Why, NASA?!

[Regor]

Hello, 

Today I would like to discuss the matter of the Orion program. I have one major question: why spend billions on R&D making the SLS, when there is already a tested rocket, called the Saturn V, which took people to the moon and back? The Saturn V could take more than 120t into LEO, the Block 1 crew 70t, and even the Cargo version can only support 130t. 

 

[tater]

 

[Bill Phil]

We can't build another Saturn V, for various reasons:

For one thing, we would need to basically re engineer the whole thing. It's not as simple as just taking an old design and using it. 

Another aspect is tooling. We don't have the equipment to build the, what, 8 plus meter tanks? Let alone the engines...

Yet another aspect is the workforce, no one currently building rockets has participated in building a Saturn. And even if they did, we would need to retrain them on the equipment.

And then there's the pads. LC-39's pads are not designed for Saturns, rather they have flown Shuttles from 81 to 2011, and have been or are being modified for SLS.

Then there's automation, friction stir welding, better materials, engine improvements, and so on and so on...

Now, we could have chosen to build Shuttle-C... but that's a whole different can of worms.

But, in the end, NASA doesn't choose what it can or can't do.

Edited June 28, 2017 by Bill Phil

[captainb]

Because the Saturn V doesn't exist any more.  None of the tooling, skilled tradesmen,  insider knowledge exists any longer.  Building a Saturn V today would cost the same or more than building the SLS is costing.  And you'd be stuck with an ancient, decrepit, and heavy computer system actually the whole rocket.

[Starman4308]

Granted, the SLS is a mistake, but as mentioned, we can't build the Saturn V again without pouring billions into re-establishing production lines for ancient equipment. A few ideas might be reusable, like an updated F-1 engine/fuel hose instead of absurdly expensive repurposed SSMEs, but the Saturn V was a 1960s rocket with 1960s limitations, subcontractors, and assembly methods, and it would be insane to go retro when all the old infrastructure is gone.

The best idea I see is to pass on the heavy lift vehicle torch to private enterprise; while lift capacities don't quite reach Senate Launch System levels, they should still fill most planned missions that aren't a waste of time and money.

I'm looking at you, manned Mars missions.

[razark]

Sorry.  We left our only working one out in the front yard for a couple of decades, and it got a mite bit run down in this humidity.

We had it repainted, but it's really a bit much for us to get it working again, but I'll ask some of the folks at the office if they can dig up a copy of the plans.

[Regor]

Thanks for clarifying, guys. The more I learn every day.

[YNM]

"Why don't we make *insert seriously anything here* anymore ? They worked !"

 

A lot of examples can be found for projects like this. I'll pull out some things more common than a rocket :

- The LNER A1 Peppercorn Tornado. A newly-made old-design-upgraded steam engine. Among the most used locomotive during it's lifetime.

- The Eagle Speedster. A remake of the Jaguar E-Type, though based on the old vehicle itself. The E-Type was considered very cheap for the performance it gives. Other cars often see upgrades this way as well.

Let me be clear : both of them are very, very expensive, compared to what it really was during mass production.

 

Now : a rocket is not a mass-produced thing. You can see where this is heading - mind-bogglingly massive expenditure. You need to revive a lot of things, or make new ones to near-exactly replicate the old. How's that different than making something radically new on it's own ? 

[evileye.x]

*tinfoil hat is on

Because Saturn V and moon program were faked by NASA

Edited June 28, 2017 by evileye.x

[RCgothic]

Also, though it didn't have any loss of craft, Saturn and Apollo had several very near misses. If it had kept flying there'd probably have been a tragedy. It was an amazing machine, but let's not pretend it was perfect.

A new booster would have better payload fraction and better safety margins for lower cost than resurrecting the dead.

Not that SLS is the right approach either.

[wumpus]

Back during the early shuttle era it was clear that NASA couldn't launch the [2?] Saturn Vs it had as museum pieces (I think one is in Redstone, Alabama the other is at KSC).  While I'd assume that virtually everything is documented (but the .01% that isn't will surely bite you), I'm sure it also includes knowledge that only existed in somebody who launched Gemini and Apollo spacecraft.  There was a small army scurry around making sure the right things happened at the right time during the countdown (while the countdown was critical to hitting the window, its real purpose was making sure everything happened on schedule).

I'm not sure if SLS included the revived F1 (Apollo main engines) or not.  These things effectively *had* to be 3d printed because the welding techniques simply aren't used anymore and simply couldn't be done (and of course you would need both welder and inspector.  You might eventually dig up the right "maker", but who is that into inspection?).  I remember reading about bits that included thick steel welds (heatshields?) and thinking that in the 1960s you could find a ton of welders with battleship experience.  Good luck finding such now.

Technology depends strictly on infrastructure.  Ideas help, but if you can't build it with available parts (or build such parts) it isn't happening.  If an engineer can design something with parts from Newark/Allied/McMaster-Carr, the product can be shipped on time.  If not, you have a massive R&D project.

[kerbiloid]

5 minutes ago, wumpus said:

that in the 1960s you could find a ton of welders with battleship experience.  Good luck finding such now.

Next topic will be: Can one now build a WWII battleship?

[wumpus]

2 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Next topic will be: Can one now build a WWII battleship?

Back during the end of the Cold War, the US Navy dragged the Missouri and New Jersey back into service.  It was widely claimed (and quite believable) that it would already be unfeasible to build (even with the money being thrown around at the time) from scratch.  After a turret exploded (killing just about anyone nearby) it became clear that the guns would require complete redesign, at which point I'd expect only the outer hull armor to be left original.  Both ships are now floating museums.

Of course, since the only real mission of such a ship is shore bombardment (submarines and carriers are superior for hitting other surface vessels), there really isn't much difference between a WWII battleship and  a heavy cruiser (unless the cruiser sinks due to a turret explosion).  Presumably the Navy's current railgun project can be considered something like this.  The other thing a battleship provides is a wildly different set of weaknesses.  Normal missiles, such as the exocet, would simply bounce off.  What you would need is something on a high ballistic arc (which defenses could easily pick up) to avoid the armor and do damage (and I imagine that the USSR developed plenty back when two American battleships were lumbering about).

[Kryten]

The tooling for the Saturn stages was scrapped, because the facility was re-assigned to making shuttle external tanks.

[razark]

42 minutes ago, wumpus said:

[2?] Saturn Vs it had as museum pieces (I think one is in Redstone, Alabama the other is at KSC).

There are three Saturn Vs on display.

 

The one at Marshall Space Flight Center is made of test articles not meant for flight.

The one at Kennedy Space Center is made from flight hardware upper stages, but a test article first stage.

The one we have here at Johnson Space Center is built entirely from flight hardware (although the parts are from three different Saturn Vs).

[WinkAllKerb'']

i love digin ^^ razark i m glad i have added you lately i know(ed)(n) it's gonna be handy soon ^^

Edited June 28, 2017 by WinkAllKerb''
twice oops ^^ thks razark you saved the days ^^

[razark]

10 hours ago, razark said:

I'll ask some of the folks at the office if they can dig up a copy of the plans.

Well, I tried.  It didn't work out so well.

Spoiler

Me
Can you get me plans for a Saturn V?

Fred
Probably not out of our system

Me
why not?

Fred
We're more of the stuff you put into the rocket, not the rocket itself

Me
well, who has the plans?

Fred
What specifically are you looking for?

Me
plans for a Saturn V
so we can build a new one

Fred
Boeing, NA, and Douglas

Me
so, how soon can you get them to transfer them?

Fred
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/up_goer_five.png
There you go

 

[WinkAllKerb'']

gné ?

edit; yup this is "almost ' keen sayin" so ik++

Edited June 28, 2017 by WinkAllKerb''
don't be so zeke and kiss george ""

[Urses]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

Next topic will be: Can one now build a WWII battleship?

Why not the big one planed japanese Battleship (dont recall the name sorry )? The anchor get's lastly a ship to work on...

The big problem to make the Saturn today is the most technologies are known today but not been used anymore. Like mentioned before you need metal Spezialists, Construktors, Ingenieurs and many many more to build this one. 

And we lack absolutely on the infrastructure to produce things like in the 60. We have new stadards, materials and production lines as needed to build a Saturn. It the same as to try to build a replica of a '60s car today. We get a lookalike but i would never try to breack through a wall with this one, like i did with a original.

Funny Kabooms 

Urses

[WinkAllKerb'']

yamato ? what 4 ? 

my meme ori leak sio much 'sigh'

Edited June 28, 2017 by WinkAllKerb''
@urse ^^^shhh shhhh ^^ don't be so biped in the wild or wolwerine may spawn out of nowhwhere ^^ xDr

[DerekL1963]

1 hour ago, wumpus said:

I'm not sure if SLS included the revived F1 (Apollo main engines) or not.  These things effectively *had* to be 3d printed because the welding techniques simply aren't used anymore and simply couldn't be done (and of course you would need both welder and inspector.

Not quite true.   Many of the things they made up out of individual weldments, we'd cast as one part or or machine out of single block nowadays.  Processes and procedures have changed a lot over the past fifty years and 3D printing is just the tip of the iceberg even if it is the current flavor-of-the-month.

That being said there's plenty of precision welders about, you don't need guys with battleship experience (because the heaviest part you'd find on a rocket are a bare fraction of the thickness of the heaviest parts of a battleship).  No doubt there's plenty of guys at EB or NNews (submarine construction yards) who'd be willing to take a flyer at welding on a rocket.  (That is, what welding hadn't been designed out (by casting or machining the part) or automated.)

[WinkAllKerb'']

truth is something versatile

but i m a bit curious is "anyone" around here wanna discuss truth "" versatilyy with me 

takeover no idea

edit:
well  iguess it's set no one want to discuss that kind of wtuff with sick autisitic people lick me ^^ cool ^^ i l ove being set about very gbasic and non walrus stuff ^^

Edited June 28, 2017 by WinkAllKerb''

[adsii1970]

11 hours ago, mabdi36 said:

Hello, 

Today I would like to discuss the matter of the Orion program. I have one major question: why spend billions on R&D making the SLS, when there is already a tested rocket, called the Saturn V, which took people to the moon and back? The Saturn V could take more than 120t into LEO, the Block 1 crew 70t, and even the Cargo version can only support 130t. 

 

Because not only for all the reasons above, (consider the posts of @Bill Phil, @captainb, and others) but the Orion space vehicle is a lot heavier than the Apollo command module and lunar excursion module (LEM). It's larger, can carry a significantly increased crew and cargo, and is ultimately designed to get humankind to Mars in the long term. For these reasons, the Saturn V would not even be able to meet mission expectations.

Edited June 28, 2017 by adsii1970

[WinkAllKerb'']

eh adsi notrhing personnal ; but "human" kind .... ??? isn't this a excrementsty meaningless thing in the universe ?

also i m not someone  anooyin, not at all

[adsii1970]

7 minutes ago, WinkAllKerb'' said:

eh adsi notrhing personnal ; but "human" kind .... ??? isn't this a excrementsty meaningless thing in the universe ?

[Edited by adsii1970]

Yes, humankind and for the following reasons:

1. The SLS is designed to be used by humans, not chimpanzees, Vulcans or even Cylons. Therefore, humankind is correct!
2. To use the term, "mankind" isn't "politically correct," even though it has been understood for nearly 300 years that "mankind" refers to BOTH genders. But because it has "man" in the title, in our current century and mindset, all that can be focused on is the term, "man." Therefore, humankind is correct.

So, in short, humankind is correct in referring to something made on Earth by and for the use by humans.

Edited June 28, 2017 by adsii1970