It wasn't a big headline story, but the SLS program ran a couple of tests in the last week in an effort to keep the program alive. We know from talk essentially since Trump's inauguration that he has not been a fan of the program. During talk about how the Artemis moon landings ought to happen, we learned that the administration wants to end SLS after just three launches, while the preliminary text of a bill making its way through Congress would extend it to five flights.
For the second time in less than a week, NASA test-fired new propulsion hardware Thursday that the agency would need to keep SLS alive. Last Friday, a new liquid-fueled RS-25 engine ignited on a test stand at NASA's Stennis Space Center in Mississippi. The hydrogen-fueled engine is the first of its kind to be manufactured since the end of the Space Shuttle program. This particular RS-25 engine is assigned to power the fifth flight of the SLS rocket, a mission known as Artemis V.
Then, on Thursday of this week, NASA and Northrop Grumman test-fired a new solid rocket booster (SRB) in Utah. This booster features a new design that NASA would use to power SLS rockets beginning with the ninth mission, or Artemis IX. The motor tested on Thursday isn't flight-worthy. It's a test unit that engineers will use to gather data on the rocket's performance.
The new SRB is referred to as BOLE for Booster Obsolescence and Life Extension. While the test of the new production liquid fueled RS-25 apparently went as planned, the solid rocket booster self-destructed in under two minutes, less time than it's supposed to run. You can watch it in this video that's set to start within 10 seconds of the explosion. A strange appearance before the engine bell disappears is visible at 22:12 on the time line. Few seconds later a large blast is visible.
We've covered this material many times, but the RS-25 engines leftover from the Shuttle era are running out and the replacements are prohibitively expensive (a two-word description of the entire SLS).
Recognizing that shuttle-era parts will eventually run out, NASA signed a contract with Aerojet Rocketdyne to set the stage for the production of new RS-25 engines in 2015. NASA later ordered an initial batch of six RS-25 engines from Aerojet, then added 18 more to the order in 2020, at a price of about $100 million per engine. NASA and its contractor aim to reduce the cost to $70 million per engine, but even that figure is many times the cost of engines of comparable size and power: Blue Origin's BE-4 and SpaceX's Raptor.
Some old data that I've posted before says the BE-4 engines cost less than $20 million each while SpaceX is working to push the similarly powerful Raptor rocket engine costs even lower, to less than $1 million per engine. Yes that means for four engines of the same power as the RS-25, SLS is running $400 million, BE-4s cost $80 million and I'll just say SpaceX is cheaper still and I won't go with the $4 million number implied there.
An engineering evaluation booster exploding is not an indictment of the SLS program, but it's not a very good thing, either.
An uncontained plume of exhaust appeared near the nozzle of an SLS solid rocket booster moments before its nozzle was destroyed during a test-firing Thursday. Credit: NASA
I'm kind of impressed the nozzles keep blowing off but the rocket does not explode. In the olden days, solid rockets / boosters were chosen because they were less expensive. And storable for the weapons side. I am curious if that cost situation has changed because of SpaceX improving reusable liquid boosters or the legacy rocket companies are so incompetent in building the solid rockets.
ReplyDeleteOne of the selling points of the old shuttle SRBs were that they were supposed to be configurable. Need more boost? Add a segment or two. Need less? Take a segment or two off.
ReplyDeleteOne of the ARES variations had 2 extended boosters and two shortened boosters around the main body. Configurable. Simple pricing: Nozzle Section, Solid Fuel Sections, Cap. Ya pays what ya wants.
So, instead, we get a new explody pricy booster for a system that everyone knows is going away.
"Need more boost? Add a segment or two." And that's exactly what they did to make the Shuttle SRB into the SLS booster. Remember SLS = "Shuttles' Leftover Shit."
DeleteYep. And it was a selling point for the original Shuttle as they also did side work on a HLV using the Shuttle's main tank, extended, with RS25s on the base.
DeleteThe whole ARES series of rockets was just the latest derivation of Shuttle vehicles. The designers at the time of designing the Shuttle also did it. And then a couple years later with Mars Direct. And then ARES. And I'm sure about 2-3 more times.
Then there's the studies, from initially creating the Shuttle to, well, almost ARES, where two short stack boosters would be added to the Shuttle stack in order to boost the main tank into orbit for use as a lab or fuel depot or parts of a space station. Or use extended Shuttle boosters and add some Delta or Atlas boosters.
Add a segment. Add a booster or two. It was all supposed to be Space Legos.
And, as I said, studies from Day 1 of the Shuttle program all did the same thing as what we eventually got with ARES1 and SLS. So much money wasted. So much time wasted. So much skull sweat wasted. So many opportunities wasted.
Sad, very sad.
When do we do what is right and simply stop funding this boondoggle?
ReplyDeleteNo one gets upset (except the.laid off engineers) when the..mil cancels an aerospace project.
Why are we continuing to fund replacements for items beyond the projected 3-5 launches of this debacle? it will keep getting funding and zombie shuffle on for years, if it is not terminated with prejudice now.
Differ
"When do we do what is right and simply stop funding this boondoggle?"
DeleteIt's purely speculation, but my guess is that with all that "cost-plus contract" money, people behind the scenes built elaborate networks to route percentages back to the congress critters. It's not like DOGE didn't find a ton of that kind of stuff wherever they looked.
Last October I put up a post called The Sad Truth is We're Stuck With SLS and said, "We're currently in 1960s-style "moon race" and we're headed for a loss. Everything has been sliding farther out; nothing is ahead of schedule. " Somewhere along the line, the goal of going to establish a presence on the moon got replaced by feeding as much money back to contractors and the elected officials as they could manage.
Purely my opinion.
I agree with your opinion. An engine test in UT? An engine test is MS? In how many states are there facilities ostensibly working on the same project? It's obvious that this is the doings of congresscritters.
DeleteIf their electability goes up, if contractors and machinist unions et al donate to their campaign, even if dollars flow into their personal fortune, it was worth it to bring jobs to the great state of (your state name).
Aerojet built a huge test facility in the Everglades. Only to basically use it twice for a program that got cancelled. So this has been going on for decades.
DeleteAs to Utah, solid rocket testing in wide open spaces has been recently proven to be a darned good thing.
When I read of the two tests, very soon after the tests, probably Space News, but I am not certain, straight away I thought these tests are to show performance per contract.
ReplyDeleteContracts can be rather loose in how often and how much performance must be shown. However stipulated, these are always minimum standards.
An engine test every xx months may be all that is necessary to keep the contract alive. That is a downside of the cost+
Traditionally it has been the VP at the head of fedgov space projects; a person, not a committee. Consider if Vance rode heavy on NASA. Even terminating SLS. Who else? If not SLS, a gov program, everything would then shift to private endeavors.
For decades there has been the cry, even from engineers and others (retired now, but in the past working for the contractors) that space must be private. Fedgov out. We're now at a point when this is eminently feasible.
A problem is there is really only one private enterprise capable and qualified. I continue to wonder how anti-trust laws would respond in this. Yet it is not as if Space X has sought to quell the competitors. Indeed, Sp X has sought to encourage its competitors. Still, I think this would open an opportunity for detractors to hamper Sp X like never before.
At this point, I say the SLS work is behaving like DARPA. Some good and exciting work, occasionally, but mostly a huge money pit.
DeleteI've been following Rocket Lab's efforts with Electron and Neutron vehicles. While they are not in the SpaceX league they are having a good launch/orbit success rate. They are piling up material, technical and fuel experience that will get them into a SpaceX younger brother position. With a bit of competition from them and maybe one of the national agencies, JAXA, we may see some launch costs ease and finally drive a stake in those cost plus vampires.
DeleteDon't forget that Rocket Lab's Electron is the fastest commercially developed, orbital-class rocket to make 50 successful missions. A few months ahead of the Falcon 9, almost exactly one year ago.
DeleteI thought one of the things all of us agreed on was the complete and total insanity of using SRBs in manned space missions. It is time to put a bullet in the ridiculous SLS. In fact it is years later then time to have pushed that rubbish out of the way.
ReplyDeleteShut it down.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is our "fearless leaders" (cough - NASA) have painted themselves and us (the country) into a corner. When they started this program (2012 IIRC) and they came up with this weird architecture with the Lunar Gateway, they made doing it any other way harder. They can throw away all the other money they've spent, but there's concern that handicapping ourselves is giving the moon to China. At least, that's the way I read it.
DeleteI know. (shakes head sadly) They probably even make parts in every congressional district.
Delete