back to article NASA primed for 9-minute live test of mighty rocket motor

NASA will tomorrow broadcast live a test firing of its RS-25 powerplant, "one of four engines that will power the core stage of NASA’s new Space Launch System (SLS), and carry the agency’s Orion crew capsule as part of the journey to Mars and other deep-space destinations". The motor is expected to roar into life at 17:00 EDT …

  1. arnieL
    Facepalm

    "Brain"

    How patronising!

    Wondering if NASA have had a chat with Megasquirt for this revolutionary marvel of modern tech.

    Well, it's not rocket scie...

    1. Slacker@work

      Re: "Brain"

      You're forgetting the press release was for the American market...

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "Brain"

        Stop being such a dick. The British public is no more intelligent than the American public.

        You invented crappy media, both TV and scandal rags and infected our media with it.

        1. werdsmith Silver badge

          Re: "Brain"

          I'll grant you that the British public is generally extremely stupid, but they have not yet required instructions about how to use a mirror to be printed on a mirror.

          1. Graham Dawson Silver badge

            Re: "Brain"

            That mirror thing is not due to stupidity, but rather an overabundance of lawyers.

            1. TheProf

              Re: "Brain"

              Hence the use of the word 'brain'. Touché.

            2. JeffyPoooh
              Pint

              Re: "Brain"

              "...not due to stupidity, but rather an overabundance of lawyers."

              Same thing really.

      2. Turtle

        @Slacker@work Re: "Brain"

        "You're forgetting the press release was for the American market..."

        ...from the American space agency. So perhaps you'd be so good as to give us some examples of kind of press releases that the UK space program issues. For example, I can't for the life of me recall the press release they issued when the first Brit walked on the moon. Perhaps you could refresh my memory?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Pint

          Re: @Slacker@work "Brain"

          H G Wells wrote the report, I believe tjey used cavorite not rockets,

          have a beer anyway

    2. Fungus Bob
      Coat

      Re: "Brain"

      But what if they *are* using a real, live brain to control the engine...

    3. JCitizen
      Go

      Re: "Brain"

      Hey! Brain was my favorite character on Thunderbirds! How dare you!

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "RS25 Engines: The most reliable engines of their kind; upgraded with new technology"

    Feels like a potential oxymoron there... :-)

    1. Lester Haines (Written by Reg staff) Gold badge

      Hmmm

      Better put, then: "Formerly the most reliable engines until we decided they could be improved."

  3. Kracula
    Trollface

    Interesting design...

    Somehow reminds me of a space craft I designed for the Kerbal Space Program.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Interesting design...

      Reminds me more of this:

      https://xkcd.com/1133/

  4. swisstoni

    Needs more struts.

    1. asphytxtc

      Darn! You beat me to it! Have an upvote :)

  5. Graham Marsden
    Boffin

    "send Orion farther into space than humans have ever ventured"

    So is that the Orion is going further or it's going to *take* humans further than Lunar orbit?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "send Orion farther into space than humans have ever ventured"

      Considering the amount of SPACE LETTUCE they're going to have to consume, FARTER INTO SPACE would be more apt.

  6. Kharkov
    Devil

    Let's use a reusable engine... once!

    First of all, fingers crossed for the test's success. I'm not a fan of SLS by any means but I hope they can make it all work.

    But really, a high performance engine, reusable, is going to be used once and then thrown away. The program is seriously expensive, so much so that there's no realistic or likely-to-be-funded program it can serve. Both ULA and SpaceX have offered to do a heavy-lift rocket for much less (BTW, when even ULA says they can do it cheaper, you know the program's ridiculously overpriced) but no, NASA's budget is being used to funnel money into certain Congressional Districts/States so that certain elected representatives can say that they've 'brought home the bacon' despite the very limited chance of SLS being of any use to anyone. What really sticks in my throat, however, is the fact that certain of those elected officials have gone on record as being against 'socialism' in general, and 'pork' in particular - hypocrisy much?

    I just wish all involved could at least be honest about it all. "Yes, we're keeping people with needed skills employed, a very good thing. What? Are they doing anything worthwhile with those needed skills? No, not really but it's worth sucking one sixth of NASA's budget down the hole to make sure those skills are retained. After all, we might want to do something useful with them one day.."

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Let's use a reusable engine... once!

      Both ULA and SpaceX have offered to do a heavy-lift rocket for much less

      Except that ULA haven't done so, and SpaceX are currently trying to work out why their rocket program isn't producing reliable results. SLS is at least based on manned flight rated components with a a good track record and should get off the ground on schedule. Being cheap is no good if it takes too long to do it.

      1. GitMeMyShootinIrons

        Re: Let's use a reusable engine... once!

        " and SpaceX are currently trying to work out why their rocket program isn't producing reliable results"

        At least they ARE producing results, unlike NASA who've blundered from one failed launcher project to the next since the Shuttle program. SpaceX had two failures in 20 flights of a single relatively new rocket design that was all their own work using substantially less money.

        "SLS is at least based on manned flight rated components"

        So, for a large sum, they're dusting off old designs, applying some lip gloss and re-arranging. Should be noted that the more they improve the design of the components, the more they move from the state at which they can claim to retain a man rated heritage.

        "Being cheap is no good if it takes too long to do it."

        Falcon Heavy is aimed to fly next year. SLS is 2018. Might not loft quite as much, but that two year head start will give it some real-world test and development time to start scaling up. Being more expensive and later still is generally worse.

    2. JeffyPoooh
      Pint

      Re: Let's use a reusable engine... once!

      We've tried the "Reusable must be cheaper" theory already. = FAIL.

      Musk is going to try again. And we wish him the best of luck with it.

    3. Tcat

      Re: Let's use a reusable engine... once!

      I see you DO understand!

      It's Pork when it is funding a project. That is unless it's in MY District.

      Then its economic growth and research.

      So glad you get it.

  7. Ugotta B. Kiddingme

    locals should be able to hear it

    A cousin of mine used to live about twelve miles from Stennis space center. If weather conditions are just right, they could hear these tests. She said the big ones "sound like distant thunder that keeps going far longer than thunder should. Kinda freaky, really..."

    1. MattPi

      Re: locals should be able to hear it

      " cousin of mine used to live about twelve miles from Stennis space center. If weather conditions are just right, they could hear these tests. She said the big ones "sound like distant thunder that keeps going far longer than thunder should. Kinda freaky, really..."

      A few years ago, there was a launch from Wallops and I could see the rocket as it went from Stage 1 to Stage 2 from my home west of Philadelphia. It was a cold, clear night, and I swear I could hear the rumble cut out when stage 1 quit and restart when stage 2 lit up. I seems unlikely, though, that I could really hear it at that distance (at least 100 miles, since it was out over the ocean).

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Megaphone

        Re: locals should be able to hear it

        There would be an 8+ minute delay between the visuals and the audio at 100 miles distance. Must be a case of "Psychic Hearing."

  8. AceRimmer1980
    Thumb Up

    To the moon..and beyond!

    Not quite the same ring to it, but it's a step in the right direction.

  9. W Donelson

    .... "and carry the agency’s Orion crew capsule as PART of the journey to Mars and other deep-space destinations"

    I am glad this is finally being made clear. No way in hell Orion itself would carry crew to Mars.

  10. Valeyard

    test conditions:

    rockets lifted gantry, cranes and all into space

    test successful

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Go

    Solid stupidity

    Let us build a new heavy lift vehicle with all the modern amenities, and save lots of money by including impossible-to-shut-off solid boosters. Why not? We'll just make sure not to have any boost phase issues...

    1. The First Dave

      Re: Solid stupidity

      Please remind me, when was the last time that shutting down a cryogenic booster during the boost phase saved a rocket? They do tend to need them to keep flying, unless you have quite a few of them. Since this appears to have three nozzles in total, shutting down one is not going to magically save anyone.

      1. cray74

        Re: Solid stupidity

        Please remind me, when was the last time that shutting down a cryogenic booster during the boost phase saved a rocket?

        The ability to safely shutdown a failed cryogenic engine - as in, to also turn off fuel flow, avoid unnecessary fuel loss, and avoid potential fires - was used on several Saturn, Shuttle, and SpaceX flights.

        Apollo 6 controllably shutdown two damaged second stage cryogenic engines, which had ruptured fuel lines. Overall, it had 3 engine failures (the third stage engine was also damaged and unable to restart in orbit) but mostly finished its mission. It's a question of rocket science semantics if the second stage counts as "boost phase." I'd sometimes only count the first stage as that, but since the ship was still burning for orbit during the second stage engine shutdowns I think they'd count as "boost phase." The later failure to restart the third stage J2 probably wouldn't count.

        Apollo 13 also had a second stage engine failure, which led to the shutdown of the engine. Same question about "boost phase."

        STS-51-F had a cryogenic engine failure and shutdown during launch. Again, there's a question of semantics about whether that failure counts as "boost phase." The SRBs had long since separated by the time the center engine's discharge temperature sensors started failing (3:31 and 5:52) and shutdown, but the shuttle was certainly well short of orbit. Because the ship was controllable and the two remaining engines were running well, the ship aborted to orbit and completed its mission.

        SpaceX Falcon 9 COTS Demo Flight 2 had a launch pad abort. It had lit all 9 engines, but chamber pressure was abnormal on one. The cryogenic engines were shut down 0.5 seconds into the boost phase, when it was still on the pad. Engineers had 3 days to kick the tires, check the engines, and successfully launch the flight.

        Speaking of pad aborts, the shuttle also had 5 launch pad aborts when its cryogenic engines were fired but shutdown before the SRBs lit. Reasons include a jammed fuel valve (1984) and jammed oxidizer valve that was chewing on an O-ring (1993), which both would've been disastrous in flight. Other shutdowns were usually for erroneous sensor readings.

        SpaceX Falcon 9 flight CRS-1 also famously suffered a "rapid unscheduled disassembly" on one engine 76 seconds into the first stage burn (definitely boost phase). Despite a structural failure, the engine - particularly the burning fuel gushing out of it - was deliberately and controllably shut off and the Falcon 9 continued to orbit. This is an excellent depiction of the value of shutting down cryogenic engines to save a boost phase vehicle because the burning fuel blew off the engine section's aerodynamic fairing. Without the shutdown, the burning fuel would've damaged other engines and expanded the "unscheduled disassembly" to the rest of the vehicle.

        So, the last time a cryogenic engine shutdown in boost phase saved a rocket was in October 2012.

  12. AlgernonFlowers4
    Terminator

    I for one ...

    Welcome our Space Lettuce System overlords!

  13. Captain DaFt

    Meh, probably never fly

    US presidential elections are coming up in 2016.

    Immediately after follows the usual "Scrap what you're doing NASA, and do this instead... Oh and your funding's cut again!" celebratory ceremony.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Meh, probably never fly

      That doesn't happen EVERY election, just the ones that change the Oval Occupant. And this time there's no certainty we'll be able to rid ourselves of the current one.

      1. Kharkov
        Facepalm

        Re: Meh, probably never fly

        "...no certainty we'll be able to rid ourselves of the current one."

        Erm... Term Limits? Clinton, assuming she's the one to pass the finish line first on Nov 5th next year, isn't likely to rock the boat and upset people by cancelling SLS in her first year. That said, who knows what she might do in her 2nd term if Falcon Heavy is flying well and MCT stays on track. A Republican, on the other hand, has much more to shout about ('Shocking waste! 18 Billion dollars for something the Private Sector can do for ONE PERCENT of the money! Damn those wasteful Democrats...') so he (If it's Republican, it'll be a 'he') gets in, he may do what Obama did when HE got in and declare the previous effort a wasteful boondoggle, get some media mileage out of it, and set up something very like the Ares/Constellation/SLS programme - ie, an expensive way of funneling money to the same areas that are getting it now - which will enter service after he's out of office...

      2. cray74

        Re: Meh, probably never fly

        And this time there's no certainty we'll be able to rid ourselves of the current one.

        Right, because Obama has found himself an unbeatable combination of support in the military, Wall Street, Congress, Homeland Security, political parties, and the public who will back him as he repeals the 22nd Amendment and tries a third term. That's just the winning combination needs, but lacks.

        I heard this same third term nonsense about Bush Jr. At Obama's 2008 inauguration. During that, a friend turned to me and said, "I really thought Bush would try a military coup for a third term!" Right, a burned out, unpopular President with no support for an illegal third term is going to mastermind a coup.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Changes Earth orbit?

    I've often wondered what effect all these horizontally directed tests do to the Earth's orbit? Will this test for example, make any important difference to our rotational speed? Is this the cause of Global Weirding? Are we doomed? Dribble, dribble ....

    1. Ugotta B. Kiddingme
      Joke

      Re: Changes Earth orbit?

      They face one test east and the next one west so they effectively cancel each other out over time.

  15. Unicornpiss
    Pint

    Bring back the Saturn engines

    These are powerful? Meh.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like