I love watching frost instantly build up on the nozzle that's spewing super-hot rocket exhaust. I know how rocket engines work but it's still really, really neat.
+IstasPumaNevada One thing I always enjoyed is that the same fuel used to create heat and thrust is also used to cool the engine nozzle down through the regenerative process. Math and Science are cool. :-) Check out this cool infographic for more cool #RS25 details. www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/multimedia/infographics.html?id=368371 Thanks for following #NASA. Don't forget to join the online conversation with us on Twitter: @NASA_SLS. :-)
I wonder if anyone in the media knows that: A: The RS-25 engine is a Space Shuttle Main Engine B: The engine that was tested was on the last space Shuttle flight C: All of the engines on the first SLS flight will be previously flown Space Shuttle Main Engines.
nutsackmania That's an entirely subjective opinion. But if you are basing it upon the complexity or the technology involved then the F-1B would certainly be more interesting than the SRBs which it would be competing with for the strap on booster application.
Why waste a good engine? F1 boosters couldn't be recovered, anyway, too heavy, too fast. An SRB gives you lot's of power, it's reliable (i know, Challenger... but they learned about that), and cheap when compared to a liquid fuel engine. And for main stage engines... RS-25's are a lot more advanced and efficient than the F1, and have proven to be as reliable as you can get.
ComandanteJ The SRBs on the SLS are not recoverable. They are not going to resuse them. As for reliable, they may have a decent launch record for reliability except for challenger, but they have a huge hidden cost because they are fully fuelled the moment they are made, so the hazard they pose has not turned into a disaster because of a huge recurring cost in their storage and transport. The RS-25 is NOT a good engine for a booster, because it is a cryogenic engine. That means it uses liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen as fuel. LOX is fairly easy to work with, but liquid hydrogen is quite a bit trickier and harder to work with and costs a ton to make and store and transport. The F-1 engine uses LOX and Kerosene as propellant, which is a lot safer to work with and actually is more efficient as a booster engine because of the denser propellant (Hydrogen is lightweight, so needs higher exhaust speeds and therefore more complex engines). A single RS-25 gives 418,000 pounds of thrust at sea level, compared to the F-1B engine which was intended to product 1,800,000 pounds thrust at sea level. So, you'd need four and a half RS-25 engines to do the work of one F-1B. The other issues with solid engines are the fact that they cannot be throttled, so they complicate launch aborts, and reduce the ability for the rocket to compensate for unforeseen problems, since they have two settings ON/OFF. They also complicate the support structure of the core rocket, because they are prone to a lot of vibration. There are a lot of people who know a lot more about this than I do and they say the solids are not right for the SLS and their use is based purely on politics.
Love how clean the flame is! Seems real efficient. Not to mention the ability to refuel anywhere there is water and a suitable energy source. Way to go, deep space missions just got a whole lot closer!
+Miles Deighton +David Ross well in theory liquid fluorine would be better but it's so dangerous to use we don't want to use it at NASA (source: Jet Propulsion Researcher at NASA JSC)
+OmegaMolecule Actually... hydrogen isn't too efficient in the lower atmosphere. It has a low molecular mass so the air pressure wreaks havoc on its efficiency. However seeing is how the majority of the first stage burn will occur in a vacuum it is the ideal combination where that low mass will really shine. ( efficiency > thrust with upper stage flight ) Kerosene ( RP-1 ) is a much better fuel for atmospheric flight because its molecules are much heavier and less hindered by air pressure and therefore provide more energy.
All I can say is wish I was there to see it. What was the SN of the RS-25 controller used for this test if I may ask? Now I can see why they put the RS-25 controllers through such rigorous thermal and vibe testing. OMG Just wish I could see where it is on the engine.
+Bob Trembley (Balrog) The first stage will burn for nearly the length of this video. That was the point of the 8 minute firing test. That's how long it takes to get to orbit. Though realistically the SLS will not go to orbit on its first stage alone. So more along the line of 7 or so minutes with the upper stage completing the boost. I'm sure the engine could've burned for as long as they feed it fuel, but it will never burn for more then 8 anyway.
Grady Klein um....that engine is burning liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen....which produces that well known pollutant called water vapour..... It actually rains this 'pollutant' in the local area after these tests. Maybe they should test these engines in the Sahara or other really dry places because they're an ecological benefit.
As always a very good footage, NASA. No gimbal test yet, right? How did it go? How was the thrust? I'm looking at the sky here in Portugal and there are a lot of clouds in the sky. Maybe some of them were made by this beautiful RS-25! Let's go to Mars! :-)
What is the white vapor coming out of the top of the engine? it looks like it is being sucked into the exhaust, is it water from the temp difference or is it extra fuel, etc?
+Kthulhu Fhtagn :This particular engine is not for multiple ignitions as it's a core stage engine and only designed to propel the LV to first stage separation along with 3 other engines. I haven't seen any data on when the core stage is separated but I would think it would be well short of orbital velocity since there is another stage stacked atop it. The engine is designated RS-25, better known as Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME). The plan is to use of the supply of reusable RS-25s left over by the shuttles retirement. Once that happens, cheaper non-reusable RS-25s will be built to power the core stage. As for failures, they have worked well past 9 minutes in shuttle tests. For the SLS, this engine will probably operate for maybe 6 minutes before core stage separation.
RIP headphone users, lol! A beautiful engine. Looking forward to come to Cape Canaveral and watch the launch in 2018. My future career will be an engineer and maybe an astronaut.
+Izhan Harris Bin Izzuddin can't you read? i said looking forward to the launch in 2018 as this engine are gonna be used on the SLS in 2018. You need to learn English dude.
+Eto Hige Gamer Culture Per a NASA fact sheet, 4 RS-25 engines will provide 8.4 million pounds of thrust on the "SLS 70-metric-ton Initial Configuration", so, sounds like 2.1 million pounds/thrust per engine.
That's such an awesome burn time. The engine literally looks like it performs perfectly efficient in every way, well at least to the realistically possible efficiency. Curious how much fuel was burned for that amount of time?
+Dawn Alderman Modified version: cheaper to build and hopefully more reliable / longer life. And even for "re-used" ones a test run is required after rebuild.
+Paul Langford This test is of an essentially regular SSME that has flown on four Shuttle missions with some upgrades for better margin at the 109% power level.
+nutsackmania I think it's a good practice to check modifications with a full-on test run like that. Look at the cost to Hubble Space Telescope of not doing full testing before deployment!
+Cristiano Mazzotti The that engine and first Four test flights will use left over Space shuttle engines a new engine derived from the RS-25 will propel the SLS flights.
+Allbbrz Liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. In the beginning you can see the hydrogen ignite which in turn spins up a turbo pump which then injects the liquid oxygen into the combustion chamber. Picture a campfire and then taking a leaf blower to that campfire.
That's nine minutes of HP ass-kick. Next time though we want to see all of the shock diamond in the video frame please and thank you with massive amounts of sugar on top. :D !!!
Well, I immediately thought of that Half Life rocket test chamber when I saw this..............where's a green tentacle-beak-monster-thing when you need one to vaporize?
+babzog The 1960's was a LONG time ago. Materials science (and propellants, and construction techniques) have advanced quite a bit since then. This is a new engine; those need to be tested.
+Bob Trembley (Balrog) As I understand it, it's the main shuttle engine with the power output bumped up a bit more. New metals and such - great - but it's the same design from 1975 (not the 60's, my mistake). A tweaked 40 yr old design is the best we can come up with today?
+Swidhelm Thanks for the question. Each #RS25 engine uses about 400 pounds of fuel per second. :-) This web feature has some more details. www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/rs25-engine-powers-sls.html Plus, This infographic has some GREAT details. www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/multimedia/infographics.html?id=368371 Thanks for following #NASA and supporting space exploration and our #JourneytoMars. :-)
***** Thanks for the links. That is a crap ton of fuel! I am hyped for the Orion test flight in 2017, and have been keeping tabs on that program ever since I first heard about it.
Because RS-25 engine is the same engine used on the Space Shuttle. This may be a slightly modified version or could have being run with a modified flight profile.
Can someone infinite loop the video for 10 hours? I need more RS-25 in my life
+Don Sparrow >Right click
>Loop
8 minutes of continuous magnificent thrust. Thank you.
+mikespulligan I can't count how many times I've heard this....
That is such a beautiful engine! Thank you for sharing in such high quality video!
The test was so successful, NASA claimed the Earth moved 800 miles away from its original orbit.
mhmm no they havent
+Schwerner I did. Sorry, but its hard to know trough the internet. People may believe its true aswell.
I love watching frost instantly build up on the nozzle that's spewing super-hot rocket exhaust. I know how rocket engines work but it's still really, really neat.
+IstasPumaNevada
One thing I always enjoyed is that the same fuel used to create heat and thrust is also used to cool the engine nozzle down through the regenerative process.
Math and Science are cool.
:-)
Check out this cool infographic for more cool #RS25 details.
www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/multimedia/infographics.html?id=368371
Thanks for following #NASA.
Don't forget to join the online conversation with us on Twitter: @NASA_SLS. :-)
I'm pretty sure every engineer put their things down and went "( •_•)>⌐■-■ / (⌐■_■) fuck yeah."
+Shankovich As an engineer, this comment wins today.
***** hahaha yes me too! I'm speaking out of experience mostly haha
***** Sorry, us aero's and mechs are a rowdy bunch
SO. SOLID. Very clean flame, massive amounts of thrust, and temps (based solely on this) look impeccable. Can't wait to see it in flight!!!
Now that was pretty AWESOME!!!!
whooo hoo~ right down the road from you in Pass Christian, worked for United Space Alliance in Houston, this is awesome!!
Sweet! And congrats, NASA. I just wish we could have seen the shock diamonds....
It just keeps on going and going, doesn't it? Can't wait to see it flying!
I wonder if anyone in the media knows that:
A: The RS-25 engine is a Space Shuttle Main Engine
B: The engine that was tested was on the last space Shuttle flight
C: All of the engines on the first SLS flight will be previously flown Space Shuttle Main Engines.
+Zoomer30 :I doubt they know that. They probably could care less anyway.
How exciting for you and the whole team. Good luck and continue the good work.
Impressive! Great job, everyone!
That's what one engine can do! Can't wait to see 5 burning at once.
+Rocket Man 4. There will be 4 on sls.
+Rocket Man Can't wait to see 4 RS25 and 2 SRB's burning at once.
Impressive..... Most impressive.....
"There! Now Earth's orbit is exactly 366 days EVERY year!"
hahaha, largest rocket ever!
HD and High frame rate! FINALLY THE WORLD UNDERSTANDS.
I had a vindaloo like this at the weekend.
I am coming near for the next one!!!!
At 8:29 the engineer realized s/he left the RS-25 on and ran over to the stove to turn it off.
The most extravagant way to boil water ;) Fantastic! Hope to see it lifting payloads sometime soon!
I'd still rather see them build and test an F-1B engine.
+USWaterRockets ssme is a more interesting engine
nutsackmania That's an entirely subjective opinion. But if you are basing it upon the complexity or the technology involved then the F-1B would certainly be more interesting than the SRBs which it would be competing with for the strap on booster application.
+USWaterRockets No disagreement on the booster. The SRBs are just quick and dirtayyy. An F-1 beast booster would be very super awesome.
Why waste a good engine? F1 boosters couldn't be recovered, anyway, too heavy, too fast. An SRB gives you lot's of power, it's reliable (i know, Challenger... but they learned about that), and cheap when compared to a liquid fuel engine.
And for main stage engines... RS-25's are a lot more advanced and efficient than the F1, and have proven to be as reliable as you can get.
ComandanteJ The SRBs on the SLS are not recoverable. They are not going to resuse them. As for reliable, they may have a decent launch record for reliability except for challenger, but they have a huge hidden cost because they are fully fuelled the moment they are made, so the hazard they pose has not turned into a disaster because of a huge recurring cost in their storage and transport. The RS-25 is NOT a good engine for a booster, because it is a cryogenic engine. That means it uses liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen as fuel. LOX is fairly easy to work with, but liquid hydrogen is quite a bit trickier and harder to work with and costs a ton to make and store and transport. The F-1 engine uses LOX and Kerosene as propellant, which is a lot safer to work with and actually is more efficient as a booster engine because of the denser propellant (Hydrogen is lightweight, so needs higher exhaust speeds and therefore more complex engines).
A single RS-25 gives 418,000 pounds of thrust at sea level, compared to the F-1B engine which was intended to product 1,800,000 pounds thrust at sea level. So, you'd need four and a half RS-25 engines to do the work of one F-1B.
The other issues with solid engines are the fact that they cannot be throttled, so they complicate launch aborts, and reduce the ability for the rocket to compensate for unforeseen problems, since they have two settings ON/OFF. They also complicate the support structure of the core rocket, because they are prone to a lot of vibration.
There are a lot of people who know a lot more about this than I do and they say the solids are not right for the SLS and their use is based purely on politics.
Love how clean the flame is! Seems real efficient. Not to mention the ability to refuel anywhere there is water and a suitable energy source. Way to go, deep space missions just got a whole lot closer!
+OmegaMolecule definitely efficient, hydrogen and oxygen is one of the most energetic chemical reaction possible
edit: "one of"
+Miles Deighton +David Ross well in theory liquid fluorine would be better but it's so dangerous to use we don't want to use it at NASA (source: Jet Propulsion Researcher at NASA JSC)
Yea, something about a huge tank of liquid flourine blowing up in the atmosphere doesnt quite sit well with me.
+David Ross And.... most likely, liquid fluorine is more expensive. There's lots of H and O easily available for free, plus the cost to process.
+OmegaMolecule Actually... hydrogen isn't too efficient in the lower atmosphere. It has a low molecular mass so the air pressure wreaks havoc on its efficiency. However seeing is how the majority of the first stage burn will occur in a vacuum it is the ideal combination where that low mass will really shine. ( efficiency > thrust with upper stage flight ) Kerosene ( RP-1 ) is a much better fuel for atmospheric flight because its molecules are much heavier and less hindered by air pressure and therefore provide more energy.
Frickin awesome in the true sense of that word!
All I can say is wish I was there to see it. What was the SN of the RS-25 controller used for this test if I may ask? Now I can see why they put the RS-25 controllers through such rigorous thermal and vibe testing. OMG Just wish I could see where it is on the engine.
Light that candle, baby. It'd be real funny to see the test stand take off.
What's the temp of the steam blowing out? I keep imagining someone just strolling along as it turns on
+izoli Probably around 100°C when it condenses in the atmosphere
Where is the 4k version?Why did they build a structure to have this thrust upwards when it could point downwards and push Spaceship Earth?
+Peter Penglis :There is nowhere near enough power in any rocket engine to even begin to move the earth.
what is that vapour around the nozzle?
Koenigseggs car preparing to go home, home to mars
Beast! NASA, you're awesome!
+lumberBT Aerojet Rocketdyne is the manufacturer of this engine
why did the colour of the rocket nozzle changed from black to white?
+Kay D oh~~ cooling system around the nozzle freezes the surface. 8:30
I want one. I'm going to install it on the back of my '07 Chevy Cobalt . . . I'll show those SS guys what for!
Curious: how long does the SLS first stage burn for, and how long could this engine have kept burning after the 9 minutes?
+Bob Trembley (Balrog) The first stage will burn for nearly the length of this video. That was the point of the 8 minute firing test. That's how long it takes to get to orbit. Though realistically the SLS will not go to orbit on its first stage alone. So more along the line of 7 or so minutes with the upper stage completing the boost. I'm sure the engine could've burned for as long as they feed it fuel, but it will never burn for more then 8 anyway.
1:18 that is seriously beautiful
0 pollutants. Love you Rocketdyne
Grady Klein um....that engine is burning liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen....which produces that well known pollutant called water vapour.....
It actually rains this 'pollutant' in the local area after these tests. Maybe they should test these engines in the Sahara or other really dry places because they're an ecological benefit.
I wonder how much that 500s burn cost
+paulnmarshall it burns hydrogen and oxygen which come from the atmosphere.
what rod in this engine?
Vary nice...my dream NASA job 👍🏻
As always a very good footage, NASA. No gimbal test yet, right? How did it go? How was the thrust? I'm looking at the sky here in Portugal and there are a lot of clouds in the sky. Maybe some of them were made by this beautiful RS-25! Let's go to Mars! :-)
I could've sworn they tested an RS-25 for SLS years ago and it was gimbaling. Maybe this was the full burn test.
What is the white vapor coming out of the top of the engine? it looks like it is being sucked into the exhaust, is it water from the temp difference or is it extra fuel, etc?
+Alec McFarland just condensation from the air around those super cold pipes
Thank you, that was a guess but I wast positive.
Just out of curiosity how much do you think that burn cost?
who here watched the whole thing and loved every second of it?
Mmm! If a little bit of water and a lot of inventive step, gives this result,
What other forms of propulsion lies ahead?
Good job!!
Actually, for how long can it work like that before the failure?
Are they designed for multiple ignitions in space?
+Kthulhu Fhtagn :This particular engine is not for multiple ignitions as it's a core stage engine and only designed to propel the LV to first stage separation along with 3 other engines. I haven't seen any data on when the core stage is separated but I would think it would be well short of orbital velocity since there is another stage stacked atop it. The engine is designated RS-25, better known as Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME). The plan is to use of the supply of reusable RS-25s left over by the shuttles retirement. Once that happens, cheaper non-reusable RS-25s will be built to power the core stage. As for failures, they have worked well past 9 minutes in shuttle tests. For the SLS, this engine will probably operate for maybe 6 minutes before core stage separation.
+J Dean
Sigh, we need some new non-chemical technology, urgently.
fenomenal y magnífica prueba de motor cohete.
I wonder how loud this is.
We get it bro, you vape.
+kenwoodjeff not often a UA-cam comments makes me laugh
+kenwoodjeff you win the interweb today, conrats
+kenwoodjeff Tip of the hat to you sir. lol!
+kenwoodjeff Epic sir !
What do they use to cool the engine?
+hornetluca The liquid fuel actually keeps the cool.
+fizzrate interesting
How is this a first test? It's the same engine the shuttle used.
Maybe they ran it through a different flight profile.
Please mam/sir would let me try drinking a 5% mix of Methane Gelled with LH2 ?
This is the same engine that is used on Space Shuttle right?
Awesome. when can we pre order? :P
I kept waiting for the A-1 Test Stand to lift off. #RS25 #Stennis
RIP headphone users, lol!
A beautiful engine. Looking forward to come to Cape Canaveral and watch the launch in 2018. My future career will be an engineer and maybe an astronaut.
+Izhan Harris Bin Izzuddin are you dumb? that is what i said. i said i am looking forward to 2018.
+Izhan Harris Bin Izzuddin can't you read? i said looking forward to the launch in 2018 as this engine are gonna be used on the SLS in 2018. You need to learn English dude.
4 Of These?!?! Plus 2 Boosters?!?!? Shit Is Goin Down!!!! Get sum SLS & NASA
what gas is the exhaust?
+Snow Dogg It's just steam, rocket engines like these use Oxygen and Hydrogen as fuel so the result is just water vapor.
Just awesome
Why is there so much ice over ???
+allenshegog It uses Cryogenic/Liquefied O2 And Hydrogen so Ice builds up on many parts of the engine it pretty common on rocket engines.
That's wild. Isn't that wild, folks?
Well that blew my away :0
Sound's super Good!! NASA!! & Efficient!!
so whats the trust lbs specs @Nasa
+Eto Hige Gamer Culture Per a NASA fact sheet, 4 RS-25 engines will provide 8.4 million pounds of thrust on the "SLS 70-metric-ton Initial Configuration", so, sounds like 2.1 million pounds/thrust per engine.
SLS engine is awesome 🇺🇸👑💕💕
That's such an awesome burn time. The engine literally looks like it performs perfectly efficient in every way, well at least to the realistically possible efficiency. Curious how much fuel was burned for that amount of time?
+Trent Brashier For 1 second work, engine consume 4 thousands liters of fuel... That is it.
Hello Mars.... see you soon!
very cool! I want to put that on the back of my car! :0
What's this test for? The RS-25 is just a Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME), which I understand to be a well proven technology at this point.
+Dawn Alderman Modified version: cheaper to build and hopefully more reliable / longer life. And even for "re-used" ones a test run is required after rebuild.
+Paul Langford This test is of an essentially regular SSME that has flown on four Shuttle missions with some upgrades for better margin at the 109% power level.
+nutsackmania I think it's a good practice to check modifications with a full-on test run like that. Look at the cost to Hubble Space Telescope of not doing full testing before deployment!
+Paul Langford Definitely agree with the need to test.
nutsackmania
So, given that 109 rounds up to 110, would it be fair to say that the RS-25 goes to 11?
Is this engine going to fly or was it build for final tests?
+Cristiano Mazzotti I guess the title answers my question: First SLS Flight Engine Test
:P
+Cristiano Mazzotti The that engine and first Four test flights will use left over Space shuttle engines a new engine derived from the RS-25 will propel the SLS flights.
Was the actual test this long or was it clipped together?
+speck213 It should be about this long. 8 minutes is about how long it takes for a launch from Main Engine start till first stage seperation.
What is it burning ??
+Allbbrz It is oxidizing hydrogen. Pretty simple rocket fuel.
You've heard of fire water? That's a water fire.
+Paul Gallaher Thanks
+Allbbrz Liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. In the beginning you can see the hydrogen ignite which in turn spins up a turbo pump which then injects the liquid oxygen into the combustion chamber. Picture a campfire and then taking a leaf blower to that campfire.
Hell Yeah! We coming for you MARS!
+James Zimpleman (Cyb3rz3r0) Martian coming for us as well !
That's nine minutes of HP ass-kick.
Next time though we want to see all of the shock diamond in the video frame please and thank you with massive amounts of sugar on top. :D !!!
Мощь! Молодцы.
Well, I immediately thought of that Half Life rocket test chamber when I saw this..............where's a green tentacle-beak-monster-thing when you need one to vaporize?
Bad. Ass.
I'm a little verklemp. Time to get back into space. Congrats NASA.
+senormedia Ill give you a topic. The jelly bean is neither made of jelly nor is it a bean. Discuss.
i'll tune my bike with that :) LOL
Yep, the marshmallows are burnt now! Thanks!
So ...... cool.
sweet
Is this the new nuclear powered engine i read about??
Nope. Its a traditional chemical rocket, slightly upgraded form of the space shuttle engines
Ahh ok thanks man!
Using a RS-25 instead of F-1A? I mean, really?
That is all water vapor.. Combining oxygen and hydrogen... They need to do all these test in the desert!!
Hello NASA this engine is most powerful
So much water...
Please help me understand - why is this such a big deal? Looks like every other rocket engine from the 60's.
+babzog The 1960's was a LONG time ago. Materials science (and propellants, and construction techniques) have advanced quite a bit since then. This is a new engine; those need to be tested.
+Bob Trembley (Balrog) As I understand it, it's the main shuttle engine with the power output bumped up a bit more. New metals and such - great - but it's the same design from 1975 (not the 60's, my mistake). A tweaked 40 yr old design is the best we can come up with today?
MOOOOOAR POWEEEEER !!!
Cryogenic liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen propellant doesn't melt steel.
Just ........WOW :-)
Jebus! How much fuel does that thing go through every second!
+Swidhelm Thanks for the question.
Each #RS25 engine uses about 400 pounds of fuel per second. :-)
This web feature has some more details.
www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/rs25-engine-powers-sls.html
Plus, This infographic has some GREAT details.
www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/multimedia/infographics.html?id=368371
Thanks for following #NASA and supporting space exploration and our #JourneytoMars. :-)
***** Thanks for the links. That is a crap ton of fuel! I am hyped for the Orion test flight in 2017, and have been keeping tabs on that program ever since I first heard about it.
Fuck yeah.
Mississippi :)
0:11 badass
Looks like an old Shuttle engine
+ILSRWY4 actually it is the same engine - upgraded over the years
That's what i thought....
who are the dislikers?..what's not to like?
+Tony Morris Probably conspiritards who think it's fake (I've seen some in the comments, really opens your eyes to how ignorant some people are).
OMG 00:09 !
Great job NASA. But, someone tell me why this isn't RS-25 engine No. 1. SMH.
Because RS-25 engine is the same engine used on the Space Shuttle. This may be a slightly modified version or could have being run with a modified flight profile.
not bad for an engine built in 1970...
That rocket doesn't look safe, it has to much thrust starting up