>>1584636>I know that. It's the only one in existence. And if it wasn't for the Space Shuttle Programme, we could have had ten. Hubble 1 cost about $10B, and each successive one would have cost less and less.The thing I mentioned is that Hubble (no numbers) is a Kennen KH-11 satellite bus which was developed, designed and built for the National Reconaissance Office with the Department Of Defence.
The problem with the argument of "each successive one" is because both Hubble and WFIRST which are KH-11 class satellites, are donations of "spare" satellites by the NRO to NASA.
If NASA wanted to design their own satellite, they could, and they did with the James Webb Space Telescope. But the primary problem here is that NASA couldn't freely obtain classified satellite buses for science - it had to be NRO donations.
>Can you imagine the payload a Saturn V could put in near Earth orbit, given what it could deliver to the fucking Moon?I can.... easily.
Skylab B is in the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum in Washington D.C, and I have seen it with my own eyes.
Skylab is the largest single module space station ever launched into orbit, and the fact that it had a shower on board, with space for acrobatics and never needed a resupply due to how much shit they could pack into it sure is a good case for Saturn V.
The problem for Saturn V wasn't its launch capabilities, though, it twas its political capabilities. It was too massive for military payloads, and the US had "won" the space race, they didn't have any interest in actually doing science on the moon, just to put a massive middle finger up to the USSR.
>>1584638>The air force ruined the shuttleI'd argue it made it aesthetic af (pic rel). Though... yeah, the USAF wanted something for their military needs, NASA wanted something for their scientific needs, and the two conflicted with each other.
