NASA was funded adequately. They were given billions that would have gone to developing new tech. But then got handcuffed. Obama did a lot of good. But when it came to space exploration policy, a lot of promised space program money got wasted or diverted.
I was a Boeing study: http://www.astronautix.com/s/saturnv-4xu.html – but basically never left the "look how much thrust adding four of those together would produce" phase. There was zero actual development done on this.
One thing I'm grateful to For All Mankind for is the Sea Dragon launch scene they filmed. They actually planned and designed the Sea Dragon, a rocket so big that it would have to start while swimming in the ocean, as a cargo rocket to establish permanent moon bases.
But, well, without being able to one up a soviet space program that was trying the same, they didn't see a point in funding their own space program either.
Yes. It was pretty large and heavy ("was". It was never built). It was really more the cost factor. The water takes care of both on rocket and launch pad systems and infrastructure that would have had to be designed and built in order to support and launch such a huge rocket. That all could be skipped, so the idea, if the rocket just had a ballast stage that would put the rocket upright in the water and was released in order to launch it.
AFAIK, most parts were intended to be recoverable.>
So the rocket would, in theory, he pretty economical. From the economy of scale, the reusable parts and the minimal infrastructure needed, compared to the entire spaceports needed for conventional rockets.
NASA designed it. NASA is perfectly capable of building it. NASA has built rockets before. Saying "NASA DOESNT BUILD ROKKIT" does not mean they cannot, nor that they have not. I get it. You want Elon to notice you, to take you to mars. He never will, bro. Let it go.
JackieTreehornProductions
I think there’s more than straps holding them together.
TonawandaBlue
But killing Vietnamese people was more important.
Melonfish
Falcon 9 emits about 300 tonnes of Co2 per launch. This thing has to top 1000 surely?
clamjuicecoctail
NASA was funded adequately. They were given billions that would have gone to developing new tech. But then got handcuffed. Obama did a lot of good. But when it came to space exploration policy, a lot of promised space program money got wasted or diverted.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_policy_of_the_Barack_Obama_administration
ATGoogles
Best I can do is debris raining down from another failed Starship launch.
redtails2649
Amazing
chewtoy9696
THINK OF THE BILLIONQIRESSSSS
themobileappisbroken
It's pretty slow though
AzgarOgly
Yes, if anyone thinks that is anything possible in a real world, I have bad news for them.
Hammerwell
What for?
LeftRightThere
Isn’t there a diminishing returns element to a rocket that large?
talldean
Yes.
AzgarOgly
with a rocket that large, there are a lots of integration problems
you can't just stack four Saturn V rockets together and hope it won't go kaboom
glovelyday
gayvillian
Is this made up? Reference?
PowerPedant
I was a Boeing study: http://www.astronautix.com/s/saturnv-4xu.html – but basically never left the "look how much thrust adding four of those together would produce" phase. There was zero actual development done on this.
mercyPandaRunner
One thing I'm grateful to For All Mankind for is the Sea Dragon launch scene they filmed. They actually planned and designed the Sea Dragon, a rocket so big that it would have to start while swimming in the ocean, as a cargo rocket to establish permanent moon bases.
But, well, without being able to one up a soviet space program that was trying the same, they didn't see a point in funding their own space program either.
Ryebread91
Why the ocean? So it could support its weight?
mercyPandaRunner
Yes. It was pretty large and heavy ("was". It was never built). It was really more the cost factor. The water takes care of both on rocket and launch pad systems and infrastructure that would have had to be designed and built in order to support and launch such a huge rocket. That all could be skipped, so the idea, if the rocket just had a ballast stage that would put the rocket upright in the water and was released in order to launch it.
AFAIK, most parts were intended to be recoverable.>
mercyPandaRunner
So the rocket would, in theory, he pretty economical. From the economy of scale, the reusable parts and the minimal infrastructure needed, compared to the entire spaceports needed for conventional rockets.
Ikwilstroopwaffels
But then a bunch of asshole shareholders wouldnt be able to leech billions off the workers and the government!
Cliperinoposterino
What are you going to do about it?
Ikwilstroopwaffels
Kill all billionaires and then fund NASA?
SteveD31415
How so? NASA doesn't build rockets so this would be built by a private company.
Ikwilstroopwaffels
Nasa is perfectly capable of it and has done before. You might want to examine how we got to the moon.
SteveD31415
The Saturn 5 was built by private contractors.
Ikwilstroopwaffels
NASA designed it. NASA is perfectly capable of building it. NASA has built rockets before. Saying "NASA DOESNT BUILD ROKKIT" does not mean they cannot, nor that they have not. I get it. You want Elon to notice you, to take you to mars. He never will, bro. Let it go.
SteveD31415
Designing is not remotely the same as building something.