Timeline for Could the museum Saturn V's be refitted for one more flight?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 18, 2020 at 17:22 | history | edited | DrSheldon |
edited tags
|
|
| Apr 4, 2019 at 10:00 | comment | added | Lightness Races in Orbit | @Mazura I guess the crux of the question is not just how much money you have to spend, but how many replacement parts you have to spend it on, because if you had to replace all the parts then it's not the same rocket any more. | |
| Apr 3, 2019 at 16:22 | comment | added | Miguel | I was in Cape Canaveral recently, and the staff mentioned that if a Saturn V is needed, the one in the Kennedy space center is the one in the best condition... | |
| Apr 3, 2019 at 15:36 | comment | added | Christopher Hostage | Stephen Baxter's book "Titan" has a very similar premise, and goes over many of the problems. In the fiction, it succeeds. | |
| Apr 3, 2019 at 14:35 | comment | added | JimmyJames | I'm not sure it matters much but the Saturn V at Kennedy was never used. | |
| Apr 3, 2019 at 14:21 | answer | added | Seth R | timeline score: 13 | |
| Apr 3, 2019 at 1:48 | comment | added | Mazura | Basically, other than fusion reactors and perpetual motion machines, the question of can we do it is answered by how many zeros you have in your check book. | |
| Apr 2, 2019 at 20:20 | answer | added | Ken Shirriff | timeline score: 26 | |
| Apr 2, 2019 at 19:50 | comment | added | JMac | @vsz I assume if you were looking at it from a practical perspective, the important part would be determining if it does require so many replacements as it make it more expensive than one from scratch. As far as just general interest goes, "can it be done" is a pretty interesting question IMO. | |
| Apr 2, 2019 at 19:35 | comment | added | vsz | Won't this raise the ship of Theseus problem? If too many parts have to be replaced in order to make it functional, can we still call it the original one? If yes, even then it will be much much cheaper to design and build a completely new rocket from scratch, then to repair or rebuild the original one. | |
| S Apr 2, 2019 at 18:02 | history | suggested | Michael Seifert | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Deleted repeated words in title
|
| Apr 2, 2019 at 18:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackSpaceExp/status/1113139266106867718 | ||
| Apr 2, 2019 at 16:20 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Apr 2, 2019 at 18:02 | |||||
| Apr 2, 2019 at 14:49 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Apr 2, 2019 at 13:51 | history | edited | Happy Phantom | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Clarify title intentions
|
| Apr 2, 2019 at 13:46 | comment | added | Happy Phantom | @Uwe: Thank you for chiming in! I'm not expecting, I'm asking. This Mustang had been stored in the open for four and a half decades, and then was restarted recently. I'm sure that it is not a matter of simply filling up the H2, O2, and RP-1. What are the bottlenecks, and are they surmountable? As you mention, we do have a complete rocket consisting of flight stages. | |
| Apr 2, 2019 at 13:44 | answer | added | Hobbes | timeline score: 34 | |
| Apr 2, 2019 at 13:41 | comment | added | Uwe | You expect a rocket stored in the open for more than two decades to be refittable for flight? See wikipedia. Only one consist of stages intended for launch. | |
| Apr 2, 2019 at 12:17 | history | asked | Happy Phantom | CC BY-SA 4.0 |