Boeing Curbed Rocket Test Over Hydraulics Issue, NASA Says (seattletimes.com) 60
Boeing's test of the largest rocket in U.S. history ended earlier than expected on Jan. 16 because a hydraulic-system setting exceeded a preset limit, dealing another setback to the company's space ambitions. From a report: The first firing of all four RS-25 engines on the Space Launch System rocket ended just 67.2 seconds into the planned eight-minute test. The so-called hot fire exercise at the NASA's Stennis Space Center in Mississippi was designed to simulate a full flight from Earth. Engineers from NASA, Boeing and the engines' maker, Aerojet-Rocketdyne Holdings, will assess data and determine whether a second test is needed or if the rocket is ready to ship to Florida's Kennedy Space Center to prepare for its maiden flight. The SLS can be loaded with its super-chilled propellants -- liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen -- only nine times, which will be a consideration in whether to stage a second test at Stennis, NASA said Tuesday.
The shutdown "was triggered by test parameters that were intentionally conservative to ensure the safety of the core stage during the test," NASA said in a blog post Tuesday. Preliminary inspections and data reviews "show the rocket's hardware is in excellent condition," the agency said. The test was cut short just as the engines began to pivot and test their thrust capability while rotating on gimbals. The premature end, before engineers collected a full array of data, represented another hurdle for Boeing's space program. The SLS rocket has been plagued by years of delays and billions of dollars in cost overruns. The program has broad support in Congress because of the federal contracts and jobs it offers across many states. Boeing also is attempting to correct glitches with its Starliner spacecraft, which would ferry astronauts to and from the International Space Station under a NASA contract. Boeing said Monday it had completed qualification of Starliner's flight software following an extensive review. A second test of the vehicle to the ISS is slated for March, following a botched flight in December 2019. A crewed flight is expected later this year.
The shutdown "was triggered by test parameters that were intentionally conservative to ensure the safety of the core stage during the test," NASA said in a blog post Tuesday. Preliminary inspections and data reviews "show the rocket's hardware is in excellent condition," the agency said. The test was cut short just as the engines began to pivot and test their thrust capability while rotating on gimbals. The premature end, before engineers collected a full array of data, represented another hurdle for Boeing's space program. The SLS rocket has been plagued by years of delays and billions of dollars in cost overruns. The program has broad support in Congress because of the federal contracts and jobs it offers across many states. Boeing also is attempting to correct glitches with its Starliner spacecraft, which would ferry astronauts to and from the International Space Station under a NASA contract. Boeing said Monday it had completed qualification of Starliner's flight software following an extensive review. A second test of the vehicle to the ISS is slated for March, following a botched flight in December 2019. A crewed flight is expected later this year.
Non-reusable (Score:5, Interesting)
Why are we following Boeingâ(TM)s 737-Max business model of vehicles that can go up one time and then get crashed? Rockets shouldnâ(TM)t be built as disposable one-time use vehicles. Rockets, being super expensive, should be reusable. The government shouldnâ(TM)t be paying for disposable rockets. If you go to a restaurant and they serve you on disposable plates, youâ(TM)re gonna see the place lacks class. Why are we paying for one-time-use rockets? There is no justification.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Non-reusable rockets take a lot of labor to rebuild, so they are the sensible choice for a job program.
Which the Senate Launch System [competitivespace.org] is ...
Re: (Score:2)
Congress, like Biden, are in no hurry for anything, and would prefer to extend any program, until their death or 90 yo, to maximize wages. Those critters think they can all live to 110 (if they can get their 18 yo virgin blood transfusions) so prefer humanity to stall and arent used to the fast lane. They barely know what Twitter is - something like a broadcast pager from the 80s.
Re: Non-reusable (Score:5, Funny)
It's more like going to a fine dining restraunt with gold china plates and a michelin star chef and restaurant equipment. And that chef trains his whole career to make just 10 meals. And after eating on the taxpayer dime the entrance restaurant except for the chefs is going to be blown up and will have to be rebuilt.
Re: (Score:2)
It's more like going to a fine dining restraunt with gold china plates and a michelin star chef and restaurant equipment. And that chef trains his whole career to make just 10 meals. And after eating on the taxpayer dime the entrance restaurant except for the chefs is going to be blown up and will have to be rebuilt.
Sounds like a metaphor for recent US political events ... except the chef didn't seriously train for anything.
Re:Non-reusable (Score:4, Informative)
It's difficult to build a reusable rocket, and extremely difficult to build one that's big enough to put people on the moon. Nobody had seriously tried when the SLS was conceived. Developing something like that certainly wasn't an option if you wanted to get American boots on the moon before the end of Bush's second term.
Re: Non-reusable (Score:1)
Developing something like that certainly wasn't an option if you wanted to get American boots on the moon before the end of Bush's second term.
You have utterly failed to address the reason it was not an option, which as Musk has demonstrated, has nothing to do with physics or engineering.
Re: (Score:2)
Lol. May I introduce you to this new website? It's called Google, and you can find it at www.google.com.
You might also try asking around here, nicely.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody had seriously tried when the SLS was conceived.
But now they have, and there is no reason to continue the SLS except for pork. So pork it is!
Developing something like that certainly wasn't an option if you wanted to get American boots on the moon before the end of Bush's second term.
uhh...
Re: (Score:2)
Pork and inertia. Constellation made sense in twenty years ago: take already-developed shuttle hardware, strap it together into a sensible rocket the scale of a Saturn V, and off to the moon and Mars. Low risk, "cheap" and fast. When it was proposed, SpaceX was busy trying to get their little Falcon 1 to not blow up. Twenty years and a name change later, SLS would still make sense, except SpaceX was doing actual innovating and looks like they might (they haven't yet) make it obsolete, possibly before it fli
Re: (Score:2)
https://arstechnica.com/scienc... [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Not to belittle SpaceX's accomplishements, that's an apples and oranges comparison. Falcon 9 is tiny relative to SLS; it can can only lift 22,800 kg to low earth orbit. Falcon Heavy (only partly reusable) can lift 63,800 kg; SLS (not reusable at all) will lift between 95,000 to 130,000 kg depending on block number.
It's a case of different horses for different courses. You wouldn't use a super-heavy lift vehicle to deploy something like Starlink satellites, and you can't use something like Falcon 9 to laun
Re: (Score:2)
Not to belittle SpaceX's accomplishements, that's an apples and oranges comparison. Falcon 9 is tiny relative to SLS; it can can only lift 22,800 kg to low earth orbit. Falcon Heavy (only partly reusable) can lift 63,800 kg; SLS (not reusable at all) will lift between 95,000 to 130,000 kg depending on block number.
This, of course, assumes the rocket ever flies. Right now, it has successfully delivered zero kg to orbit, which is quite a bit less than Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy. It also doesn't take into account one of the most critical aspects of sustainable space exploration: cost per kg. The math there is rather awful for SLS even given the most optimistic appraisal.
It's a case of different horses for different courses. You wouldn't use a super-heavy lift vehicle to deploy something like Starlink satellites, and you can't use something like Falcon 9 to launch a Moon or Mars mission.
True, but this raises the question of whether we're using the most cost-effective strategy for the moon/Mars missions. Remember, von Braun wanted dir
Re: (Score:2)
You are not wrong. But if our objective is deliver payload to the moon, some, including myself, are wondering why not divide that ~100,000 kg of mass into smaller components that can be pushed into 'some' sort of orbit, assembled in space, and then boosted to the moon. Using of course, smaller rockets that exist today...are reusable, etc. Assembling in space is not trivial, but is one of those tasks to start perfecting if we are going to get to an 'Expanse' style space faring culture. Beltalowda!
Aside f
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, you *could* design the mission that way, but would it actually end up cheaper?
It *might*, not because of the intrinsic economics or engineering, but the politics of the thing. If you look at aerospace programs in the 50s-80s, there were many, many companies. They all merged into companies that are now not only too big to fail, but too big not to pay all the bonuses in the contract.
Re: Non-reusable (Score:2)
But that little falcon 9 has flown 8 times.
That is 8 x 22,800 kilos, which is about twice as much as an SLS can do on its one flight.
Re: (Score:2)
And a lot cheaper for things like Starlink. But when something needs to be *big*, chopping it up on the ground and putting it together back in space negates any savings.
Re: (Score:2)
SpaceX's Starship, which is apparently further along than SLS, can put a larger payload into space than SLS. So if we were going to fund something we should have helped fund that.
Hopefully NASA can go crawling back to SpaceX, although if I was Musk I would tell them to F off.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, either way comparing the systems involves pre-hatched chicken counting. Things get real when the vehicle is ready to fly payloads.
Re: (Score:2)
Falcon Heavy (only partly reusable) can lift 63,800 kg; SLS (not reusable at all) will lift between 95,000 to 130,000 kg depending on block number.
It's a case of different horses for different courses.
Falcon Heavy is capable of doing an Apollo-sized moon mission with two launches. It can put 20 tons into TLI (trans lunar injection). Three launches for something bigger. You don't need human pilots for rendezvous any more, so the modules could be sent separately to lunar orbit. CSM would be smaller, and LM will need extra mass to enter lunar orbit, so it balances to keep each within the Falcon Heavy capacity. But we can do better.
The falcon heavy can put around 57 tons in LEO when recovering 2 of 3 boos
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The SLS uses the beautiful R-25 engines from the shuttle - which were designed to be re-used (albeit with massive refurbishment). But SLS will take these re-usable engines, and burn them up and drop them in the ocean. Sad.
Re: (Score:1)
It's even worse than "only" not reusable!
The SLS uses the beautiful R-25 engines from the shuttle - which were designed to be re-used (albeit with massive refurbishment). But SLS will take these re-usable engines, and burn them up and drop them in the ocean. Sad.
Honestly, given the costs associated with refurbishing RS-25's, it's questionable whether much is saved by not junking them. The RS-25 is a fantastically efficient engine, a marvel of engineering much like an F1 race car engine. And, like an F1 race car engine, it's also fantastically fiddly, very intolerant of any deviation from optimal, and requires a massive, expensive crew of people to maintain.
Also, note there are plans to produce an "expendable" version of the RS-25 at lower cost should SLS actually
I did some looking (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: I did some looking (Score:1)
You don't want to weld tanks in orbit.
That is exactly how structures used in space will eventually be created, though the welding will be automated.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The gateway station is a good start, I'm glad they kept it. But we really should be building a lunar cycler or intra-orbit shuttle.
I suppose the lunar lander version of Starship will end up basically being that though.
wrong story (Score:4, Funny)
Crap - main page refresh made me click the wrong link.
Re: (Score:1)
Ah, I see. I was trying to figure out how Trump managed to screw up a rocket engine test after I read your first post.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL yeah - that'd be a head scratcher
I'm not sure what to think here. (Score:4, Interesting)
OK, so the hydraulics had a problem. That seems a . . . odd thing to have issues with as hydraulics are a well quantified and understood phenomenon, but whatever, shit happens. (Sorry, can't help but chuckle. Hydraulics was an integral part of my life for several years as my primary job duty was hauling shit.)
That said, they had a hard target of at least a two minute burn to get all the data that they wanted from this test, and only made it sixty-seven seconds. And now, they're saying they have to assess whether they run another test or not before delivering the rocket? Based on the fact that nearly every test has resulted in, if not abject failure, a "glitch" that results in sub-optimal results, how far are they going to push before they re-assess where they are?
I'd really like to see them succeed, but thus far the record is fairly non-confidence-building. If you factor in Boeings failings outside of their space focused side, it seems like a company on the verge of complete crisis mode.
Rocket Science. (Score:4, Informative)
It's not as simple as "hydraulics".
Short version: Space Shuttle used hydrazine for auxiliary power units that (I suppose) provide hydraulic pressure.
SLS reesigned these APUs to run off hydrogen instead. This modification didn't behave as expected - pressure dropped below a threshold they set for this test.
Re: (Score:2)
This modification didn't behave as expected - pressure dropped below a threshold they set for this test.
Huh, I would have assumed that a non-trivial change to an APU design would involve performance and flow-rate testing on a test bench somewhere, and someone signing off on it as being up to the task.
I would have then thought that they would have done numerous tests with the APUs in their proposed configuration, spinning them up and then gimballing the hell out of the engines in situ until they were happy w
Re: (Score:2)
They commented that the same pressure drop during flight would not have caused problem (still within specification), as the threshold in the test was set "too low" just in case.
APU was likely tested, but this could have been interaction of the whole stack/system (hydrogen fuel gas tank with APU and engine) and a combined effect happened.
Re:I'm not sure what to think here. (Score:4, Funny)
You're missing the bright side of this. This is the first milestone that the SLS program has finished on time.
Actually, about seven minutes early!
Design or Assembly? (Score:3)
The article also includes something interesting in final paragraph, noting that there was another sensor triggered that reported a "major component failure", which was detected 1.5 seconds after the engines ignited. The fact that the engines continued to run for barely over one minute instead of the scheduled 8 doesn't really help us understand whether that "major component failure" also needs to be looked at.
Looking forward to seeing a few more details...
Oddly specific (Score:2)
That is...an oddly specific and low number. Does anyone know the reason why? Is the rocket powered by cats?
Also, am I the only one who immediate thought of this: nine times [youtu.be].
Re: (Score:3)
It's probably due to the thermal stresses when you pour cryogenic fluid into the tanks, and it's probably just an estimate with a safety margin. I thought it was an oddly high number. You'd expect them to build the thing to be filled two or three times: a static fire test and the actual event.
Re: (Score:2)
Good point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Oddly specific (Score:3)
" ...a setback to the company's space ambitions" (Score:2)
Boeing's only ambition should be to provide the US taxpayer with the agreed upon product at the agreed upon price.
Re: (Score:2)
1) you're doing something novel, nobody really knows how much it will cost. (Which I gather is somewhat the case here). Only a few of the largest companies can risk it, and they will charge an exorbitant risk premium to do so.
2) The thing is so complex that it's impossible to fully define all the requirements upfront (as other projects are proceeding in parallel), and so the government ends up changing or clarifying the requirements during the project (this u
Re: (Score:2)
Boeing's only ambition should be to provide the US taxpayer with the agreed upon product at the agreed upon price.
Contracts to produce products are based on goals and/or objectives, so what you describe is Boeing's objective. Boeing failing to deliver the SLS on time, and/or on budget, is a failure to meet an objective. If the worst happens, and the SLS program fails, that is still just a failure to meet the objective.
Ambitions are broader, less-specific, and normally require reaching a number of different goals (or objectives) for realization.
Money (Score:1)
That is the Boeing motivating force. Until NASA gets to the point of no more paying, Boeing will keep on screwing up.
Re: (Score:2)
They only got to first base, if they want to go all the way, and see fireworks, you gota pay up big to Boeing.
Mega conservative constraints (Score:2)
You would too if you invested 10 yrs of your life before lighting the candle. Waaay too much riding on every candle. A candle that is not too big to fail.
Propellants can only be loaded nine times? (Score:2)
Dear Nasa, not again, please? (Score:2)
When you fly spaceships with know defects, it is only a matter of time until people get killed.
If the primary O-ring fails, don't just think: Well the secondary did it's job (it wasn't supposed to be used at all!), it flew already, so let's go again. Boom.
If blocks of ice hit the vehicle all the time, you can think that's normal, but more consideration needs to be paid, because at one point luck will run out. Crash.
Now sending a vehicle on its first trip, while it failed the pre-flight check with the argume