航空航天港

 找回密码
 注册会员

QQ登录

只需一步,快速开始

返回列表
楼主: hkhtg090201
收起左侧

[任务跟踪] 美国太空发射系统SLS:SRB全部地面测试完成

  [复制链接]
zhang 发表于 2011-1-16 21:45 | 显示全部楼层
回复 63# 东方红

按现在的情况,完全没有钱搞 130t 的,有 70t 就谢天谢地了。
zhang 发表于 2011-1-16 21:47 | 显示全部楼层
Sidemount HLV 和 Shuttle-C  的区别是 Sidemount HLV 在上升过程中有 fairing 步骤,所以运载能力更大些。
 楼主| hkhtg090201 发表于 2011-1-27 12:19 | 显示全部楼层
HLV: NASA说不行,国会说行.---(说你行就行,不行也行)
HLV: NASA Says No, Congress Says Yes.

January 25, 2011 10:16 AM  ....NY Times

"Two weeks ago, the agency told Congress that it had decided on preferred designs for the rocket and the crew capsule for carrying astronauts, but could yet not fit them into the schedule and constraints. "All our models say 'no,' " said Elizabeth Robinson, NASA's chief financial officer, "even models that have generous affordability considerations." She said NASA was continuing to explore how it might reduce costs. A couple of days after receiving the report, Senator Nelson said he had talked to the NASA administrator, Maj. Gen. Charles F. Bolden Jr., and "told him he has to follow the law, which requires a new rocket by 2016." He added, "And NASA has to do it within the budget the law requires."
suxiaolang 发表于 2011-1-27 16:51 | 显示全部楼层
说实话,只要加大拨款,不行也行了
 楼主| hkhtg090201 发表于 2011-3-24 16:20 | 显示全部楼层
NASA为将来的HLV 进行“挤压变形”测试

"Can Crush" Test Will Aid Future Rocket Design

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/ ... Can_Crush_Test.html

...a massive 27.5-foot wide, 20-foot-tall aluminum-lithium cylinder will be positioned between two large loading rings and subjected to one million pounds of force until it buckles. ..
浙江诸暨 发表于 2011-3-24 21:00 | 显示全部楼层
这个是多少吨的啊,应该超过天朝的130吨吧
北极企鹅 发表于 2011-3-28 21:00 | 显示全部楼层
中国航天人还得埋头苦干不少日子才能望其项背呀,现在还是望尘莫及。
 楼主| hkhtg090201 发表于 2011-3-29 05:43 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 hkhtg090201 于 2011-3-29 06:06 编辑

不要妄自菲薄,美帝最大计划也不过130吨,他们的局长还说,可预见的至少10年内,那么大的也没用处。
根据现在的预算水平,个人觉得,在可预见的至少15年之内,老美也造不出130吨的火箭。

 楼主| hkhtg090201 发表于 2011-4-1 11:42 | 显示全部楼层
NASA将在6月底向国会提交探索构架,这个构架应该是星座取消后NASA推出的另一个比较完整的探索计划----包括HLV和新的猎户飞船,而HLV的报告原计划在4月给出。
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1103/31slsmpcv/
 楼主| hkhtg090201 发表于 2011-4-1 21:07 | 显示全部楼层

还是中文看着舒服:

NASA将于2011年夏天对大推力运载火箭做出最终选择

新闻发布时间:2011-04-01

[据美国航空周刊网站2011年3月31日报道]  NASA重型太空发射系统(将代替被取消的“宇宙神”-5火箭)的工程师评审方案将在6月底作出最终决定。这个进度必将会激怒那些认为美国航天局新火箭工作步伐过缓的国会议员们。
   
    探测系统副主任库克(Doug Cooke)于3月30日告知美国众议院航天与航空科学分会,最终所选的设计可能不会在一开始就发射整130吨的载荷。具备130吨发射能力的目标是在3年《NASA授权法案》中规定的,该法案于2010年得到国会通过并由奥巴马总统签署。库克表示,随着增加能力的发展,最终将会实现这个具备130吨轨道运载能力的系统。即便对于载重要求较低的任务(70至100吨),相比于目前正在为大运载任务进行研发的商业运载器,使用计划好的SLS及其基于“猎户座”的深空乘员舱向国际太空站运送宇航员的方案也将是“低效”的。
   
    共和党议员爱德华兹(Donna Edwards)在一次关于老 “星座”计划向新方法过渡的听证会上施压说道,库克曾说过NASA期待最早在6月底决定新型大推力运载火箭的最终方案。迄今,库克表示,已于2011年1月公布的参考设计还在审议中。最终设计方案可能是航天飞机与“星座”计划遗留硬件的混合体,包括5个液氧/液氢航天飞机主发动机,一个由J-2X发动机提供动力的上面级(该上面级是为“星座”计划开发的,可与航天飞机外挂油箱的8.39米直径相匹配),以及四段航天飞机固体燃料助推器的双五段型号(起初是为“战神”-1乘员运载火箭第一级开发的)。
   
    然而,工程团队继续为参考任务研究一个以煤油为燃料的替代方案和一个“模块化”方案,该方案可将三个较小直径的主级并排装配(类似“德尔它”-4重型火箭的配置)。另外,NASA还在等待工业界的13个独立研究结果,这些研究都是为了生产更好的重型运载器。库克说:“现在,我们没有改动参考设计,而是正在更新设计中的一些方法,以使其更加有效率。我们还在研究替代设计,以确保我们的设计经得起推敲。”
   
    美国参众两院科学委员会的议员都不满意NASA的方案,特别是NASA在2012财年预算要求中强调商业货运与乘员的方案,以及关于近期大推力运载开发的开放式技术研究。 (中国航天工程咨询中心  张贤明  陈菲)

 楼主| hkhtg090201 发表于 2011-4-3 20:25 | 显示全部楼层
NASA开发深空重型火箭是否有必要?

Does NASA Really Need a HLV for BEO Exploration?
April 2, 2011, at 3:52 pmin News.

Much of the debate over NASA’s heavy-lift launcher program has centered around how to build it. How much to spend this year vs. next year, to use shuttle- and Ares-derived technologies vs. starting from scratch, and whether the Dec. 31, 2016 deadline is remotely realistic. However, there is a far more fundamental issue that has received little or no attention, one that could affect tens of billions in spending and thousands of jobs nationwide in many districts and states.

In his latest note, Space Access Society Founder Henry Vanderbilt points out the existential threat faced by advocates of building a heavy-lift vehicle:  namely, that the HLV might not be necessary to accomplish beyond Earth orbit exploration.  A combination of existing rockets and a new technology (propellant depots) could allow the United States to launch its deep-space exploration effort without having to develop an expensive new booster with extremely high operational and launch costs.

Vanderbilt closes with a plea for opponents of the Congressionally-directed HLV to call their Congressional representatives to urge them to not to dictate to NASA what architecture is required for BEO exploration.

NASA Exploration Funding

Some Background

There’s a new development in the ongoing debate over the wisdom of Congress ordering NASA to develop in-house the “Space Launch System” (SLS) heavy-lift booster.  Last year, NASA ran a study on what it would take to do a twenty-year human exploration program culminating in human flights to near-Earth asteroids.  The HEFT study (Human Exploration Framework Team) concluded that if NASA built its own 100-ton payload Heavy Lift booster then used it to launch fully-fueled mission stages Apollo-style, the overall program cost would be $143 billion over twenty years, or an average of just over seven billion a year.

For what it’s worth, NASA Human Exploration looks likely to be funded at no more than four to five billion a year for the foreseeable future.

Now a team working out of Georgia Tech has released a study looking at what happens to program costs if you add propellant depots to the HEFT baseline, allowing everything to be launched on medium-lift commercial launch vehicles with no need for a new NASA SLS-style HLV.

Under a range of assumptions, their cost for this modified HEFT program comes in at between $73 billion and $97 billion over twenty years – an average of between $3.6 billion and $4.9 billion per year.

These studies make it crystal clear: NASA can probably afford a human deep-space exploration program based on commercial boosters plus propellant depots.  NASA definitely cannot afford a human deep-space exploration program based on the Congressionally-mandated 130-ton SLS heavy lifter.

(Mind, neither HEFT nor this new Georgia Tech study are the last word in how much such a program really should cost.  Both are relatively quick ballpark estimates based largely on existing NASA practice.  The Georgia Tech study very conservatively introduces one low-risk new element into the equation to come up with these savings.  We happen to think considerable additional time and money savings are possible with further reform to the traditional NASA way of doing business.  But that’s a discussion for another day.)

Latest Status

Meanwhile, Congress may be approaching a decision point on overall federal government funding for the remainder of federal fiscal year 2011 (FY’11 ends at midnight this September 30th.)  The government has been funded so far in FY ’11 by a series of “Continuing Resolutions” (CR’s) that essentially continue funding appropriations at FY ’10 levels.

The latest of these CR’s runs out next Friday April 8th, and both sides in the budget battle are currently talking tough about no more short-term CR’s.  It’s possible some sort of CR to cover the rest of FY’11 actually will be worked out during this coming week.

There’s no way of knowing for sure what sort of NASA language might end up in such a final compromise bill, but a look at the competing House and Senate versions can provide some clues.  Both are roughly similar in overall NASA funding levels, both provide NASA with some flexibility in moving funds around for the rest of the year to deal with changing circumstances, both cancel the “Shelby Amendment” that has been expensively delaying final shutdown of Constellation since last year.

In fact, the only significant difference we can see between the House and Senate positions on NASA is that the Senate CR mandates spending $3 billion over the next six months on SLS plus the MPCV son-of-Orion crew capsule (see SAU#121, at http://www.space-access.org/updates/sau121.html) and the House CR doesn’t.

Given that:

- $3 billion is the majority of the Exploration total so other more useful Exploration programs will suffer badly
- NASA funding in general may well be stretched before the last two Shuttle missions have flown
- NASA has told Congress politely but repeatedly they simply can’t build SLS for the money specified (or within the time mandated)
- The Georgia Tech study makes clear that NASA cannot afford meaningful deep-space exploration based on SLS

it looks to us that it would be a very good thing if the Senate $3 billion mandate doesn’t make it into the final FY’11 CR.

Recommended Action:

Contact your Representative and both your Senators during this coming week – earlier is better – and tell them (politely!) that Congress should stop telling NASA what kind of rocket to build, that the SLS (or “Senate Launch System” if you prefer) is unaffordable and unsustainable.  Get as many of your friends as you can to do it too.  Numbers count.  We need to make as many of our Representatives and Senators as possible aware of our concerns in the next few days, before deals start being finalized on the FY’11 CR.

If you’re from one of the districts or states with a major financial stake in SLS, you may not make any converts, but it still helps to let them know that they have constituents who disagree with them.  They may bring up the jobs SLS would bring home – you might respond that you’re not against jobs, but they should be for building something useful; you’re more concerned with what’s good for the country as a whole.  Be direct, be passionate, be persuasive, but stay polite – rudeness or vulgarity just makes the whole position look less respectable.

Contact Info for Representative and Senators: If you know their names, you can call the US Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask for their DC office.  If you don’t know who your Representative is, go to http://www.house.gov/zip/ZIP2Rep.html and enter your home zipcode.  (You may need the 9-digit version.) For Senators listed by state, go to http://www.senate.gov/general/co ... on/senators_cfm.cfm

Once through to their office, let the person who answers know you’re calling about the NASA provisions in the FY’11 CR.  They may switch you to another staffer (or that staffer’s voicemail) or they may take the call themselves.  (If you’re calling after-hours or they’re getting a lot of calls, you may go directly to a voicemail.)

Regardless, ask them to tell (Representative/Senator TheirName) that Congress should stop telling NASA what kind of rocket to build.  Pick a reason from the list that follows (or come up with your own) and give it.  If whoever you’re talking to has questions or wants to discuss the matter more, fill them in as best you can.  Then thank them for their time and ring off.

Reasons:

- NASA has said they can’t build the SLS (or “Senate Launch System” if you like)  for the money provided.
- NASA has said they can’t use a booster the size of SLS for at least fifteen years – why insist it be ready in five?
- SLS as mandated would use thirty-year old technology.  Why not let NASA draw on the best of current US industry capabilities instead?
- According to last year’s HEFT study, NASA cannot fit a deep-space exploration program based on an SLS-like heavy lifter within current budgets.
- According to the recent Georgia Tech study, NASA can actually fit a deep-space exploration program using smaller commercial boosters within current budgets.   (We wouldn’t recommend getting into propellant depots unless whoever you’re talking to shows signs of sharing our serious space geekery…)

Or, to quote our friends in the Space Frontier Foundation (they got their alert out two days ago, but then they’re not putting on a conference next week…)

” Our space program needs an open and fair competition among not just different contractors but different and even multiple approaches to see which are the most affordable, most flexible, and most sustainable…

“Instead, some in Congress want to make NASA build their favorite rocket, without competition, even though NASA has already told them it can’t be done for the resources available on anything like the timetable Congress wants.  It’s time to stop the Congress from mandating the Senate Launch System, and let NASA compete ideas…

“We can’t afford to repeat the mistakes of Constellation, and just rubber-stamp a pre-selected design for a rocket.  No more sole-source, non-competitive procurements…”

OK, that’s the basic version.  Some of you may want to get more involved in this effort than making a few quick phone calls.  Letters (faxed, at this point) are great!  (Emails much less so; you know how much spam you get – now imagine the amount a Congressman gets.  Better to phone than to email.)  Keep letters to one page, state your basic point (Dear Representative/Senator TheirName, I am writing to request that Congress not tell NASA what type of rocket to build in the FY’11 CR, etc…) in the first sentence of the first paragraph, then go into a paragraph of supporting detail, then politely wrap up.  Faxes are much better than paper mails at this point, in that you can be sure they’ll arrive on time.

What it comes down to is, if we care about US space commercial and technical competitiveness, if we want to see NASA with some hope of going new and interesting places in our lifetimes, we need to keep at this.  We won one battle last fall, but the war continues.


 楼主| hkhtg090201 发表于 2011-4-14 22:54 | 显示全部楼层
国会的要求使NASA在研制重型火箭和乘员舱方面倍感压力

新闻发布时间:2011-04-12

  [本站2010年4月12日报道]美国国会提醒美国航空航天局(NASA):其没有遵从“2010财年授权法案”。该法案要求NASA在2016年前使一种政府拥有的(Government-Owend)乘员舱和重型火箭投入运行。

  2011年3月30日,在众议院科学、太空和技术委员会太空与航空分委会听证会期间,委员会主席拉尔夫•霍尔称:国会已经在“2010财年NASA授权法案”中给出了明确的指导,政府需要对此作出反应并采取相应的行动。

  NASA探索任务理事会副主管道格拉斯•库克称:自从2010年10月“2010财年NASA授权法案”签署成为法律以来,NASA已经研究了关于多目标乘员飞行器(MPCV)和太空发射系统(SLS)的选择方案,还选择了参考设计。新的乘员舱将以“星座计划”中“猎户座”乘员飞行器为基础,“猎户座”原打算接替航天飞机并作为月球探索飞行器。NASA的法律和采办官员已经决定MPCV的研制工作将在现有“猎户座”合同范围内进行。

  库克认为:虽然新型SLS重型火箭的设计也衍生自“星座计划”的一部分,但SLS重型火箭和“星座计划”中“战神”-1火箭的类似之处较少。NASA官员在继续对SLS和“战神”-1火箭计划进行评审以发现二者之间的重叠部分,包括航天飞机衍生固体火箭助推器、J-2X上面级发动机和航空电子设备方面的工作。

  “2010财年NASA授权法案”要求NASA研制一种足够强大的、能够将质量为130吨的有效载荷送入轨道的火箭。NASA方面计划发展一种缩比型运载器,能够提供70~100吨的初始运载能力以在预算限制条件下尽早满足载荷部署需求。

  NASA的2011财年预算为187亿美元,白宫2012财年为NASA申请的预算也是187亿美元。授权法案建议2011财年和2012财年的预算分别为190亿美元和194.5亿美元。两者之间的差异可能使NASA很难遵从国会的指示在2016年前开始运行重型火箭和乘员舱。

        乔治华盛顿大学太空政策研究所主任斯科特•佩斯说:“NASA在现有投资水平下没有足够把握满足进度要求,如果投资不增加,研制探索系统的总成本将会上升”。(中国航天工程咨询中心 陈杰 侯丹)  
 楼主| hkhtg090201 发表于 2011-4-14 23:03 | 显示全部楼层
奥巴马政府不支持国会指导下的重型火箭计划(上)  

新闻发布时间:2011-04-12


  [本站4月12日综合报道]奥巴马政府的官员们继续不支持(push back)国会指导下的重型运载火箭研制计划,该计划将可能挽救“星座计划”的部分内容,而这些内容是奥巴马总统希望取消的。

  2011年3月30日,白宫科学顾问约翰•霍尔德伦称:由于总统提出的2012财年NASA 187亿美元预算将投资两党“2010财年NASA授权法案”中限定的关键主题,因此国会无力通过2011财年开支法案。这将会阻碍NASA在新的太空发射系统(SLS)和多目标乘员飞行器(MPCV)方面开展工作,而NASA 2010财年法案要求SLS和MPCV应在2016年前实现运行。

  在3月30日的采访中,霍尔德伦称:NASA未来将被2010财年拨款规定中的限制性语言所阻碍,这些限制性语言会阻碍NASA废弃重返月球的“星座计划”,阻碍NASA投资研制2010财年授权法案中要求的新型太空发射系统和乘员探索飞行器。

      霍尔德伦在戈达德纪念座谈会发表评论后说:“作为这些限制的结果,我认为已经不可能步入新项目发展的正确轨道了,此种轨道只有在我们获得真正的预算后才能身处其中。鉴于此,我认为:‘我们2012财年在新项目的发展方面能投入的资金将和国会授权的资金一样多’这一想法有些过时了”。(中国航天工程咨询中心 陈杰 韩鸿硕 王宜晓)


----------------------

奥巴马政府不支持国会指导下的重型火箭计划(中)  

新闻发布时间:2011-04-12


  [本站4月12日综合报道]国会建议2012财年投入40亿美元用于重型运载火箭或SLS和多目标乘员飞行器的研制,然而奥巴马总统总共仅为这项工作提出了28亿美元的预算申请。

  与国会通过的年度拨款立法最终批准的投资相比,授权法案经常提出更高的投资水平。例如“NASA授权法案”建议的2011财年NASA预算为190亿美元,2012财年为194.5亿美元。迄今为止国会没能通过2011财年拨款法案,这使得对NASA的投资保留为187亿美元,与白宫寻求的2012财年NASA投资数额一样。

  由于白宫处于限制开支的压力下,霍尔德伦称:如果NASA在2012财年面临限制性预算,那么总统的提议对于重型运载火箭的研制来说代表了“最有进取心的计划”。

  2010年10月,奥巴马总统签署的2010年NASA授权法案成为法律,该法案要求NASA将现有航天飞机和“星座计划”投资有效用于建造一种用于深空任务的新型重型运载火箭和多目标乘员飞行器。重要的是,授权法案要求运载火箭的初始运载能力为70~100吨,能够在2016年年底前投入使用。同时还要求这种火箭能够发展成发射至少130吨火星任务的运载器。

  虽然授权法案给了NASA 90天时间选定一种适合新体系架构的设计方案并将建造计划报告给国会,但NASA并没有在2011年1月向国会提交初步设计报告,而是许诺在春天提供更多细节。

      NASA局长查尔斯•博尔登称:NASA正处于“在2011年春季或夏季向立法者提交一份最终报告”的进程中。但在3月30日的一次主题演讲中,博尔登说NASA在2020年代后期之前不太可能需要一种运载能力130吨的运载火箭

--------------------------------

奥巴马政府不支持国会指导下的重型火箭计划(下)  

新闻发布时间:2011-04-12


  [本站4月12日报道]NASA授权法案提出2012财年用于重型运载火箭的预算为26亿美元,然而奥巴马总统2012财年预算申请中给予这项工作的预算额度仅为18亿美元。

  虽然博尔登说他在一段时间以内并不期望NASA准备好开始火箭研制工作,但如果国会通过该预算申请,NASA计划2012财年用这笔资金完成运载器设计要求研究。

  NASA马歇尔飞行中心副主任、SLS主要规划者托德•梅伊称:如果NASA新体系结构选择方案能够有效利用航天飞机或“星座计划”的技术,包括截至目前在“战神”系列火箭方面已经做的工作,那么18亿美元预算中的一部分能够被用于迅速启动新型火箭的研究工作。

  梅伊说:“根据快速启动重型运载火箭研制工作的要求,可以使用航天飞机和‘战神’火箭的部件,但这种设想尚未确定。经费也可以用来继续投资“星座计划”中J-2X上面级发动机的研制。在一些体系结构中,即使不想采用航天飞机衍生型方案,可能仍要使用J-2X发动机。”

      然而,博尔登称:NASA并不期望“至少用一年时间”征求工业界对重型运载火箭研发的建议。他说火箭和乘员舱项目必须“负担得起、具有可持续性和可实现性”,因此NASA将为新体系结构寻求外部成本估算。(中国航天工程咨询中心 陈杰 韩鸿硕 王宜晓)  

 楼主| hkhtg090201 发表于 2011-4-26 17:43 | 显示全部楼层
一种思路:分2个阶段发展HLV,第一阶段基于SD,第二阶段加入EELV和SpaceX的竞争。
SD专攻近期的LEO,第二阶段的HLV瞄准BEO,为130T。
老美要发展2种HLV?

SLS planning focuses on dual phase approach opening with SD HLV
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2 ... ach-opening-sd-hlv/

点评

没目标,需求不明确。还有的扯皮  发表于 2011-4-26 19:13
delta4heavy 发表于 2011-4-26 20:50 | 显示全部楼层
这是首次提出让商业公司开发HLV的设想?
zhang 发表于 2011-4-27 00:45 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 zhang 于 2011-4-27 01:01 编辑

NASA 就是把 HLV 分 2 个阶段,第一阶段没有商业商业公司什么事,设计基本确定,  Phase I SLS 或 70mt SD HLV (Block 0) 从 2016 开始发射 4 次。发射台 Pad 39A。Phase II SLS 或 130mt HLV, 设计还没有定,可能是 RP-1 的,可能是从 EELV 过来的,甚至是 SpaceX Super Heavy. Phase II 在 2020 从 Pad 39B 发射进行 BEO 任务。

Phase I 将用掉 12 个剩余的 SSME, 对 ATK 也是一种安慰。问题是没有 upper stage  的 70t payload 能干什么呢?

LM 的计划是 MPCV 在 2013 开始测试飞行, 2016 开始载人。时间和 Phase I SLS 一样。

http://www.universetoday.com/85083/lockheed-accelerates-orion-to-achieve-2013-launch-and-potential-2016-lunar-flyby/comment-page-1/
 楼主| hkhtg090201 发表于 2011-5-23 19:36 | 显示全部楼层
J-2X发动机系列试验证明了部件的完整性

新闻发布时间:2011-05-23

  [据美国今日航天网近日报道]美国航空航天局(NASA)马歇尔太空飞行中心的工程师们成功地对J-2X发动机的关键部件即燃料泵第一级喷嘴进行了试验,以确保其能够耐受极端运行环境,试验中喷嘴性能表现超出预期。

  J-2X发动机是一种高效通用上面级火箭发动机,能够在太空中关机和重复启动,从而满足各种任务要求。全尺寸发动机试验将在2011年夏季末开始。但在此前,工程师们测试了发动机燃料泵第一级喷嘴的寿命和耐久性。该喷嘴控制热气流喷射至涡轮叶片。

  整个发动机在极端条件下运行,但只有燃料泵第一级喷嘴真正经受住了冲击。从超冷状态到随后立即过热的剧烈热交换,使金属喷嘴经受压力导致迅速膨胀和收缩,最终使其破裂。在发动机运行过程中,涡轮泵喷嘴暴露在-252℃的液氢中,在启动程序开始运行的两秒钟之内,该喷嘴受到温度约为538℃的热气体冲击。

  阿波罗时代的火箭科学家们在最初的J-2发动机上也对相同问题进行了研究,J-2X是J-2的升级版发动机。在一系列试验之后,阿波罗计划的工程师们发现燃料泵第一级喷嘴在多次关机启动后破裂。尽管这一部件破裂,但其他旨在证明发动机性能和安全性的试验未受影响。

  对于J-2X发动机的建模与仿真表明J-2X将出现同样的问题,因此设计者们选择了一种新型镍合金用于制造涡轮泵喷嘴。这种合金脆性低,被认为能够在极端温度变化条件下保持更加良好的状态。

  NASA马歇尔太空飞行中心J-2X涡轮机主管加里•根奇说:“为了验证所需部件的寿命,在最终完成J-2X发动机设计前,我们就这一问题进行了许多设计和分析工作。我们着眼于进行令人印象深刻的设计改进,但对部件几何结构的改变将产生我们希望避免的下游影响(downstream effect)。同时历史数据表明,采用改进的材料和进行较小变更的新设计是可以接受的”。

  J-2X发动机总计进行了43次模拟真实发动机启动和关闭环境的试验。在每个试验日开始的时候都进行非破坏性评估,同时没有发现不利条件。

  根奇说:“通过使同一涡轮泵喷嘴反复经受压力并经常仔细检查,我们确信该部件具有很强的耐久性。这种知识将在发动机长期运行过程中为我们节省时间和成本,因为我们不能在无需拆卸发动机的情况下检查真实的J-2X发动机的涡轮泵喷嘴。这种全面的系列试验表明:在整个已计划好的系列试验中我们应当是有把握的,同时我们现在对喷嘴的寿命和结构完整性有了更深入的了解”。

  J-2X 10001是第一台从生产线下线的发动机,正在NASA斯坦尼斯航天中心全力进行装配。全尺寸发动机试验将在2011年6月开始。J-2X发动机由普拉特•惠特尼•洛克达因公司为NASA马歇尔太空飞行中心设计建造。(中国航天工程咨询中心 陈杰 陈菲)  

PS:j-2x是通用上面级,据称,对HLV也是必不可少的。
 楼主| hkhtg090201 发表于 2011-6-6 20:20 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 hkhtg090201 于 2011-6-6 20:21 编辑

SLS(HLV)接近初步定型- 两步走的方案被驳回
SLS configuration nears decision point – Two-phase approach rejected
June 5th, 2011 by Chris Bergin  

A decision on the configuration of the Space Launch System (SLS) Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLV) is just weeks away, as final evaluations take place into a “staged evolution of a single heavy launcher”, after NASA’s leadership rejected the two-phase approach, which would have resulted in an open competition for the Beyond Earth Orbit (BEO) derivative of the SLS.
  距离作出一份关于SLS重型运载火箭(HLV)的配置决定只有几个星期了,作为最终评估,出现了进入一个单一的HLV的阶段评估,美国航空航天局的领导拒绝了两步逼近的方法,这将带来BEO太空发射系统开放式竞争的结局。


http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/06/sls-decision-nasa-two-phase-approach/


cmj9808 发表于 2011-6-6 21:03 | 显示全部楼层
大概解释一下NSF最新的这篇文章

之前NASA的方案是第一阶段是70吨运力的SD-HLV block 0,第二阶段向商业公司开放竞争130吨运力的SLS(80#有详细介绍)。
Bolden局长在最近的会议上否决了这一“两步走”方案,第二阶段不再向商业公司开放竞争,而由MSFC全权负责,在SD-HLV的基础上增加上面级,不排除使用液氧煤油助推级的可能(但和固体助推器相比胜算不大),但不再考虑Saturn V和upgrade EELV的方案

点评

收回疑问,翻译错误,which would指的是‘2步走方案’,看来在HLV上NASA还不打算走商业化道路。  发表于 2011-6-6 21:51
那文中所谓的 open competition (公开竞争)表现在什么地方?还是竞争大大折扣,说说而已。  发表于 2011-6-6 21:46
suxiaolang 发表于 2011-6-6 21:15 | 显示全部楼层
NASA现在完全是在为了创造就业搞HLV,完全把自己束缚住了,看来未来航天还是得靠创新型公司啊
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册会员

本版积分规则

QQ|申请友链|旗下论坛|小黑屋|手机版|航空航天港 ( 豫ICP备12024513号 )

GMT+8, 2018-9-25 15:20 , Processed in 0.386499 second(s), 20 queries , Gzip On.

Powered by Discuz! X3.2

© 2001-2013 Comsenz Inc.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表