Kurt M. Weber
New member
The correct alternative, of course, is "nothing," since space flight for anything other than bona fide military purposes is not a morally legitimate function of government.
The correct alternative, of course, is "nothing," since space flight for anything other than bona fide military purposes is not a morally legitimate function of government.
The problem is that with new technologies (such as those required for spaceflight), if the government doesn't do it (or at least subsidize it), it won't happen.The correct alternative, of course, is "nothing," since space flight for anything other than bona fide military purposes is not a morally legitimate function of government.
The correct alternative, of course, is "nothing," since space flight for anything other than bona fide military purposes is not a morally legitimate function of government.
The correct alternative, of course, is "nothing," since space flight for anything other than bona fide military purposes is not a morally legitimate function of government.
Well, using the SSMEs would be too expensive, so the ground infrastructure and the ET would need to be changed for the RS-68 alternative.
Wouldn't it be still less expensive than Ares or DIRECT?
But since we're speaking of Saturn, one of the things that made the Saturn family so appealing was its room for growth. Go to astronautix and look at all the stretched-stage and solid or liquid rocket boosted upgrades that were put on the drawing board for the Saturn V. Saturn IB would have been replaced with a "Saturn II" or something similar.