Space Launch System Liquid Hydrogen Tank Test
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 12. 2019
- Engineers at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama tested NASA's Space Launch System liquid hydrogen test article tank to failure. The tank withstood more than 260% of expected flight loads before buckling and rupturing. The test version of the tank aced earlier tests, withstanding forces expected at engine thrust levels planned for Artemis lunar missions, showing no signs of cracks, buckling or breaking. The test on Dec. 5 -- conducted using a combination of gaseous nitrogen for pressurization and hydraulics for loads -- pushed the tank to the limits by exposing it to higher forces that caused it to break as engineers predicted. Earlier tests at Marshall certified the tank for both the current version of the SLS -- called Block 1, which will use an upper stage called the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage -- and the Block 1B version that will replace the ICPS with the more powerful Exploration Upper Stage.
- Věda a technologie
congratulations in this test!!!!! after 8 years finally we see the core in some action...
I wish there had been a high-speed camera running so we could see exactly where the original failure point was. But, cool video anyway!
NASA has high-speed footage.
"The test tank was fitted with thousands of sensors to measure stress, pressure and temperature,
(-->) while high-speed cameras and microphones captured every moment to identify buckling or cracking in the cylindrical tank wall."
Source: www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/nasa-engineers-break-sls-test-tank-on-purpose-to-test-extreme-limits.html
@@RicardoNunoSilva NASA are often their own worst enemy. I cannot think of any good reason why they'd withhold the HD footage - I suspect it's mostly just their bureaucratic incompetence. FWIW, I am currently in discussions with their Public Affairs Officer about this matter - I might have to file a FOI.
Fucking hell, NASA - you *need* the public support, to fund Artemis; that was made abundantly clear with the shortfall in the federal spending bill yesterday.
Please don't misunderstand - nobody is more keen on a manned spaceflight than me, and I support the project 100%. I just wish they'd pull their head out of their own ass.
53Mb version, 1920x1088, 10019kbps here;
images-assets.nasa.gov/video/PD003-Test-Case-13B-4693-SE-12-05-2019/PD003-Test-Case-13B-4693-SE-12-05-2019~orig.mp4
The full HD footage has not been passed by Export Control yet.
@Anthony Umana-Paniagua Yes, it was a test. They pressurised it to far beyond normal limits, until it exploded.
It got up to 260% before exploding.
Successful test.
@Anthony Umana-Paniagua Are you being serious right now?
They pumped it up until it exploded, to see how much it could take.
It got to 260% of normal.
Your stomach after eating Taco Bell.
Trying to one-up the starship. Missing the wall of LOX pouring out the side but I'll still give this a 👍
I bet that rattled windows in Huntsville 😆
Can confirm.
@@JaredLeggett I saw this happen from over on the highway, very loud.
I've seen boobs doing the same thing XD
But then it's dangerous buttons flying everywhere.
*@NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center* Please make HD slowmo footage of this available.
That blowed up real good!
Didn't this last over five hours at 260%? I'd LOVE to work there.
Nice. Merry Christmas to all 🎅.🙏
Liquid Hydrogen Tank test is awesome 🇺🇸👑💕
Falcon Heavy: Are you Okay? You look not okay....
SLS: Its fine! Im Oka-
0:26
Go NASA!!
Hello NASA liquid Hydrogen tank test very best test
This s great news cuz now they know what to do
Si la unión fuera realmente buena, eso habría estallado por otro lugar 🤔
We need antigravity engines ASAP ASAP!
What my stomach feels like after the Thanksgiving meal.
30th November 23:59 -> 1st December 00:00
Can the fine people of Hunstville, AL hear all of this happening? Just curious.
Tyler Oelking we absolutely can. The night happened my walls shook pretty bad and I’m several miles away from the stand
@@annahill99 I was in the control room when it happened.
Absolutely no personnel had permission to bear safety matches in a 10 kilometre radius that day
Poor core stage it went boom
Was it a super 8 camera?
Nope. just a PTZ HD camera.
Is it made with carbon fiber?
No, it's made from aluminum alloy. It's quite similar to the Space Shuttle's external tank.
I much prefer the NASA that shows their expensive hardware exploding during testing to the one that doesn't do anything, or only shows its expensive hardware blowing up during flight
This was a pressure test
If it's that strong, why not use a thinner shell, saving/reducing weight?I'm sure a millimeter less would save at least 1k pounds.
Because it's going to be carrying people.
Was this footage taken from Nokia 3310?
Nice, but why was this recorded with a potato?
Hi NASA it was liquid hydrogen then why we can't see it after bursting of fule tank??
they meant for this to explode so they knew how much pressure the tanks could take so they just pressurized it with air
and during the original test series they loaded the tank with LH2.
I was expecting a little more... blast. More... fire, maybe?
It was a test, using nitrogen instead of fuel.
How many flights is this tank rated for?
SpaceX tanks are rated for 100+ according to Wikipedia.
But... this is a much larger launch vehicle that will be rated for human flight... Falcon 9 will be too, but not the Falcon Heavy
Rated for human flight, that was 268% loads for 5 hours
It's "rated" for one flight. It's not designed to be reusable.
@@ann_onn Why is NASA building a Disposable Rocket? Money is no object?
@@WeBeGood06 Disposable rockets got us to the Moon and back successfully. Reusable rockets have never even taken people into Low Earth Orbit yet.
Also, regarding money: it's not necessarily cheaper. Much of the cost is in design and testing, not materials. It's not that much more expensive to build 10 new rockets than it is to make 1. Consider the Space Shuttle, for example; reusable, but each launch cost around $1.5 billion. Compare that to the disposable Soyuz, which costs about $50m per person.
It's surely an impressive rocket. Now launch it. Often. Make it cheaper. Make your moon base.
If they didn't use SSME, it might be a bit cheaper. They're using 4 shuttle flown main engines (the reusable ones) and throwing them away.
"Make it cheaper" - There is no way for Senate Launch System gets cheaper. NASA closed STS program because it was too expensive for its average price of 450 M$, instead they have built SLS with price of 1.6G$ per launch using mostly derived, slightly improved hardware and completely new avionics/software. Although from the point of view Apollo program with cost at least 5.6G$ per launch they made it cheaper at first look, but we must take into consideration that Artemis program will use Apollo's (modernized) infrastructure, so question about whether it is cheaper or not is still open for evaluation.
Just those 4 engines (the ssme) cost 2/3rd the complete price of the starship and super heavy. Add 4 rl-10’s of the exploration upper stage (block 1b) and it surpasses that.
RIP headphone users anyone?
Dutch Universe yup
Put Belle Delphine in there with RP-1 and make it explode>:-)
I'm sure there is and more cheaper and painful way to die
0:26 Ka- boom
does it land?
No, this part will be dropped into the ocean after it's empty.
The upper stages will continue, and return to Earth using parachutes and ablative shields - similar to the Apollo missions.
Spalsh down... And then boom because it has no parachutes or any way to land propulsivly
compared to starship test this looks like a joke
Seemed to have worked better than Starship
G2721 : For some reason You Tube won't allow me to give you a thumbs up. So here's a Kidos instead.
Really? That failure cost more than scraping the MK-1 AND building the Mk-3. Carbon Fiber is EXPENSIVE. Ten times what the steel ships cost.
@@Myrddnn the SLS is made out of aluminum....
@@DavidWillisSLS I stand corrected. That checks out. Still, it cost way more than Starship.
@@Myrddnn Starship doesn't exist.
K-boom
I don't understand how we went to the moon and now they have to start all over again and learn how to build a rocket
80 years and continue doing the same. When will you reveal the antigravitating flying system
CGI TOSCO !!!
Vai lá na nasa visitar o cgi tosco de perto.
@@tiobeto9015 só maçons podem "titio"..............
@@dirceugomidegomide8286 eu moro nos EUA, não sou macom e já estive lá.. Se vc sair desses vídeos de semianalfabetos BR e começar a ver o mundo real, já estará se fazendo um tremendo favor.
@@tiobeto9015 semianalfabetos começou o BLÁ BLÁ BLA´......
@@dirceugomidegomide8286 então fica só C a parte "faça uma visita na nasa", p ver as estruturas de perto.
Humans are gullible show them anything they'll believe it
Like stupid conspiracy claims from piss-drinking yoga teachers?
Yeah, some people are gullible.
Agreed. Too many insane conspiracy theories to go around these days, yet with what seems to be a growing (or more vocal) following.
Some people even believe the Earth is flat! Insanity.
I much prefer the NASA that shows their expensive hardware exploding during testing to the one that doesn't do anything, or only shows its expensive hardware blowing up during flight
The one good thing Trump has done: reboot NASA.