Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="sferrin" data-source="post: 64760" data-attributes="member: 7600"><blockquote data-quote="mz"><blockquote data-quote="sferrin"><blockquote data-quote="mz">It is for example a question to ask, why should MSFC even have the capability to design rockets? And acquire it in this very expensive way.</blockquote>Somebody has to do it.  I'll agree though, having the gov do it is about the least efficient way to do it.  On the other hand NASA can tinker on the taxpayers dime whereas Boeing or LM won't do it on their own dime so at least SOMETHING gets done.  That said, making Ares V too big for the crawler is forehead-smacking stupidity.  I've heard talk of beefing them up or making them new, but if new you can be certain they'd cost a billion a pop once the gov got it's mitts on it.</blockquote>Well, somebody has already done it and is doing it. LM, Boeing, Orbital, SpaceX in the USA. Many others elsewhere. The market is already pretty much saturated and there is plenty of room and capability to make more rockets in the existing factories.</blockquote>Really?  I'm not aware of any 300k lbs to LEO being designed by any of those companies.<blockquote data-quote="mz">NASA / MSFC has just produced abortions since STS. It's soon 30 years from the first flight.It is definitely not the way to get progress in spaceflight either, to get NASA to design itself a special rocket (if it even can do it) that then flies a few times per year. Ares V could fly less than once a year.There should be multiple capabilities, competition, and the rockets should be small enough so that you could have a higher launch rate which would mean less standing armies and more competition and incentive for improvement. Lower cost, redundancy and reliability.Ultimately switch to reusable launch vehicles - since there would be a market for that - NASA's lunar exploration.But no, NASA keeps emulating Apollo, just what Wernher von Braun feared.Most of a lunar exploration stack is propellant, namely liquid oxygen. If a propellant depot was used, you could divide that to as many launches as you wanted, reliability would go up, launch rate would go up, you could cancel your expensive heavy lifter and put the standing armies to work on something productive, it's a win win scenario.But it's not even analyzed as a possible path because it doesn't fit the anachronistic preconceptions of high level planners at NASA.</blockquote>I agree with most of that.  Thing is it would require a big change in mindset for NASA and the US gov and that ain't gonna happen.  Personally I think we need to stop looking at launch vehicles as giant Swiss watches and more like 18-wheelers when it comes to precision.  Most NASA stuff is so far down the diminishing returns curve you could practically use it for jewelry.  Big Dumb Booster / Sea Dragon level of tech. needs a good hard look IMO.</blockquote>

Verification