OMG. What, they aren’t going to pursue something that has been proven to work because they didn’t think of it first? Because they are idiots? Sane customers will eventually all flock to SpaceX since they’ll not only have the cheapest flights, but, thanks to reusability, the most reliable, and soon, the most capable. Unfortunately, my tax dollars are going to support the insane customer...
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
OMG. What, they aren’t going to pursue something that has been proven to work because they didn’t think of it first? Because they are idiots? Sane customers will eventually all flock to SpaceX since they’ll not only have the cheapest flights, but, thanks to reusability, the most reliable, and soon, the most capable. Unfortunately, my tax dollars are going to support the insane customer...
Yep.
It’s incredible that Tory Bruno can say what he did in that interview with a straight face (I presume). I wish Eric Berger had pushed him on that issue. I feel like Berger threw Bruno some softballs just so he would talk to him. Rather disappointing.
One of the RS-25 engines had a fire during a test and had to be aborted. Expect more delays for SLS.
Nikxice
Active Member
Wow, continuing could have potentially destroyed the test stand. Curious that an engine adapted for SLS from the Space Shuttle era experienced such a stunning failure. Probably nothing that an additional cost overrun can't fix.
Cost-plus can be OK in fast-moving "fire at will" contracts where the contractor can be sacked at any time with no notice for any reason, with the buyer retaining ownership of any incomplete work and paying only for work done to date.
Cost-plus in Defense Department contracts is basically fraud and theft from the government. Certain large "military-industrial complex" companies exist solely to steal this money from the government. ULA is one of them but not even the largest.
Cost-plus in Defense Department contracts is basically fraud and theft from the government. Certain large "military-industrial complex" companies exist solely to steal this money from the government. ULA is one of them but not even the largest.
Just so I understand: the fire being referred to is visible in the upper right area of the image starting at 0:25 in the video, as soon as it cuts to show a close up of the engine?
Correct. That was a pretty serious fault and it went on for quite a while before they had the abort. The only fire that should be seen is the one coming out of the bell. The RS-25 is a "closed cycle system" which makes it incredibly efficient. SpaceX's Merlin engine uses an "open cycle system" which has an exhaust port that reduces its efficiency. So it is normal to see flames high up in a Merlin. When you see it in a closed system that means something blew. Luckily it didn't seriously blow in this case and take out the whole test stand.
To compare, here is a standard RS-25 engine test:
Here's a Merlin:
e-FTW
New electron smell
If you ever doubted that a rocket motor was a contained explosion, watching these should help you come to grips with that fact.
ULA is pushing the SSMEs to something in the vincinity of 113% of spec, so things can happen. Pretty amazing that this design can be pushed like that (granted, in an expendable configuration v. the Shuttle era’s re-usable SSMEs).
I think nominal on shuttle missions was like 107%...fact check anyone?
Mike1080i
Member
104.5% was the normal operational level of the RS-25D's. 109% was the approved limit for some 2 engine and single engine intact abort modes. They were also tested to 111% for contingency aborts. The RS-25E's probably have a little margin to give since they won't need to be reused.
Last edited:
The Air Force gets an earful from lawmakers over their overlooking of SpaceX for LSA:
Lawmakers: Air Force launch procurement strategy undermines SpaceX - SpaceNews.com
Lawmakers: Air Force launch procurement strategy undermines SpaceX - SpaceNews.com
mspohr
Well-Known Member
It may be an expendable configuration but you don't want it to "expend" before the end of the flight
e-FTW
New electron smell
Interesting that they protested this. At $148m, the launch price was a smallish fraction of the total mission cost of $950m. Say they would save $60m by going with SpaceX, that’s about 6% of the mission cost. Since this mission has zero latitude for launch delays or launch disasters, NASA’s thinking was undoubtedly to go with the more reliable provider, and the 6% was worth it.
After nearly $50 billion, NASA’s deep-space plans remain grounded
Imagine what SpaceX could have accomplished with that much money....
Imagine what SpaceX could have accomplished with that much money....
Similar threads
- Article
