This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
SLS and Orion

Too Many Test Stands at NASA?

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
May 7, 2014
Filed under , ,

Space Launch System Structural Test Stands to be Built at Marshall Space Flight Center
“NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) will have the largest cryogenic fuel tanks ever used on a rocket. Stands to test the tanks and other hardware to ensure that these huge structures can withstand the incredible stresses of launch will be built at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. NASA is contracting for the construction of the test stands through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which has awarded a $45.3 million contract to Brasfield & Gorrie of Birmingham, Alabama.”
NASA OIG: NASA’s Decision Process for Conducting Space Launch System Core Stage Testing at Stennis, earlier post
“Similar to the OIG’s conclusions 5 years ago, the OIG found that NASA failed to follow its internal policies or its agreement with the DOD when it decided to spend approximately $352 million to refurbish and test the SLS core stage on the B-2 test stand at Stennis.  Moreover, the OIG found that NASA did not adequately support its decision given that refurbishing the B-2 stand will be more costly and take longer than two other possible options:  an Air Force test stand at Edwards Air Force Base in California and a test stand at the Marshall Space Flight Center.”

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

36 responses to “Too Many Test Stands at NASA?”

  1. John Kavanagh says:
    0
    0

    Prioritization.

    Accelerate the first launch of astronauts from American soil? No, let’s fork over $100s of millions for Soyuz flights and build SLS tests stands instead.

    Accelerate independent American production of an RD-180 alternative? No, let’s finish J2-X testing and then mothball that upper state engine until the 2020s.

    • Denniswingo says:
      0
      0

      Isn’t that insane?

      • Michael Reynolds says:
        0
        0

        Only from our perspective. From a politician’s, lobbyist, or other industry insider’s perspective this is just good business.

      • Ben Russell-Gough says:
        0
        0

        It’s the mindset of an organisation where the journey is more important than the destination – developing and building a new rocket/launch vehicle is more important than actually doing stuff.

    • SpaceMunkie says:
      0
      0

      hey, somebody wanted to go commercial, J2-X is not a COTS engine, RD180 however, is a COTS engine.

      • Ben Russell-Gough says:
        0
        0

        Actually, RD-180 is a government engine born and bred… just not a American government engine. Even the vehicle in which it flies is government funded from the bottom up.

    • Ben Russell-Gough says:
      0
      0

      The current thinking in NASA is heading towards using either RL-10 or the Japanese MB-60 for the upper stage so the J-2X may never actually be used. How much money to build a rocket motor that never flies?

  2. Denniswingo says:
    0
    0

    Didn’t they just tear down the old Saturn V structural test stand a few years ago?

    • dbooker says:
      0
      0

      I believe the structural test stand for SLS was built on top of the foundations of the old Saturn V test stand. These are for first stage structural testing.

      But the earlier post quoted seems to be talking about the engine test stands. Which I find curious because I thought the RS-25 were always tested at Stennis so why did they have to build new test stands?

    • SpaceMunkie says:
      0
      0

      No, the structural test stand is a national landmark and it is still standing. (look at it in google maps). The MSFC F1 engine stand was partially deconstructed and will be totally cut down to build the new mechanical stress stand for SLS. It will be a hydraulic machine, no engine will ever be run there.

      • Denniswingo says:
        0
        0

        That was not just an engine test stand. It was for the entire S1C first stage. Later it was used to test SSME’s and the RD-180’s. I saw firings of both engines there in the 1980’s and 90’s.

        • pipersupercub says:
          0
          0

          Wrong test stand. TS4696 (which was partially demolished to be used for these new structural tests) was used for single engine firings of the F-1 while TS4670 was used for S-IC tests.

          • Denniswingo says:
            0
            0

            Thanks for that. Again, since you are probably from MSFC, what happened to the Saturn V dynamic test stand? When I was still living in HSV they had maintained that building for years. Why could it not be modified/used for the SLS testing? The entire Saturn V stack was put in there as was the Shuttle.

          • pipersupercub says:
            0
            0

            Yep it is still standing. It actually was planned at one time to host Ares I. As for these structural test, the load paths (and structure layout in general) that will travel to the foundation are too great. Existing stands at MSFC were evaluated to possibly modify, but believe it or not the best solution was to demo TS4696 and use the remaining foundation (goes to bedrock).

        • SpaceMunkie says:
          0
          0

          4550 is the stand we are talking about, it is in the East Test Area of MSFC – that is what I was talking about, the dynamic test stand.
          4696 is/was the F1 stand and its on the other side in the West Test Area

  3. Gonzo_Skeptic says:
    0
    0

    Shame on those party poopers at the OIG for raining on the SLS parade by trying to force them to live in the real world.

    Working at NASA is all about having fun! If the employees there wanted to actually worry about cost or schedule, they would go and get a job in private industry.

    • SpaceMunkie says:
      0
      0

      NASA has very little to say on where it spends the money when in its appropriations bill it clearly states ” amendment to HR xxxxx this project will be implemented at MSFC. Sponsored by Shelby and….”

  4. Richard H. Shores says:
    0
    0

    Cannot wait to read the news stories of the citizens of Huntsville raising Hell because of the noise and broken windows.

    • whatagy says:
      0
      0

      And therein lies the rub. It would be much cheaper to refurbish the stand at MSFC but the big problem are all of the neighborhoods that have been built right up against the arsenal fences. The large scaled engine testing at Marshall is over

    • SpaceMunkie says:
      0
      0

      Who said anything about engine testing at MSFC? It’s a structural test.

      • whatagy says:
        0
        0

        The core stage will undergo fill and drain tests as well as 2 hot fire tests in the B-2 stand.

        • SpaceMunkie says:
          0
          0

          B-2 stand is at Stennis, not MSFC!

          • whatagy says:
            0
            0

            Wow, thanks for the info! That explains why I can’t see it out of my window.

          • SpaceMunkie says:
            0
            0

            I have no idea what you are looking at but this is the only NASA B-2 test stand and it is knnown by that designation everywhere by every NASA or contractor employee:

            http://crgis.ndc.nasa.gov/h

          • whatagy says:
            0
            0

            This has gotten so far out of whack. I know full well where the test stands are located since I work in test at Marshall. Early on there were discussions about doing the core stage green runs at MSFC and one of the big negatives was the noise projected in the adjacent neighborhoods. The cost to modify the stand at MSFC would have been about an order of magnitude less than the cost at Stennis but the noise and politics landed the core stage runs at Stennis.

            Present day, yes you are correct there will be no engine testing at Marshall but early on it was a possibility that was on the table. That early possibility and the associated cost are what is referenced in the subject OIG report.

          • whatagy says:
            0
            0

            Shouldn’t have said an order of magnitude. The costs to modify the stand at MSFC would have been probably $150M less than Stennis

        • hikingmike says:
          0
          0

          I’ll spell it out, lol

          From the article-

          Stands to test the tanks and other hardware to ensure that these huge structures can withstand the incredible stresses of launch…

          Then Richard H. Shores mentioned the noise and broken windows in Huntsville.

          Then SpaceMunkie said “who said anything about engine testing at MSFC? It’s a structural test.”

          So, whatagy, your comment doesn’t make much sense. I also don’t read that this will be engine testing in Huntsville.

  5. SpaceMunkie says:
    0
    0

    The dynamic test stand at MSFC is still there. There will be no engine testing at MSFC – read the article.

    • Denniswingo says:
      0
      0

      The point is that there are test stands existing for both engine testing, dynamic testing, and full stage testing at MSFC. Why can these not be used. I know that the Huntsville community supports this.

      • whatagy says:
        0
        0

        The acoustic projections from the stage testing at MSFC were a concern with all of the neighborhoods that have cropped up next to the property. MSFC should have purchased the land years ago to preserve the capability to test engines but we didn’t so the chips fall where they do.

  6. Denniswingo says:
    0
    0

    There was a building at MSFC for doing structural testing for the ENTIRE Saturn V stack. That building could have done the SLS testing no problem.

  7. Ed Kyle says:
    0
    0

    I don/’t think there are *enough* test stands. For SLS, NASA is
    skipping some tests that it did for Saturn. Skip enough tests and the
    result could look like those Soviet N-1 launches