SLS rocket and Saturn rocket, why NASA build new one if they already had good desig

[Pawelk198604]

design

I wonder why NASA uses the proven designs.

Russia benefits from the project (R7) that was originally planned for Sputnik.

Saturn rocket had several variants. Americans, in fact Americans of Nazi origin:D

Designed state of art Rocket, why NASA spending all this money if they just had retrofit of Saturn V?

[NASAFanboy]

design

I wonder why NASA uses the proven designs.

Russia benefits from the project (R7) that was originally planned for Sputnik.

Saturn rocket had several variants. Americans, in fact Americans of Nazi origin:D

Designed state of art Rocket, why NASA spending all this money if they just had retrofit of Saturn V?

We have two Saturn Vs. Both are in working order, and could be restored in a matter of months.

I simply think astronauts don't want to go on spacecraft with less than 1MB of memory

[Pawelk198604]

We have two Saturn Vs. Both are in working order, and could be restored in a matter of months.

I simply think astronauts don't want to go on spacecraft with less than 1MB of memory

1 MB of memory, I would also not want to go into space with it

But everything can be upgraded.

[John FX]

They are considering it...

[Nibb31]

The Saturn V was a 1960's design, using 1960's components, 1960's materials, 1960's manufacturing techniques, 1960's standards, 1960's electronics, and so on... It would be impossible to rebuild an exact copy of the Saturn V today, simply because many of the materials and manufacturing techniques are no longer available.

For example, many parts in those days were forged and welded by hand, which are prohibitively work-intensive and expensive nowadays. Today, you would want to make most parts with CNC milling, which would require each part and component to be redesigned with modern CAM/CAD techniques.

A lot of stuff on the old Saturn V was made with materials that are no longer available. Some of them have even been banned because they are toxic, polluting or simply obsolete. Many of those materials have been replaced with more modern composites and alloys, but for each part, you would have to make sure that they meet the same physical and thermal requirements. So again, each part would have to be redesigned.

All of the avionics and telemetry equipment is obsolete, so that would need to be replaced. This would includ all the wiring, which would have to be rerouted through the structure. This means that any mechanical part that had wiring or sensors or connectors attached to them would have to be redesigned too. Any software would need to be rewritten for those modern computers and the ground infrastructure would need to be rebuilt and reconverted, including launch towers, the VAB, MCC, propellant depots, etc...

Add the fact that a lot of the Saturn V design was rushed and not optimal. It wasn't the best design possible, because it was a crash program designed to put a Man on the Moon before the Russians, not to be part of a durable versatile space infrastructure. Many components were based stuff that already existed or could be quickly adapted or was based on limited knowledge of spaceflight. You would want to improve on the design, and again, that would mean redesigning a lot of it.

So basically, if you wanted to build a Saturn V today, you would have to redesign each and every part of it. A modern Saturn V would have a whole lot of different mission requirements, a variety of payloads to be placed in different orbits. It would need to be modular and reconfigurable to support all those missions. In effect, what you would end up with is an equivalent-sized launcher, with modern engines that are currently available, tanks built with tooling and techniques that are available today, modern avionics and telemetry... and in the end it would look a lot like SLS.

Edited October 25, 2013 by Nibb31

[K^2]

I've been looking for a Penny-Farthing, because it looks like a hoot to ride on. The cheapest I've found so far goes for about $900. That's for two wheels and a frame. In contrast, I can buy an aluminum frame, 21-speed bicycle with full suspension, and an absurd number of moving parts for under $100. Sometimes, going retro costs way, way more.

Nibb's post actually covers the reasons rather well. I just wanted to put it into a perspective with something simple.

[Pawelk198604]

After all, can not wait for first launch of SLS.

If I had the money, maybe I'd would ask for an entry visa to the United States to be able to watch the launch first hand:D

[Mr Shifty]

We have two Saturn Vs. Both are in working order, and could be restored in a matter of months.

Both of the display rockets were left outside in humid weather for decades. When NASA restored the Kennedy one in 1995, it took 5 months and they only restored the exterior that would be seen by the public. Many of the interior parts were sealed in epoxy to prevent further degradation. (The rocket was rusted through, heavily corroded, etc.) The Johnson Center rocket restoration took 2 years, and again restored the rocket for display, not use. Many deteriorated parts were replaced with molded fiberglass replicas and kept parts were treated to prevent deterioration. Even if a full, working order restoration were possible, you couldn't pay me enough to step foot on board.

Edited October 25, 2013 by Mr Shifty

[Tommygun]

As I understand part of the damage to the display rockets was do to them being displayed on their sides for years.

They weren't physically designed to sit like that and it has caused structural damage to them.

Saturn and Apollo were also design on paper blue prints, literally warehouse sized rooms to store them.

After the programed ended, no one wanted to store all that paper, so they where destroyed.

Some still survives, but you literally would have to re-engineer a lot of it again.

[Moar Boosters]

As I understand part of the damage to the display rockets was do to them being displayed on their sides for years.

They weren't physically designed to sit like that and it has caused structural damage to them.

Saturn and Apollo were also design on paper blue prints, literally warehouse sized rooms to store them.

After the programed ended, no one wanted to store all that paper, so they where destroyed.

Some still survives, but you literally would have to re-engineer a lot of it again.

I'm pretty sure that's an urban legend that the blueprints were destroyed. They had microfiche back in the 60's, there's no way they needed warehouses to store them.

[NGTOne]

I'm pretty sure that's an urban legend that the blueprints were destroyed. They had microfiche back in the 60's, there's no way they needed warehouses to store them.

I think what he meant was that the paper blueprints were transferred to microfiche and THEN tossed in the shredder (to save space).

[Tommygun]

I think what he meant was that the paper blueprints were transferred to microfiche and THEN tossed in the shredder (to save space).

Yes some what, from what I keep reading over the years is that large parts of it are lost.

It's a lot of the small stuff, but still important things that are missing.

No one really seems to know for sure what's really left.

[Superluminaut]

Isn't the SLS largely a Shuttle/Apollo crossover.

[thunderstar]

SLS will the biggest lifter built with modern technology, the final version of it it will be able to put 130 tons into LEO if i can recall and the Saturn V could put a little bit more than 100, but thats with the SRB concept, some people are triying to create uptated F1 engines, called F1B and attach them into the rocket sides instead of the SRB improving greatly the payload capacity and i love the idea, anyway we new the SLS, sure we all love the saturn V but we need to upgrade, the first SLS planned launch date is in 2017 so if you think about it they're really close to finishing the rocket

[Pawelk198604]

SLS will the biggest lifter built with modern technology, the final version of it it will be able to put 130 tons into LEO if i can recall and the Saturn V could put a little bit more than 100, but thats with the SRB concept, some people are triying to create uptated F1 engines, called F1B and attach them into the rocket sides instead of the SRB improving greatly the payload capacity and i love the idea, anyway we new the SLS, sure we all love the saturn V but we need to upgrade, the first SLS planned launch date is in 2017 so if you think about it they're really close to finishing the rocket

Yes i love Saturn V:D and America for made it possible, but sometimes it seems to me that Americans forget about the Saturn V rocket was designed by European immigrants engineers but unfortunately Nazi:(

[Monkeh]

It's a fascist rocket people. You have been warned.

[jwenting]

I think what he meant was that the paper blueprints were transferred to microfiche and THEN tossed in the shredder (to save space).

and the microfiches were destroyed later. Either thrown away to save precious and expensive shelf space for more important things that actually needed keeping like tax records (yes, those are more important to a company than 15-20 year old engineering blueprints for things that will never be built any more anyway) or simply degenerated so far that they're impossible to read and thrown away during periodic inspection.

And then there are the tools, construction rigs, etc. etc. that were destroyed to save space and sell the metal in them as scrap, and the thousands of engineers and other workers who went on to other careers and eventual retirement without whose skills those tools and rigs were worthless anyway.

A lot of what went into those rockets before they were fired off never was documented at all, was jury rigged on the spot by the people putting the things together.

That's why each of them had decidedly different performance characteristics.

[DonLorenzo]

They are considering it...

I love how they put 'improved reliability' and '65 flight engines with no failures' in the same infographic