Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
Slapout:

I am not so sure the Saturn 5 was either simple or inexpensive. There were a lot of parts to that thing, like thousands and thousands. Plus it was liquid fueled so it took days and days to assemble, transport and fuel. I don't remember but there may have been restrictions on how long you could leave it sitting there fueled and ready to go. And there was a huge infrastructure needed to support it. Liquid fueled rockets make a cumbersome weapon.

Anyway we could go back and forth about relative expense for a long time and not resolve it. I for sure don't know enough to do so.
1. Saturn V development was inexpensive in comparison to other programs due to its simplicity in design.
2. Its parts due to thier large size were actually easier to work with. Where it got nuts is with the wiring and sensors.
3. Fueling was not only time consuming and expensive, it was very dangerous.
4. Liquid fueled rockets must be monitored constanlty when fueled. It is unfeasable and dangerous to leave them fueled for long.

In conlcusion I have to say ther is NO way a liquid fueled rocket is practical nor economical. They require an army to maintiain and monitor thier functions. A second army to deal with it if something goes wrong. Modern solid fueled rockets are far more practical.

Adam

Adam