Space Launch System - Orion
Discussion
They've been test firing one of the main engines today, an uprated RS-25. (yes it's loud 
give that subwoofer a run out)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJgsdnpjyes
The Space Shuttle used 3 of these engines and the SLS rocket will use 4 of them in its first stage.
They plan to use up the ones left over from Shuttle program before switching to newly built motors. Since the motors are no longer recoverable, they can make them cheaper than before. Let's hope that doesn't bite them in the arse.
The facility is the John C. Stennis Space Center in Mississippi, which was built to test the Saturn V's engines.
give that subwoofer a run out)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJgsdnpjyes
The Space Shuttle used 3 of these engines and the SLS rocket will use 4 of them in its first stage.
They plan to use up the ones left over from Shuttle program before switching to newly built motors. Since the motors are no longer recoverable, they can make them cheaper than before. Let's hope that doesn't bite them in the arse.
The facility is the John C. Stennis Space Center in Mississippi, which was built to test the Saturn V's engines.
Beati Dogu said:
They've been test firing one of the main engines today, an uprated RS-25. (yes it's loud give that subwoofer a run out)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJgsdnpjyes
The Space Shuttle used 3 of these engines and the SLS rocket will use 4 of them in its first stage.
They plan to use up the ones left over from Shuttle program before switching to newly built motors. Since the motors are no longer recoverable, they can make them cheaper than before. Let's hope that doesn't bite them in the arse.
The facility is the John C. Stennis Space Center in Mississippi, which was built to test the Saturn V's engines.
Amazing that, while the engine is running, there is frost on the outside of the engine bell ! give that subwoofer a run out)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJgsdnpjyes
The Space Shuttle used 3 of these engines and the SLS rocket will use 4 of them in its first stage.
They plan to use up the ones left over from Shuttle program before switching to newly built motors. Since the motors are no longer recoverable, they can make them cheaper than before. Let's hope that doesn't bite them in the arse.
The facility is the John C. Stennis Space Center in Mississippi, which was built to test the Saturn V's engines.
NASA have got 16 of these engines in storage apparently, so enough for the first 4 SLS launches. The engines on the 4 retired Shuttles were replaced with lookalikes before they were put on display (the nozzles are real though).
Late last year they gave Aerojet Rocketdyne a $1.5 billion contract to reactivate the production line. By November they should be up and running and they'll make an initial 6 engines for now. These will be used for re-certification and to provide cover for the 4th & 5th SLS mission.
The engine's record is good, with only a single failure in flight during the entire Shuttle program. This occurred during the launch of the Challenger in July 1985 (STS-51-F). About 3 minutes into the launch, the centre engine lost a temperature sensor and at nearly 6 minutes in, the second one failed too, causing the engine to shut down. They were high enough to abort to orbit (ATO) with the 2 remaining engines, which left them in a stable, but lower than intended orbit. They were still able to complete the mission (including Spacelab 2 and testing specially designed fizzy drinks cans provided by Coke and Pepsi) and return safely to Edwards AFB a week later.
This launch can be seen here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSbMs_OnE4c
Late last year they gave Aerojet Rocketdyne a $1.5 billion contract to reactivate the production line. By November they should be up and running and they'll make an initial 6 engines for now. These will be used for re-certification and to provide cover for the 4th & 5th SLS mission.
The engine's record is good, with only a single failure in flight during the entire Shuttle program. This occurred during the launch of the Challenger in July 1985 (STS-51-F). About 3 minutes into the launch, the centre engine lost a temperature sensor and at nearly 6 minutes in, the second one failed too, causing the engine to shut down. They were high enough to abort to orbit (ATO) with the 2 remaining engines, which left them in a stable, but lower than intended orbit. They were still able to complete the mission (including Spacelab 2 and testing specially designed fizzy drinks cans provided by Coke and Pepsi) and return safely to Edwards AFB a week later.
This launch can be seen here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSbMs_OnE4c
Article about costs of SLS:
http://arstechnica.co.uk/science/2016/08/how-much-...
Which President will say hang on a minute.....
http://arstechnica.co.uk/science/2016/08/how-much-...
Which President will say hang on a minute.....
I think they'll probably keep it going, unless it gets totally out of hand. SLS is basically a watered down version of the Constellation program which was cancelled along with the Shuttle.
I can't help thinking they'd get much better value for money by just giving it to SpaceX & letting them get on with it.
I can't help thinking they'd get much better value for money by just giving it to SpaceX & letting them get on with it.
Beati Dogu said:
I can't help thinking they'd get much better value for money by just giving it to SpaceX & letting them get on with it.
But various senators and congressmen wouldn't allow that - the ones who only support NASA as long as they place contracts with companies in their constituency 
MartG said:
Beati Dogu said:
I can't help thinking they'd get much better value for money by just giving it to SpaceX & letting them get on with it.
But various senators and congressmen wouldn't allow that - the ones who only support NASA as long as they place contracts with companies in their constituency 
Rumours they are considering putting people aboard the first ever SLS flight
Seems a tad risky to me
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/nasa-looki...
Seems a tad risky to me
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/nasa-looki...
MartG said:
Rumours they are considering putting people aboard the first ever SLS flight
Seems a tad risky to me
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/nasa-looki...
Same as they did with the Shuttle - first launch (with Solid Boosters to boot) was manned.Seems a tad risky to me
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/nasa-looki...
Flooble said:
MartG said:
Rumours they are considering putting people aboard the first ever SLS flight
Seems a tad risky to me
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/nasa-looki...
Same as they did with the Shuttle - first launch (with Solid Boosters to boot) was manned.Seems a tad risky to me
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/nasa-looki...
Shuttle was piloted because they had no choice if they wanted it back in one piece. The shuttle didn't have remote pilot capability at that time.
If they want to send Orion out beyond the moon (which they do) they need a booster capable of putting 100 tons into earth orbit or sending 30 tons beyond earth orbit. SLS is designed to do that.
I don't think anybody else has a booster anywhere near as advanced in planning and construction with that capacity at the moment.
I don't think anybody else has a booster anywhere near as advanced in planning and construction with that capacity at the moment.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff