I always felt the Shuttle was a phase we needed to get through.

At one time, NASA had interns reverse engineering the Saturn V. Never have heard an update on that.
__________________________________________________ _

They never could master the slide rule. Didn't understand how to draw a regen motor with a pencil either.

Pencils have fewer constraints than CAD programs and require less training. Furthermore if nobody ever told you how to build a rocket, YOU GET TO DECIDE.

THAT MAKES INTERNS, ADMINISTRATORS, SUPERVISORS, QC ENGINEERS, brains hurt.

We always have at least 2 new liquid motors every 2 weeks at our site. There is more than one way to skin a cat. Musk and Bezos also started with a clean sheet and a pencil.

Dynetics, PW Rocketdyne, and NASA actually worked it out and test fired an F1 gas generator eleven times in 2013.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70u748VALt4

__________________
I love sanding.

Where did you see that? It would be highly unlikely, if NASA wished to duplicate the capabilities of the Saturn V they would not build the same rocket they built in 1968.

This The Space Review article is a good discussion on recreating old hardware:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/588/1

It was something I was watching on the History Channel about 10 years ago. Also mentioned how much information was lost, pitched, or taken home after the program shutdown.
__________________________________________________ __________

Did you take a look at that article I linked? It's a common myth that "the blueprints were lost" for the Saturn V but that's not true. Other articles and posts by NASA themselves show that isn't actually the case. Technical information was adequately and properly conserved after program shutdown and still exists today.

But the problem is that techniques and methods have moved on and that's the part we do not have - but we wouldn't want it anyway. Nobody in their right mind would weld together an F-1 engine anymore, it was really not a safe way to do so. We wouldn't use the same metal alloys either since there are far better ones today that could be used. Nor would we build the instrument unit using late 1950s electronic hardware, and likewise no one would recreate the lunar module avionics and guidance systems as they were then. We could do far better today with less weight and allow more scientific studies to be performed by taking advantage of modern technology.

It would be both irresponsible and meaningless to make an exact copy of the Saturn V or any of its systems even if we could do so. Does anyone bemoan the fact that we cannot build a 1967 Ford Fairlane today using the same processes, techniques and materials used then?

There are new engines ready for deployment now. The limit is budget and adoption. SpaceX and Blue Origin are passing them fast and going where no man has gone before because they did the smart thing. Left the government in the dust on phase 1. Now the government can use the super heavy lift vehicles if they want or spend 4x as much or more on SLS and ULA options.

I think the government is radically silly and feel this is a 50-50 choice.

I'm with Musk. He'll eat his hat (with mustard) if Vulcan flies a national security spacecraft before 2023. Their idea of ejecting the engines for recovery is cool, but I wonder how much trouble they will have getting reliable seals on fuel lines. In addition, ILA isn't exactly quick to get anything off the ground.

Falcon Heavy will end up cheaper than Vulcan. I don't know if BFR will get into service anytime soon as a fully reusable rocket, but if it is only partially reusable, it will probably beat New Glenn. SLS will become irrelevant.

__________________
I love sanding.

There are many groups that do exactly that. https://gizmodo.com/how-to-build-th...or-just-5319472

__________________
Shrox

Master of the Dark Art of Model Rocketry

www.shrox.com