Comments by "Raptor White" (@raptorwhite6468) on "I Asked An Actual Apollo Engineer to Explain the Saturn 5 Rocket - Smarter Every Day 280" video.

  1. Saturn V weight was over 3000 tonnes and 40% of 5 F1s thrust would only be able to lift 1300, even that simple math is too much for you?
    4
  2. ​ @leotimtom6637  They used it after Apollo, in Skylab, but technology has to move on, they can't keep using the same rocket forever like Russians
    4
  3. ​ @leotimtom6637  Skylab
    3
  4. ​ @leotimtom6637  Source: I made it all up
    3
  5. Because USA moves on to create better rockets, while Russia keeps using that old thing, which doesn't seem too reliable, as three cosmonauts are trapped on ISS right now.
    3
  6.  @leotimtom6637  What do new engines have? Stability. The stronger the engine, the harder it is to control it. Why do you think Russians stopped using RD-170 if it was the strongest engine ever? Also, all these old planes/cars etc. are completely different things than rockets, because we already know a lot about them. Rockets are new technology, so still using Saturn V would be like using planes from I world war
    3
  7.  @leotimtom6637  It didn't? So all the fuel tanks were mostly empty?
    2
  8. Launches are not a good metric of speed, nor cost of a rocket's development. If we actually compare those numbers, then it is somewhat hard to tell which was developed faster, but it's safe to say Saturn V was. It launched for the first time 7 years after they began designing it. It's hard to pinpoint exactly when Starship began its development though, it was first announced in 2005 (it was a very vague announcement, just that they plan on making a really big rocket), but designs that they use today only date back to 2018. Regardless of that, Starship is not an operational vehicle yet, so Saturn takes the crown here. When it comes to costs however, Starship's development is 5-10 times cheaper, because the government understandably doesn't dump loads of money on it, like they did with the Apollo program. You also imply that "billions of taxpayers money" are spent on the development of Starship. This is not true. NASA awarded SpaceX 4.04 billion dollars for development, construction and delivery of two HLS spacecrafts for Artemis III and IV. (This might sound like a lot, but meanwhile NASA spends 1.5 billion dollars just developing an upgraded mobile launcher) They were also awarded 100 million dollars as part of the Space Force's Rocket Cargo program. All mentioned contracts have a fixed price, so no, the taxpayers are not paying for each launch of Starship, as many people think. This is completely financed by SpaceX.
    1