If it's 7 times what they need then it'll be wasting money.
Why do you make such very, very stupid statements?
Obviously, you only need to send up the Saturn V one time for every SEVEN times the space shuttle went up, in order to transfer the same amount of cargo.
Since it turned out that the shuttle flights were MORE expensive than the Saturn V flights, this in itself, would save a large fortune.
I was wondering exactly why you would attempt such a blatant piece of misdirection (i.e., a deliberate attempt to deceive) and it occurred to me that you are worried that people will ask;
Why did they build the space shuttle, if the Saturn V was SEVEN times as good?And, the answer is that they wouldn't, so what gives?
It seems most likely that the Saturn V didn't live up to specifications and if it didn't live up to specifications, then it could never have got to the moon.
So, this appears to be a proof (of sorts) that the moon landing was faked.I must,... if I can get the time, have a closer look at the moon landing,... because it is beginning to smell, just like the Einstein lie,.... it started with a bad smell and on a closer look, it became abundantly clear, that Einstein was a total fraud.
Einstein was NOT first to publish E=mc^2.And as to the Geek's moronic comments,... they just keep on coming.
Once in orbit relatively small amounts of thrust are needed to change to a TLO type orbit.
Is this another deliberate piece of deception by ImagingGeek?
We are NOT talking about the difference between a LEO and TLO type orbit, we are talking the difference between getting to low Earth orbit and to the Moon.
You either don't have a clue, or are being deliberately deceptive.
