Saturn V VS SLS

[Spacetraindriver]

Now I know a bunch of you will be screaming at me that SLS is better because it is more modern or Saturn V is better because who knows what. But think basics. The rocket. The spacecraft. Forget about so fancy-schmancy computers. As (I hope) you all know, Orion will be going to the moon (Maybe that forgotten lander but have not found much info yet). And (it would be pretty sad if you did not know) you ALL know Saturn V carried, well you all should know. I will be trying replicas of SLS soon. I'll leave this though here.

[fredinno]

Saturn V was more ambitious for its time, that's for sure.

[Bill Phil]

Saturn V actually flew...

It wins.

For now.

Plus, it had the S-IVB in common with the Saturn IB, for the most part.

SLS just seems like a waste. Maybe we could launch satellite constellations with it?

[MinimumSky5]

The Saturn V was designed to be the best rocket that NASA could construct at the time, while the SLS seems to me to be US senators desperately trying to keep the shuttle industry alive and forcing NASA to use components for tasks that they were never designed for. Saturn V all the way for me.

[Nibb31]

Why is this in the Science Labs ?

[DECQ]

In my opinion, ENERGIA is better than Saturn and SLS because of the uniqueness, as you represent the payload as a Polyus of Saturn 5?

[Bill Phil]

In my opinion, ENERGIA is better than Saturn and SLS because of the uniqueness, as you represent the payload as a Polyus of Saturn 5?

Energia was dependent on the Polyus to finish the launch.

It was superior relative to the Space Shuttle.

[ChrisSpace]

Falcon Heavy wins. If it works.

[Voyager275]

Falcon Heavy. SpaceX for the win.

[PTNLemay]

I like that the Saturn V was all liquid fuelled. It seems very odd that their working so hard to keep SRBs in this day and age. If they were properly re-usable then I would understand, but didn't a study show that building new boosters from scratch is cheaper than fishing them out of the ocean? Something about the salt-water corrosion being worse than they had initially thought.

[Frozen_Heart]

Falcon Heavy. SpaceX for the win.

Falcon Heavy couldn't send a manned capsule and lander to the Moon. It has less than half the payload of the Saturn V and is optimised to put things in LEO, not deep space.

[fredinno]

I like that the Saturn V was all liquid fuelled. It seems very odd that their working so hard to keep SRBs in this day and age. If they were properly re-usable then I would understand, but didn't a study show that building new boosters from scratch is cheaper than fishing them out of the ocean? Something about the salt-water corrosion being worse than they had initially thought.

If you ain't reusing, they're cheaper. That's one reason Orbital Sciences loves them.

It's also true in KSP.

- - - Updated - - -

Trust me, you don't want that. NASA should never have a monopoly on these kinds if launches.

Let's just focus on deep space with SLS, shall we?

[Requia]

I like that the Saturn V was all liquid fuelled. It seems very odd that their working so hard to keep SRBs in this day and age. If they were properly re-usable then I would understand, but didn't a study show that building new boosters from scratch is cheaper than fishing them out of the ocean? Something about the salt-water corrosion being worse than they had initially thought.

The cost I think comes down to the infrastructure to recover and refurbish, rather than the marginal cost. The more you launch the more sense it makes. They're stopping recovery because they don't plan to use this thing anything close to as often as they used the shuttle. The SRBs they're using now are just to have something while they make new boosters regardless though. At most they might use them for budgeting once the new ones come in (depends on the boosters they select, the one on the table with the lowest total payload are actually cheaper on paper than the ones they have now, which is a realistic possibility if they can get congress to relax the 130t mandate).

The use of boosters is probably the biggest advantage over the Saturn V, it wasn't even considered at the time. But it's what makes the whole thing work, without being the size of the Nova.

Also, we're not paying 30$ a bolt anymore (not joking, Congress called North American to the carpet for charging 7$ a bolt and NA said 'no actually it's 30$ a bolt'). So that alone makes the SLS a better system.

[Kibble]

Saturn V just seems kinda crude to me. Completely unique, gigantic rocket engines on the first stage that have no other potential use, overpriced, underpowered rocket engine on its upper stages, the massive IU, and extravagant 10 meter diameter core? SLS is just smarter design. Not to mention infrastructure/plumbing for two separate fuels - instead of using kerosene on the first stage, they could of added solids.

[PTNLemay]

@ Requina & Kibble

So... it's been determined that the SLS will in fact be cheaper than the Saturn V? Pound for pound?

[MajorLeaugeRocketScience]

Yes, SLS Block 1 will be quite a bit cheaper, with extra cargo capacity. In my mind, just delete the politics and SLS will be better. I mean, I'm a bit biased though since I know a bunch of the engineers on it.

[Requia]

It can't really help but be cheaper. Saturn V was a rush job to meet a somewhat crazy goal of pulling the first landing off before 1970, this led to some crazy stuff (those 30$ bolts were because in order to make sure the thing didn't fail with only 3 years development they needed every component to be chemically identical, that meant people had to be paid to ensure every bolt came from the same mine shaft).

[MajorLeaugeRocketScience]

Yeah Saturn honestly wasn't as good as it could have been. It almost turned out like the N-1 program

[SelectHalfling0]

SLS is theoretically safer. So...

[Bill Phil]

Yeah Saturn honestly wasn't as good as it could have been. It almost turned out like the N-1 program

I wouldn't say that. Saturn V was essentially a scaling up of general rocket design.

They came up with some awesome ideas to improve the basic designs.

The N-1 failed because it used too many engines, had a faulty program and the engineering was... Sloppy. No, don't get me wrong, sloppy engineering can be a good thing, like for other Soviet rockets earlier on, but not for the ones that have payloads that are more than 30 mts.

[regex]

SLS is theoretically safer. So...

Since it has never flown it has never failed. Safer indeed.

- - - Updated - - -

The N-1 failed because it used too many engines, had a faulty program and the engineering was... Sloppy. No, don't get me wrong, sloppy engineering can be a good thing, like for other Soviet rockets earlier on, but not for the ones that have payloads that are more than 30 mts.

Fantastic engines, too much plumbing. Saturn V was a better design from the beginning (although I find it hard to launch because the upper stages are so anemic...)

[Commander Jebidiah]

Just a quick point to make, NASA estimates that they can get 4 or 5 SLS launches a year, much more likely to be 1 or 2 maybe 3 if we're lucky. Now they estimated that they would be able to have a shuttle launch every 2 weeks or 26 times a year with only 3 shuttles (Columbia, Challenger and Enterprise) now they managed 4 or 5 of them a year with 4 shuttles.

Now the Soyuz rocket launches crew at most 4 times a year but now mostly twice. But it also launches the Progress ressuply about twice a year and it could do more.

The Falcon 9 could launch atleast 5 times a year for a tiny fraction, for all 5 launches (not reusable), for the same price as 1 SLS launch.

Just a few things to think about.

The only thing better about the SLS compared to the Saturn V is its superior payload.

[SuperFastJellyfish]

I voted Saturn V because of this:

Edited September 6, 2015 by SuperFastJellyfish

[PB666]

Im thinking that russian 100 ton payload rocket. I wonder if it runs on Vodka?

[Sampa]

I'm going to say SLS simply because it is too far along that the,government won't cancel it. Also, it is designed to be humans' first steps out of earth's soi.