Jump to content


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#16 DocM


    Neowinian Senior

  • 21,483 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 25 January 2013 - 18:39

Yep, that's going to end well :laugh:

Try this;

another engine proposed for SLS is the Aerojet AJ-26-500. It is a remanufactured and up-powered Russian NK-33, which itself is an evolution of the NK-15. NK-15 was the engine used on the 1960's Russian N1 moon rocket - the one that went 0-4 in its test launches before being cancelled, ending Russia's manned lunar ambitions.

The NK-33 engines Aerojet is modifying have been in storage for almost 40 years.

A lower powered version of AJ-26 will be used by Orbital Sciences for their new Antares launcher. Antares is to launch Cygnus, a cargo-only disposable spacecraft that's to attempt an ISS berthing later this year. We'll see.

#17 Detection


    Detecting stuff...

  • 8,369 posts
  • Joined: 30-October 10
  • Location: UK
  • OS: 7 SP1 x64

Posted 25 January 2013 - 18:40

No not really this is more or less them ...

Looking at old technology to see if it could be used and improved for use today. (the design) And since there was still one around instead of building it ... an easy test for their idea.

This is in comparison... taking a look at an Automotive engine and looking for ways to improve it to make it more fuel efficient but in this case it was probably to see if the "GLITCH" could be fixed with a computer managed throttle.

Which would kind of make sense that would be possible now, before it would have to be someone putting codes in a computer (keypad) on a constant basis in order to get the mixture correct. Where now that can be regulated by a computer instead of by hand. That would fix the problem they initially had with the part.

That same neighbor also said their designers thought at the time the differences in fuel time burns were because of the uneven heating of the joints of the fuel lines and atmospheric pressure. Not to mention also that the pre-mixing of the fuel was not at a regulated rate. (but with that many tests it was easier just to go with a different design one that they knew worked.)

I know, I was exaggerating a bit, but my exaggerated comparison would be looking at a 40 year old design of a car that was unsafe to drive and never spent a day on the roads because of it not being safe, and trying to design more cars from that

Personally I would drop that design and look at designs that did get people to space and back safely vs one that was not safe enough to even try

#18 DocM


    Neowinian Senior

  • 21,483 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 25 January 2013 - 18:49

Lockheed Martin has had a super-heavy version of the Atlas V designed for several years.

SpaceX has offered to build their super-heavy for NASA at a price that 's a fraction of the SH Atlas V and an even tinier fraction of SLS's dev cost.

No takers, because the US Senate isn't interested in bang for buck - they want to maximize the amount of pork being spread amongst as many states as possible. That's why the snarky name for SLS (Space Launch System) in the space community is the Senate Launch System.