NASA Tests a Booster That Produces 3 Million Pounds of Thrust (arstechnica.com) 120
On Wednesday afternoon in Northern Utah, Northrop Grumman successfully fired up a full-scale test version of the boosters it is building for NASA's Space Launch System rocket. "Two of these large boosters, each with a mass of 1.6 million pounds, account for 75 percent of the SLS rocket's thrust during the first two minutes of flight," reports Ars Technica. "They are composed of five segments of a powderized, solid fuel that is ignited upon launch. Northrop has already built 26 of the 30 segments NASA needs for the first three launches of the SLS rocket." From the report: The primary reason for Wednesday's test was that Northrop's supplier of aluminum-based fuel could no longer deliver the product. Therefore, Northrop needed to ensure that a new vendor could provide the solid rocket fuel needed for future launches of the SLS rocket beyond the first three. NASA also used the test to assess some changes to the nozzle design, said Bruce Tiller, manager of the SLS boosters office at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. With this test, Tiller said NASA remains on track to potentially launch the SLS rocket in late 2021. The boosters for this flight are already being stacked in Florida. The main question is whether the rocket's large core stage, which is set to undergo a critical test firing in Mississippi this fall, will be ready to go. These solid rocket boosters are a holdover from the space shuttle era, when they powered that vehicle. However, the new boosters have been modernized with improved avionics and made more powerful with the addition of a fifth segment.
3 million pounds (Score:2, Funny)
Whats that in Euros?
Re:3 million pounds (Score:5, Funny)
Whats that in Euros?
About 13 million newtons.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for the convertion to a sensible unit, but are you aware that the Newton was a nicname for a £1 note in the late 1970s [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for the convertion to a sensible unit, but are you aware that the Newton was a nicname for a £1 note in the late 1970s [wikipedia.org]
And the Newton is simply an updated version of the Oldton ... :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for providing such ample evidence of what you do with your time when you're busy not getting laid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's stick with SI units. It would be only 0.725 gigagrams (Gg).
Re: (Score:2)
The gram is the unit of measurement for mass. Force is measured in newtons (N), it's an important distinction. Do you have such distinction in Liberia...ehm... USA?
Re: (Score:2)
Force can also be measured in pounds or kilograms, although is generally considered ambiguous to do so.
To be clear, however, N pounds of force equals the force exerted by an N pound mass on a level surface at 1G of acceleration. This notation is convenient in many cases when communicating how much force something exerts because most people have a more intuitive idea of how heavy something would feel like measured in familiar units than those used by the scientific community.
It would always be incorrec
Re: (Score:2)
No shit, Sherlock. Do you want a cookie or a medal for that observation?
You shouldn't make wise cracks. Show me your scale that displays newtons.
I have traveled to ~44 countries and never have seen a scale that displays newtons. Grams, kilograms, stones, pounds, kans, jin and many others I cannot recall---but not newtons. (Strain gauges, yes, but not scales in grocery stores, markets, etc.)
Re: 3 million pounds (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"...the moon is a harsh mistress."
TANSTAAFL!
Re: (Score:2)
Whats that in Euros?
Pretty much 3 million these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Closer to 3.3 million Euros, but that's Before taxes, of course. UK vat tax is 20%, so the payload capacity would be reduced significantly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am particularly glad you are not my accountant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They need to divide by thrust and their budget problem would be solved.
Re: (Score:2)
That's only just over 114 kilostone. (In customary units: the weight of an average group of people at a UK pub at last call).
Re: (Score:2)
In response to the statement in TFS that the SLS main stage will also employ:
Two of these large boosters, each with a mass of 1.6 million pounds
daknapp observed:
You'd think they would try to make the rocket a little lighter. That's lot of mass to orbit and doesn't even account for the fuel! /s/
Actually, that's the weight of the fully-fueled boosters. Basically, each one consists of a shell surrounding the fuel segments with a big-ass ceramic nozzle on the bottom. There's other stuff, of course - including those upgraded avionics TFS mentions - but, for practical purposes, those bits essentially are the booster. The other parts are a minor fraction of each rocket's total weight ...
Re: (Score:2)
"That's lot of mass to orbit and doesn't even account for the fuel!" The boosters don't orbit, that's why they're called "boosters"; they drop off after just two minutes, at an altitude of somewhere around 30 miles--far below orbit. And yes, that 1.6M pounds does include the fuel.
Dinosaur in the space industry (Score:2)
I thought everyone was into reusable rockets nowadays and now this dinoaur comes up with a big piece of fireworks.
A bit dissapointing for the billion dollar they received for this project.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Dinosaur in the space industry (Score:5, Insightful)
What does socialism have to do with this? It has everything to do with unrestrained capitalism.
The SLS program exists to provide pork. for those with money to squeeze more money out of the federal government.
The whole structure of procurement is flawed. There is too much riding on 'old friends' in the industry getting assigned contracts ( see the whole lovero / boeing idiocy that happened )
Procurement should be from any supplier who can provide clear cost, proof of function, security and reliability.
Anything else is a scam.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of: It could be seen as bit too much capitalism if even the votes of representatives are for sale to the highest bidding corporation. This does of course not happen directly, but making representatives depend on campaign financing from wealthy company owners can still influence quite a bit (despite attempts to curb it by campaign financing laws). Also lobbying in general, like when some industry group tries to for example introduce draconian copyright laws, or stopping right to repair initiatives.
Re: (Score:2)
Crony capitalism and swaying representatives to give advantages to this or that company is seen as a problem of government, and is why people go into it in the first place. It is not a problem of capitalism. It has been cynically observed that if buying and selling are heavily controlled by government, the first thing to be bought and sold are politicians.
The solution is less power for politicians. Unfortunately, some politicians have many convinced the proper solution is more power for politicians.
Re: (Score:2)
When the tax-supported politicians and their pork barrels are bought and sold on the free market, you can.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed, the closest we ever got to an actually socialist space programme was the USSR, which was famously much much cheaper than the equivalent US programmes and ultimately stood the test of time. Until the recently SpaceX mission a Communist USSR era vehicle was the only way for people to get to the ISS, itself built on a lot of Soviet era technology.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed, the closest we ever got to an actually socialist space programme was the USSR, which was famously much much cheaper than the equivalent US programmes
Not really clear. The Russian space program literally did not have a cost. It was a command program; if their program needed something, they were given it, no cost involved.
and ultimately stood the test of time.
They did have a different approach than the Americans; they simply kept re-using their old designs, making minor upgrades, instead of designing new vehicles. Soyuz is basically built on the same platform that launched Sputnik.
This keeps the costs down, but doesn't allow big advances. Their big boosters, N-1 and then Energia, both f
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how the USSR's economy worked, cost was very much a factor in a lot of what it did.
The N-1 rocket would have worked, the engines were excellent, but was too expensive to continue after the US landed on the moon.
Kaboom! [Re:Dinosaur in the space industry} (Score:2)
No, actually, it was a nightmare of a rocket. Korolev's unexpected death in 1966 really hurt the Soviet booster program.
Re: (Score:2)
The Soviet N1 experienced four catastrophic failures in four launches, in one case demolishing the launch pad. There were ten launches of the Saturn I, all successful; nine of the Saturn 1B, all successful; and 13 launches of the Saturn V, all successful, despite some pogo vibration in a few launches, and early shutdown of two engines in the second launch. This shutdown was caused by broken fuel lines due to the pogo vibration. Something similar happened in the first and fourth N1 launches, and resulted
Re: (Score:2)
Command economic [Re:Dinosaur in the space...] (Score:3)
The Soviet program most definitely had costs and budgets to deal with.
Nope. It was a command economy. Nobody knows what their program cost, because "cost" was not a parameter.
Ironically it was the US program under NASA that was far more a "command program".
...The Soviet's had 4 or 5 design bureaus, each with its own Chief Designer that were in constant competition with one another, jockeying for political support.
"Jockeying for political support" is not an economy. This is what socialist economies do instead of economics.
I don't disagree, but you are conflating "competition" with "economics".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. It was a command economy. Nobody knows what their program cost, because "cost" was not a parameter.
You seem to be pretty stupid.
The USSR had a currency. The economy was based on that currency, the workers were paid in that currency. Rare materials needed to be imported: so yes, it had costs.
Hindenberg [Re:Dinosaur in the space industry] (Score:2)
You are correct that the N-1 was a 4-for-4 failure.
The Energia booster on the other hand, was a success. 2-for-2.
Nope. Flight one plunked it in the ocean. One for two.
Polyus (1st Energia payload) failed it reach orbit, but not because of the booster, which performed flawlessly.
Russia lovers perpetually say that, but it is irrelevant. When a flight intended to get into orbit drops the billion-rubles worth of payload into the ocean, you can't be call it a success, even if 99% of the systems performed flawlessly.
That's like calling the final voyage of the Hindenberg a success: "The Hindenberg voyage was a success because it got all the way from Frankfurt to New Jersey; it was only the docking at Lakehurst that failed." Nope: 9
Re: Dinosaur in the space industry (Score:2)
Inertia isnâ(TM)t just for rockets, pork has the most specific impulse of all!
Re:Dinosaur in the space industry (Score:4, Funny)
Segment joint orientation? (Score:4, Interesting)
What has that to do with anything? (Score:5, Informative)
The answer is "yes" but that's the way they were for the entire life of the Shuttle program too - that was not an issue in any way related to the Challenger incident. In the instance of Challenger, the O-rings in the joints were flexible over a certain temperature range and capable of sealing the joints against the hot exhaust gasses while flexible, but Challenger was launched well-below that temperature range, so the O-rings were stiff and could not flex as required to keep the joints sealed. The joint itself was designed in a way that was satisfactory for operations as designed, but wholly inadequate for operation with cold O-rings or very high altitude wind shear (which also contributed to Challenger's loss by causing the boosters to flex more due to the side stresses it encountered. Post-Challenger the joints were re-designed making them better able to resist the side forces, adding an O-ring, adding electric heaters to the joints to prevent them getting too cold on the pad, and NASA had to re-learn the idea of operating a system within its design limits. The re-designed joints were used for the rest of the program and are what is implemented on SLS (which is using-up the supply of existing recycled shuttle SRB casings before fabricating new ones).
Sadly, they are making them disposable now for two basic reasons:
1. The new boosters are longer (5 segments rather than the shuttle's 4 segments) which made them heavier and the existing parachute systems were incapable of lowering them gently to the sea. Recovery was tested on the flight of the Ares 1-X test vehicle and that did not go well - the expended booster bent when it hit the water. Newer parachutes and rigging able to deal with the increased mass and higher terminal velocity were going to add an unacceptable and unanticipated mass, lowering performance of the overall rocket.
2. The costs of operating the ships to recover the boosters and the facilities to inspect, refurbish, and refill them (including extra transportation and employee costs) was too high for a system that will not be flown very often. If you fly once per year but have to have all those people on staff full-time for the whole year it's a major cost, whereas if you fly every week that cost would be divided over all those missions. The Obama administration contracted with the rocket builders to setup production lines that could make no more than two rockets per year with an anticipated flight rate of one per year - at those rates there was little value in booster recovery.
Re: (Score:2)
2. The costs of operating the ships to recover the boosters and the facilities to inspect, refurbish, and refill them (including extra transportation and employee costs) was too high for a system that will not be flown very often.
What's the over/under that it will fly twice?
I'm generally not a betting man, but I'd bet it doesn't fly more than once.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure it will even fly once. Other players are far enough along to already make the SLS seem like a huge waste of time and money. And it's not like those other players are slowing down in their development at the moment.
Re: Segment joint orientation? (Score:2)
All because the real experts prefer to hang out on Slashdot. Commenting whilst the world goes to shit.
Videos (Score:2, Informative)
Just the motor test from T-15sec. : https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
NASA TV coverage with narration of test: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
When the thrust gets this high (Score:2)
its easier to comprehend it in tons - 1500. In other words just one of these boosters could launch a small ferry into orbit. This is where the word awesome really does apply.
Re: (Score:2)
its easier to comprehend it in tons - 1500.
Using sea-level weight to measure a space-going rocket is a bit silly. The proper unit of thrust is force, i.e. Newtons, not mass.
Fortunately it is easy to convert. One tonne is 10kN (or 9.81 if you are fussy)
In other words just one of these boosters could launch a small ferry into orbit.
It is a booster. It launches nothing to orbit. The complete SLS will have a 100t payload.
You mean it would be able to lift a small ferry off the ground?
But don't forget that the booster itself weighs more than half the thrust at launch, so the ferry had better be under 700t displacement, or it wil
Re:When the thrust gets this high (Score:4, Funny)
The LGBTQ community would like a word with you.
Reusability depends on the expected use count (Score:2)
I'm not a rocket scientist, but given the small number of launches planned for the SLS I would expect that the costs of building half a dozen reusable boosters exceeds the cost of building a dozen much simpler disposable SRBs.
To put it in Slashdot terms, when do you decide that it's worth building a reusable module rather than a simple function. It's all down to use count. For me the magic number is five. If I'm only using a piece code in fewer than five places I should keep the overheads to a minimum,.Mor
Re: (Score:2)
The main thing about SRBs is that there's quite little to reuse. Cheap hard shell, some minimal avionics, a rather simple nozzle. They are very simple devices and simultaneously quite heavy even when empty, so landing them to recover the little they have to them after the launch isn't very economical.
It should be used to launch the JWST (Score:2)
That explains it (Score:2)
that Northrop's supplier of aluminum-based fuel could no longer deliver the product.
Now we know why aluminum foil is so expensive. Pushing $4 for 75 square feet (name brand). All that aluminum is being used for rocket fuel.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And that little bit of foam for kneeling on in gardening you bought at Home Depot costs more money than an 8' x 11' four inch thick foam pad from industrial supply that gardening companies buy and cut up for their employees.
What's your point?
New engine type (Score:3)
I hear it's using a revolutionary Pork / Hot air combustion system, for unparalleled performance.
Re: (Score:3)
Budget [Re:New engine type] (Score:3)
Yeah, it burns through cash faster than any other mechanism known to science.
Uh, you are unaware of the Department of Defense.
Defense budget 2020 is $738 billion. NASA is barely noticeable when viewed with DoD in the background.
One single procurement, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, is expected to end up costing more than the entire budget spend by NASA since it was formed.
That's a MASSive rocket. (Score:2)
"Two of these large boosters, each with a mass of 1.6 million pounds..."
Damn, now THAT is a massive rocket. Sure as hell hope it has enough thrust to get her fat ass off the ground...
Environmental Impact (Score:2)
I wonder what relative environmental impact the alternative fuels will have? Obviously, the environmental impact of aluminum isn't just related to the impact of mining it from bauxite and refining it, or maybe even obtai
Re: (Score:3)
I completely understand that the vast majority of orbital launches are not *remotely* friendly to the environment... but I wonder if anyone has done an impact assessment of using an SRB based on Aluminum powder and compared that with, say, SpaceX's approach of using Methylox for Starship?
Yeah, back in the shuttle days, that was calculated.
Answer is, it's not enough to notice until you go to a rate of many flights per day. If you're worried that the aluminum eventually becomes dust, it's just hard to compete with the 770 billion kilograms of dust lofted into the atmosphere by the winds in the Sahara alone.
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/ea... [nasa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but the SRBs don't release "dust", they release hydrochloric acid. This paper [aiaa.org] says 480,000 pounds of it per STS launch, so +25% for each SLS launch.
Re: (Score:2)
but HCl was not what was asked about, it was the Al2O3 that was the question.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Everyday Astronaut outlines rocket pollution, https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] however, the real pollutants come from building the rockets.
I remember reading in 1980s where they provided car covers so sprinkling dust from SRB smoke will not cause spots on the car paint.
Space Launch System (Score:2)
They misspelled Senate Launch System [competitivespace.org] ...
Very expensive single use rocket (Score:3)
This article should be titled: "Look at big aerospace companies using billions of dollars do the same thing again"
Hopefully SLS never flies (and saves us a few US$1B or so) and they just let birds nest in the engines like they did to the Saturn V booster for Apollo 18.
Meanwhile, there is real cool space news happening.
Blue Origin's last New Shepard launch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
SpaceX's launch (and booster landing) just this morning: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
and the upcoming hop of SpaceX Starship SN6 that might happen today also.
Re: (Score:2)
I like this one... "Why does SLS even exist?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Saturn V reference (Score:2)
Whoopdedo! I'm so impressed... (Score:2)
Ho hum. The Saturn V, developed under the guidance of, er, "patriot" Wernher von Braun, produced 7.5 million pounds of thrust in the 1960s. Not sure how many Marks that was.
Re:Non reusable (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a huge scandal and scam that they arenâ(TM)t bothering to make it reusable.
Reusability is not an end in itself. If reuse saves money, then do it. Otherwise don't. The shuttle was designed for reuse. It certainly didn't save money.
The real scandal is that the SLS is being built at all. NASA should be buying launch services, not building rockets.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a huge scandal and scam that they arenâ(TM)t bothering to make it reusable.
Reusability is not an end in itself. If reuse saves money, then do it. Otherwise don't. The shuttle was designed for reuse. It certainly didn't save money.
The real scandal is that the SLS is being built at all. NASA should be buying launch services, not building rockets.
The purpose of dumping money into Nasa is to have justification for that money to develop rocket i.e. missile technology and expertise. Just like highways are for holiday travel and shipping and not moving troops and equipment around quickly during war without needing fussy train scheduling.
Re: (Score:2)
I sometimes wonder how far ahead we would be if we had cooperated back in the 1960s. Kennedy wanted the moon mission to be a joint one with the USSR and until he was assassinated there was a good chance it might have happened that way. Reduced costs for both sides, the Russians would have got some assistance and maybe got their rocket working, and other countries might have been inspired to work together or join the project too.
Moon exploration might have continued for longer if it had been cheaper, maybe l
Re: (Score:2)
You might be interested in Apple TV's "For All Mankind", which assumes a different exploration "what-if" from yours. In their version, the Soviets landed on the moon first, and as a result the space race continued: women on the moon, and Soviet and American moon bases. I haven't watched it (maybe I'll do that this weekend, along with Greyhound), but it looks like it could be good.
Re: (Score:2)
I enjoyed For All Mankind, looking forward to the next season. I wish they would do a bit more about the technology though, it was mostly skimmed over in favour of the drama.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
SLS exists to light a fire under Musk's ass...
That's an interesting insight.
Yes, if SpaceX was the only one to develop a large booster, they would de facto have the ability to charge higher rates.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a huge scandal and scam that they arenâ(TM)t bothering to make it reusable.
Space shuttle solid rocket boosters were recovered and reused, but the SLS ones aren't. The cost benefit analysis didn't work out.
Re: (Score:2)
"Reusability is not an end in itself. If reuse saves money, then do it. Otherwise don't. The shuttle was designed for reuse. It certainly didn't save money."
Space-Jesus wasn't born yet.
Re:Non reusable (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Non reusable (Score:2)
Well yes it saves a huge amount of money. Who rational is going to dispute that? We have the data already!
Re: Non reusable (Score:4, Insightful)
Stop lying to yourself and everyone else. Pork is universal and Democrats are just as guilty as Republicans.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I lay most of the blame at the feet of the NASA administrator (born and raised in Utah iirc) that decided against all logic to award Shuttle booster manufacture to Thiokol’s segmented booster (manufactured in Utah) instead of Aerojet’s one piece booster (manufactured in Florida). No segmented booster, no Challenger disaster so it’s not just Pork.
Re: (Score:2)
Stop lying to yourself and everyone else.
You first.
Pork is universal
Universal, sure, but...
and Democrats are just as guilty as Republicans.
That, sir, is an actual lie.
https://www.reuters.com/articl... [reuters.com]
https://www.advisorperspective... [advisorperspectives.com]
You lie while accusing others of lying. You are both a liar and a hypocrite.
Why don't you tell us all about how Gerrymandering is universal too, hypocritical liar?
Re: (Score:2)
Gerrymandering is universal.. The problem for Democrats is they have no place left where they can do this unless they can start winning in other states.
There are a lot of Republicans in California for instance, 31% of the state voted for Trump in 2016, but if you look at the state Senate, only 25% of the Senators are Republicans, and the House has only 21% Republicans. New York has 28% Republican in the house and 31% in the Senate, but had 36% voting for Trump in 2016. Pretty obvious what this is.
It may
Re: (Score:2)
Gerrymandering is universal in exactly the same way as pork, which is to say that while both parties are involved, the Republicans have always done a lot more.
Re: (Score:2)
Gerrymandering is universal in exactly the same way as pork, which is to say that while both parties are involved, the Republicans have always done a lot more.
LOL... OK.. No sense in arguing because it's obvious that the pot calling the kettle black is pointless.
Keep cheering for your team... The other team is always wrong... (rinse, lather, repeat)
Re: (Score:2)
Look it up, ignoranus. The proof is in the proof. A quick google search will prove me right, but I guess that's too complicated for a conservacuck like you. Why don't you go watch the pool boy fuck your wife?
Re: (Score:2)
I've already admitted that Gerrymandering is practiced by both parties, what more must you prove? Oh yea, that your party is less offensive than mine in this regard? Yea, that matters. (not!)
You want to play whataboutism? Then I ask you, which party is more involved in voter fraud? (Um, that would clearly be Democrats.. Google it.. ) Does it matter? No.. But it sure puts a different blush on the recent mail in ballot hoopla from your side..
But hey.. None of this line of argument matters.... The rea
Re: (Score:2)
When green recycling and solar panels and other stuff started getting the government's attention in the 1990s, and the regulatory burden costs mounted without end, the Democrats cheerfully said, "These new companies to satisfy all this are things you can invest in!"
Which I am sure they did to take advantage of their own regulations. So what that other guy said, pork is universal. It just doesn't all come directly through taxes and borrowing.
Re: (Score:2)
As I recall, green recycling and solar panels and other stuff started getting the government's attention in the 1970s. Reagan put an end to that, temporarily.
Re: (Score:2)
They re-designed the joints after Challenger. Probably they don't need to be re-designed again, although IANARS.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong: 1.6M pounds is the mass of each booster; the thrust is (over) 3M pounds (each), according to the PDF that the article links to about 1/3 of the way down (just above the "Hatch" headline), and you can easily verify this elsewhere. The ars reporters not read the article before writing the headline, they must also have checked the references (since the thrust is not mentioned in the article itself).
Looks like you're the one who didn't read the article. Care to apologize?