NASA successfully tested the updated rocket engine

August 14 2015

NASA conducted the sixth fire test of an advanced RS-25 fluid engine designed for the SLS super-heavy rocket yesterday. Testing took place in the center of John Stennis in Mississippi, reports RIA News with reference to the agency website.

NASA successfully tested the updated rocket engine

The engine was developed by Rocketdyne and was used on the Space Shuttle shuttle. For use on the developed super-heavy rocket, the engine has been significantly upgraded.

“The passed test lasted about 8,5 minutes - a time equal to the duration of the first stage engines during a real rocket launch. The completion of the test was greeted with applause by the participants in the project who observed the test, ”the agency said.

“We already know that the test was successful,” said NASA employee Steve Wofford at the end of the test. “This is a great day for NASA and a great day for the future of space travel.”

However, the official conclusion will be given later after analyzing the data obtained during the test.

The SLS super-heavy launch vehicle developed in the United States is designed for flying into outer space (beyond the limits of the solar system). According to the agency, “the first test flight of the new rocket is scheduled for 2018 year. The first stage of the SLS, which is to be launched into a distant space by the Orion manned spacecraft, will be equipped with four RS-25 engines. ”

Photos used:: NASA

Military Reviewin Yandex News

Military Reviewin Yandex Zen

Reserve buildbat 14 August 2015 08: 44
+2

2

0
And can you find out its characteristics? And what was updated there?
And I don’t understand what is the point of launching 1 once every few years, the device beyond the limits of the Solar system, when nothing has been investigated yet?
1. Dangerous 14 August 2015 08: 51
  +1
  
  1
  
  0
  This is no reason to explore the unknown.
  1. mishaia_23 14 August 2015 09: 55
    
    0
    
    0
    
    0
    
    The most important thing for NASA is to promote well and ask Congress for money, with the longest sawing of allocated budget allocations
    1. crazyrom 15 August 2015 04: 19
      
      0
      
      0
      
      0
      
      That is, you can cancel the contract for our engines, since they already have their own? Or how? That's the same thing!
2. The comment was deleted.
3. gjv 14 August 2015 09: 18
  +13
  
  13
  
  0
  Quote: Stroibat stock
  And can you find out its characteristics?
  
  SSME traction throttling can range from 67 to 109% of design capacity. During the ongoing launches, the level of 104,5% is used, and the levels of 106-109% are acceptable to use in emergency situations. The thrust can be specified for sea level and vacuum, in which, as a rule, LREs have better performance due to the absence of effects from the atmosphere:
  Thrust 100,0% (sea level / vacuum): 1670 kN / 2090 kN (170,3 tf / 213,1 tf)
  Thrust 104,5% (sea level / vacuum): 1750 kN / 2170 kN (178,5 tf / 221,3 tf)
  Thrust 109,0% (sea level / vacuum): 1860 kN / 2280 kN (189,7 tf / 232,5 tf)
  The specification of traction levels above 100% means that the engine is operating above the normal level set by the developers. Studies show that the likelihood of SSME failure increases when thrust is used above 104,5%, which explains why throttling above this level is left in case of emergency situations in the space shuttle flight. These are the parameters according to the 1993 test results.
  
  Quote: Stroibat stock
  And what was updated there?
  
  They made some changes to the SSME regulator unit, new materials for some structural units, experimenting with the composition of the fuel, trying to strengthen the thermal insulation of the tank in order to lower the temperature of liquid oxygen, and accordingly increase the initial pressure. The parameters published were not met. Now until September there will be several more tests of one engine. Then they plan to build four engines and test them in an assembly simulating an SLS side accelerator. One of the main tasks will be to check the heat insulation of the nozzles.
  1. Reserve buildbat 14 August 2015 10: 24
    
    +4
    
    4
    
    0
    
    Thanks so much for the clarification.
  2. GRAY 14 August 2015 11: 08
    
    +1
    
    1
    
    0
    
    Quote: gjv
    Thrust 100,0% (sea level / vacuum): 1670 kN / 2090 kN (170,3 tf / 213,1 tf)
    Thrust 104,5% (sea level / vacuum): 1750 kN / 2170 kN (178,5 tf / 221,3 tf)
    Thrust 109,0% (sea level / vacuum): 1860 kN / 2280 kN (189,7 tf / 232,5 tf)
    
    Is this an engine for a superheavy rocket?
    I just got interested and decided to see what's on the RD-180:
    at the Earth 3828 kN
    in the void 4152 kN
    1. Korvo 14 August 2015 11: 10
      
      0
      
      0
      
      0
      
      Quote: GRAY
      Is this an engine for a superheavy rocket?
      
      He is!!
      Quote: GRAY
      I just got interested and decided to see what's on the RD-180:
      at the Earth 3828 kN
      in the void 4152 kN
      
      And where does the RD-180 ???
      1. CT-55_11-9009 14 August 2015 11: 48
        
        +3
        
        3
        
        0
        
        Quote: Korvo
        And where does the RD-180 ???
        
        And despite the fact that the RD-180 and RS-25 are engines of the same class. "It will not be enough!"
        
        Korvo 14 August 2015 11: 53
        
        0
        
        0
        
        0
        
        Quote: CT-55_11-9009
        And despite the fact that the RD-180 and RS-25 are engines of the same class.
        
        "one" is that liquid?, is it possible in more detail?
      2. GRAY 14 August 2015 13: 00
        
        0
        
        0
        
        0
        
        Quote: Korvo
        And where does the RD-180 ???
        
        Well, it is not positioned as a "super-heavy rocket engine", but in fact is twice as powerful.
        I'm starting to doubt that the Americans really were on the moon
        
        Korvo 14 August 2015 13: 22
        
        0
        
        0
        
        0
        
        Quote: GRAY
        Well, it is not positioned as a "super-heavy rocket engine", but in fact is twice as powerful.
        
        Well, what can I say!?, Except to advise you to learn the materiel!
        Quote: GRAY
        I'm starting to doubt that the Americans really were on the moon
        
        This is the second above groundless conclusion directly arising from the first!
        
        GRAY 14 August 2015 14: 45
        
        0
        
        0
        
        0
        
        Quote: Korvo
        This is the second above groundless conclusion directly arising from the first!
        
        I was based on the parameters given in the comment above. So you baselessly accuse me of baselessness.
        
        Korvo 14 August 2015 15: 15
        
        0
        
        0
        
        0
        
        Quote: GRAY
        I was based on the parameters given in the comment above
        
        What "parameters" exactly?
        
        GRAY 14 August 2015 17: 17
        
        0
        
        0
        
        0
        
        Quote: Korvo
        What "parameters" exactly?
        
        Thrust.
        
        Korvo 14 August 2015 18: 28
        
        +1
        
        1
        
        0
        
        Quote: GRAY
        Thrust.
        
        my brain is really boiling from you!
        Let's start with the "first class" program!
        Approximate performance of the SLS rocket:
        - the first stage is supposed to consist of two or more solid-fuel boosters (on the sides) and most likely four RS-25 liquid-propellant engines installed on the central block !, that is, the first stage is essentially a Space Shuttle system without the shuttle itself (airplane) or if you like a direct analogue of "Energy". From this follows my question for you, RD 0120 is definitely an engine for a super-heavy rocket, because the RD-180 is twice as powerful but is not positioned as an "engine for a super heavy rocket"?
        -the next "steps" of reasons to discuss, I think not !?
        
        As for a visit to the Moon, it’s still simpler, five F-1 engines (690 tf at sea) on a 2965 t rocket (when Apollo 16 was launched).
    2. Jurkovs 14 August 2015 13: 05
      
      +1
      
      1
      
      0
      
      Better pay attention to the engine’s operating time, they have 8,5 minutes, we have an RD-180 250 seconds, after which it is destroyed. Therefore, we have two stages and side URMs, and they have side accelerators and one central unit. In addition, they have a hydrogen engine, and we, after the closure of Energy, lost these technologies.
      1. GRAY 14 August 2015 13: 33
        
        +1
        
        1
        
        0
        
        Quote: Jurkovs
        after which it is destroyed
        
        Rather, the fuel in the first stage ends.
        RD-170 was not destroyed, and RD-180 is made on its basis.
        The base engine RD-170/171 was developed in 1976-1986. In 1992-1996 work was underway on a boosted version of the RD-171 engine (by 1996, 28 engines had been tested). On 6 engines of improved design, 5500 seconds were accumulated, and on one engine, the operating time was 1590 seconds.
      2. Korvo 14 August 2015 13: 39
        
        0
        
        0
        
        0
        
        Quote: Jurkovs
        Better pay attention to the engine’s operating time, they have 8,5 minutes, we have RD-180 250 seconds
        
        Have you seen such an advertisement?
        
        Quote: Jurkovs
        after which it is destroyed
        
        Where does this information come from ?, share it!
        Quote: Jurkovs
        Therefore, we have two stages and side URMs, and they have side accelerators and one central unit.
        
        We have them What do you specifically mean by this?
        Quote: Jurkovs
        In addition, they have a hydrogen engine, and we, after the closure of Energy, lost these technologies.
        
        Nothing is lost. I assure you, there would be a desire!
4. Shick 14 August 2015 09: 27
  +2
  
  2
  
  0
  this is called progress. The United States has already come off significantly in space exploration from us
  all the latest discoveries of them
  1. Blondy 14 August 2015 09: 28
    
    +2
    
    2
    
    0
    
    Pay attention to the word updated in the header, and then google RS-25 and read at least Wikipedia. We will not take seriously the American habit introduced by Hollywood to applaud excitedly for any reason.
5. CT-55_11-9009 14 August 2015 11: 39
  +1
  
  1
  
  0
  And the SLS system is not intended for flights outside the solar system, but for flights to the Moon and Mars and their subsequent (possible) colonization. The launch of up to 130 tons into the reference orbit is just the time for lunar expeditions.
6. wild 14 August 2015 12: 10
  -1
  
  -1
  
  0
  How did you update that? Painted, wrote letters and hore.
Barboskin 14 August 2015 08: 45
+2

2

0
Well, well, their achievements are an incentive for ours. Let them not relax.
1. djqnbdjqnb 14 August 2015 09: 06
  0
  
  0
  
  0
  Not a word has been said about whether this engine will replace ours, which they are now buying from us, bashfully hiding their eyes? And then, if this ground launch is so successful, then why the first test flight will take place after three whole years ?! Something doesn't fit here
  1. mQn 14 August 2015 09: 10
    
    +2
    
    2
    
    0
    
    these are completely different engines and they are designed for different purposes, carefully read the LETTERS
rotmistr60 14 August 2015 08: 45
0

0

0
The super-heavy SLS rocket being developed in the United States is designed for flights into outer space (outside the solar system)

In the meantime, they fly to the station in Russian ships, while American politicians do not cease to derogatoryly speak of Russia as a space power.
1. Dies Irae 14 August 2015 09: 02
  +8
  
  8
  
  0
  Quote: rotmistr60
  In the meantime, they fly to the station on Russian ships
  
  I don’t think there is something flattering for us in the status of “carrier of other people's cargo / crew.
  
  Quote: rotmistr60
  at the same time, American politicians do not cease to derogatoryly speak of Russia as a space power.
  
  In addition to transportation - what is "space" in it? How many of our planetary scouts are exploring neighboring planets? How many space telescopes do we have? How much of our research is being carried out at least in orbit?
  1. veksha50 14 August 2015 09: 10
    
    +4
    
    4
    
    0
    
    Quote: Dies Irae
    I don’t think there is something flattering for us in the status of “carrier of other people's cargo / crew.
    
    Unfortunately, I have to agree with you ... once again - unfortunately ...
    
    A long time ago, the thought crept into my head that, using us as carriers, the United States itself is directing its finances and scientific minds to develop something new and progressive ...
  2. rotmistr60 14 August 2015 09: 38
    
    -2
    
    -2
    
    0
    
    For Dies Irae
    
    Then explain to me on what engines do Americans fly and "successfully" explore distant space?
    In addition to transportation - what is "space" in it?
    
    In your opinion, nothing. But the Americans, for some reason, extended this program in spite of the sanctions. I have always been "surprised" by people who defame everything that is ours, but are ready to crawl on their knees before the American.
    1. Dies Irae 14 August 2015 10: 28
      
      +2
      
      2
      
      0
      
      Quote: rotmistr60
      Then explain to me on what engines do Americans fly and "successfully" explore distant space?
      
      In turn, you, comrade "leavened patriot", could you explain to me why the Americans, and not the Russians, are exploring space on Russian (or rather, Soviet) engines? In your opinion, this is a great achievement - to supply engines to a potential enemy, and do nothing ourselves?
      
      Quote: rotmistr60
      But the Americans, for some reason, extended this program despite the sanctions.
      
      And for some reason ours did not dare to "counter-sanctions" and did not dare to deprive the Americans of space. This time. Two - take off your pink glasses and throw them in the trash. Reread the news. Think about Falcon 9. How long will Russia have a monopoly?
      
      Quote: rotmistr60
      I have always been "surprised" by people who defame everything that is ours, but are ready to crawl on their knees before the American.
      
      Personally, I have always been surprised by people who are happy to hang up labels, taking advantage of the anonymity, and, consequently, the impunity of the Web. However, that is your business, do not want to think with your head - do not think.
      1. rotmistr60 14 August 2015 10: 44
        
        -1
        
        -1
        
        0
        
        You, comrade "leavened patriot"
        
        With such comments, you are unlikely to be my friend. And about the "leavened patriot" - I'm just curious. how old are you "patriot of America"?
        using anonymity
        
        You open my profile there my name, place of residence. And you? So which of us uses anonymity.
        
        Dies Irae 14 August 2015 10: 45
        
        +3
        
        3
        
        0
        
        Quote: rotmistr60
        And about the "leavened patriot" - I'm just curious. how old are you "patriot of America"?
        
        Heh, I am not an American patriot, I am rather a "common sense" patriot. I'm twenty-eight years old, if you're interested.
        
        Quote: rotmistr60
        You open my profile there my name, place of residence. And you? So which of us uses anonymity.
        
        I have no habit of climbing profiles. But, if you please, my name is Pavlov D.V., I live in the city of Nadym, the Yamal-Nenets Autonomous Okrug.
        
        rotmistr60 14 August 2015 10: 56
        
        0
        
        0
        
        0
        
        Nice to meet you. By the way, Pavlov D.M. (maybe Dmitry?) A profile exists for that, so that, if necessary, you could look into it. To contact the commentator by name, to find out what region he is from.
        
        Dies Irae 14 August 2015 11: 08
        
        0
        
        0
        
        0
        
        Mutually.
        You are probably right, but I'm already used to the fact that there is nothing interesting in the profile, as a rule. In addition, I’m not hiding from anyone and I’m not running from anyone, who cares, he can always ask. No, you did not guess, Denis.
        
        rotmistr60 14 August 2015 11: 21
        
        0
        
        0
        
        0
        
        Sorry, the name suggested is the most likely.
        By the way, when Yu.A. Gagarin flew, I was 7 years old, so I remember well all our subsequent achievements in space. Probably sometimes it is painful to perceive the praise of the American cosmonautics.
        
        Dies Irae 14 August 2015 11: 44
        
        +1
        
        1
        
        0
        
        Gennady, you will excuse me, please, for being harsh, but, in general, two noble Dons can still come to a consensus. (: The point is not at all that I praise American achievements and belittle ours. No. The point is that the Americans are constantly on the move, conducting promising research in many areas, including in space. And then it becomes a shame for the power It is a shame to tears. The ugly leadership of the country, nine-tenths consisting of "nanotoli" of all stripes, does nothing in this direction at all. They are "temporary workers" of the worst bottling. And we - me, you, our relatives and friends - to live in this country and I am very afraid that thanks to "effective managers" it will turn into a new Zimbabwe.
  3. CT-55_11-9009 14 August 2015 12: 00
    
    +2
    
    2
    
    0
    
    Now we do not have space telescopes. Because, as far as I know, there are no such TK. This is-times.
    Planetary scouts and other crap cost a lot of money, but with us, unfortunately, it is not enough. Say thanks to corruption. These are two.
    We are not up to space now. Borders set on fire one after another, ruining geopolitical friends, even potential ones. Urgently need to modernize the army. This is three.
    To effectively manage the country in crises, and even more so for breakthrough research and development at the same time, an administrative-command (it seems that is how it is called) economy is needed (who did not understand - planned, Stalinist). They will not introduce it. And then the stolen will need to be returned, but it will not be possible to steal yet. This is four.
    1. VEKT 14 August 2015 14: 10
      
      0
      
      0
      
      0
      
      Quote: CT-55_11-9009
      Now we do not have space telescopes. Because, as far as I know, there are no such TK. This is-times.
      Planetary scouts and other crap cost a lot of money, but with us, unfortunately, it is not enough. Say thanks to corruption. These are two.
      We are not up to space now. Borders set on fire one after another, ruining geopolitical friends, even potential ones. Urgently need to modernize the army. This is three.
      To effectively manage the country in crises, and even more so for breakthrough research and development at the same time, an administrative-command (it seems that is how it is called) economy is needed (who did not understand - planned, Stalinist). They will not introduce it. And then the stolen will need to be returned, but it will not be possible to steal yet. This is four.
      
      And the money for the World Cup is, and not small, 661 billion rubles. Slightly lacking in a superheavy rocket. The question is only what is more useful, from the World Cup or from a rocket that can serve to colonize the moon. I’m afraid about this championship hardly anyone will remember in 10 years.
Dies Irae 14 August 2015 08: 58
+3

3

0
And Russian cosmonautics, meanwhile, is going through far from the best of times. Soon industries in which we are not yet lagging behind will not remain at all. And the government, it seems, is only concerned with how to take away benefits from pensioners and where else to sell our scarce resources.
kil 31 14 August 2015 09: 02
+2

2

0
Isn’t it easier to first put into orbit, and then launch into a distant space?
veksha50 14 August 2015 09: 07
+2

2

0
"This is a great day for NASA and a great day for the future of space travel"" ...

Do not give a damn ... In connection with obsolete military missiles (compared to Russia), the states will now primarily rivet a heavy missile to replace obsolete ...
Bigship 14 August 2015 09: 14
+1

1

0
According to the agency, “the first test flight of the new rocket is scheduled for 2018. The first stage of SLS, which is to be withdrawn Orion manned spacecraftwill be equipped with four RS-25 engines

I didn’t understand, but why should I send to far space manned ship???
If on Mars, then this is near space ...
sl22277 14 August 2015 09: 15
0

0

0
NASA has successfully tested the updated rocket engine. In any case, the word "Successful" would have been. In the meantime, you are buying from Russia. Only our rocketry is not standing still. And in 2018 this development may become completely irrelevant.
1. Mera joota 14 August 2015 09: 29
  +5
  
  5
  
  0
  Quote: sl22277
  In any case, the word "Successful" would have been. In the meantime, you are buying from Russia.
  
  This will probably be a revelation for you, but most of the launch vehicles launched by the Americans fly on their own engines. Only Atlas-180 is launched on our engines (RD-5). The second launch vehicle, which is planned to be launched on our engines (NK-33), Antares is experiencing big problems with engine failures and has successfully flown only twice. And the most important thing. Rocket engines from us are not purchased by NASA, but by the commercial companies United Launch Alliance and Orbital Sciences Corporation.
  
  Quote: sl22277
  Only our rocket science doesn’t stand still.
  
  Of course, it is rapidly slipping into the abyss ...
2. The comment was deleted.
3. VEKT 14 August 2015 11: 15
  +2
  
  2
  
  0
  Of course it’s not worth it, it was estimated that the creation of an extra-heavy class rocket needed 700 billion rubles, we decided that we had nothing to do with such a rocket, and we reduced space funding by 10% until 2025 (http://topwar.ru/72181-na-sozdanie -sverhtyazheloy-rakety-trebuetsya-700-mil
  liardov-rubley.html). Comrade Mera Joota is right, rocketry is heading into the abyss, while talking about trampolines and saws at the cosmodrome.
4. Vadim237 14 August 2015 11: 22
  0
  
  0
  
  0
  If we create a heavy missile, it will be no earlier than 2030.
  1. Korvo 14 August 2015 11: 26
    
    0
    
    0
    
    0
    
    Quote: Vadim237
    If we create a heavy missile, it will be no earlier than 2030.
    
    And what to create it, it has long been created, take it and do it !!
    1. VEKT 14 August 2015 13: 54
      
      0
      
      0
      
      0
      
      Quote: Korvo
      Quote: Vadim237
      If we create a heavy missile, it will be no earlier than 2030.
      
      And what to create it, it has long been created, take it and do it !!
      
      Are you talking about "Energy"? So everything is happily forgotten and lost.
      1. Korvo 14 August 2015 14: 23
        
        0
        
        0
        
        0
        
        Quote: VEKT
        then you mean "Energy"? So everything is happily forgotten and lost.
        
        It is interesting that everything is lost with you, and most importantly where ?? The Americans mean it’s not lost, but as always, we haven’t been looking for it yet, but have already managed to lose
        Only need desire and a little money, well, a little definitely less than re-creating a bike!
Raven2705 14 August 2015 09: 26
0

0

0
Quote: BigShip
If on Mars, then this is near space ...

If Mars is near space, then the Moon is practically near Moscow ...
2nd 12th 14 August 2015 09: 28
+1

1

0
From my point of view, this is PR news. Americans are PR masters. But PR is destroyed if you evaluate the following.
Why can’t they repeat the F-1 from a lunar rocket?
Was it true on the moon or not?
http://www.free-inform.com/pepelaz/pepelaz-13.htm
Well, there were such messages
http://www.warandpeace.ru/ru/news/view/104047/
http://www.warandpeace.ru/ru/news/view/104116/
And they also extended the contract for the supply of RD-181 until 2019
And this message about the extension of contracts for flights of our "Soyuz" to the ISS speaks volumes.
http://www.interfax.ru/world/458330
1. Vadim237 14 August 2015 11: 26
  0
  
  0
  
  0
  Why repeat the F-1? This updated RS 25 engine uses some components from the F-1.
  1. Korvo 14 August 2015 11: 31
    
    0
    
    0
    
    0
    
    Quote: Vadim237
    This updated RS 25 engine uses some components from the F-1.
    
    and what, interesting to know ???
    1. VEKT 14 August 2015 16: 13
      
      0
      
      0
      
      0
      
      Quote: Korvo
      Quote: Vadim237
      This updated RS 25 engine uses some components from the F-1.
      
      and what, interesting to know ???
      
      Well, read on the Wiki
      In the early 1990s, work on the Energy-Buran program was suspended. By the time the program was finally closed (1993), at least five Energia launch vehicles were in various stages of readiness at the Baikonur Cosmodrome. Two of them in an empty state until 2002 were stored at the Baikonur Cosmodrome and were the property of Kazakhstan; were destroyed on May 12, 2002 when the roof of the assembly and test building collapsed at site 112. Three were at different stages of construction on the slipways of NPO Energia (now RSC Energia), but after the closure of the works, the backlog was destroyed, the missile bodies already manufactured or cut , or thrown into the backyard of the enterprise, where they continue to stay until now.
      1. Korvo 14 August 2015 16: 59
        
        0
        
        0
        
        0
        
        Quote: VEKT
        Well, read on the Wiki
        
        You probably made a mistake in the place where you wrote your commentary, because it is unclear where Energia-Buran is concerned
    2. VEKT 14 August 2015 16: 58
      
      0
      
      0
      
      0
      
      Mistake, this is not for you.
Temples 14 August 2015 09: 55
0

0

0
The SLS super-heavy launch vehicle developed in the United States is designed for flying into outer space (beyond the limits of the solar system). According to the agency, “the first test flight of the new rocket is scheduled for 2018 year. The first stage of the SLS, which is to be launched into a distant space by the Orion manned spacecraft, will be equipped with four RS-25 engines. ”

Is the author so in love with NASA that he comes up with fairy tales? so wants to please?
Where is he (the author) going to throw Orion? Outside the solar system?
Is that where he found such NASA plans?

Even Wikipedia writes more modestly -

Space Launch System (SLS, Russian. Space Launch System) - American super-heavy launch vehicle for manned expeditions beyond the EARTH !!!!! orbits and other cargo launches, developed by NASA instead of the Ares-5 launch vehicle, canceled along with the Constellation program.
1. CT-55_11-9009 14 August 2015 12: 02
  +1
  
  1
  
  0
  As far as I know, SLS is planned to be used for moon exploration.
Engineer 14 August 2015 10: 01
0

0

0
SLS is designed to fly into outer space (outside the solar system).

Did the author read what he copied? Where are the flights? Proxima Centauri - the closest star to us, is located at a distance of 4,22 light years. This means that the ship should fly 1 times faster than Voyager-17000.
chunga-changa 14 August 2015 10: 10
+2

2

0
And here is the "trampoline" of Rogozin, let's laugh.
sv68 14 August 2015 10: 20
0

0

0
and more specifically about the tests, can the engine run off continuously or have it been temporarily cut off and turned on again? 8 with half a minute is only enough to bring mon to low Earth orbit, and to fly to Mars you need an accelerator or a tug so that the interplanetary fuel is enough for both ends.
1. aviator1913 14 August 2015 10: 34
  +1
  
  1
  
  0
  and more specifically about the tests, can the engine run off continuously or have it been temporarily cut off and turned on again? 8 with half a minute is only enough to bring mon to low Earth orbit, and to fly to Mars you need an accelerator or a tug so that the interplanetary fuel is enough for both ends.
  
  They tested the engine of the first stage, I doubt that at the first stage to Mars and back you can fly)
2. CT-55_11-9009 14 August 2015 12: 04
  +1
  
  1
  
  0
  There are second and third steps to this.
DobryAAH 14 August 2015 11: 02
-1

-1

0
Quote: BigShip
According to the agency, “the first test flight of the new rocket is scheduled for 2018. The first stage of SLS, which is to be withdrawn Orion manned spacecraftwill be equipped with four RS-25 engines

I didn’t understand, but why should I send to far space manned ship???
If on Mars, then this is near space ...

The top of the United States is preparing to dump away when the Russian flag is over Washington.
1. Korvo 14 August 2015 11: 15
  0
  
  0
  
  0
  Quote: Good AAAH
  
  The top of the United States is preparing to dump away when the Russian flag is over Washington.
  
  Russian svidomit-zmagar ???
2. CT-55_11-9009 14 August 2015 12: 05
  +1
  
  1
  
  0
  If it’s humorous, then yes, most likely.
Ajent cho 14 August 2015 12: 14
0

0

0
Some deja vu:

http://topwar.ru/uploads/images/2015/327/arnr573.jpg
1. Vadim237 14 August 2015 13: 28
  0
  
  0
  
  0
  Again they will bypass us.
Jurkovs 14 August 2015 12: 57
0

0

0
Quote: gjv
Then they plan to build four engines and test them in an assembly simulating an SLS side accelerator.

But side accelerators are solid fuel and have even been tested. Check your information.
Old26 14 August 2015 19: 19
+2

2

0
Quote: sl22277
NASA has successfully tested the updated rocket engine. In any case, the word "Successful" would have been. In the meantime, you are buying from Russia. Only our rocketry is not standing still. And in 2018 this development may become completely irrelevant.

Not always. There are also failures at the bottom, but they, as they correctly wrote above, move, and systematically. We have confusion and vacillation. The new leader puts an end to everything that his predecessor did, even if these were promising projects. As a result, at the indicated time, they will receive a carrier with a carrying capacity of 70-120 tons, and we will be delighted to talk about the unique "Angara" with a carrying capacity of 45 tons on the heaviest version of the A-7

Quote: Korvo
It is interesting that you are losing everything, and most importantly where ?? The Americans do not seem to be lost, but with us, as always, they haven’t looked for it yet, but have already managed to lose. You only need a desire and a little money, well, how much less definitely than to create a bicycle anew!

More? I think an order of magnitude more. Russia will not be able to repeat "energy" now. This is a completely dead project.
1. CT-55_11-9009 15 August 2015 21: 57
  +1
  
  1
  
  0
  Quote: Old26
  Russia will not be able to repeat "energy" now. This is a completely dead project.
  
  This is sad...