This morning NASA conducted an Orion capsule abort test using a refurbished ICBM first-stage rocket engine. Apparently successful, although the boilerplate was not equipped with parachutes or an attitude-control system. To compare abort tests, Lockheed-Martin got it up, SpaceX is going full-up, while Boeing's Starliner is only planning to push off the pad. Four minute video.
That is an indication of desperate Boeing is to show “progress” with Starliner; an abort test with a rocket that is nothing like what the vehicle will actually fly with and a dummy capsule. Of course Boeing is doing that because not only is the SLS rocket and Starliner capsule way behind schedule and way over budget but since it’s not reusable it is prohibitively expensive to do the test with an SLS rocket. That said, the successful abort test is still a valid test of that specific system.
Which is to say, a system that's likely very representative of the flight configuration, minus other elements that are well established (like chutes). With a test that is responsibly inexpensive. Not everything a non-SpaceX entity does is bad, desperate, or a waste of time/money.
NASA has changed their minds again, sticking with the original plan of a "Green Run" test firing of all four of the RS-25 SLS core engines. This will certainly add a few more months (anyone for years?) to the SLS/Orion development. Too bad for Bill Gerstenmaier. Now that he's been somewhat vindicated, wonder if Bridenstine wishes he could take back that demotion. “Green Run” Test Will Pave the Way for Successful NASA Moon Missions
Quote from that article: “NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine announced July 25 the agency will conduct a “Green Run” core stage test for the Space Launch System rocket ahead of the upcoming Artemis 1 lunar mission.” The average person reading that will think that the “lunar mission” is almost ready to go and fully funded. What a joke the Artemis program is: in reality there is essentially no money for it and most of the hardware does not exist. But few Americans understand that. My reaction to the photo shown at the top of that article of the SLS first stage is “That huge piece of expensive hardware is going to launch once and then be thrown away! What a waste.” SLS is like a zombie: the “walking dead”.
I thought the Green Run was a full duration test while Static Fire is only like 10 seconds. Am I wrong?
Yeah, that’s true. On the other side of the coin the static fire is a little more representative of launch (as opposed to being on a stand for this green run) so there are some puts and takes relative to equivalency.
Correct, but a static fire is with a complete vehicle on the launch pad. The SLS Green Run is just the core on a test stand. Not comparable. I expect that the Green Run will likely reveal new issues/problems that will need to be solved, further delaying the SLS and increasing the cost of the program.
While the static test obviously isn't as comprehensive as a green run form the perspective of representing the full flight mission, it doesn't need to be at this point. A few seconds is all SpaceX needs to demonstrate flight worthiness of their recurring builds. You should give SpaceX more credit. Similar to how building a hopper that goes nowhere [2 of them at that!] is revealing new issues/problems that need to be solved, further delaying Starship and increasing the cost of the program?
I'm posting this NASA blog here, published today Feb. 6th, maybe giving some balance to the SLS Capitulation thread (I'm actually considering a Straddle option on Boeing ). NASA is issuing Requests for Information (RFI) "for development of robotic mobility systems and human-class lunar rovers". Basically NASA wants vehicles that Artemis astronauts can use to increase mobility and range while on the Moon's surface. NASA, always ready with a handy acronym, is calling it an LTV or Lunar Terrain Vehicle. A stripped down Cybertruck immediately comes to mind, although realistically it would be too big and heavy. Who knows, this offer might just pique Elon's interest. For sure Elon undoubtedly sees SLS-Artemis as a government boondoggle. But I can still envision his neurons and synapses already communicating, working up a unique design for a bad-ass lunar rover. NASA to Industry: Send Ideas for Lunar Rovers
The list Eric makes of what SpaceX has done for similar money is, well... money: The Orion spacecraft is now 15 years old and has flown into space just once Of course SpaceX has no duty to provide jobs like the Orion and SLS programs do (nor are they funded to keep said jobs in place for as long as possible), so it is not an entirely fair comparison, but still...
For those of us that enjoy watching rockets burn, NASA is offering up 8 minutes of fiery static glow on Saturday. This first SLS core hot test-fire tomorrow has a two hour window, 5pm - 7pm EST. Live coverage begins at 4:20pm EST on NASA TV. https://www.nasa.gov/nasalive
BTW, the NasaSpaceflight guys are rocking this, super-informative. They have someone that was clearly working with Shuttle and NASA explain a bunch of things. He made a good point that the core stage (the one with the RS-25s on it) should be thought of as a second stage in SpaceX parlance, since it uses external boosters. So when it is done burning it is basically at orbital velocity and designing it for recovery would have been near impossible. You'd need something like the Shuttle...
There was obviously a serious issue during today's test-fire. A premature shutdown was initiated at 67 seconds. Interesting juxtaposition between the NASA broadcast team and the guys over at NASASpaceFlight. NASA hyping the terabytes of data that were gathered versus more stark commentary from NSF. Such a failure inflight would have initiated an abort of the Orion crew capsule, along with dropping at least 2 billion bucks into the Atlantic. More delays can be expected for SLS, as another test-fire seems likely. I'm sure during the next 24 hours Eric at Ars and other media will have more details.