If we know *how* we went to the moon for $23B (in today's money), why don't we do it again? I don't mean using old tech, I'm saying we know how it was planned, so why not design new tech around that and just go again? What exactly prevents us from doing so? Would love to know the reason.
because Musk said he can do it for much cheaper so here we are and going to the moon is a waste of money especially when US has barely any money for the government to function
>>16526579>If we know *how* we went to the moon for $23B (in today's money), why don't we do it again?Takes time to line up all the subcontractors, test and evaluate components etc. People forget the moon program came at a time where everyone was building thousands of rockets (with very different purpose) for years already.
>>16526579>What exactly prevents us from doing so?Competency implosion at NASA.
We spent like 1% of gdp on it in the 1960s to do it. Now we dont.
>>16526671All the big brains post 1960s left stuff like aerospace and started building computers.Im hoping we actually stop developing computers w all this AI shit and get humans back into hardware engineering.
>>16526677Well we have the computers now for space calculations, this will look like star trek and everything
What's the point going to the Moon or Mars, literally just a waste of money. Even if we find anything it will take decades to utilize it. We still can't create a working fusion reactor to mine Moon. The Mars rover is completely pointless shit so nerds can drive an RC car on another planet.
>>16526690What do you need another ps5 for we just wanna do cool things in space
>>16526690Fission reactors are sufficient for mining, so is solar.
>>16526695to mine moon for helium 3 to power fusion reactors on earth you retard
>>16526579Because that's $23 billion we could be sending to Israel. Don't you know they need more bombs to murder more unarmed women and children in Palestine?
>>16526703that's the point
Take a look at this photo of Mission Control during Apollo 11 and get that gerbil running on a wheel in your head to go a bit faster so you can figure it out.
>>16526726yeah it has nothing to do with having infinite money for useless shit because of the cold war
>>16526732If we gave "infinite money" (a stupid bit of hyperbole from you) to Congo, how quickly would they land on the Moon?
>>16526780>it's how that money is allocatedNASA and government contractors were always a huge scam
>>16526818Is that why they spend money on diversity? To even out the bumps between years?
>>16526690You spend what 800 billions every year on the miitary but spending 23 billions to go to the moon is a ''waste of money'' lol
>>16526579The goal of going to the moon the first time was to convince the US public that America controlled space and they didn't need to worry about Sputnik dropping a nuke on their head. This wasn't because they gave a shit about the public but because international investment dries up when investors think their factories might turn into radioactive slag.That fear is gone and the investor uncertainty is gone with it so now we have a jobs program to keep aerospace engineers in the US and not making missiles for any country willing to pay them.You want the US to get serious about space you need to scare the investor class into thinking space is important.
>>16526729ties help keep blood in the brain so you can do science better. it's why ties were originally invented.
>>16526579We don't know how, because half of the hardware was tweaked without documentation and now the engineers are dead.
>>165265791969 dollars are different from 2024 dollars. We wouldn't be able to go back with only $23B in today's money, and Congress isn't willing to appropriate the full amount required.
>>16526579>so why not design new techRockets already exist. They can go to Mars, to the Sun. Its not lost tech, dozens of rockets take off every year
>>16526677the problem with hardware is cost, look at how 3d printing has taken off. buying a spool of plasic is way way cheaper than buying steel or aluminum the real difference was raw materials were so much cheaper back then, plastic is the only cheap material left and thats gonna end when we stop making gasoline in insane quantities
>>16526736about as fast as it takes to line up contractors and then have them do their workthats exactly how every other country has done it btw. not every contractor for nasa back in the day was american (or even today)whats your point, do you think with infinite money and an achievable goal they couldnt do it?
>>16527380>uying a spool of plasic is way way cheaperNo it isnt. Plastic is expensive, steel is cheap af
>>16526729https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Qf8Ehinrc8
>>16527380>buying a spool of plasic is way way cheaper than buying steel or aluminumfaggot never bought a spool for 3d printing
>>16526579its more like $300bn in todays money, which is still an incredible deal.
>>16526736I doubt Congo has 5% of American GDP
>>16526677>All the big brains post 1960s left stuff like aerospace and started building computers.It got worse: after 2010 they all went into the surveillance economy, optimizing how to sell garbage to the people. It will take a major effort, including breakup of FAANG, to get back to real progress with real science.
>>16526702Look up "Peaks of Eternal Light" and then read up on why the military wants to control these.
>>16526579>If we know *how* we went to the moon for $23B (in today's money),You are manifestly uninformed.>The United States spent $25.8 billion on Project Apollo between 1960 and 1973, or approximately $257 billion when adjusted for inflation to 2020 dollars. Adding Project Gemini and the robotic lunar program, both of which enabled Apollo, the U.S. spent a total of $28 billion ($280 billion adjusted). Spending peaked in 1966, three years before the first Moon landing. The total amount spent on NASA during this period was $49.4 billion ($482 billion adjusted).>https://www.planetary.org/space-policy/cost-of-apolloAll-in-all, it cost nearly a half trillion dollars in today's money, five times more than what's been spent on Artemis to date ($93 million). and twenty times more than your ridiculously incorrect estimate.>>16526607>Incidentally, SLS wasn't designed for Moon missions, and obviously wouldn't be any good for it (hence the need for the HLS program, to launch a lunar lander separately from SLS.)You too are manifestly uninformed. The SLS has a TLI capacity of 46 metric tonnes in its Block 2 configuration...the original Apollo capsule, service module and LEM totaled 44 tonnes.The Block 1 has a significantly smaller TLI payload of 27 tonnes, but that's because the program's goals were built around the addition of a new reusable "LEM", the HLS, which is supposed to be provided by either SpaceX or Blue Origin on a separate flight. And it's obviously "good" for Moon missions because it completed Artemis I with no issues, post-launch. Your understanding of the SLS and its role is exactly backwards.
>>16527886Other than Orion, what human-rated system has actually been sent to the Moon and back? Of course they're required to use it. And what's a "proper Moon mission"? Artemis is all about untested frontiers, not just going back...the goal is to set up a public/private infrastructure to make a Lunar foothold permanent.
>>16527908>a Moon program was designed around a human-rated system specifically created for that very program>that human-rated system has now been tested on a successful Lunar mission>any remaining issues with the Orion heat shield burning unevenly will be resolved with a change in de-orbit trajectory>https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-shares-orion-heat-shield-findings-updates-artemis-moon-missions/I don't understand your objections. There's no alternative human-rated Lunar craft currently in existence.
>>16527983>Neither Orion nor SLS were designed for Moon missions.>The Space Launch System (SLS) is an American super heavy-lift expendable launch vehicle used by NASA. As the primary launch vehicle of the Artemis Moon landing program, SLS is designed to launch the crewed Orion spacecraft on a trans-lunar trajectory. The first (and so far only) SLS launch was the uncrewed Artemis I, which took place on 16 November 2022.>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_SystemVery first paragraph of the Wikipedia article. It was originally designed as the other half of a Shuttle replacement for the Constellation program, but became a Moon rocket by virtue of additional stages. Since it's effectively a Saturn V with Shuttle SRBs and RS-25s instead of F1 engines, it's hard to imagine what a Moon rocket utilizing existing hardware would have looked like. Again, I don't see your point.>Orion's heat shield very nearly failed the one time it was tested.Aforementioned article doesn't mention "failure", only concerns. Big difference.
>>16528031It's amazing that even here in $current_year, people have to be reminded that wikipedia is not a primary source.
>>16526579>What exactly prevents us from doing so?Fuck your Moon, Ukraine needs more money.
>>16527401>whats your point, do you think with infinite money and an achievable goal they couldnt do it?They could not. They would just not use the money for the goal, it would be spent buying weapons and whatever remains stashed in Switzerland. Third world countries are poor because they waste what little money they ever get. Just look at Russia, all the money they spent on their military and what came of it (the money didnt go to the military)
>>16526690moon has a lot of minerals and it would make space travel cheaper and easier
>>16526579The moon missions aren't about just getting someone there.Sure the budgets are bloated, but it's about improving the technology. We could send astronauts back up in replicas of those old suits but their hands would still feel like they're plunged in buckets of ice, and the jagged magnetized dust on the moon would still stick miserably to their suits. NASA took notes and is rethinking everything
Because it never happened? I have no doubt in my mind that we could, but all these stories from cold war about shit people had to suffer through due to lack of funding makes statements like>These guys went to moon>and had enough funding to come back without injuries or death, in one piece and not die weeks laterImpossible to believe.
>>16528122Your obsessive declaration about SLS not being a "Moon rocket" because of its original intention is arbitrary and irrelevant. It's a vehicle proven capable of lofting a human-rated capsule into TLI, ergo, it's a Moon rocket. Case closed. There is no other vehicle capable of that feat presently in existence. Starship remains in the testing stage (picrel) and New Glenn was never conceived as a human-rated vehicle either.I know where this discussion is going and I created the image in picrel because I got tired of explaining to Starship fans all the hurdles necessary for the vehicle to perform its function as an HLS ("Moon rocket"). Better to display it visually. If it clears all those hurdles, more power to it, but the hurdles exist. Flight 7 will not add cross any more checkmarks off that list, btw.
>>16528118 I thought you said they're jews? Lmao just sent them $50
>>16529439who had to suffer during the cold war?>and not die weeks laterwhat does that have to do with funding. sounds like you some other, non-funding related, objections.>>16529562to be fair, reaching stable orbit isn't really much of an advance and theres zero reason to think that it can't do that. The Apollo LM was never tested landed on the moon, so that one might not even be necessary.
>>16529562>checklistApollo did all of that in a single launch
>>16527881you don't have to fund the entirety of the apollo and gemini projects every time you go back to the moon retard. that's like saying every transatlantic trip requires the same work as the voyage of columbus.
>>16530015go build you're own fleet of sailing ships and fill them with provisions for a few years, see how much cheaper it is.
>>16530017you don't need a fleet of ships nor years of provisions to go on a transatlantic voyage anymore - the work figuring out how to get from A to B was done long ago, just like the work of gemini and apollo was done long ago.
>>16530021but the point is that by rebuilding apollo instead of designing and making a whole new fleet of craft, thats kind of what you're doing - building the same ships as were used before.Orion was supposed to be the next generation of Apollo-like vehicle, with its similar looking CM and SM, although able to carry another crew member and for longer durations, with modern electronics and new systems throughout. its just that the whole program has had just a few percent of the funding and political backing that Apollo had, and its companion SLS has been an expensive mess.In short, nearly everything was made new with modern materials, designs and ways of doing things, for various reasons. Nobody wanted to just repeat the barebones Apollo missions, for example.
>>16526677Real on-site production is crucial for innovation, it turns out. The idea of designing here and producing there turned out to be a compound failure, first in eroding innovation and secondly in transferring tech to countries that later turned against the West.
>>16529569kikes control both sides, you silly goy.
>>16526579modern day NASA is extremely risk adverse. the apollo missions were supremely sketchy from a safety standpoint
what is the point of sending humans on field trips to poke around on the moon or mars, there could be an entire amazon rainforest on mars full of mars frogs mars monkeys and mars fish and it would still be worthless and not worth going tobecoming a galactic civilization is possible but sending us on rickety shit buckets to mars or the moon with no useful cargo is pointless and does nothing
The real achievement and sole reason why the US "won" the space race is because they developed a working superheavy launcher. That's all it was about. Going to the moon required a big fucking rocket. We made on that worked, the Soviets could not. It was only ever a demonstration of technical capability and trust (risking human life) for said capability.Right now the US continues to dominate the superheavy launch market (pending crew rating). We ARE going back to the moon, only to stick it to the Chinese this time.
>>16531132>It was only ever a demonstration of technical capability and trust (risking human life) for said capability.Most people know Kennedy wanted to land men on the Moon, fewer remember he felt it necessary to add that he wanted to bring them back alove too.
>>16531132>Right now the US continues to dominate the superheavy launch marketthat requires to have a working product first
>>16531166SLS works. Falcon Heavy works. Starship booster (launch vehicle) works. The latter two only need crew rating.
I can’t believe how retarded this entire thread is
>>16531110>becoming a galactic civilization is possible but sending us on rickety shit buckets to mars or the moon with no useful cargo is pointless and does nothingdont you think that building up the technology might involve some smaller trips first?
>>16531691>dont you think that building up the technology might involve some smaller trips first?completely useless if there isn't the technology that we could test with the small trips
>>16531691the issue isn't sending faggots to mars, that's super easy, barely an inconvenience, but we have nothing useful once the faggots are there. we could build the enterprise right now, but we have no FTL engines to make it worth shit.
>>16526579the US could return to the moon anytime, but there would be no point in doing the same thing the Apollo missions did (basically taking some pictures, digging small holes and sending small samples back), if they're going back to the moon, they're going to have more ambitious goals, like investing in reusable rockets to a permanent moon base is financially viable, which could eventually lead to a moon mining industry.
>>16531707but thats what is currently being developed. >>16531708>we could build the enterprise right nowno we could not
>>16531776exactly. Apollo as it was could only deliver very small payloads to the surface, only two guys, and only one other in orbit for short duration missions. very much a quick in and out, with the entire vehicle lost per mission.repeating that program is pretty pointless
>>16526690how is a Moon base a waste of money, but giving money to Zelensky to sacrifice his male population not?
>>16527401you're delusional
>>16531262I can't believe how stupid your post isdo better
>>16532264How can mirrors be real if our eyes aren't real?
>>16526579stealth flat earther thread and don't worry I agree with you it's flat as hell and nasa are provably frauds
>>16526579because they haven't done it! i ask you very politely to take a minute and consider picrel before calling me dumb. no i'm not a flatard
>>16526600bro, there's a huge difference between SRB ICBM's (or other types of military grade stuff) and liquid fuelled rockets.
>>16532980https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.1980-358
>>16529743>to be fair, reaching stable orbit isn't really much of an advance and theres zero reason to think that it can't do that. The Apollo LM was never tested landed on the moon, so that one might not even be necessary.The list is predicated on multiple checks being attainable in a single flight...I believe it got two checkmarks at once for Flight 3. So, for instance if on, say, Flight 9 of the Super Heavy/Starship, it were to launch the HLS itself, orbit it, refuel it and send it on the way to the Moon, it would simultaneously receive six checkmarks instantly. If this occurred in time to rendezvous with Artemis III, it would receive all seven remaining checkmarks and SpaceX would complete its contract with NASA. The list exists to visually depict the minimal requirements for that contract.>>16530017The objectives of Apollo and Artemis are fundamentally different, so calling someone a "retard" doesn't help your argument. It just makes you sound desperate and confused. The Apollo missions were visits, Artemis is to establish a permanent foothold and enduring infrastructure. And spacecraft aren't wooden boats.
>>16526579
>>16533784>>16533786nobody understands your retarded schizo rambling>*allegedlyway to immediately show yourself as a retard
>>16533835what is hard to understand, low iq person ? \either the rocket exhaust excavating regolith is problematic or it isn't.either the rocket exhaust is visible or transparent it's that simple
>>16533859that your schizo pictures have no additional scientific information you retard>either the rocket exhaust excavating regolith is problematic or it isn't.>either the rocket exhaust is visible or transparent this is how a retard thinks who would also think the earth is flat
>>16533859>either the rocket exhaust excavating regolith is problematic or it isn't.depends on many factors>either the rocket exhaust is visible or transparent depends on many factors,
>>16527183>23 billions for a tourist trip is not a waste of moneyAnon...
>>16533618>calling someone a "retard" doesn't help your argument.good job i didn't do that then
>>16533786the number of silly assumptions in things like your pic are incredible. why assume that regolith conditions are the same at all spots on the moon? why assume that there is no difference between the throttle fine control of human pilots and automated landers? why assume that the power of the engine is the same in all cases? why assume that the strength of landing supports are always the same no matter the craft?all these and more show why them that call hoax are not thinking clearly.
>>16533784>>16533786just wanted to say it again. you are a retard.
>>16533784https://moonhoaxdebunked.blogspot.com/2017/07/612-why-is-there-no-exhaust-from-lms.htmlthen keep in mind that the ascent engine was really very small
>>16533891>why assume that regolith conditions are the same at all spots on the moon?only Odysseus happened to be unlucky and hit loose gravel but the six apollo landings were lucky and hit compacted soil> why assume that the power of the engine is the same in all cases?I didn't. Odysseus had less thrust. it was smaller. the effect would be attenuated>why assume that there is no difference between the throttle fine control of human pilots and automated landers?I didn't. modern inertial guidance and computers are far better than a human reaction. take for example falcon 9 or the big booster. very precise landings, where as Armstrong nearly died in the simulation test bed. you're just throwing whatever strawman you can at me because you have nothing
>>16533947>were lucky and hit compacted soilregolith is very different to gravel. you can see how several of the missions landed where they were very little depth even of that fine dust like material.>odysseus broken strutcaused by the thing moving too fast sideways at touchdown. where did you hear that the engine blasting debris caused that?>modern inertial guidance and computers are far better than a human reaction.they CAN be. Odysseus broke that strut because the auto landing system screwed up. the LM sometimes had a bit of lateral motion at touchdown too, but it was built for that. seems that Odysseus exceeded its design.>where as Armstrong nearly died in the simulation test bed. because the thing ran out of fuel for the reaction control thrusters. he, and several others made 100s of perfect landings using that thing.
>>16533947>just throwing whatever strawman you can>makes up strawman about what caused the Odysseus failed landing strutfunny how you're complaining about imaginary strawmen when the entire foundation of your silly meme pic is an actual real life strawman lol
>where did you hear that the engine blasting debris caused that?still waiting
>>16526579bureaucracy
>>16526690the moon is rich in natural resources, and launching there would be easy due to it's low gravity and zero atmosphere, if you setup a moon colony there, you could ship tons of materials back to earth with ease. Also if space travel becomes easier in the far future, we'd have space outlaws and bounty hunters, which is sick
>>16534339>the moon is rich in natural resourcesWhat natural resources?
>>16534473Rock
>>16534473lots of metals, and notably hydrogen 3
>>16534188i wonder if the moonhoaxie will ever face his error
>>16526579Because we use to be a proper nation before we import millions of shitskins
>>16534489Lots of metals on Earth and the shipping costs are much lower.
>>16534188the scifag websites say that it broke due to impacting the ground. but why would the engine still be running at 0 altitude when the apollo lander shut down the engine before touchdown ? why not copy the 100% successful apollo flight? have the skills and knowledge gone down 50 years later ? is Ed Dutton right about america becoming dumb? or maybe it's because this time it was for real, and in the real world things are unpredictable, unlike in a movie set.
>>16526579That's pretty explicitly exactly what they are doing. Here are a few key differences:- Electronics are lighter, vastly more sophisticated and vulnerable to radiation- Nobody at the time was prepared to admit how risky the Apollo program was. NASA even lied about the Shuttle being safe. Actually designing safety into the Artemis program is expensive for the level of confidence they want to have.- Congress can not stop meddling with NASA's budget and decision making. SLS was designed the way it was because Congress wanted Shuttle jobs to stay where they are. The awful SRBs keep coasting on inertia, and are driving fully half the costs of the program by themselves (heavy as shit and completely unsafe) and the shuttle engines, supposedly easily reused, are up to a half billion dollars to refurbish EACH - NASA wants to pack as many as four Apollo missions into one Artemis expedition, including length of stay, crew complement, payload and downmass
>>16534188>friction causes heat?>uh, SOURCE?????
>>16534894>>16535212can you find any evidence at all that the blast from the engine was what caused the strut failure? No? Then you're looking for another conspiracy where there isn't one. will the moonhoaxie ever admit his error? is he capable?
>>16534473Look into the composition of asteroids, especially carbonaceos chondrites and metal asteroids.Now, all those lunar craters have those resources buried underneath. That includes massive amounts of gold, diamonds, platinum group metals, rare earths, even shale rock for natural gas, as well as water trapped inside the rock. You wont find this composition from looking at lunar surface environment scans bc of solar wind scattering the light elements. Its all buried under the craters.
We faked it. Musk just said a couple days ago that they are scapping Artemis.
>>16534908>Electronics are lighter, vastly more sophisticated and vulnerable to radiation...And this is why we've sent probes past Pluto with New Horizons, dove into the Sun at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light with Parker, landed two SUV-sized vehicles on Mars (Curiosity and Perseverance) and plan to dive into Jupiter's highly radioactive atmosphere with Juno. What a shitty take, lol.>The awful SRBs keep coasting on inertia, and are driving fully half the costs of the program by themselves (heavy as shit and completely unsafe) and the shuttle engines, supposedly easily reused, are up to a half billion dollars to refurbish EACHAnother shitty take. They're "completely unsafe" because they have unparalleled thrust that clustering a bunch of teeny methane Raptors can't even come close to matching, which is why every Starship* launch to date (including the next) has failed to reach orbit and falls into the Indian Ocean instead.Speed costs and is frequently dangerous. That's just life.*an alleged "Moon rocket"
>>16532568I mean if it's flat then NASA are definitely frauds, not just probably.
>>16526579I hate to burst your bubble, but no Yankee was ever on the Moon.
>>16535212still waiting, and will likely just keep on waiting. this is how people into this kind of thing generally behave - completely unable to admit fault about any of their little pet ideas.
>>16537009>They're "completely unsafe" because tthey cant be turned off in the event of a problem>starship not making orbitbecause they dont need or want to go that extra few percent yet. whats the point when they want to test launch, reentry and landings?
>>16538265>they cant be turned off in the event of a problemWhen has that ever been an asset? Any human-rated spacecraft should have an escape system.>>16538265>because they dont need or want to go that extra few percent yet.>few percent>lolSo you're testing a vehicle's return capabilities far before you ever establish its upmass or orbital capabilities.Ri-ight. Name the spacecraft that ever did this before. That includes the Falcon series.
>>16539242>So you're testing a vehicle's return capabilities far before not far before, but yes, if the entire point is to get the entire stack back down and landed then why enter orbit? it shows they are very confident about orbit.>orbital capabilities.they already did a relight of the engine. its good for orbit, obviously. literally a very small extra few seconds of main engine burn and its there. i dont know why you fags obsess about this>Name the spacecraft that ever did this beforeand you think that matters how exactly? everything always needs to be done the same way or you're not happy?
>>16527881There's a lot of strange history rewriting going on. Most normie people in 2025 declare a claim that the moon race was mostly dual-purposed military ICBM research done by the Germans from WWII to be somewhere between hyperbole and a conspiracy theory.Then you show them the Wikipedia page for Project Mercury, where they pretty much took the nuke off the top of a PGM-11 Redstone and stuck a capsule on top and called it the "totally peaceful and scientific oriented Project Mercury". Sure they took the pick of the litter and went over it with a fine tooth comb before putting a dude in a capsule on top, but the booster was quite literally a COTS PGM-11. This totally freaks people out. Also for fun look at the peculiar genealogy of later booster engines. The "Peaceful Scientific" programs were developed literally next door to the nuke launchers by the same people.The problem now, aside from the very legitimate demographic and economic collapse problems, is in the old days you could use the same booster to toss a nuke or a man in a capsule, but everything is hyper optimized now and even the MGM-31 Pershing was better at tossing nukes but unfortunately kind of shit for launching humans.In the modern era, LGM-118s are pretty cool, but just beyond useless for human launching.Its that higher tech means more specialization effect where a Model A passenger car looks like a Model A truck (kind of) but a 2025 subcompact commuter car has virtually nothing in common with a large 2025 diesel semi truck other than they technically can operate on the same road.
>>16526579Because why? What can we do with humans that we can't do with a shitty probe?
>>16539390Ejaculate in the lander
>>16526579There's a lot of stuff that goes into it, but one big issue is government contracts. Politicians want to wrangle high value contracts for their districts to make donors happy so they get more money to win the next election, and once those contracts are in place, they fight to keep them there. Look at the SLS for example. It uses the space shuttle engines AND the space shuttle solid rocket boosters. This makes sense short term because we have some of those parts already hanging around, but those were both re-used during the shuttle program and now will be single use on the SLS, yet we are now purchasing many more of both in the long run. The extra engineering for re-usability makes them more expensive than they need to be for a single use rocket. Also the shuttle SRB's and orbiter engines aren't even nessicarilly ideal for this purpose anyway, re-usability aside. It would have been more cost effective to design something more like the Saturn V but with updated designs, but that would mean all new contracts, which some politicians wouldn't like.(side note: We actually *can't* build a new Saturn V even if we wanted do. We have the original blueprints, but those were made in a different era. The F1 engines that flew were not exactly what the blueprints called for, and none of them was quite the same. The machinists who built them had to improvise and figure out how to make things work when the details in the blueprints wouldnt quite line up in real life, a problem much less prevalent in the days of CAD where the software will *tell* you if a given part wont fit together. These machinists had skills to deal with this. Skills that modern ones dont have and dont need)One proposal for NASA's heavy lift rocket was something that used engines very much like the F1, but designed with modern manufacturing techniques in mind, plus other engine design improvements too. Would have been much more cost effective and have better performance because of fewer parts, etc)
