Xref: utzoo sci.space:11367 sci.space.shuttle:3110
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: heavy launchers
Message-ID: <1989May13.201437.23217@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <1989May11.050951.11130@utzoo.uucp> <136@enuxha.eas.asu.edu> <11316@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>
Date: Sat, 13 May 89 20:14:37 GMT

In article <11316@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> jmckerna@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John McKernan) writes:
>>Why the *(&) did we throw away Saturn V????
>
>We threw away the Saturn V because it was a very expensive, virtually hand
>built rocket that was thrown away after every use...

This is a fairly circular statement.  The Saturn V was expensive, hand-built,
and non-recoverable because of the decision in the mid-60s to throw it away!
When Congress capped Saturn V production at 15, (a) all hopes of reducing
cost through volume went away, (b) it was no longer worth mechanizing the
production process as had been planned, and (c) all work on making Saturn V
stages recoverable stopped because it would never be done.  The original
plans for the Saturn V envisioned mechanized volume production and possible
recovery of at least the first stage in the long run.  This was when the
Saturn V was going to be NASA's heavy launcher well into the 1980s, launching
lunar missions, a space station or three, heavy planetary probes, and so on.

Blaming the NASA of the 70s for throwing away the Saturn V is pretty much
a mistake.  The real culprit is the Congress of the 60s.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu