Author Topic: WaPo Article Critical of A-3 Test Stand  (Read 12890 times)

Offline quanthasaquality

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 146
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: WaPo Article Critical of A-3 Test Stand
« Reply #20 on: 12/16/2014 06:57 PM »
I guess NASA could offer to test the J-2X engine. The J-2X could be used on future stages, or even on the DUUS. NASA might want to mention this for political reasons.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10513
  • Liked: 2116
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: WaPo Article Critical of A-3 Test Stand
« Reply #21 on: 12/16/2014 07:05 PM »
So he's a tea party supporter, but also a government contractor, also a union member, also unhappy at "government waste" but also perfectly willing to take the money...

And we blame the worker instead of the politicians who authorized it?

Look, I'm not a Tea Party supporter by any means, but if Congress authorized taxpayer money to be spent it's going to be spent, so blaming the people that worked on the contract - regardless if they knew it was pork or not - is nonproductive.

Where exactly did I "blame" him? I just wouldn't hold him up as the example of virtue ("powerful statement from an average U.S. taxpayer") that you did in your earlier post. The guy himself took taxpayer money.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10513
  • Liked: 2116
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: WaPo Article Critical of A-3 Test Stand
« Reply #22 on: 12/16/2014 07:07 PM »
Just noted another problem with the article: the claim that the space station was supposed to cost $8 billion. Not really a fair comparison, because the ISS as built is not what was proposed in the early 1980s. Didn't include the Russians, for one thing. And the final cost the reporter cites includes transportation costs. It's a comparison of two different things.

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16556
  • Liked: 731
  • Likes Given: 250
Re: WaPo Article Critical of A-3 Test Stand
« Reply #23 on: 12/16/2014 07:43 PM »
A little additional perspective in Brian Berger's story on SpaceNews:
http://spacenews.com/nasas-a-3-test-stand-branded-a-349-million-monument-to-its-drift/

Quote
Never mind that Bloomberg wrote almost the same story nearly a year ago; the Post’s piece puts NASA in a rather harsh spotlight just as a new Congress is about to be seated

Nice job showing how prominently this was placed in the print edition -- above the fold.  (Probably same as other pieces in the series.)

Offline daveklingler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 424
  • Liked: 98
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: WaPo Article Critical of A-3 Test Stand
« Reply #24 on: 12/16/2014 08:00 PM »
Last time I checked, atmospheric pressure wasn't 40psi.  Or am I missing something?

Offline rcoppola

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1936
  • USA
  • Liked: 1173
  • Likes Given: 438
Re: WaPo Article Critical of A-3 Test Stand
« Reply #25 on: 12/16/2014 08:29 PM »
Yeah, NASA does what Congress tells them to do.
This is such a cop-out. It should have been the responsibility of NASA's top management to actively campaign against and eliminate waste like that.

There are huge opportunity costs involved here. Why was ASRG cancelled, again ?
Remember how NASA tried to stop SLS but Congress took them out to the wood shed and told them to start building it...
Yes. But I also remember that the Administration / NASA cancelled the Constellation program (justifiably so) but then failed to provide a coherent plan forward. Nature abhors a vacuum. So Congress filled it and well...here we are. This is all a well tread road of incompetence, traveled by many so I'm not going to rehash.

Suffice to say, it is important these types of articles are brought to the fore. After all, the first step to fixing a problem is admitting you have one. Yes..."Houston, we've had a problem here" and frankly, we still do.
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
www.linkedin.com/in/rvcoppola/

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7561
  • Maker of physicists and engineers…
  • Liked: 1951
  • Likes Given: 4460
Re: WaPo Article Critical of A-3 Test Stand
« Reply #26 on: 12/16/2014 08:49 PM »
Yeah, NASA does what Congress tells them to do.
This is such a cop-out. It should have been the responsibility of NASA's top management to actively campaign against and eliminate waste like that.

There are huge opportunity costs involved here. Why was ASRG cancelled, again ?
Remember how NASA tried to stop SLS but Congress took them out to the wood shed and told them to start building it...
Yes. But I also remember that the Administration / NASA cancelled the Constellation program (justifiably so) but then failed to provide a coherent plan forward. Nature abhors a vacuum. So Congress filled it and well...here we are. This is all a well tread road of incompetence, traveled by many so I'm not going to rehash.

Suffice to say, it is important these types of articles are brought to the fore. After all, the first step to fixing a problem is admitting you have one. Yes..."Houston, we've had a problem here" and frankly, we still do.
Yeah and holding the vacuum cleaner are the hands of Boeing, LockMart and ATK... ;D
“The laws of physics are unforgiving”...
Rob

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2922
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 1835
  • Likes Given: 2015
Re: WaPo Article Critical of A-3 Test Stand
« Reply #27 on: 12/16/2014 10:18 PM »
Yes. But I also remember that the Administration / NASA cancelled the Constellation program (justifiably so) but then failed to provide a coherent plan forward. Nature abhors a vacuum. So Congress filled it and well...here we are. This is all a well tread road of incompetence, traveled by many so I'm not going to rehash.

The Administration/NASA did provide a coherent plan forward (i.e. technology development), it just wasn't grandiose enough to use the exact same workers that were going to be laid off because of the cancellation of the Constellation program.  So it wasn't what we were doing in space that mattered, because it's been obvious that since 2010 Congress doesn't care, but Congress does care about every single job that is currently funded with NASA money - reductions are not supported.  Which is why this test stand was finished, even though it was known it was not needed.

Quote
Suffice to say, it is important these types of articles are brought to the fore. After all, the first step to fixing a problem is admitting you have one. Yes..."Houston, we've had a problem here" and frankly, we still do.

Well said.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1590
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 37
Re: WaPo Article Critical of A-3 Test Stand
« Reply #28 on: 12/18/2014 09:16 AM »
Yeah, NASA does what Congress tells them to do.
This is such a cop-out. It should have been the responsibility of NASA's top management to actively campaign against and eliminate waste like that.

There are huge opportunity costs involved here. Why was ASRG cancelled, again ?
Remember how NASA tried to stop SLS but Congress took them out to the wood shed and told them to start building it...

You are sorely mistaken! NASA as an organization--and especially the folks tasked with developing it--absolutely did not want to stop SLS; if by "taking them to the wood shed" you mean the subpoena (by the Democrat chairman of the Commerce Committee, by the way) of documents involved in generating the required Section 309 report, I can tell you the materials provided in response to that subpoena make it very clear who wanted to stop SLS (and Orion, for that matter). And I will just say (because I'm not in a position to provide any specific details on that data submission or its content, though I was among those who reviewed it at the time) that the people most directly responsible for that effort to undermine SLS are no longer at the Agency. And they were NOT career civil service employees of the Agency.
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12155
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 2870
  • Likes Given: 498
Re: WaPo Article Critical of A-3 Test Stand
« Reply #29 on: 12/19/2014 08:08 PM »
This is quite a long and critical article re. the A-3 test stand. The author spreads blame, unfairly I believe, equally between NASA and politicians.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2014/12/15/nasas-349-million-monument-to-its-drift/
I think that the stand will see use some day.  The SLS upper stage will need an engine cluster, and it will need to be tested.   

For those who feel a need to blame someone, blame those in power who canceled Constellation. 

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6574
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 472
  • Likes Given: 280
Re: WaPo Article Critical of A-3 Test Stand
« Reply #30 on: 12/19/2014 10:11 PM »
If the US does decide to build the 130 t version of SLS, its going to need J-2X for a new upper stage. That's when this stand will be properly used.

But is a vacuum test stand actually needed?  How are/were other upper stage engines tested?  How was M1D-Vac tested?  Or RL-10C?  Or BE-3?
How were the RL-10-A4 and RL-10B tested?  How was Castor 30B/30XL tested?

It's J2X being tested at atmospheric Pressure at Stennis already?

Did there used to be vacuum test stands, and there just aren't any more?  Or just not one large enough to accomodate J2X?

It sounded like from the article that this would be the first time an upper stage engine was tested on a vacuum stand, so just wondering how upper stage engine current and previous were tested.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6574
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 472
  • Likes Given: 280
Re: WaPo Article Critical of A-3 Test Stand
« Reply #31 on: 12/19/2014 10:19 PM »
Yeah, NASA does what Congress tells them to do.
This is such a cop-out. It should have been the responsibility of NASA's top management to actively campaign against and eliminate waste like that.

There are huge opportunity costs involved here. Why was ASRG cancelled, again ?
Remember how NASA tried to stop SLS but Congress took them out to the wood shed and told them to start building it...
Yes. But I also remember that the Administration / NASA cancelled the Constellation program (justifiably so) but then failed to provide a coherent plan forward. Nature abhors a vacuum. So Congress filled it and well...here we are.
@this.

SLS would in all likelyhood have been avoided if the cacellation of CxP -and- STS been handled differently/better.  A vacuum was created and as rcoppola said, nature abhors a vacuum.

Once SLS was mandated, then Congress got a little contentious with the NASA administration after some foot dragging, as I recall.
« Last Edit: 12/19/2014 10:23 PM by Lobo »

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6574
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 472
  • Likes Given: 280
Re: WaPo Article Critical of A-3 Test Stand
« Reply #32 on: 12/19/2014 10:21 PM »
Suffice to say, it is important these types of articles are brought to the fore. After all, the first step to fixing a problem is admitting you have one. Yes..."Houston, we've had a problem here" and frankly, we still do.

Well said.

X2

Offline M_Puckett

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 467
  • Liked: 82
  • Likes Given: 55
Re: WaPo Article Critical of A-3 Test Stand
« Reply #33 on: 12/19/2014 10:26 PM »
Elon's gonna' luv that thing for Raptor Vac.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12155
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 2870
  • Likes Given: 498
Re: WaPo Article Critical of A-3 Test Stand
« Reply #34 on: 12/20/2014 12:13 AM »
But is a vacuum test stand actually needed?  How are/were other upper stage engines tested?  How was M1D-Vac tested?  Or RL-10C?  Or BE-3?
How were the RL-10-A4 and RL-10B tested?  How was Castor 30B/30XL tested?
ATK tested Castor 30 and 30XL in the big vacuum stand at Arnold Engineering Test Center in Tennessee.  RL10 has been tested there in various versions over the years as well, including RL-10B-2 with its nozzle fully extended.  J-2 was tested there, back in the day I believe.  I think that SpaceX uses some type of simplified vacuum simulation test stand at McGregor. 

So yes, this type of testing is needed.  Subtle things can happen in vacuum that don't happen at sea level pressure.
Quote
It's J2X being tested at atmospheric Pressure at Stennis already?
It was tested at atmospheric pressure without its nozzle extension, but that testing is now finished and the program shelved.
Quote
Did there used to be vacuum test stands, and there just aren't any more?  Or just not one large enough to accomodate J2X?
J-2X was going to have a giant nozzle extension that J-2 did not have, making testing at Arnold impossible or costly, etc.  At least that was the argument.  In the end, the result is that Stennis got a shiny new test stand that someone is going to want to use someday.  The cost overruns to build it are unfortunate.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 12/20/2014 12:14 AM by edkyle99 »

Offline dunderwood

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 156
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: WaPo Article Critical of A-3 Test Stand
« Reply #35 on: 12/20/2014 07:34 PM »
I think that SpaceX uses some type of simplified vacuum simulation test stand at McGregor. 

So yes, this type of testing is needed.  Subtle things can happen in vacuum that don't happen at sea level pressure.

 - Ed Kyle

Videos show them firing into a vacuum for Draco thruster testing, but I don't recall ever seeing anything that looks like it would support vacuum testing of Mvac or MvacD at McGregor.

Offline a_langwich

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 211
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: WaPo Article Critical of A-3 Test Stand
« Reply #36 on: 12/21/2014 04:20 AM »
Probably cheaper to do the best you can in computer modeling and component testing and then just launch a flight test article to prove it all-up in vacuum. If you can't afford a test flight, then you have a more fundamental problem...

It's not entirely out of the question that somebody might find this property convenient at some point in the future. But I can't imagine that it would be essential for anything. Anyone developing a large upper stage at this point would have a better test plan.

Couldn't you say the same thing about a regular test stand?  And yet they get used all the time.  I think you are overestimating the utility of computer modeling and underestimating the cost of a test flight.

Just as I think SpaceX found NASA's expensive engine test facilities convenient for testing Raptor, they will likely find them convenient for testing a BFR upper stage.  Anything bigger than an RL-10, including anything made for SLS, might benefit.  "If you can't afford a test flight..."  because I'm sure you have $100-300+ million laying around you'd be happy to throw in.  Name one company who has the spare change to toss up a test rocket in this size range without government support.  SpaceX had government contributions and test payloads even for Falcon 1 flights, and this is for much bigger rockets.


Offline newpylong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Liked: 199
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: WaPo Article Critical of A-3 Test Stand
« Reply #37 on: 01/12/2015 03:06 PM »
I think the stand will see use in the future - if it was worth finishing it, history will decide.


To those who said NASA as a whole wanted to cancel SLS at birth, you either were not around or did not have access to factual information.

Tags: