Comparison: The mighty Saturn V rocket and the new SLS rocket

[Interstellar111]

China probably wants us to build this so that we go broke. Even if it flies its sure to be canceled. SLS is in no way sustainable in the long run.

NASA should be led to go back to doing some good R&D to lower the cost of spaceflght. China may already be doing so.

Whoever manages to bring down the price per pound to at least 500 dollars per pound to LEO/BEO will win the space race.

[cavalrytm]

@Interstellar111

Whoever gets to MARS wins the space race. Oh wait, we're already there.

[lexusmaxus]

Don't cancel this at all costs unless u wan china win

[ChrisAstro30]

Lots of comments here...

[Interstellar111]

And no it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out if the space program is headed in the right direction, just as it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out healthcare's issues.

[Interstellar111]

NASA has been mismanaged too much.

It came as no surprise that Constellation was canceled.

And it should come as no surprise that SLS be canceled. I just hope its canceled before it sacks the too many tax-dollars and the space program.

[zander2gameplay]

@Interstellar111 I dunno, they say this one will be ready to launch in 5 years, they've already allocated the budget, and they've selected engines... plus they brought orion back from the constellation program. I think the SLS could go somewhere, but you might be right.

[Interstellar111]

The problem is that SLS isn't about space exploration or new technologies, its about keeping certain people happy in certain states.

SLS is utterly unsustainable and is expected to INCREASE the price per pound to LEO/BEO. It inherits all of the reasons that killed Apollo--most notably its price tag of operation.

No technological spinoff has come out of either Apollo or the Shuttle to make spaceflight cheaper or safer, this should be perfectly clear by now. SLS isn't expected to either.

[bridde]

i love it how everyone here is a rocket scientist....

[view52]

i'll take an old saturn V launch anyday.

[Interstellar111]

It looks like the last rocket scientist to work at NASA was Wernher Von Braun. All of the others are just recycling his work and doing no technological advancement whatsoever!!!

Welcome to the DARK AGES of space exploration!!!

Shame on you NASA! Shame, shame, shame, shame on you NASA.

You have provided nothing but disappointment and lost opportunities!!!!

And once again! Shame, and SHAME on you NASA or WHOEVER is running NASA's decisions!!!!!!!

[eyeronman87]

@Interstellar111

What were your expectations, Warp Drive? What exactly have you contributed?

There is plenty of new tech associated with SLS. I'd tell you more, but then I'd have to kill you.

[Interstellar111]

@eyeronman87

I was expecting for the price per pound to LEO to be lowered to within100$/pound.

The Wright brothers invented airplanes in 1903. By 1953 there were airlines, the Boeing 707 was in development.

At NASA we had a Saturn V in the 1960s, by the 2020s we will still essentially only have Saturn V technology.

Its all about PORK. NASA does not use the minds at its disposal properly because it is no longer in its interests to lower the cost of spaceflight or advance it in any way.

[krazykhrisya]

@Interstellar111 I can see why you would compare the two, but there is a massive difference between the Saturn V and the SLS.

[Interstellar111]

@eyeronman87

BTW

NASA pretty much shut down it's research programs to reduce the price per pound to LEO or beyond, therefore, even if I or anyone wanted to make a contribution to go beyond Saturn V tech we no longer have the opportunity to do so.

At least not through NASA...

[iownthisstr33t]

@Interstellar111 nasa can't andvance its rockets enough because they lack the funding not because they dont want to lower the cost of space flight.....

[iownthisstr33t]

@iownthisstr33t advance*

[Maupin001]

The Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster was low-cost and high-reliability, which is why all current US manned spacecraft designs include it. It was an elegant and simple solution to the intractable problem of finding a low-cost, lightweight, reusable booster to get human beings and a LOT of cargo into orbit, and in 270 flights (2 units x 135 shuttle flights) it only had one unit fail (granted, a horrible failure).

[zuenpin]

The most powerful rocket on earth!!!

[leokimvideo]

hey, i got a great idea, lets go back and do the stuff we did years ago

[973fashion]

tros de polusion

[973fashion]

polusion



[jakebrake4343]

bondage strip clubs hmmmmm........is that any worse than getting a blow job under your desk at the oval office! did we all forget about clinton "i did not have sexual relations with that women" what a crock how many dummycrats get caught up in sex scandles ALL the kennedys did clinton ect,ect......getting back to the point tho yes george w bush set a deadline to retire the shuttles and replace them with newer equip. nasa was doing this....IT WAS OBAMA THAT SCRAPPED THE NEW DESIGN

[Stevis82]

This will go absolutely nowhere as long as Obozo keeps giving my money to those who get 20-inch rims and low profile tires while using their EBT cards to buy steak and lobster.

[Ryan19812012]

@Stevis82

Fuck off & grow up you right wing nazi prick. People really "Hate" you right wing tea bagging traitors, who blame everything on obama. You seem to have no problems with republicans spending tax payer money in bondage strip clubs.

[MyAccount4TrollingU]

@Ryan19812012 FUCK ISLAM FUCK OBAMA! WHAT A NIGGER!

[monokhem]

@MyAccount4TrollingU Why did you choose this time and place to anounce your stupidity to the world?

[Stevis82]

@Ryan19812012 One thing I've always like about liberals is their open-mindedness and tolerance of opinions that differ from theirs.

[monokhem]

@Stevis82 You are stupid, everything you are saying is wrong, and you are just the kind of gullible fool the people that are really screwing you love to have around.

[Stevis82]

@monokhem Another open-minded and tolerant liberal showing disagreement to an opinion that differs from theirs.

[monokhem]

@Stevis82 My mind isn't open to stupidity, and what you said weren't opinions. I'm not a Liberal, I'm just not right wing retarded like yourself and all of you fools need to see all of the people that don't agree with you as liberals because you have decided those people aren't worth listening to. It's all to protect the sad little world you have crafted for yourselves where there are easy answers and you fools know them.

[Ryan19812012]

@monokhem

He just wants to blame everything on President Obama. The right wing pricks just can't & will not admit they are wrong. I just stop listening to them let them rant & rave & post their videos of how much they hate President Obama & he is ruining everyone's future.

[monokhem]

@Ryan19812012 I think everyone no matter how ignorant or rude deserves to here a little truth every once and a while, whether they like it or not.

[salland12]

@Ryan19812012

Are you nuts! Obama left winged? if you would propose obama's plans here in holland al the left winged people here would say that's extreme right. funny to see how different politics is. but you are completley right this isent obama's fault.

[BubbaModee]

Von Braun!!!!

[mgodfrey1981]

In the "Fun Facts" PDF, wouldn't NASA, the organization that crashed a probe into Mars because of unit conversion problems, do well to stick to SI units, instead of elephant-mass equivalents or pickup truck capacity-equivalents? Empire State Buildings is not an SI unit for height.

On the plus side, they've stopped using Football Fields as an unit of area, at least for this document.

[timulmer1963]

I believe whole-heartedly in space exploration & am furious with the cancellation of Constellation. But as long as NASA's forced to watch money, I want an itemized list of specific plans for this or I don't want to see it built. Until we have the backbone to return to the moon or Mars, SpaceX's booster's powerful enough for our needs. Too many government agencies start something and then have to shelve it when funds dry up half way through. I think that can happen here.

[HaroldHoltCantSwim]

@timulmer1963

The EELV Heavy class Falcon Heavy is more than powerful enough for Raytheon's EML1 rendezvous architecture proposed in 2004. The only reason we aren't on the moon now was because we needed to build two massive rockets to keep ATK and the shuttle workforce employed instead of using the existing Atlas V Heavy and Delta IV Heavy rockets and now the much cheaper competitor Falcon Heavy.

So no moon or jobs for anyone because NASA and it's contractors got greedy.

[RFKFANTS67]

I'm all for Nasa's decision to return to the rocket, I was a small 8year old boy when I saw the last Apollo mission Apollo/Soyuz 1975 ..grew up following NASA saw that infernal shuttle's first test flight piggy backed on that 747 I think in 76? and saw the dimise of both shuttles..after the loss of the 1rst 7 astronauts you'd think NASA would have quit the shuttle program then another 7 lives!!! later compared to Apollo 1 incident ..The rocket was far more reliable and safer..

[serpentphoenix]

people. We know its the same design. We know what the fuck we are doing. Do some research into designs before bashing NASA on their Rockets.

[rock853okg]

Same old fuckin' design that was 40 yrs ago. At least the space shuttle was reusable, looked upt to date. Doesn't NASA employ the smartest in the world. Have something at least reusable to go to Moon, if not why bother going?

[sbergman27]

@rock853okg The STS experiment is widely regarded as having been a 30 year mistake. Considering the perennial paucity of funding for space in general, I'd as soon drop HSF altogether & concentrate on real space science. But the distinguished Senators of the Great States of Texas, Florida, & Louisiana wouldn't hear of losing their pork program. But if we're going to blow half our precious funding on HSF, rockets are the most constructive way to do it. No more space ostriches, please.

[nodmessenger]

@rock853okg Still the most powerful engines to date

[heinkel174]

@nodmessenger

The SSME? No it's not even the most powerful LOX / LH2 engine to date (which is RS-68), let alone the most powerful rocket engine.

[nodmessenger]

@heinkel174 The F-1 is still the most powerful single-chamber liquid-fueled rocket engine ever developed. The RS-68 only gives about half the thrust of one F-1, I was only talking about the F-1 engine

[heinkel174]

@rock853okg

Yeah 'looked up to date'. That tells something.

Concorde certainly has a better looking than boeing 787 or A350

[LarissaSandriesa1]

Don’t embarrass me or anyone else by trying to compare some other rocket to the Saturn V

[bestamerica]

'

i like american saturn V rocket is the best in the world,,,

american saturn V rocket is better than ussr russia rocket

[636Castle]

0:45 brought back memories of the good old days..even though I wasn't alive during them.

[uzimodem]

i hope this comes to fruition and is not cancelled by the politicans.

[DDDDanDDDD]

@uzimodem This poorly conceived project exists solely because of politicians!

[Rblxstudio]

I like how the SLS is a Saturn V with Space shuttle boosters strapped to the side.

[ti994apc]

@Rblxstudio The Shuttle boosters cannot be turned off once started. The Shuttle Solid rocket boosters should NEVER be used on rockets with humans. They blow up about 2% of the time and rely on quality control in the production process. They also require a much more complicated escape system which add's weight and more to go right at launch.

[00Billy]

@ti994apc

cheap and reliable thrust... don't blame the bidding process on design./.. Look at US versus Soviet/Russian ICBM's fuel... solid versus liquid....Is the US nuke fleet that unreliable?

Oh and I bet if there was a 9/10 chance of blowing up on the pad...you would still turn away volunteers.

[ti994apc]

@00Billy Solid fuel is what you want for a missile or something small. There is no liquid storage involved. However, solid fuel is what you do not want when people are involved or very large rockets. Solid rocket fuel has ended up costing more for large rockets like Shuttle. Shuttle cost was 1.5 Billion, Soyuz is 180 million, and falcon9 manned 100 million. The Russian ICBM's are putting satellites in orbit to this day, even after being in storage for 35 years. Look at the Dnepr ICBM's

[marmaladekamikaze]

@ti994apc

False, and here's why, Each Shuttle SRB had a thrust of 14 MN, the next closest is rocket motor is the liquid fuelled RD-170 with a thrust of 7 MN. if you replaced the proposed SLS' two SRBs with two RD-170s you wouldn't even get off the launch pad. Furthermore Solid Rocket motors are cheaper.

[ti994apc]

@marmaladekamikaze If Solid rocket fuel is cheaper than why was the final cost of Shuttle 1.5 Billion per launch. While Falcon9 heavy lifts over double the weight of Shuttle and its only 100 million.

[Maupin001]

@ti994apc Falcon 9 heavy has never been flown and there are a number of people who doubt SpaceX's - or anyone's - ability to successfully fly a 27-engine rocket configuration. The Shuttle's per-launch cost was mostly the result of program costs that were amortized over too few actual flights - it was supposed to fly every 2 weeks, which we only managed once, in 1985, and never again because of the Challenger disaster.

[Maupin001]

@ti994apc The cost of the Shuttle program skyrocketed significantly, also, because the liquid-fueled main engines had to be demounted and checked every flight and recertified every 10 flights. The "low-maintenance" silicate tile skin also had to be rechecked and refurbished every flight. The SRBs were absolutely low cost and high reliability - it was the rest of the system that got expensive.

[blablubb12345]

@Maupin001

I think that NASA engineers were pretty much aware that their numbers on flight frequency and cost were off but it was either the Shuttle or the end of human spaceflight for them.

[blablubb12345]

@ti994apc

The shuttle lifted 25 tons AND 7 astronauts to orbit and brought them back to earth since the early 80s. The Falcon 9 heavy is still a paper rocket with *claimed* performance and costs. That's the difference. With all due respect for what SpaceX did so far, don't confuse Elon Musk's bold claims with reality.

[ti994apc]

@blablubb12345 I guess we will find out in 2013 with Falcon9 heavy's maiden flight. With Falcon9, Elon has already sold flights for fixed costs. Even with Falcon9 not having an escape system developed yet, its already safer than Shuttle. It can turn off its engines once started, has triple the heat shield protection, and does not require atmospheric orientation for re-entry.

[marmaladekamikaze]

@ti994apc

have you even read about the failed N-1 rocket?

[blablubb12345]

@ti994apc

I'd bet a fair amount of money that we won't see a F9 heavy in 2013. Also, the ability of shutting down engines doesn't make a rocket inherently safer, there are just too many things that can go wrong at launch. To judge the safety and reliability, you need engineering and flight test data, both things that SpaceX is very sparse with.

[marmaladekamikaze]

@ti994apc

The Falcon9 heavy doesn't exist yet, so any talk of it achieving its cost goals is widely speculative. If you remember and keep things in perspective, when it was being designed, the Shuttle was also said to be super cheap. Second the Shuttle was expensive due to ground Technician costs. Paying wages is the most expensive part of any launch vehicle. Look it up.

[marmaladekamikaze]

@ti994apc

Everyone compares the Soyuz with the shuttle which is like comparing a motorcycle with a mini van. The shuttle had 4 times the payload capacity of the Soyuz, 24 metric tons versus 6 metric tons in the Soyuz. The Shuttle also carried over twice the number of crew 7 instead of 3. The main reason the Shuttle cost so much was (1) better paid technicians in the US versus the USSR, (2) Congress cutting back the number of shuttle launches, meaning no economies of scale as intended.

[JuggaloOzi]

To have seen a heavy lift rocket you had to be around in the 60s or 70s. I do hope that changes.

[FreedomLiberty21]

42 years after the incredible Saturn V and NASA has barely advanced in its deep space capabilities.

[yugozastava13]

@FreedomLiberty21 That's not exactly true, but I understand what you mean. It sure would be nice if NASA could get more than one half of one percent of our yearly budget. It's completely possible to set up long term lunar bases, and start planing a Mars mission, but our politicians decided that limited, meaningless wars, and attempting to pass unconstitutional laws are more important than our advancement as a race.

[r0ck3tsm0k3]

If you are really worried about something fast, it would be expensive (but reasonable) to launch a spacecraft out to Jupiter, where it would be sent back towards the sun, skimming the sun at a few solar radii, burning several stages while near the sun. Or better yet, it can inflate a 1 km beryllium sail and send 10 kg of payload to the Oort cloud. Either one would put it on a hyperbolic escape that would beat by an order of magnitude any of these other launches in solar relative energy.

[ti994apc]

Even know the Senate Launch system may be able to carry sightly more weight on paper than SaturnV. SaturnV was never pushed to its limit. I bet the SaturnV "NOVA" could out lift the Senate Launch System. I wished we could bring back the F1 engine and update it and stop playing around with crappy solid rocket engines.

[yugozastava13]

@ti994apc Bringing back F1 engines, re-engineering them, testing them, constructing them, and attempting to re-apply them, is just stupid. It's simple and cost-effective to use technology that we already have on hand, and that is proven and reliable.

As amazing as the Saturn V was, the SLS will have enough power to make it blush. The Saturn V couldn't lift 130 tons in it's wildest dreams; it took Apollo 11 *twelve whole seconds* to clear the tower, and it was only hauling 48.38 tons.

[ti994apc]

@yugozastava13 INCORRECT, Saturn V Payload to LEO was 131 metric tons to LEO with out much effort. SLS is only estimated to lift 140 tons to LEO. The NOVA class Saturn rockets were estimated by NASA to lift 250 tons to LEO.

Shuttle parts have proven to very costly, unreliable, and SLS will cost as much or more than an entirely new engine development. Putting humans on a rocket with solid rocket fuel is just stupid because SRB's cannot be shut down.

[yugozastava13]

@ti994apc Well that's nice about the Nova and everything, and I hate to burst your bubble, but the Nova never left the engineering room. Completely scrapping the SLS and starting a Nova project would just be plain stupid.

Space shuttle parts unreliable? There were only two failures out of 135 missions, just one of which was caused by a booster failure. That's a 98.5% success rate. I agree with you about SRBs, but face it, NASA has to work with what they have. It's not 1969 anymore.

[ti994apc]

@yugozastava13 Its not 1969, because that is when phase A of Shuttle was designed.  My deal is if SLS is not going anywhere till at least 2025 at a cost of at least 41 billion, we are not saving time or money by using "off the shelf parts". Yes we want updated rocket, I would rather see 9 updated F-1 engines vs 2 updated SRB's with 5 updated J-2 engines. 2 failures out of 135 is really bad for manned missions, not bad for a missile.

[DDDDanDDDD]

@ti994apc How about updating and implementing the NERVA nuclear second stage? The engineering and test was done, and it was ready to fly on Apollo 18 or 19 - cancelled for STS. What a travesty!

[deathrooster14]

@DDDDanDDDD BEcause from every launch, 10 people would die from radiation fallout. Not so great now, is it?

[DDDDanDDDD]

@deathrooster14 References for your claims of harmful fallout from NERVA, please. More radioactive things impinge on the upper atmosphere from the sun than NERVA would deliver. NERVA use in atmosphere is not something I was advocating.

[deathrooster14]

@DDDDanDDDD Whoops, sorry wrong Project. I was Thinking of Orion. They were planning on having Orion fire it's pusher plate style engine in Earth orbit. Unfortunately, it would bring in fallout from the explosion back to earth if it was inside the magnetosphere. You can look it up on wikipedia if you want. It's hard for me to explain.

[DDDDanDDDD]

@deathrooster14 I can see how the Orion pulse style fission drive in near-earth applications would be bad. NERVA on the other hand has been tested on test stands and was ready for launch on a post Apolly 17 mission, all of which were cancelled. NERVA is also on Wikipedia. Keep up the dialog! I hope to be having friendly debates like this while waiting in line for the zero-G toilette :)

[deathrooster14]

@DDDDanDDDD lol. Hopefully it'll be on out way to mars in about 12 years. :P

[ti994apc]

@yugozastava13 If it were up to me I would NOT have a Saturn or SLS. We are waisting time (10+ years) and money to actually carry much less. I would have several Falcon heavy launches at 53 metric tons a piece. Then assemble a Mars/moon vehicle using docking. Just like ISS was put together vs one large Skylab. We can have 45 Falcon heavy launches (2,385 metic tons)($100M p/lauch) for the price of 1 SLS (140 metric tons)(4.5B p/launch). Dragon is a better choice than Orion anyways.

[THEORIGINALEXSCAPER]

@yugozastava13 Unfortunatly the technology on hand is not going to be applied. Remember Constellation and Ares1 and Ares V? I just watched the replay of the Ares1-X launch from a couple of years ago (which I did see live at the time). That was technology on hand and well into development including the protype launch! Politics and politicians have hobbled the US manned space program to the point that we hitch rides on Russian spacecraft! The people want us in space, just gotta get past politics!

[yugozastava13]

@THEORIGINALEXSCAPER It's sad but true. Politicians are more concerned with getting re-elected, instead of starting projects that will create thousands of careers (if not hundreds of thousands), give the United States a goal to work towards, and underline the importance of science and skilled labor in the country. Not to mention inspiring millions of children.

The space race is the reason why I am a TIG welder today. When was the last time a kid aspired to be a pencil-pusher for the ATF?

[nfhslugger]

I was really hoping nasa would finally make a space plane. Oh well.

[randomperson63758]

i'm sure their both still slow as fuck.

[GeorgeChar95]

@randomperson63758 ok when you launch a rocket that can fly more that 39.000 Miles per hour call me ok?

[randomperson63758]

@GeorgeChar95 what the hell are you talking about!? The fastest thing we ever launched that DID get up to 39,000mph was voyager 1. And i was talking about our current rockets today, are really slow in the sense of space travel.

18,000mph (the speed of the space shuttle) is really pathetic if you think about it.

[hangyutang]

@randomperson63758 Actually, the Helios probes were much faster, over 250,000 kmph, or over 150,000 mph, while highest launch velocity was achieved by New Horizon (2006), at over 37,000 mph, beyond Solar Escape Velocity. Space Shuttle can't do that because it's too massive. There is no point in launching a rocket super fast. Saturn V goes to 6,000 mph and it can get to the moon. For modern technology, if you want to go fast, you have to use a gravitational slingshot assist (Voyagers).

[randomperson63758]

@hangyutang Hmm, i didn't know about the Helios probes. But in 1977, the year voyager was launched, 39,000mph was pretty fast in some peoples eyes.

And actually, Saturn V reached speeds up to 25,000mph 

[r0ck3tsm0k3]

@hangyutang I had to log in just to reply to some of these crazy commentas. Random you were on the right track for a minute there. But saturn v goes to 6,000 mph? What in the world are you talking about?

The fastest solar relative velocity is the two helios probes, as you have said. The fastest earth escape was the New Horizons probe. The voyagers were pretty fast, but much of their escape energy came from encounters with other planets.

[THEORIGINALEXSCAPER]

@r0ck3tsm0k3 I think he was probably refering to the speed of the Saturn V at the moment of first stage separation which was approximately 6,000 mph.

[r0ck3tsm0k3]

@randomperson63758 And the fun continues. The space shuttle is only designed to enter orbit, but it can carry upper stages. The shuttle, with a suitable payload, could exceed the New Horizons record if that were needed. A three stage shuttle payload with a small (say 75 kg) spacecraft could realistically beat New horizons. But why?  Record velocity is not always the measure of a good mission or rocket. You have to deliver payload of a meaningful mass as well. 18,000 mph pathetic? lol.

[blablubb12345]

@r0ck3tsm0k3

In fact, until the launch of New Horizons the Ulysses space probe held the record for the fastest earth escape. Ulysses was launched from the shuttle using a IUS upper stage and an additional PAM-S kick stage.

[hdnjith]

Oh hey! Have you ever tried intellectus list building (do a google search)? Ive heard some extraordinary things about it and my buddy got tons of money-making leads added to their list.

[jpowell180]

I have much more hope in Space X than this bit of vaporware that will likely never be fully funded, much less launched.

[marmaladekamikaze]

@jpowell180

Falcon XX, oh yeah! NERVA style engines...finally something with high preformance.

[rickythepitbull]

To the chinese and russians its so important we keep up there or were screwed

[rickythepitbull]

Theres no way we are just handing space ex