manage.
 
matchlight said:
Whether a machine is outdated is irrelevant, if it does the job well. Which the Saturn V certainly did--it was extremely reliable, as well as extremely powerful. Its 7.6 million pounds of thrust can launch payloads into orbit that no other rocket could manage.
Click to expand...

You won't find me bad mouthing the Saturn V. It's my favorite rocket by far. I wish i lived here in Florida when it was in operation. I saw many Shuttle launches from my house but the V must have been incredible. It is also the most powerful machine ever made hp wise. A quick search finds that NASA is using the engine from a V to build a modern copy so your wish could happen.

The NASA engineers are disassembling an F-1 engine for the simple reason that they want to learn more about it. According to NASA, these engineers weren’t even born when the F-1 engine last flew. The hope is that by analyzing the F-1, NASA will be in a better position to design the engines that will be used by the Space Launch System. The SLS replaces the Space Transport System (the Space Shuttle), and will eventually take humans beyond low-Earth orbit (something that hasn’t been done since 1972).
Click to expand...
NASA resurrects its most powerful rocket engine after 40 years, for science! | ExtremeTech
 
DA60 said:
Not due to NASA directly...DUH.

But are you saying that money that goes to NASA could not assist homeless veterans? Are you seriously that out of touch with reality? Or do you just not care about veterans who risked their lives for their country?

Really? Where is your link to unbiased, factual proof that every, single American veteran living on the streets has plenty of access to help for mental and physical disabilities and access to adequate funding to cover all their medical, living, food, psychological needs? And that shows that funding for all these needs has been deemed more then adequate by all respected veteran affairs organizations?

'However, since the Department of Veteran Affairs does not receive enough funding, care is rationed based both on the Veteran’s service history and current net worth and income.'

Veterans Health Care | Help for Vets needing Care


Also, you do realize there is a massive government deficit right now? Or are you one of those people that believes no deficit is too big? If that is the case...then put me down for a check for a billion dollars from the government please.
Click to expand...
Saying that Duece doesn't care about veterans because he is interested in funding NASA is a rather idiotic thing to say. Having to resort to such silliness is a sure sign of either a weak argument or a dishonest poster. Or maybe both.
 
PoS said:
Not really. The heat tiles on the fuselage had to be replaced after every launch and the engines had to be rebuilt too. I guess the only thing that was really reusable was the cockpit and the cargo bay doors.



Saturn V launched spacelab and with more than 5 times the payload of the SS it could have set up the ISS with only a handful of launches. SS also lost 40% of its fleet due to accidents and the ISS project was nearly scrapped because of year long delays.



Actually the Russians still use 60's technology on their rockets, and they use these very rockets to bring US astronauts up to the ISS. Cost per launch of Saturn V would be roughly on par with what it cost to launch around 2-3 SS launches based on today's inflation (if you include the R&D costs and the cost of replacing lost orbiters due to accidents as well as total payloads being sent to orbit then Saturn V would have definitely been cheaper). Saturn V capabilities have yet to be matched by today's launch vehicles.
Click to expand...

You said the cost to launch one Saturn V is the same as to launch 2-3 SS launches. Is that a typo because I always thought the SS was extremely expensive.
 
Dittohead not! said:
What happened to the country that sent men to the moon just twelve years after the Soviets sent up the first satellite?
Click to expand...

It has become a bureaucratic behemoth with so much red tape it can accomplish nothing.

It's time we got serious about space exploration. Rockets are yesterday's technology, though. Let's work on a new generation shuttle, or, better yet, let's build a space elevator. The materials technology would have so many spinoffs, it would more than pay for the research in the long run.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I don't think it's ever going to happen. The general public thinks space exploration is a waste of money, for some reason. And there's that bureaucratic behemoth I mentioned previously.
 
PoS said:
Not really. The heat tiles on the fuselage had to be replaced after every launch and the engines had to be rebuilt too. I guess the only thing that was really reusable was the cockpit and the cargo bay doors.



Saturn V launched spacelab and with more than 5 times the payload of the SS it could have set up the ISS with only a handful of launches. SS also lost 40% of its fleet due to accidents and the ISS project was nearly scrapped because of year long delays.



Actually the Russians still use 60's technology on their rockets, and they use these very rockets to bring US astronauts up to the ISS. Cost per launch of Saturn V would be roughly on par with what it cost to launch around 2-3 SS launches based on today's inflation (if you include the R&D costs and the cost of replacing lost orbiters due to accidents as well as total payloads being sent to orbit then Saturn V would have definitely been cheaper). Saturn V capabilities have yet to be matched by today's launch vehicles.
Click to expand...

Yeah...NASA's problem is always trying to re-invent the wheel.

They had a big lead, great launch systems and what do they do - basically throw it all away for a new toy (the Shuttle) which to me was a waste of money...and a deadly one at that.
As you said, the Russians are using INCREDIBLY old rocket designs because rockets are just simple chemistry basically. You get a big tube, put the right chemicals inside, mix then together and poof...you have a rocket.
And how many cosmonauts have died since the Space Shuttle took flight...zip. How many astronauts have died...14. Pathetic (though much of that was NASA's disgusting 'Go Fever').

The Space Shuttle was a waste - overall. A prime example of the egos that sometimes infect NASA. Instead of just using tried and true methods, they had to ask Congress for a new toy. And now they need to piggyback on private rockets or the Russians.

This is why, IMO, manned space exploration should be left to the private sector. They will do it faster, cheaper and far more efficiently.
And I guarantee you far fewer Americans will get killed during space flights.

(I realize I may be preaching to the choir here...you clearly know your stuff on this. Probably much better then I).
 
Last edited:
braindrain said:
You said the cost to launch one Saturn V is the same as to launch 2-3 SS launches. Is that a typo because I always thought the SS was extremely expensive.
Click to expand...

According to the link, the Saturn V cost about two to three times as much per flight (in today's dollars) as the Space Shuttle per flight. But the Saturn V could carry roughly five times as much weight. Plus, NASA could have launched FAR larger 'things' then the Space Shuttle could.

If you look at the ISS and Skylab it is quite extraordinary. The ISS interior is tiny and cramped - because it had to be because the Shuttle could not fit anything bigger in it's cargo bay.
And then look at videos of Skylab. The thing was huge inside (in comparison).

Cost comparison in todays dollars STS vs. Saturn V

Skylab interior



ISS interior

iss040e104127.jpg



Finally, I would assume that as they built more and more Saturn V's that the per unit cost would come down as well.

PoS is right, it would have been far better and cheaper to co-build the ISS with Saturn V's then with the Space Shuttle.
 
Last edited:
braindrain said:
You said the cost to launch one Saturn V is the same as to launch 2-3 SS launches. Is that a typo because I always thought the SS was extremely expensive.
Click to expand...

Youre right! Let's take a look at the numbers.

According to this article, the cost of each shuttle flight was $1.6 billion

NASA's Shuttle Program Cost $209 Billion - Was it Worth It?

The cost of a Saturn V launch was $185 million in 1969, if you adjust it for today's inflation it would come out to: $1.22 billion!

$185,000,000 in 1969 - Inflation Calculator

So youre right, it does cost less. :mrgreen:

Let's also not forget the the shuttle could only carry 50,000 pounds per launch while the Saturn V could carry 261,000 pounds per launch.

If we just go by the math alone, then Saturn V totally outclassed the SS.
 
countryboy said:
It has become a bureaucratic behemoth with so much red tape it can accomplish nothing.



Unfortunately, I don't think it's ever going to happen. The general public thinks space exploration is a waste of money, for some reason. And there's that bureaucratic behemoth I mentioned previously.
Click to expand...

How sad for this once great nation.
 
Dittohead not! said:
How sad for this once great nation.
Click to expand...

But hey, there's another miracle engine out there resting on violation of the laws of physics as we know them: the EM drive.

Man how great would it be if that thing actually works like it seems to work? That could put us back in action with some renewed vigor.
 
SpaceX will get there before NASA, because Elon Musk has the courage to innovate and risk failure in order to succeed.
 
Goshin said:
SpaceX will get there before NASA, because Elon Musk has the courage to innovate and risk failure in order to succeed.
Click to expand...

Not only that, but even others like Blue Origin may get there before NASA too, because the private sector want to compete with each other, and this new Space Race will be even more competitive than the Cold War one.
 
Goshin said:
SpaceX will get there before NASA, because Elon Musk has the courage to innovate and risk failure in order to succeed.
Click to expand...

This is only the case because NASA's operations are filtered by our illustrious, forward-thinking, always brave Congress.


I mean, NASA has robots on Mars right now with lasers and twitter accounts. They innovate as much as they're allowed to.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom