Largest ever solid rocket booster test fire.

[MacNut]

As testing continues on NASA's new Space Launch System to send astronauts into deep space, today market the first test fire of the biggest solid rocket booster ever.

http://www.space.com/28795-giant-solid-rocket-booster-nasa-test.html

The world's largest solid rocket motor roared to life in Utah Wednesday (March 11), but instead of lifting off the ground, the massive booster, laying on its side, remained in place as data was collected to qualify its use on NASA's new heavy-lift launch vehicle.

Orbital ATK, Inc., the primary contractor building the twin side-mounted boosters for NASA's Space Launch System (SLS), conducted the test fire at its facility in Promontory, Utah. The motor ignited at 11:30 a.m. EST (1530 GMT) as scheduled and burned for a full two minutes.

"It looked really clean, we are really excited," said Charles Precourt, the general manager for Orbital ATK's propulsion systems and a former astronaut. "Really nice result." [See more photos of the SLS test fire]

An advanced, more powerful version of the solid rockets that launched the space shuttle, the first SLS qualification motor (QM-1) put out 3.6 million pounds of thrust, greater than the force of 14 four-engine Boeing 747 jetliners at full take-off power.

"It is a big day for us, the culmination of many years of experience work during the space shuttle program that will transition now to the SLS," Precourt said at a pre-test briefing on Tuesday. "The real success is collecting the information that we need to go further to be able to put [a] crew on the vehicle in a few years."

NASA is building the SLS to fly missions into deep space, with the ultimate goal of sending astronauts to Mars by the 2030s. The first SLS flight, targeted for 2018, will carry an uncrewed Orion spacecraft out beyond low-Earth orbit to test the performance of the integrated system. The first crewed launch is expected to follow in 2021.

When completed, two solid rocket boosters and four main engines (also reused from the shuttle program) will power the SLS's first stage. The boosters will provide more than 75 percent of the thrust needed for the rocket to escape Earth's gravitational pull.

 

[quagmire]

I'm more interested in what boosters will replace the SRB's for the 130t version. I hate solid fuel for manned vehicles. I hope NASA selects the Pyros booster which will revive the F-1 engine.

 

[obeygiant]

Like me after like 4 burritos

 

[vkd]

We never hear about excessive increases in fuel charges for NASA do we? I am sure that if they were charged at a rate comparative to the general consumer, generated income could allow the consumer a massive discount.

 

[hallux]

We never hear about excessive increases in fuel charges for NASA do we? I am sure that if they were charged at a rate comparative to the general consumer, generated income could allow the consumer a massive discount.

Except this isn't exactly a petroleum-based fuel so it'll have minimal impact on our gas prices.

 

[rhett7660]

Like me after like 4 burritos

I feel for the porcelain thrones after a day/evening of eating four burritos. The sights, the sounds, and last but not least the stench. HAHA Poor thing will never be the same.

 

[APlotdevice]

We never hear about excessive increases in fuel charges for NASA do we? I am sure that if they were charged at a rate comparative to the general consumer, generated income could allow the consumer a massive discount.

The general consumer doesn't use Hydrogen or Aluminum as fuel.

 

[ChrisA]

We never hear about excessive increases in fuel charges for NASA do we? I am sure that if they were charged at a rate comparative to the general consumer, generated income could allow the consumer a massive discount.

You do know that this "fuel" is a mixture of rubber and aluminum power.

What would that have to do with consumers?

 

[aaronvan]

Check out this aerial photo of the test:

 

[Huntn]

Does the new system include liquid fuel? I assume it does. I found this interesting: Liquid vs solid fuel rockets.


Solid-fuel- Very stable, durable. Can't be turned off- once the burn starts, it goes until fuel is used up. More thrust for a similar size rocket. Fuel decomposes, must be replaced.

Liquid fuel- Variable thrust- the amount of fuel and rate of burn can be changed in flight. Fragile, many complex parts. Liquid-fuel boosters are more easily re-usable. Oxidizer (liquid oxygen) must be kept extremely cold.

Researched it. For anyone who wants to know more about NASA's SLS: http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/SLS-Fact-Sheet_aug2014-finalv3.pdf

 

[quagmire]

Does the new system include liquid fuel? I assume it does. I found this interesting: Liquid vs solid fuel rockets.


Solid-fuel- Very stable, durable. Can't be turned off- once the burn starts, it goes until fuel is used up. More thrust for a similar size rocket. Fuel decomposes, must be replaced.

Liquid fuel- Variable thrust- the amount of fuel and rate of burn can be changed in flight. Fragile, many complex parts. Liquid-fuel boosters are more easily re-usable. Oxidizer (liquid oxygen) must be kept extremely cold.

Researched it. For anyone who wants to know more about NASA's SLS: http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/SLS-Fact-Sheet_aug2014-finalv3.pdf

The SLS will be using the RS-25's from the Space Shuttle as apart of the core stage and aided by the 5 segment SRB. Both will be ditched in the ocean. NASA has 16 remaining RS-25D's from the Shuttle program. Granted if SLS survives beyond 4 launches, they will switch to the RS-25E's which would be more economical to be expendable( the RS-25D's being more complex due to being reusable).

The upper stage will be based off the Delta IV's upper stage using the RL10 engine. Though it is planned to eventually switch over to the J-2X( a revival of the Saturn V's second and third stage engine), but there is already talk of scrapping the J-2X already and sticking with the RL10.

That is just for the 70t version( pretty much think Saturn 1B). There will be an 130t version( Saturn V) which will need a new booster to replace the SRB's. One of the proposals is to revive the F-1 engine( Saturn V first stage engine) for use in a booster( each booster containing two F-1B's). Orbital ATK I think has a proposal in for a next-gen SRB( this one being more than a Shuttle SRB with one extra segment) and Aerojet proposing a booster based on the NK-33 engine. Though after the Antares explosion, think that one is out of the window.....

I am in favor of the F-1B based booster. One liquid in my eyes is much safer than solids for manned vehicles. Once lit, they are lit. As proved by a Delta II explosion, any defect in the SRB will result in it going boom. And if NASA detected the leak from Challenger's SRB, there was nothing they could do anyway beside hope things hold up until SRB sep. And the F-1B booster would boost the capacity of the 130t SLS to 150t. Orbital ATK has also stated with the core stage going from 5 RS-25's down to 4 RS-25's, their new booster would only be able to get ~115t into LEO.

 

[Huntn]

The SLS will be using the RS-25's from the Space Shuttle as apart of the core stage and aided by the 5 segment SRB. Both will be ditched in the ocean. NASA has 16 remaining RS-25D's from the Shuttle program. Granted if SLS survives beyond 4 launches, they will switch to the RS-25E's which would be more economical to be expendable( the RS-25D's being more complex due to being reusable).

The upper stage will be based off the Delta IV's upper stage using the RL10 engine. Though it is planned to eventually switch over to the J-2X( a revival of the Saturn V's second and third stage engine), but there is already talk of scrapping the J-2X already and sticking with the RL10.

That is just for the 70t version( pretty much think Saturn 1B). There will be an 130t version( Saturn V) which will need a new booster to replace the SRB's. One of the proposals is to revive the F-1 engine( Saturn V first stage engine) for use in a booster( each booster containing two F-1B's). Orbital ATK I think has a proposal in for a next-gen SRB( this one being more than a Shuttle SRB with one extra segment) and Aerojet proposing a booster based on the NK-33 engine. Though after the Antares explosion, think that one is out of the window.....

I am in favor of the F-1B based booster. One liquid in my eyes is much safer than solids for manned vehicles. Once lit, they are lit. As proved by a Delta II explosion, any defect in the SRB will result in it going boom. And if NASA detected the leak from Challenger's SRB, there was nothing they could do anyway beside hope things hold up until SRB sep. And the F-1B booster would boost the capacity of the 130t SLS to 150t. Orbital ATK has also stated with the core stage going from 5 RS-25's down to 4 RS-25's, their new booster would only be able to get ~115t into LEO.

Thanks for the info! I've never liked large solid fueled boosters because once lit you are committed. No off switch. That seems primitive and dangerous. Is there a capsule ejection mechanism? I'd assume no.

 

[quagmire]

Thanks for the info! I've never liked large solid fueled boosters because once lit you are committed. No off switch. That seems primitive and dangerous. Is there a capsule ejection mechanism? I'd assume no.

Yeah unlike Shuttle, Orion will have an abort system much like Apollo.

 

[aaronvan]

Yeah unlike Shuttle, Orion will have an abort system much like Apollo.

And a re-entry like Apollo and a capsule like Apollo.

 

[APlotdevice]

And a re-entry like Apollo and a capsule like Apollo.

Yeah, but considerably larger.

 

[aaronvan]

Yeah, but considerably larger.

No doubt much higher-tech as well. Still, I was slightly disappointed when NASA eschewed a glide-back system. Landing under parachutes is so 1960s.

 

[quagmire]

No doubt much higher-tech as well. Still, I was slightly disappointed when NASA eschewed a glide-back system. Landing under parachutes is so 1960s.

Lunar reentry speeds are much higher than LEO reentry speeds. A winged aircraft would not be able to survive such a reentry. Capsules are still the best for beyond LEO missions.

 

[aaronvan]

Lunar reentry speeds are much higher than LEO reentry speeds. A winged aircraft would not be able to survive such a reentry. Capsules are still the best for beyond LEO missions.

That makes sense.

 

[vkd]

You do know that this "fuel" is a mixture of rubber and aluminum power.

What would that have to do with consumers?

What nonsense are you spouting here? Obviously yet another psychonaut.

 

[quagmire]

What nonsense are you spouting here? Obviously yet another psychonaut.

The SRB's are solid fuel and do not use any fossil fuels. The propellent is called ammonium perchlorate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonium_perchlorate_composite_propellant

The liquid engines the SLS will use( the RS-25's and RL10) use liquid oxygen and hydrogen.

These fuels bear no impact on oil prices( and thus gas prices).

But given your response to Chris, you're more concerned about getting a reaction than a serious discussion.