I'm an engineer working for NASA - I've been working on SLS since the President cancelled Constellation - of course, we didn't call it SLS at the time...

I see that Isaac has answered many of your questions, but I'll take a crack at some of them:

DannyMac: "Our Rockets are holding steady? What up with that?"

Unfortunately, some technology can't really be improved that much. The rocket equation is well-known, and the physics are such that we're getting just about everything we can from the fuels we have available. It'll take a huge leap in technology (Space Elevator, maybe) to improve on it.


LadyLorraine: "Is there really no model better for launching shit into orbit than a GIGANTIC SPACE CYLINDER?"

There's a reason why every rocket that goes into orbit is shaped pretty much like that. Any other shape is a bad choice.

LadyLorraine: "These rockets are fueled by a petroleum product, yes?"

Not NASA launch systems. We use Liquid Oxygen / Liquid Hydrogen and solid rocket boosters with some really nasty stuff in them. The Russians, the Air Force, and Space-X use kerosene (RP-1), though. It's very dependable and easy to store - at room temperature.

Isaac:

MJ/kg isn't really as important as ISP for determining which is the best rocket fuel, which is why RP-1 can be competitive, especially when you want to keep operation costs down. (Something I wish NASA would pay more attention to)

All:

Nuclear propulsion is doable, but we crash rockets, sometimes. Anyone who wants a nuclear power plant crashed into their town at Mach 5, raise your hand.







Put your hand back down, TMJ