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.
But that does not mean its a better way of doing things. Launches must be very carefully timed to get the payload into the desired orbit - you cannot simply package up multiple payloads and launch at the same time - at least not economically. To do that you have to add the additional tertiary stages to move your payloads into the desired orbits. That equals more mass, which equals more cost.
Likewise, the mass of the saturnV is a big drawback - not only does it need the thrust to lift its payload, but it also needs the thrust to lift itself and its fuel. In the case of the saturnV, it burned 2,594,211 kg of fuel to put 118,000 kg of payload into LEO (fuel:payload ratio of 200:1). Modern launch vehicles are much more efficient - the Arian 5 for example uses ~1,368,400 kg of fuel to put 21,000kg of mass into LEO - a f:p ratio of 65:1, about 3X more efficient than the saturn v.
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've never once said that the space shuttle was a good idea. But its still a better idea than your half-baked idea of resurrecting a 1960's piece of technology which is 1/3rd as efficient as today's technology.
I was wondering exactly why you would attempt such a blatant piece of misdirection
LOL, I forgot that in your imaginary world, being correct is "misdirection".
Luckily, we all live in the real world, not your make-believe world where, amoung other things, newtons laws do not hold...
Why did they build the space shuttle, if the Saturn V was SEVEN times as good?
Three reasons - first, because they wanted a reusable lift vehicle to get into LEO, instead of a non-reusable lift vehicle to go to the moon.
Secondly, because the saturn v is not 7 times better. The space shuttle puts upto 24,000kg into orbit (that's shuttle + cargo), and provides an area for scientific work (which was one of the shuttles main purpose). Thats (118,000kg/24,000kg) 5X, not 7X less mass than saturnv, and includes the mass to support crew + experiments, plus carry a payload into orbit. The satrunV's lift mass doesn't include mass for crew/science, and once you add that the "extra" lift capasity of the saturn drops to ~4X the shuttle.
And thirdly, because there was (and still is) no need for such a large rocket. Its far, far, far cheaper to design low-mass payloads and launch them on small rockets than it is to use a big rocket.
And, the answer is that they wouldn't, so what gives?
Your inability to understand basic math, basic economics, and basic science?
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.
Or maybe, you're just a nut. Especially given that the LRO's imaged the appolo landing sites from orbit, and directly observed the lunar modules launch stage, sitting on the moon.
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.
LOL, maybe read up on what those terms mean. LEO = low earth orbit, i.e. putting [censored] in space. TLO = trans-lunar orbit, i.e. the orbit you need to go to the moon.
The only stupidity is from you, pre.
Bryan
