Journal perfessor multigeek's Journal: Why not just build more Saturns? 12
(reposted and expanded from the latest moon debate on the /. front page)
Okay, I'm kinda kidding here but not entirely. How many of you have ever looked at a Saturn 5? In person, I mean. Or at least at the specs. In my case I spent some time (in '83?) walking around and checking out the one at the Cape.
Man, that's some seriously primitive gear there by modern standards.
As my old boss when I worked for a consulting firm used to say, "best is the enemy of good enough". In other words, if you've got a solution that you know will do the job and you find yourself wanking about trying to find the best of all possible solutions, then look back at the "good enough" and consider using it to get the job done instead of watching the years go by as you aspire to "best".
Okay, so we know that Saturns work. We know how to build them, we know how to launch them and we know how they act.
How much would it cost to just bloody well build some more of the f*ckers? I mean, if they were doable in the Sixties, how much can it possibly cost now?
-Use modern electronics but just match function with the prehistoric gear you're replacing.
-Use composites where convenient but just as lighter "aftermarket" versions of the original metal.
-Propellant? Criminy. Have it made in India and launch from near there. Kick in five million for assorted environmental reclamation and biology training for locals.
-What to launch? Not my department, cobber. That's a whole other discussion. What I'm addressing here is why aren't we going back right now.
-That big beast of a launch platform with its famous "train track" system? I'm not impressed. A few years back they took an early twentieth century movie theatre here in NYC (about seven stories high and covered in terra-cotta) picked it up, mounted it on rails, and displaced it half a block. We've definitely gotten a lot better at that particular tech.
And remember how much of the original complexity of the original Saturns was stuff like telemetry that could be built better these days with parts from LEGO Mindstorms or high-temperature, low weight stuff that can now be purchased from any decent industrial supply company. Titanium laptop casings, anybody?
Basically I'm talking about building something that is to an original Saturn 5 what a kit car is to a Model A. Original "lines", original basic design, built with off-the shelf modern parts. Maybe some tweaking of nozzle geometry but not getting all het up about the one true optimum, just clone the old one with standard, off-the-shelf modern ceramics.
So, anybody got a guess on what that would cost to do?
I find this an interesting question since people keep starting their arguments against space travel by quoting how much it cost us the last time we left Earth's neighborhood. Given how far tech has advanced, I'ld love to know what such a trip really means in "modern dollars".
Gives us a baseline to work with. It also tells us something about what people like the Chinese or Indians need to be able to handle to do this.
So, anybody know of a cost breakdown for building a Saturn?
Rustin
Okay, I'm kinda kidding here but not entirely. How many of you have ever looked at a Saturn 5? In person, I mean. Or at least at the specs. In my case I spent some time (in '83?) walking around and checking out the one at the Cape.
Man, that's some seriously primitive gear there by modern standards.
As my old boss when I worked for a consulting firm used to say, "best is the enemy of good enough". In other words, if you've got a solution that you know will do the job and you find yourself wanking about trying to find the best of all possible solutions, then look back at the "good enough" and consider using it to get the job done instead of watching the years go by as you aspire to "best".
Okay, so we know that Saturns work. We know how to build them, we know how to launch them and we know how they act.
How much would it cost to just bloody well build some more of the f*ckers? I mean, if they were doable in the Sixties, how much can it possibly cost now?
-Use modern electronics but just match function with the prehistoric gear you're replacing.
-Use composites where convenient but just as lighter "aftermarket" versions of the original metal.
-Propellant? Criminy. Have it made in India and launch from near there. Kick in five million for assorted environmental reclamation and biology training for locals.
-What to launch? Not my department, cobber. That's a whole other discussion. What I'm addressing here is why aren't we going back right now.
-That big beast of a launch platform with its famous "train track" system? I'm not impressed. A few years back they took an early twentieth century movie theatre here in NYC (about seven stories high and covered in terra-cotta) picked it up, mounted it on rails, and displaced it half a block. We've definitely gotten a lot better at that particular tech.
And remember how much of the original complexity of the original Saturns was stuff like telemetry that could be built better these days with parts from LEGO Mindstorms or high-temperature, low weight stuff that can now be purchased from any decent industrial supply company. Titanium laptop casings, anybody?
Basically I'm talking about building something that is to an original Saturn 5 what a kit car is to a Model A. Original "lines", original basic design, built with off-the shelf modern parts. Maybe some tweaking of nozzle geometry but not getting all het up about the one true optimum, just clone the old one with standard, off-the-shelf modern ceramics.
So, anybody got a guess on what that would cost to do?
I find this an interesting question since people keep starting their arguments against space travel by quoting how much it cost us the last time we left Earth's neighborhood. Given how far tech has advanced, I'ld love to know what such a trip really means in "modern dollars".
Gives us a baseline to work with. It also tells us something about what people like the Chinese or Indians need to be able to handle to do this.
So, anybody know of a cost breakdown for building a Saturn?
Rustin
Just to warn you . . . (Score:2)
STALE space ice cream.
The awful vanilla kind with the cheesy stickers on it.
You have been warned.
Rustin
Re:Just to warn you . . . (Score:1)
I've been advocating this for as long as I've thought of the issue at all (a decade or more?) The problem might be that it's TOO cheap. Not enough contractors can line their pockets. Not enough gravy jobs for former NASA managers turned 'consultants'.
Given the additional carrying capacity of the Russian heavy lifters, how about modernizing them instead or in addition to the Saturn V?
Re:Just to warn you . . . (Score:2)
As a practical project, yeah, those are actually the ones I'ld want to go with. I just wanted to start the discussion out with a zero point with fewer unknowns.
Rustin
Bigger, better, cheaper (Score:2)
Do we? I keep hearing how the know-how and blueprints are all lost, but it may be just hearsay (ever notice how close that word is to heresy [paulgraham.com]?).
So, anybody got a guess on what that would cost to do?
I've always regarded "cost" as a rather silly notion for a nation-state. In this specific case, yes, some resources will actually leave the confines of the national economy in a grand way, but most simply won't. Worker's wages will be spent inside the nation, generating taxes and s
TANSTAAFR (Score:1)
Re:TANSTAAFR (Score:2)
Unfortunately, all the examples in the world won't help some people, because before we can discuss economics we'd have to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics, etc.
Anyways, my favourite example or illustration is the comparison to the game of eucre [correct sp?]. In the game, you can choose to go @ it with your partner or choose to go @ it alone. That is a lot like economics in that each person has to decide for himself if it is better for him
Re:TANSTAAFR (Score:2)
Yep. Economics is a lot about your point of view and a lot of symbology.
Also, I've never seen a communist/socialist come up with a fair way of sorting out who the freeloaders are, & then dealing with them.
I believe that's why they had all those walls at Nr 2 Dzerzhinski [dialog-it.ru] street.
Re:TANSTAAFR (Score:2)
Stirred your pot good, didn't I? :-) OK, had I had the time at the time I would have launched into a long tirade on the subject of priorities, but I (correctly, it seems) assumed you'd all know that already and I just wanted to counter-spin the old politician saw "we can't do this because it's too expensive". For a sizable nation-state, almost nothing is "too expensive". Therefore, the cost argument becomes moot. It may be of a low priority, but we need to address THAT issue instead of painting a
uhm... (Score:2)
Slow down, cowboy!
We do this all the time at work. "let's take our near-real time, human grade system, AND change the fucking network infrastructure! It should be a drop in replacement!"
Yeah fucking right. No wonder we're always putting in overtime.
By the time the "modern" electronics make it past the Safety Team, they aren't modern anymore. They are EOL.
That being said, yes, its worth persuing. But don't thi
Re:uhm... (Score:2)
Oh, no doubt.
If nothing else, stuff from those days was so slow that transmission delay, let alone processing delay, played a significant role in how gear was distributed.
My electronics teacher in high school was a former systems coordination guy from the Apollo program (as in, "why does this signal from the LEM come through as a null at the command module") and he was full of stories about how much of the systems were built around very "anal
Misc. Comments (Score:2)
Without further ado...
1.)
Right. (Score:2)
Location
As close to the equator as possible but still with some infrastructure available. Rent space at Kourou or Baikonur, perhaps? Finding good people will be a difficulty. We don't want NASA consultants, we want real engineers.
Structure
Metal. I'm thinking plain old steel for the hull, girders and w