Heaney555
183953
4297
89
NOTE: 'Super Heavy' means "can lift more than 50 tons to orbit!"
Feb 7, 2018 1:54 AM
Heaney555
183953
4297
89
NOTE: 'Super Heavy' means "can lift more than 50 tons to orbit!"
testecull
Saturn V still a boss.
WR0NGDUCKFACTS
Easy to judge past failure when they were the trailblazers who had no prior records or precedents set now a days with the knowledge we have
pleaseconsiderthatImightbejoking
I don't think that's what this is supposed to be. I think it's a mark of the progress we've made, in part thanks to trailblazers.
Nuclearss1
Tou are very right! This is called the hindsight bias. It applies to alot of things
WR0NGDUCKFACTS
No rockets should fail bar human error or extreme mechanical malfunction and the cost is lower cuz they had less R&D
merlinious
Not judging past failure, we are showing improvements
khora
It’s rocket science.
frosty147
Don't forget the Delta IV heavy
Heaney555
Delta IV Heavy makes the 'Heavy' category, but not 'Super Heavy'. For it a rocket has to be able to deliver at least 50 tons to orbit.
AaronFromIowa
Kerbal space program tag makes it.
aclarifyingcomment
Without looking at the title, I thought they were vacuums :/
CascadianTwilight
The N1 is what happens when you work the greatest rocket scientist of his generation to death
Ihatenumbersinusernames
And the refuse to let him design his own engines :(
i5trucker
Saturn V best rocket
MahJimmies
Is that launch cost assuming all recoverable components remain intact?
Camelspotting
It says expendable so I'm assuming no.
merlinious
And you're right
commoncomment
Does the spacex launch cost include the savings from reusing rockets?
MurphyPandorasLawBox
Not at that dollar figure.
Heaney555
Falcon Heavy does not reach the 'Super Heavy' class if flying in reusable mode (to fly reusable you have a lower payload capacity).
PartaVictoriisPax
Or the cost of crashing them?
Yutani987
This.
gaaaaalavant
No, because it can only lift that much payload into orbit it it uses ALL of its fuel. Launch with reuse costs $90mil, but less capacity
Rox2
Fun fact: 2 outer boosters on Falcon Heavy today we’re already used and flight proven.
permissiontolosedenied
Why do they list the launch price at 1200m instead of 1.2B or is my bad math skills showing... ?
kahlzun
Billion can mean either thousand million or million million, this way is clearer
FancyGiraffes
Just so they're all being compared using millions, which may show difference better. You could write the others out as billion if desired.
pacnwpdx
Article earlier today said the SpaceX cost was $90M. Either way a significant savings over our Fed program.
Saigon333
I mean, it turns out doing something with an extra 50 years of technological advancement makes it cheaper and easier. Who knew?
flyingdutchfrenchman
Not the governments, apparently, since no one bothered trying it.
TheMostSolidSnake
I am assuming these numbers account for inflation. In their defense it was new tech, we have much better technology to do it now.
CaldariBob
AND the improved tech is largely a consequence of what was started in the late 1950s & early 1960s. Someone had to do the basic science.
Under25BMI
It's almost like the private sector is more cost effective.... But please... Gov Healthcare and Gov Internet would be different. /eyeroll
DogsDidNothingWrong
The thing is other countries have superior government hc
Under25BMI
LOOOOOL Which "Other Countries"?
imtellingyouthetruth
Getting much cheaper too.
Amauri14z
N1 looks like a fancy tower.
d3jake
I wish I could travel back in time to see a SaturnV launch.
Mitchz95
The SLS should start flying in a few years. It's pretty much a Saturn V on steroids.
Heaney555
It's actually inferior to the Saturn V in almost every way.
szucc
Important to note the Saturn carried people and shows the cost of being first.
PaulMaguire
N1 failed 4 times?
Heaney555
Yes. Never succeeded in getting to space.
qwaszx8888
Pretty sure the math is wrong. By my figures saturn v has a cost per lb of about $3500 adjusted. This is great. But we did this 70 years ago
Tesseract09
No delta IV heavy?
Heaney555
Delta IV Heavy makes the 'Heavy' category, but not 'Super Heavy'. For it a rocket has to be able to deliver at least 50 tons to orbit.
AnotherStrangerOnTheInternet
Anythings a dildo if you're brave enough?
Captainpoopypants
JustMelinda
PintsofGuinnessMakeYouStrong
Paige no!
He4rtless
technobass
JelloPutinPops
Mom?
dynendal
EccentricNimoy
What in the world?
AnotherStrangerOnTheInternet
You have emotional scars I don't want to know about. I'm not Mom, I'm the Jack you've heard so much about.
JelloPutinPops
Meoff?
EccentricNimoy
pallokala
Jack ... off?
hitlerdidonethingwrong
My boyfriend’s grandfather worked on the Saturn 5. He got a Silver Snoopy for saving NASA millions of dollars
Lazureth
Only 36 of these on avg. were carried per mission during that time. Quite the accomplishment to receive one.
hitlerdidonethingwrong
He actually lost it and contacted NASA about it so they sent him another, so technically he had two
richfiles
Uprooted for epic achievement, then saw username... Ehh... Then realized... It's okay, NASA took all those guys in anyway! :P
hitlerdidonethingwrong
Just one, and then named every major thing in Huntsville after him
TGWeaver
Not to put a blanket on it but 1/1 is hardly a good sample size for this kind of thing. Like it's not nothing, but a slim sample for 100%.
DeltaBladeX
So who do I talk to about sending some people to space in a N1?
samsonguy920
Those on a suicide watch list.
theliquidsteak
The N1 is actually a sad story, it is the most disappointing case of "too ahead of the times" if the soviets had an OG gameboy's CPU then...
Loxachi
I thought plumbing was the constant issue with the vehicle That made it go boom?
AzgarOgly
The main problem was lack of suitable engine for a heavy rocket. The solution they tried in N1 had problems very hard to overcome.
ThatRelevance
Can we power it with an iPhone if we rebuild it
theliquidsteak
They would have made the differential thrust vectoring system of Stg1 work. The one thing the N1 lacked was a reliable digital computer.
Bunsen
And quality control in engine manufacturing, and all-up testing before flight to catch those vibration issues. It was an amazing machine...
Bunsen
crippled by a delusional bureaucracy. I still wish the NK-33 design hadn't been surrounded by such incompetence.
phobos535
When did a Saturn V fail?
AviationNation
Ask Tom Hanks
Heaney555
On Apollo 6 it failed to deliver the payload to the correct orbit.
phobos535
Yeah, but comparing it to the 4 fireballs of the N1 us a bit harsh, dont you think? Not a complete success, but not a failure
Heaney555
It didn't deliver its payload to the intended orbit. That's a failure. The one job of a rocket is to deliver its payload to an orbit.
phobos535
It was in an orbit. Not exactly the one intended, but they still did most of the planned tests
Heaney555
If a courier delivered your parcel to the middle of the sahara, would you call it a partial success?
Drewscifer
Apollo 1 that killed all 3 of the crew most likely
phobos535
That was a) on the ground, so not to blame on the rocket, and b) a Saturn I
qwaszx8888
That was a failure in the command module not the rocket. Saturn v has a perfect record
ClayBones548
That was a ground test of the crew capsule.
i5trucker
And it was the capsule not the rocket
Mavgurian
It was "lack of imagination".
Drewscifer
OK I stand corrected after 4 of you all took the time to comment basically the same point. Capsule <> Rocket even though capsule is pictured
ThisGuyFawkes
April 4th 1968. Apollo 6 partial failure. Give it a 12.5/13.
testecull
Apollo 1 also asploded IIRC, on the launchpad due to a cabin fire, and there was Apollo 13.
PedanticGonkDroid
Apollo 13 similarly wasn't the launch vehicle, but the service module.
MurphyPandorasLawBox
4, 5 and 6 weren’t manned. Wouldn’t it be 1? Or is 1 not counted since it didn’t leave the launch pad?
2bithacker
Apollo 1 wasn't a Saturn V, it was a smaller Saturn IB. Only the missions to the Moon needed the V.
TheMortiestMortyfromC137
Yup
Zoleros
I'm on a mission to get V
RulesOfImgur
Mission with no success in sight
darkspork
Still made orbit, though TLI was a bust. POGO is a hell of a thing.
AIComments
Most stock footage of interstaging falling away, etc, is actually Apollo 6.
limonchiki
What is POGO?
darkspork
Its instability in thrust. Imagine the rocket being compressed and released, like a pogo stick. Except its happening at dozens of HZ.
darkspork
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogo_oscillation
ashgrave
Apollo 13?
phobos535
Man, I maybe would have accepted Apollo 6,but 13? Cant really blame the Saturn for an Oxygen tank in the SM
ThisGuyFawkes
Caused by an oxygen tank in the module and not the rocket itself.
TuggSpeedmann
And what an incredible set of minds to bring those boys home safe
Biker222
And so lucky that the accident happened with the LEM still attached. If it had exploded on the return leg- not a happy ending.
IsAWookieFetusBaldOrHairy
Can't wait for ol' musky to start going full KSP and make good on the comment he mad about strapping on another two boosters.
IsAWookieFetusBaldOrHairy
and then strapping another 4 in the corners, and then duplicating the whole rig and adding it to the bottom
IsAWookieFetusBaldOrHairy
And then putting a loaded Saturn V on top of the whole thing just to give NASA a huge middle finger by landing a whole Saturn V on the moon.
KoRplussomeletters
Well they do have four landing pads available...
Svartlebee
Does the SpaceX one factor in not having to develop an entire infrastructure and new technologies on an unprecedented scale?
DATMMrk12
Price, not cost. Slightly different way to consider it.
samsonguy920
Same could be said for the Energia as it used technology borrowed from the US. The Falcon Heavy did use technology developed by SpaceX >
samsonguy920
> on their own, mainly the self-landing boosters.
trebuchetguevera
Not quite. Flyback boosters have been in development since the 60s. NAA even researched a flyback variant of the Saturn V.
RobertLSU
The N1 looks like it needs more struts
TimurKl
All it needed a better computer, it was a great rocket.
Heyitszay
Maybe would have kept it from exploding all those times. Or you know. Better engineering and more R&D couldve been done. Haha
SchizophrenicMC
I wonder if the Soviets remembered to check their staging
ElZutterino
So the Soviets lost 5.5 billion dollars in four failed launches of a giant rocket?
cynicbot
Aerojet purchased the N1 engine license
drunkill
define lost. They still researched and developed a lot of technologies. Infact, american rockets used spare N1 engines for decades after.
ElZutterino
Yes, they got technology out of it. But the price tag says "Launch price", which is to build and launch, no research. Without actual payload
Ihatenumbersinusernames
In the launch price of the Staurn V it calculates in the entire research and build cost of the rocket devided on the # of launches.
kittenflare2718
I feel as if this is being unnecessarily judgey
BlackSiren32
judgey against the Saturn V, that is
DATMMrk12
You don't need to. We don't judge the pioneers on the trek to the Oregon Territory because their trip took so long. Just measuring progress
SlightlyRelatedToThePost
Right? Wow! The SpaceX rocket is cheaper and more reliable than the rocket we developed in the 1960's...
BlackSiren32
maybe cheaper but not able to do much in space
SwordsToTheSkyWeRideAtDawn
Falcon Heavy only cost $90M
colonelrussia
Also it's hard to count price for Soviet rockets because of the planned economy and state owned research and production facilities
Heaney555
To reach 'Super Heavy' payloads, it has to fly in expendable mode, which costs $150M.
Bunsen
For a reusable flight with lower payload, yes. Maximizing the payload requires expending the boosters, hence the $150M price tag.
SwordsToTheSkyWeRideAtDawn
Ah, so $60M in fuel and some other expenses?
Bunsen
They have to build a new upper stage and fairing, but I think it's mostly labor and facilities costs. Fuel is cheap, under $1M a flight.
MurphyPandorasLawBox
The N1 was ambitious as hell.
GadenKerensky
And underfunded and rushed.
ThatRelevance
Explain?
MurphyPandorasLawBox
Big ass rocket with 30 engines that had to be ignited simultaneously. Think Falcon Heavy but in Soviet era Russia. All four of them failed.
ThatRelevance
Why did it fail? Also why simultaneously
MurphyPandorasLawBox
30 engines made up the first stage booster. Skip down to the description: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket)
theliquidsteak
Wtf is the Energia it actually looks like it has impressive specs. Crazy how you don't even hear about what the soviets where doing
AzgarOgly
Energia is kinda pinnacle of engineering of it's time. The best the mankind came up with. It failed for completely external reasons.
furrydumpsterfire
The specs shown seem unreliable seeing as it needs an upper stage or the buran shuttle in order to get a payload to orbit 1/2
furrydumpsterfire
And it was probably one of the soviets more secretive projects because it was one of the few advantages the soviet space program had 2/3
furrydumpsterfire
Over the US's, as well as being the rocket that carried thier top seceret shuttle and a (failed) orbital weapons platform.
minepagan
That spec was the (approx.) weight of the Polyus, which it could put into orbit. It could lift over 100t, but no one knows how much over.
furrydumpsterfire
The rocket itself wasnt capable of putting anything into orbit. The Polyus acted as an upper stage to boost itself into orbit so the 1/2
SchizophrenicMC
Energia was designed to launch the Soviet space shuttle, Buran. All of this took place on the cusp of the Soviet collapse however.
CatOnTheRoof
The Soviets were better in everything space related but going to the moon. First in space, first orbits, first landers everywhere...
AreYouReallyKiddingMe
better in everything, yeah. Especially better in overspending their budgets, forcing their country to dissolve.
drunkill
This might help you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLOCQw5s9Uw
colonelrussia
Also Energia was designed as fully reusable rocket (stages should've landed on parachutes) but it wasn't used at both test flights
minepagan
Only the boosters were recoverable, although there was a plan for a reusable variant of the core called Uragan.
jwax33
Neither one of the Soviet models listed here ever flew a real payload. I don't think the N1 ever did anything but blow up.
Heaney555
Nope, Energia took the Polyus spacecraft to orbit.
NewCrobuzonCitizen
Energia did put a Buran into space. Which was its primary payload.
malikcarr
False, in 1987 Energia flew the Polyus, which was kind of like a Soviet Death Star. It crashed after separation due to a hilarious error.
RamenAndBooze
''hilarious error''
JaromirAzarov
Yeah, it turned 360° instead of 180° before firing the engines so instead of going further up it went back down again and burned.
malikcarr
The Polyus was based on a Salyut space station with a fuckoff huge laser attached to it. Because it was attached at the top, the Salyut->
mtzigizis
hello, i would like to use the following photos for an educational presentation. How do i get permission?