On 31 Dec, 20:08, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Ian Parker wrote:

:On 31 Dec, 16:01, Frogwatch wrote:
: So, why not upgrade the Delta or Atlas instead of building Ares 1 or
: 2. *Are the solid boosters really more reliable and safe? *Could an
: upgraded Delta or Atlas launch Orion without huge changes to the
: launch support facilities?
:
: Please, no replies from Kt Or Guth
:
:SATURN my friend if they havn't destroyed the blueprints.
:

Blueprints are the least of your problems if you want to replicate
Saturn V. *You have to build all new tooling, find or rebuild sources
for all those 1960's components, etc.

Trying to just repeat the past is generally not a good approach. *We
could build a much better Saturn V these days if a Saturn V is what is
wanted.

Futurologists have things called S curves. There is a concept called
technological maturity. The big expendible became "mature" round about
the time of the Moon landings. The "mature" big expendible calls
itself Saturn 5.

Ares is not really a leap. Ares, of course, uses modern electronics
which BTW does not ensure stability against oscillations. Ares is a
modern version of Saturn. It is better than Saturn but is it better
enough to justify its price tag? It is NOT a different concept, like a
nuclear rocket, an ion drive or even the use of AI to mine the Moon/
Astreroids would be.

You are of course absolutely right. It is generally unwise to go back
to the past. It is also unwise to abandon an existing technology until
the new one has proved itself.


- Ian Parker