Awesome NASA Megarocket Engine Test Burns Blue (Photo) By Christine Lunsford, Space.com Contributor | November 15, 2016 02:11pm ET Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! An RL10 rocket engine, a proven upper stage engine used in hundreds of space flights over the last 50 years, goes through testing at NASA's West Palm Beach, Florida test facility. Credit: Aerojet Rocketdyne What could be mistaken for a futuristic water cannon is actually a piece of technology developed more than 50 years ago that is destined to help launch NASA's next megarocket, the Space Launch System. The RL10, a rocket engine developed in the 1950s by Pratt & Whitney, flew first in 1963. This engine has traveled to each planet in our solar system, powering spacecraft such as Voyager 1 — the first to reach interstellar space. The RL10 rocket engine out-performs all other current engines and has over half a century of performance and documented reliability to its name. With more than 400 flights, over 15,000 hot fires on record and more than 2.3 million seconds of hot fire operation time with a greater than 0.999 demonstrated reliability during its use, the RL10 has earned its place in history. [The World's Tallest Rockets: How They Stack Up] Because of its stellar record and its technically mature design, this rocket engine will make its way from the history books into the future of human spaceflight. NASA's new Space Launch System, or SLS for short, will utilize this upper stage engine to launch an Orion spacecraft in the latter part of 2018 as well as eventually sending astronauts beyond the moon. Aerojet Rocketdyne of West Palm Beach, Florida will produce several RL10C-3 engines for NASA, powering its several planned deep space missions, with the ultimate goal being NASA's Journey to Mars. According to James Burnum, NASA SLS Liquid Engines RL10 manager, "Engines are one of the most complex rocket elements … We need a reliable engine with a proven track record that has the performance to power humans to deep space." more at http://www.space.com/34547-nasa-megarocket-rl10-engine-test-photo.html
Awesome, mind-bending stagnation. Back to the future with a vengeance. Let's not suggest budget constraints might be dictating 'new technology'. Thankfully, NASA's role model exercise here has not caught on elsewhere, like general aviation, or automobiles, or consumer electronics, or....the list is endless.
NASA is working on perfecting different propulsion methods, but at this time, and with budget constraints, rocket power is still the way to go, particularly escaping Earth's gravity.
I didn't even have in mind so-called 'breakthrough propulsion technology' stuff the likes of Eagleworks play around with. Just the idea of retrofitting a can designed in the 50's, instead of at least redesigning from scratch a more advanced rocket engine seems really cheap thinking. But for sure Budget must be king.
There is a reason but it is a poor excuse. I would rather see funds that go to a seemingly constant need to further prove that GR is valid or establishing that gravity waves exist go to the nuts and bolts side of building better space craft. I have nothing against GR other than it seems to drain an extrodinary amount of money for a gain that I personally can not see helps our conquest of space. The gravity b probe to me seemed an extrodinary expenditure to prove something the theory predicts as if we needed proof, same with gravity waves... The theory predicts them and despite reading near each week "GR proved to be more right than last week" headlines we somehow need more proof??? I could accept that we do not need to build a better faster car, I could accept we can use last years airliner, and I could get by with no more ram on my next lap top but I really do find it absolutely unacceptable that our space program is told to make do. Better rockets also translate to economic return via efficiencies in commercial satellite launches. What benefit did humanity derive from gravity b probe for example. Alex
All scientific endeavour needs to be pursued constantly and existing theories put to tests taking it to its limits. And imo and I'm sure you'll agree, more money would/could be available if world wide militaristic dick waving was eliminated. Just think about the beginning of the space age and the first Satellites. Think of how these have benefited mankind in many scenarios, including agriculture, meteorology, GPS etc etc. I mean could we really do without the simple Satellite today?
A longevity feat afaik unmatched anywhere else. Staggering. Whoever designed it deserved a Nobel prize.
Yes we could.... we need a higher sophistication than Sputnick. I know what you are saying. I read that 100 billion US dollars goes annually to research for new weaponry. This seems extrordinary that so much is spent to kill humans more efficiently. But not one cent towards a protype battle star or killing systems for aliens, the aliens that some of our members can provide evidence. Anyways I thank you for the link I found it very interesting. Alex
river: If you have some actual rocket science to share in this thread, by all means do so. If you have some dreams about anti-gravity propulsion, keep them out of the Science sections unless there's something scientific to say about them. Ok?
