Would this work?

Would this work?
Four Falcon rockets strapped to one SLS core.

>Would this work?

no, because you just cut out Northrup Grumman/OrbitalATK out of the pork pie

Defeats the whole point of SLS.

I think that it could work

This

Also it would delay SLS to the mid 2020s at which point it would be comically obselete

It could probably be done, but it would be easier, cheaper, and give similar or better performance to just put five Falcon rockets together with a stretched upper stage and do Falcon Super Heavy.

Fundamentally, SLS is 1970s technology, and just a really bad way to build a rocket.

>Defeats the whole point of SLS

And what was it's purpose, to stall for NASA till SpaceX inevitable makes LEO commercially viable.

It's purpose is to create stable jobs for NASA contractors. For example, a large part of Orbital ATK's aerospace industry is dedicated to producing solid rocket motors which were in high demand during the Cold War because they are used to power ICBM's. But in the present when there is much smaller demand for ICBMs and most rockets use liquid fuel engines, there isn't much of a demand for American solid rocket motors which in turn could lead to mass layoffs of the individuals who work in that industry. But congress stepped in and invented the space shuttle SRB (aka something large and fulfilling for the SRB guys to work on), the perfect solution to stop unemployment in this industry. Basically the people working on the SLS aren't working towards a goal, their working for the sake of being employed.

>But in the present when there is much smaller demand for ICBMs and most rockets use liquid fuel engines, there isn't much of a demand for American solid rocket motors which in turn could lead to mass layoffs of the individuals who work in that industry.

the minuteman iii replacement contract is coming up soon

Exactly, and Orbital ATK will be around to do it; whereas if the SRB program didn't exist, then Orbital ATK wouldn't be around to make new solid fuel ICBMs/SLBMs.

It was also bad in the 70's too, fucking SRB's and LH2

And yet to do this sort of gibs to keep companies alive(not an industry, but specific companies), they destroy all competitors or real innovation

They've done the same shit with Navy construction, or land vehicle procurement, nothing new for decades because every contract is handed out on a gibs to defense contractors basis.

The airforce at least appears to be competent at making good new things

F22 barely into production and the f35 began gearing up. More gov gibs to bounce dirt in 3rd world

if only they'd ordered another batch of a dozen Saturn 5s for 75-80, with an option to buy another dozen deliverable 81-86, and with a freeze on performance but the stipulation that each batch cost 15% less than the previous

better than anything else in the sky and at a lower price than any competitors too
Obviously they are retards who waste flight hours on these fighters bombing goat farmers but that's nothing to do with the defense contractors

Yea but they wanted to cancel the Saturn V
So it was done..

not really possible structurally, and the increase to thrust is marginal over the two five segment srbs. SLS's problem is the anemic upper stage, the boosters and first stage are overkill for it.

The joys of cost-plus contracting, where companies are incentivized to be as inefficient and slow as possible because every dollar and every minute they piss away is another ten dollars in their pockets.

>And what was it's purpose
To keep the jobs created during the Shuttle program from going away. That's why it uses Shuttle boosters, engines, and tanks, and is also why Orion uses silica thermal tiles and other ill equipped technology.

With the proper modifications it would work fine. In fact it would work better than the proposed Pyrios liquid boosters would, which already would have easily out performed the solids.

Could the SLS core hold itself together with those boosters strapped to it and firing? Could it support the weight of whatever enormous payload you must be wanting to launch in to space with such an overkill launch stage?
Could a launchpad support it?

Avcoat TPS just like good old Apollo.
The honeycomb is even filled by hand for more 50s tech.

No, it would not. The avionics alone are not compatible. Combine that with the fact that each vehicle has different missions parameters and performance windows. Plus the fact that you've now grossly thrown off the vehicle's mass properties. You would have to standardize and customize the electronics to work together, re-design the propulsion system and tanking support structure, and also change the mission parameters.

Oh wait, by then you've basically just created a completely separate rocket. So no, you can't just mix-and-match with complex engineered projects, they're not legos you fucking mongoloid.

Meanwhile at SpaceX, they're making Dragon heat shields out of PICA-X.

That defeats the purpose if it you dingus

> assuming SLS won’t be comically obsolete even if it flies in 2020

I remember reading a story about how they experienced great difficulties reverse engineering the apollo heatshield, which seemed simple at first, because it used no longer manufactured and incredibly dangerous and toxic elements like... asbestos. I wonder how much money were blown to minimize the danger from exposure.