The problem is those solid rocket boosters. They were already controversial as part of the shuttle launch system, one of the original corner-cutting schemes. They are more powerful than liquid fuel rockets, but harder to control and cannot be shut off mid flight. The Challenger disaster showed how unreliable they can be. The Saturn V first stage worked just fine during the 60’s and 70’s, was in fact very reliable and efficient. NASA has probably invested too much in solid rocket fuel tech to just drop them now.
The Challenger disaster showed how unreliable they can be
Most equipment is unreliable when you use it outside it’s design parameters.
I'm not so sure about that. I'm just about done reading a book by a first generation mission specialist.
His big disappointment, in addition to losing classmates on the Challenger, was that it killed shuttle launches from VAB.
The USAF wasn't keen on the shuttle launching satellites to begin with, and the SRBs for use at VAB were designed with a composite material, and if Thiokol couldn't get it right with metal....
(VAB launches would be for polar orbits. More energy is required since launches wouldn't benefit from Earth's Eastward rotation, hence the need for greater thrust to weight. From an astronaut POV, a polar orbit allows viewing of the entire planet, not just an equatorial oscillation.)
Bottom line is that planned shuttle launches from VAB were canceled after Challenger, along with the composite SRBs.
Some poster once said that Thiokol got the contract over a Georgia-based firm because of Sen. Jack Garn, of Utah.
The Georgia firm pitched a solid SRB, not a sectional one. While I'm sure Thiokol could make it a single piece, getting it to KSC was the problem. The geography favored the GA firm. Garn's influence favored Thiokol.