Space Launch System - Orion

Space Launch System - Orion

Author
Discussion

MartG

20,676 posts

204 months

Saturday 16th January 2021
quotequote all
Some people saying that a 'safe shutdown of the stage after 67 seconds' is a success - I'd beg to differ as if it 'safely shutdown' 67 seconds into an actual flight whoever is sat on top of it is going to have a really bad day frown


Beati Dogu

8,889 posts

139 months

Saturday 16th January 2021
quotequote all
The launch escape system would take the capsule off the rocket and they’d splashdown in the Atlantic. Not ideal though, of course.

I think the solid boosters fire for 2 minutes, so they’d only be partway through that as well.

No, they’ll have to do the full burn again, so like the Shuttle it means removing all the engines to check them over. Another month or two wasted.

Eric Mc

Original Poster:

122,013 posts

265 months

Saturday 16th January 2021
quotequote all
Yep - safe shutdown just means it didn’t blow up.

Beati Dogu

8,889 posts

139 months

Sunday 17th January 2021
quotequote all
I suppose they might have 4 other engines ready to swap in.

Can they even remove and replace engines in situ on the stand, or is that a return down the river to the factory job?

They fitted them all in a couple of days in the factory I recall. They took their time over the first one, but the other three took a few hours each.

Beati Dogu

8,889 posts

139 months

Sunday 17th January 2021
quotequote all
At the press conference they confirmed they do have spare engines at Stennis and they can swap them on site. Takes a week to ten days to do.

The engines were running at 109% thrust when a flash was seen on engine 4 it seems. The engine’s computer shut itself off and they terminated the test.

They said they have a lot of data to investigate over the next few days before they can decide their next step. It’s going to put things back weeks clearly, so a 2021 launch is very unlikely.

Eric Mc

Original Poster:

122,013 posts

265 months

Sunday 17th January 2021
quotequote all
My guess - six month delay.

Flooble

5,565 posts

100 months

Sunday 17th January 2021
quotequote all
I think if they ran the test again within three weeks (minimum time to dry out the engines apparently) I'd possibly be more concerned than if they delayed for six months. If they ran it again straight away, having spent so long planning, testing, checking and re-checking, you would have to wonder how they missed something that was presumably very straightforward.

In the presser afterwards they said that they received a "Major Component Failure" signal. Using the word "signal" possibly implies they think it was an erroneous reading rather than anything actually failing? Given everything shut down cleanly I suppose that's possible, although I think (Eric probably can confirm this off the top of his head) that the RS-25s in the Shuttle days also shrugged off various off-nominal events (e.g. swallowing a bolt?).

Eric Mc

Original Poster:

122,013 posts

265 months

Sunday 17th January 2021
quotequote all
The RS-25 was a very reliable engine - although in its early days when being tested prior to the first Shuttle flight they had a few explosions on the test stands.
These RS-25s have been heavilly modified for SLS. For example, they have been uprated to a higher thrust setting than when used on the Shuttle. This is because they are now expendable and don't have to be "saved" for future missions.

Also, they have never fired four of these in a cluster of four before (there were three on each Orbiter) so there may have been unexpected resonances and vibrations experienced with all four engines running together. That was part of the reason for running this test. Despite all your best predictions and modelling, there will be some unknowns every time you do something for the first time.

annodomini2

6,861 posts

251 months

Sunday 17th January 2021
quotequote all
I do find it amusing that they started with the bulk of the technology pre-existing and it's taken 12 yrs to get to a static fire.

MartG

20,676 posts

204 months

Sunday 17th January 2021
quotequote all
annodomini2 said:
I do find it amusing that they started with the bulk of the technology pre-existing and it's taken 12 yrs to get to a static fire.
It's called 'milking the system' and Boeing are very good at it frown

Beati Dogu

8,889 posts

139 months

Sunday 17th January 2021
quotequote all
They called an “MCF on engine number 4” - major component failure. Or major contractor failure to be more accurate.

And to think, NASA were seriously considering skipping the green run test to save time. Their safety panel rightly insisted on it.

Gargamel

14,987 posts

261 months

Sunday 17th January 2021
quotequote all

From what I have read they were about to start on the gimbal section of the planned 8 minute fire.

So I don’t think the tested the steering controls yet.

Can’t see how they can go to launch with out a fully successful static fire.

MartG

20,676 posts

204 months

Tuesday 19th January 2021
quotequote all


Given they are already several years late, I guess it's a case of the embarrassment of even further delay v. the risk of it going Kabloom

Eric Mc

Original Poster:

122,013 posts

265 months

Tuesday 19th January 2021
quotequote all
Did they ever do a full Green Run with all five F1 engines during the development of the Saturn V?

MartG

20,676 posts

204 months

Tuesday 19th January 2021
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
Did they ever do a full Green Run with all five F1 engines during the development of the Saturn V?
Yes - every Saturn V stage underwent a full duration test firing

Beati Dogu

8,889 posts

139 months

Tuesday 19th January 2021
quotequote all
On the same test stand I believe. Although it only had to run for about 2.5 minutes before it was done.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rP6k18DVdg

Eric Mc

Original Poster:

122,013 posts

265 months

Tuesday 19th January 2021
quotequote all
Thanks. I hadn’t taken that on board, even though I’ve been reading about this stuff for years.

MartG

20,676 posts

204 months

Tuesday 19th January 2021
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
Thanks. I hadn’t taken that on board, even though I’ve been reading about this stuff for years.
Full details in Alan Lawrie's book

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Saturn-Complete-Manufactu...

hidetheelephants

24,317 posts

193 months

Wednesday 20th January 2021
quotequote all
Beati Dogu said:
On the same test stand I believe. Although it only had to run for about 2.5 minutes before it was done.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rP6k18DVdg
When you're converting 15 tonnes of fuel per second into heat, light and noise 2 minutes probably seems like a long time.

Beati Dogu

8,889 posts

139 months

Friday 29th January 2021
quotequote all
They test fired a single RS-25 SLS engine at Stennis earlier. This is a new, development engine, not one taken from the Shuttle program. It is being test fired to give data to its manufacturer, Aerojet Rocketdyne. They're making engines to be used once NASA runs out of ex-Shuttle engines after four SLS flights.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaJTDvOIXbk

Ignition at 9 mins in and it ran for the full 8 minutes.

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/stennis/news/releases...