NASA's SLS rocket. Questions about it

On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 9:35:19 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 06:11:21 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

On Friday, 15 February 2019 06:13:39 UTC-5, wrote:
On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 1:20:03 AM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
The SLS is the next giant rocket that will be used for long range manned spaceflight, or the moon as a target. But it's way over budget (how much is really left for it after the ISS sucks up so much?). Some of the technology being used to built it is different. Like friction welding to put the tanks (outboard, like the Shuttle) together in sections.

https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/index.html

So what were the questions?

I guess the main one is, why didn't they just rebuild the Saturn V or create a minor variant? The stages of that rocket were disposable as are the rocket boosters (a la the Space Shuttle) on this new one, so why re-invent the wheel and risk unforeseen problems developing as well as dragging out the initial launch time to the mid-2020's?

Too expensive. Too unsafe. Too full of obsolete materials and
technology.

(Of course, it's not clear why we need a heavy lift vehicle at all.)

Not clear to you, obviously.

On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 6:35:19 AM UTC-8, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 06:11:21 -0800 (PST),

On Friday, 15 February 2019 06:13:39 UTC-5, wrote:
On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 1:20:03 AM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
The SLS is the next giant rocket that will be used for long range manned spaceflight, or the moon as a target. But it's way over budget (how much is really left for it after the ISS sucks up so much?). Some of the technology being used to built it is different. Like friction welding to put the tanks (outboard, like the Shuttle) together in sections.

https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/index.html

So what were the questions?

I guess the main one is, why didn't they just rebuild the Saturn V or create a minor variant? The stages of that rocket were disposable as are the rocket boosters (a la the Space Shuttle) on this new one, so why re-invent the wheel and risk unforeseen problems developing as well as dragging out the initial launch time to the mid-2020's?

Too expensive. Too unsafe. Too full of obsolete materials and
technology.

(Of course, it's not clear why we need a heavy lift vehicle at all.)

To create jobs! LOL!

On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 9:56:32 AM UTC-5, StarDust wrote:
On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 6:35:19 AM UTC-8, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 06:11:21 -0800 (PST),

On Friday, 15 February 2019 06:13:39 UTC-5, wrote:
On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 1:20:03 AM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
The SLS is the next giant rocket that will be used for long range manned spaceflight, or the moon as a target. But it's way over budget (how much is really left for it after the ISS sucks up so much?). Some of the technology being used to built it is different. Like friction welding to put the tanks (outboard, like the Shuttle) together in sections.

https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/index.html

So what were the questions?

I guess the main one is, why didn't they just rebuild the Saturn V or create a minor variant? The stages of that rocket were disposable as are the rocket boosters (a la the Space Shuttle) on this new one, so why re-invent the wheel and risk unforeseen problems developing as well as dragging out the initial launch time to the mid-2020's?

Too expensive. Too unsafe. Too full of obsolete materials and
technology.

(Of course, it's not clear why we need a heavy lift vehicle at all.)

To create jobs! LOL!

To more easily launch some amazing new space telescopes, modules for a new space station and other cool stuff.

On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 6:35:19 AM UTC-8, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 06:11:21 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

On Friday, 15 February 2019 06:13:39 UTC-5, wrote:
On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 1:20:03 AM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
The SLS is the next giant rocket that will be used for long range manned spaceflight, or the moon as a target. But it's way over budget (how much is really left for it after the ISS sucks up so much?). Some of the technology being used to built it is different. Like friction welding to put the tanks (outboard, like the Shuttle) together in sections.

https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/index.html

So what were the questions?

I guess the main one is, why didn't they just rebuild the Saturn V or create a minor variant? The stages of that rocket were disposable as are the rocket boosters (a la the Space Shuttle) on this new one, so why re-invent the wheel and risk unforeseen problems developing as well as dragging out the initial launch time to the mid-2020's?

Too expensive. Too unsafe. Too full of obsolete materials and
technology.

(Of course, it's not clear why we need a heavy lift vehicle at all.)

Well, it could be done with lighter lifters, but then you have the additional risk of assembly of parts in orbit - which might be almost impossible with our current space presence.

On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 16:36:51 -0800 (PST), corvastro
wrote:

On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 6:35:19 AM UTC-8, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 06:11:21 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

On Friday, 15 February 2019 06:13:39 UTC-5, wrote:
On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 1:20:03 AM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
The SLS is the next giant rocket that will be used for long range manned spaceflight, or the moon as a target. But it's way over budget (how much is really left for it after the ISS sucks up so much?). Some of the technology being used to built it is different. Like friction welding to put the tanks (outboard, like the Shuttle) together in sections.

https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/index.html

So what were the questions?

I guess the main one is, why didn't they just rebuild the Saturn V or create a minor variant? The stages of that rocket were disposable as are the rocket boosters (a la the Space Shuttle) on this new one, so why re-invent the wheel and risk unforeseen problems developing as well as dragging out the initial launch time to the mid-2020's?

Too expensive. Too unsafe. Too full of obsolete materials and
technology.

(Of course, it's not clear why we need a heavy lift vehicle at all.)

Well, it could be done with lighter lifters, but then you have the additional risk of assembly of parts in orbit - which might be almost impossible with our current space presence.

What could be done? If we dump manned space flight as unnecessary,
especially outside of LEO, how many projects really require a heavy
lift vehicle of our own?

On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 7:59:03 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
If we dump manned space flight as unnecessary,
especially outside of LEO,...

If there were a seat available for you on the next Soyuz launch to the ISS, would you go?

On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 23:58:38 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 7:59:03 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
If we dump manned space flight as unnecessary,
especially outside of LEO,...

If there were a seat available for you on the next Soyuz launch to the ISS, would you go?

Yes. But that doesn't mean it's good policy.

On Saturday, February 16, 2019 at 9:15:35 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 23:58:38 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 7:59:03 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
If we dump manned space flight as unnecessary,
especially outside of LEO,...

If there were a seat available for you on the next Soyuz launch to the ISS, would you go?

Yes. But that doesn't mean it's good policy.

If you think that manned spaceflight is unnecessary, then you should not go.

On Sat, 16 Feb 2019 06:56:18 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Saturday, February 16, 2019 at 9:15:35 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 23:58:38 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 7:59:03 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
If we dump manned space flight as unnecessary,
especially outside of LEO,...

If there were a seat available for you on the next Soyuz launch to the ISS, would you go?

Yes. But that doesn't mean it's good policy.

If you think that manned spaceflight is unnecessary, then you should not go.

We live within the system of policy we live within.

On Saturday, February 16, 2019 at 10:20:37 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 16 Feb 2019 06:56:18 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Saturday, February 16, 2019 at 9:15:35 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 23:58:38 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 7:59:03 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
If we dump manned space flight as unnecessary,
especially outside of LEO,...

If there were a seat available for you on the next Soyuz launch to the ISS, would you go?

Yes. But that doesn't mean it's good policy.

If you think that manned spaceflight is unnecessary, then you should not go.

We live within the system of policy we live within.

It is not necessary for you to take a spaceflight that you think is unnecessary for others to take.