/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14637304
>At the level of costs during the time it wouldn't have been sustainable
are you sure on that? if we go by this 1992 nature paper adjusting to 1992 dollars then the shuttle budget was over $3.3 billion every year after 1975. the entire mission cost for apollo 15, including the rocket, was $445 million in 1971, which adjusts to ~$1.25 billion in 1992 dollars. that means nasa could have afforded 2.6 apollo 15's using only the lowest shuttle budget - and most years they could have afforded well more than that. and that's assuming no reductions in costs.
it sure looks to me like they could have sustained apollo/saturn if they wanted to, but they just got too hopped up on the shuttle hopium.
>I know the Eyes Turned Skyward timeline gets a lot of credit but I do think they made some weird and sloppy decisions for how things would go in an alternate "what if everything turned out okay" history.
yeah the author wrote up a retrospective a while back about what he got wrong that was pretty good reading https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/eyes-turned-skywards.208954/page-178#post-22290358