/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12295884

>>12208745
A couple decades of refinement might have driven down the cost.

>>11922466

>>11893613
At that point, the Saturns were all but gone. Getting another one flying would've taken just as much time as preparing another Shuttle if not more. NASA really shot itself in the kneecaps when it had to adopt the Shuttle.

>>11339962

>>11025731
>Who can ever argue with Starship/SH but built with Nixon-era technology?
Because spaceflight was a Democrat thing and, even worse to Nixon, a Kennedy thing. So he didn't give a shit about it, and wanted nothing of it.

>>10994285

>>10923524
>Something that NASA has lost since Apollo era.
I know who to blame for that.

Really it's not just Nixon tough. The whole US govt is to blame for that one. They didn't see spaceflight as a new frontier to explore and claim, they just saw it as a political tool against the Soviets. And once that tools usefulness was gone, they stripped everything down at NASA.

>>10767391
I was going to make a writeup (conspiracy theory) about how I think Congress gutted NASA post Apollo so that NASA won't push for a bigger budget, but I'll just post this meme.

>>10730272
Probably not for two reasons. One, it was too expensive for NASA at the time. NASA was getting some severe budget cuts and it was seeking to reduce costs where ever possible. That's why the Shuttle was pushed so hard within NASA despite it's troubles, it was seen as the miracle solution to all of NASA's problems at the time. Plus, it carried roughly the same amount of payload to LEO as the Shuttle, yet the Shuttle was projected to be much cheaper than the Saturn IB, so it makes sense to drop the Saturn for the Shuttle. The other reason (although it's more like speculation), is that the Saturn IB was strongly associated with Apollo, and since the US government (Nixon in particular) wanted to "remove" as much Apollo from NASA as possible to keep their ambitions in check, the Saturn had to go.

>>10696654
Oh boy! I get to post this again.

>>10643577
>Let's keep the politics to a minimum please, unless you are bashing all of them.
How about we just bash Nixon?

>>10630201
I didn't even notice that. I hope this image is satisfactory.