User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 8:40:44 PM EDT
[#1]
After today's abort, the next SLS test will probably be 2 years from now.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 8:42:37 PM EDT
[#2]
At least SLS has an actual abort system that can be used while the SRBs are burning. Would have needed it.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 8:44:03 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DK-Prof: That's the thing that is so bizarre (and frustrating) to me about this. As you said, those specific four engines have literally ALREADY flown in space. There is nothing new or experimental about the technology. Everything should be well-understood and almost ROUTINE about lighting those engines and running them for 8 minutes. Furthermore, they have had these four engines installed on the core for over a year, leading up to this test. 14 months to make sure everything is working right, and they still couldn't get it to function properly.  Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DK-Prof: Originally Posted By NwG: Originally Posted By Master_of_Orion: yep was supposed to go for 8min. This is why you test. This is why SpaceX rapidly tests. Whereas the other companies "certify" and attempt to make things absolutely perfect before they ever test... and still end up with issues. Certifying every individual piece is a slow process that lets the company keep billing the customer... and with cost plus contracting there is no pressure or consequence for missing a deadline... in fact dragging their feet and missing deadlines just gets them paid more... The engines they used for the test have flown on the shuttle. They have had nearly a decade at least to certify. That's the thing that is so bizarre (and frustrating) to me about this. As you said, those specific four engines have literally ALREADY flown in space. There is nothing new or experimental about the technology. Everything should be well-understood and almost ROUTINE about lighting those engines and running them for 8 minutes. Furthermore, they have had these four engines installed on the core for over a year, leading up to this test. 14 months to make sure everything is working right, and they still couldn't get it to function properly. Cue the 'He's Right' meme... 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 9:33:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: broken_reticle]
[#4]
The video from the NASA. Looks like NASA is trying to up their game and look more like SpaceX presentations. And failing. The only interesting part starts around 2:05
 Hot Fire Engine Test for the Artemis Moon Rocket |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 9:37:35 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By broken_reticle: The video from the NASA. Looks like NASA is trying to up their game and look more like SpaceX presentations. And failing. The only interesting part starts around 2:05  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELHOXi2t3lkI watched a fair amount of the pregame show, it was terrible. Especially for a test stand run. No booster landings, no flying water tanks, no backflips and no explosions. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 9:55:51 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DK-Prof: That's the thing that is so bizarre (and frustrating) to me about this. As you said, those specific four engines have literally ALREADY flown in space. There is nothing new or experimental about the technology. Everything should be well-understood and almost ROUTINE about lighting those engines and running them for 8 minutes. Furthermore, they have had these four engines installed on the core for over a year, leading up to this test. 14 months to make sure everything is working right, and they still couldn't get it to function properly. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DK-Prof: Originally Posted By NwG: Originally Posted By Master_of_Orion: yep was supposed to go for 8min. This is why you test. This is why SpaceX rapidly tests. Whereas the other companies "certify" and attempt to make things absolutely perfect before they ever test... and still end up with issues. Certifying every individual piece is a slow process that lets the company keep billing the customer... and with cost plus contracting there is no pressure or consequence for missing a deadline... in fact dragging their feet and missing deadlines just gets them paid more... The engines they used for the test have flown on the shuttle. They have had nearly a decade at least to certify. That's the thing that is so bizarre (and frustrating) to me about this. As you said, those specific four engines have literally ALREADY flown in space. There is nothing new or experimental about the technology. Everything should be well-understood and almost ROUTINE about lighting those engines and running them for 8 minutes. Furthermore, they have had these four engines installed on the core for over a year, leading up to this test. 14 months to make sure everything is working right, and they still couldn't get it to function properly. We've had planes that sat in the back of the shop, waiting on either parts (which could be an availability problem or a budget problem) or someone available to work on them (same thing, could be budget or just no free time), for a year or more before they would get dragged out for a ground run on the 'new' (well, they were new when they were installed) engines. Never goes completely right. Something always turns out to have gotten gummed up from sitting, or got taken apart more than once (for installing different things) and somebody got something wrong the last time they put it together (likely thinking it would be taken apart again, or that they would have time to doublecheck it later). If you want the ground run to go right, put the damn thing together and have it doing ground runs in the same month. Shop I used to work at, almost always started doing the ground runs about two weeks after we had started pulling the old engines off, and most ground runs didn't need anything more than some minor tweaks. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 10:14:25 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hesperus: How come the lunar variants look so fancy? NASA requirements? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2021 10:16:41 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NwG: At least SLS has an actual abort system that can be used while the SRBs are burning. Would have needed it. I wonder if they'll fly them outside the ATK environmental envelope. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2021 11:06:43 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DK-Prof: That's the thing that is so bizarre (and frustrating) to me about this. As you said, those specific four engines have literally ALREADY flown in space. There is nothing new or experimental about the technology. Everything should be well-understood and almost ROUTINE about lighting those engines and running them for 8 minutes. Furthermore, they have had these four engines installed on the core for over a year, leading up to this test. 14 months to make sure everything is working right, and they still couldn't get it to function properly. The saddest thing is If you watched the press conference they were all patting themselves on the back about how exciting this day has been and how this is a great day for the stennis center. Just a bunch of wheezy old guys truly not giving a shit. It really ruined my confidence in them. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2021 11:44:04 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Yobro512: The saddest thing is If you watched the press conference they were all patting themselves on the back about how exciting this day has been and how this is a great day for the stennis center. Just a bunch of wheezy old guys truly not giving a shit. It really ruined my confidence in them. Yup. They said the next step was to ship it down to FL to mated to the stack...one guy in the stream chat said they must be reading off a preplanned script and didn't know how to wing it Only a minute run time out of 8 is bad. These weren't new designed engines like what SpaceX is doing. Money is being wasted with SLS. I'd be surprised if the thing ever leaves the pad |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2021 12:50:58 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dapzel: Yup. They said the next step was to ship it down to FL to mated to the stack...one guy in the stream chat said they must be reading off a preplanned script and didn't know how to wing it Only a minute run time out of 8 is bad. These weren't new designed engines like what SpaceX is doing. Money is being wasted with SLS. I'd be surprised if the thing ever leaves the pad SLS is actually a massive success. It's primary objective is funneling money to Alabama/Michoud, Boeing, Lockheed, and Northrop... The big rocket thingy is just a side effect. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2021 12:53:13 PM EDT
[#12]
SN10 getting close to done:
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2021 12:55:49 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By webtaz99: No landing pads on the Moon (yet), so engines are up high so they don't kick up as much junk. That, and NASA stroking things. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By webtaz99: Originally Posted By Hesperus: How come the lunar variants look so fancy? NASA requirements? Yep. It's optimized towards being a ferry between the lunar surface and orbit, the regular Starship is more general-purpose. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2021 1:36:24 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Neotopiaman: SN10 getting close to done: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Er29ZI5W8AAkmBt?format=jpg&name=4096x4096 So beautiful! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2021 10:32:08 PM EDT
[#15]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2021 10:45:39 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Neotopiaman: Yep. It's optimized towards being a ferry between the lunar surface and orbit, the regular Starship is more general-purpose. If nothing else. 100tons (850m3 pressurized volume) to orbit for <$100million will change history. |
|
|
|
AL, USA
|
Posted: 1/17/2021 10:52:02 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DK-Prof: That's the thing that is so bizarre (and frustrating) to me about this. As you said, those specific four engines have literally ALREADY flown in space. There is nothing new or experimental about the technology. Everything should be well-understood and almost ROUTINE about lighting those engines and running them for 8 minutes. Furthermore, they have had these four engines installed on the core for over a year, leading up to this test. 14 months to make sure everything is working right, and they still couldn't get it to function properly. According to Scott Manley - the thrust vectoring is powered entirely differently from the shuttle - and 67 seconds is about when they started to test thrust vectoring. It wasnt just an 8 minute burn test - it was a mission profile test. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2021 7:22:26 PM EDT
[#18]
good update from NSF
 Starship SN9 Has Raptor Engines Swapped After First Ever Triple Static Fire |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2021 7:26:29 PM EDT
[#19]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2021 9:37:13 PM EDT
[#20]
  
|
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 8:00:47 AM EDT
[#21]
I’ve been thinking the deep water drilling rig builders in Ingleside/Corpus would be the most logical contractors to build the proposed offshore launch platforms.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 8:06:51 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Chokey:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EsDix4VW8AADBwH?format=jpg&name=4096x4096 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EsDj9nyXcAM17zR?format=jpg&name=4096x4096 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EsDj-v2XcAEvws-?format=jpg&name=medium
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 10:26:30 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By agBQ08: I’ve been thinking the deep water drilling rig builders in Ingleside/Corpus would be the most logical contractors to build the proposed offshore launch platforms. Just one of the many reasons why locating on the TX coast was a logical decision. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 2:08:42 PM EDT
[#24]
3.5 mil per rig. That’s scrap value. He fucking stole those rigs.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 2:09:27 PM EDT
[#25]
Also, SLS core can be re-tested as-is with a software tweak. No damage.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 2:26:15 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HeavyMetal: Also, SLS core can be re-tested as-is with a software tweak. No damage. Depends on whether it's Aerojet Rocketdyne software or Boeing software...
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 2:33:05 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SGT-Fish: I didn't know the other numbers you posted, but that is incredible. Still is funny that ULA didn't pick the raptor engine and instead went with BO. I bet they are kicking themselves as the raptor has already flown 3 times! And Elon said they should be down to 200k each when the design stabilizes and production starts. I assume that's before static fires to test each one. I knew $2m was relatively cheap, but didnt realize it was THAT much cheaper 200k per engine is likely one third the cost of an APU on an A320 jet. At 200k that’s a deep overhaul for a PT-6 turboprop. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 2:34:34 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By vmpglenn: Depends on whether it's Aerojet Rocketdyne software or Boeing software... Lockheed owns Aerojet-Rocketdyne now... Pretty soon there is going to be a monopoly or duopoly for everything military related.... 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 2:36:57 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SGT-Fish: I didn't know the other numbers you posted, but that is incredible. Still is funny that ULA didn't pick the raptor engine and instead went with BO. I bet they are kicking themselves as the raptor has already flown 3 times! And Elon said they should be down to 200k each when the design stabilizes and production starts. I assume that's before static fires to test each one. I knew $2m was relatively cheap, but didnt realize it was THAT much cheaper I don't think the Raptor was a option for ULA. A Raptor-powered Vulcan would have a large performance increase over the BE-4... It's better than the BE4 in pretty much every way. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 2:48:30 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Screechjet1: 200k per engine is likely one third the cost of an APU on an A320 jet. At 200k that’s a deep overhaul for a PT-6 turboprop. It helps that SpaceX is so vertically integrated and the engineers can all talk to each other. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 3:15:54 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By vmpglenn: Depends on whether it's Aerojet Rocketdyne software or Boeing software... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 3:17:17 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Neotopiaman: I don't think the Raptor was a option for ULA. A Raptor-powered Vulcan would have a large performance increase over the BE-4... It's better than the BE4 in pretty much every way.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 3:50:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 58Teague]
[#33]
Originally Posted By Neotopiaman: SN10 getting close to done: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Er29ZI5W8AAkmBt?format=jpg&name=4096x4096 Couple of Airstream trailers in the top right. That's a nice commute to work. Originally Posted By HeavyMetal: 3.5 mil per rig. That’s scrap value. He fucking stole those rigs. Holy hell that's a bargain. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 3:55:10 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cypher15: Based on the last reported figures for the BE-4. God only knows what they can actually do. BO never talks about anything..lol A three-engine Raptor Vulcan would have more thrust, higher ISP, and weigh less too. BE-4 is not a bad engine BTW, especially for a first try... The Raptor just shits on every other rocket engines' face. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 4:29:39 PM EDT
[#35]
LOL @ Scotty's new video title. I admit I didn't really care about Virgin Orbit up until now, but from my understanding they are set to operate from Cornwall as well, so that will be something good for the whole UK space program
Still launching more payload than Blue Origin. Virgin Reaches Orbit With The Help of Cosmic Girl  Virgin Reaches Orbit With The Help of Cosmic Girl |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 5:41:36 PM EDT
[#36]
  
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 6:10:58 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HeavyMetal: 3.5 mil per rig. That's scrap value. He fucking stole those rigs. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HeavyMetal: 3.5 mil per rig. That's scrap value. He fucking stole those rigs. Yep  ENSCO also says it will construct another 8500 rig at a cost of $515 million with a delivery date in the second half of 2011. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 6:24:17 PM EDT
[#38]
Rumor is he bought three more identical rigs.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 6:40:09 PM EDT
[#39]
Interesting that this news broke just before the inauguration. Coincidence?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 7:26:22 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Chokey:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EsDix4VW8AADBwH?format=jpg&name=4096x4096 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EsDj9nyXcAM17zR?format=jpg&name=4096x4096 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EsDj-v2XcAEvws-?format=jpg&name=medium Ok, now someone figure out what Destroyer that is in the foreground. I'm guessing it's one of the Sherman's by the superstructure... but it's hard to be sure. My guess is USS Barry. Formerly a Museum in Washington. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 8:35:04 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ASUsax: Ok, now someone figure out what Destroyer that is in the foreground. I'm guessing it's one of the Sherman's by the superstructure... but it's hard to be sure. My guess is USS Barry. Formerly a Museum in Washington. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ASUsax: Originally Posted By Chokey:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EsDix4VW8AADBwH?format=jpg&name=4096x4096 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EsDj9nyXcAM17zR?format=jpg&name=4096x4096 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EsDj-v2XcAEvws-?format=jpg&name=medium Ok, now someone figure out what Destroyer that is in the foreground. I'm guessing it's one of the Sherman's by the superstructure... but it's hard to be sure. My guess is USS Barry. Formerly a Museum in Washington. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 8:57:47 PM EDT
[#42]
What if Musk bought the destroyers too?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2021 10:28:27 AM EDT
[#43]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2021 10:39:25 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Chokey: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EsLn3MIXEAIMkb7?format=jpg&name=medium What's going on there ? Upper header tank with some pretty hefty dents ? That's a lot more than just 'oil canning'. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2021 10:41:53 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dagger41: What's going on there ? Upper header tank with some pretty hefty dents ? That's a lot more than just 'oil canning'. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dagger41: Originally Posted By Chokey: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EsLn3MIXEAIMkb7?format=jpg&name=medium What's going on there ? Upper header tank with some pretty hefty dents ? That's a lot more than just 'oil canning'. SN7.2 with thinner stainless steel, only 3mm thick. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2021 11:07:08 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DK-Prof: That's the thing that is so bizarre (and frustrating) to me about this. As you said, those specific four engines have literally ALREADY flown in space. There is nothing new or experimental about the technology. Everything should be well-understood and almost ROUTINE about lighting those engines and running them for 8 minutes. Furthermore, they have had these four engines installed on the core for over a year, leading up to this test. 14 months to make sure everything is working right, and they still couldn't get it to function properly. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DK-Prof: Originally Posted By NwG: Originally Posted By Master_of_Orion: yep was supposed to go for 8min. This is why you test. This is why SpaceX rapidly tests. Whereas the other companies "certify" and attempt to make things absolutely perfect before they ever test... and still end up with issues. Certifying every individual piece is a slow process that lets the company keep billing the customer... and with cost plus contracting there is no pressure or consequence for missing a deadline... in fact dragging their feet and missing deadlines just gets them paid more... The engines they used for the test have flown on the shuttle. They have had nearly a decade at least to certify. That's the thing that is so bizarre (and frustrating) to me about this. As you said, those specific four engines have literally ALREADY flown in space. There is nothing new or experimental about the technology. Everything should be well-understood and almost ROUTINE about lighting those engines and running them for 8 minutes. Furthermore, they have had these four engines installed on the core for over a year, leading up to this test. 14 months to make sure everything is working right, and they still couldn't get it to function properly. This whole SLS program is a fucking joke at this point. It really is and everyone involved from the top brass to the janitor at Michoud should be embarrassed. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2021 11:07:48 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HeavyMetal: 3.5 mil per rig. That’s scrap value. He fucking stole those rigs. Well with Trump banning offshore drilling in the gulf, I bet they lost a lot of value. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2021 11:10:24 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Neotopiaman: SLS is actually a massive success. It's primary objective is funneling money to Alabama/Michoud, Boeing, Lockheed, and Northrop... The big rocket thingy is just a side effect. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Neotopiaman: Originally Posted By Dapzel: Yup. They said the next step was to ship it down to FL to mated to the stack...one guy in the stream chat said they must be reading off a preplanned script and didn't know how to wing it Only a minute run time out of 8 is bad. These weren't new designed engines like what SpaceX is doing. Money is being wasted with SLS. I'd be surprised if the thing ever leaves the pad SLS is actually a massive success. It's primary objective is funneling money to Alabama/Michoud, Boeing, Lockheed, and Northrop... The big rocket thingy is just a side effect.  Attached FileIt's basically a jobs program and they can all pat themselves on the back for hiring a lot of minorities and women, while wasting the fuck out of tax payers money. As a kid I was in awe of the Space Program and respected NASA....now I realize it has turned into just a big damn joke. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2021 3:20:16 PM EDT
[#49]
possible static fire today
 ABORT: Starship SN9 Static Fire Attempts Aborted |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2021 3:53:44 PM EDT
[#50]
The Holy Hand Grenade is sitting next to SN9 now
|
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
