Jeez, I don’t know if I’d risk a dime (or a life) on a 45 year-old museum piece running 50+ year old tech
Yeah, the all say that, then you topple a Saturn V rocket onto a baby and everybody screams and cries.
Without fuel, any rocket is weaker than a baby.
If you’re being that way- they’re museum pieces and not capable of anything short of rusting.
Jeez, I don’t know if I’d risk a dime (or a life) on a 45 year-old museum piece running 50+ year old tech. So, effectively, the Saturn V, while there are two on Earth, cannot fly. You could recondition them, bolt by bolt, o-ring by o-ring, and then you might get one on Earth that could fly. Now? No way. The word “is”…
If you’re going to be logical, it’s a real problem.
It’s safer to build dozens for now. They’ve yet to perfectly land an engine, so until that happens, they’re basically stocking up. No sense in banking on a perfect landing when the tests keep failing; by having dozens in stock, they can continue running missions while they work on the problem of landing.
Unless there is a module that requires the SLS, the falcon heavy would match it with 3 launches. That’s $300M versus $2B. You could launch 6x the weight with falcon heavies versus the SLS for the same cost.
Still way too early for SpaceX to build re-usability into their business model. Makes sense that they would proceed assuming no re-usability over the next few years, until that capability makes it out of the experimental stage.
It’s not the plans that are lost, but the supply chain and institutional knowledge to build them again. It would take billions of dollars and years of work to start up the closed down, long gone assembly lines and to replace the countless suppliers of the millions of components and subassemblies. And all those… Read more
That’s the only unboxing video I’d wanna see.