NASA?s J-2X Engine To Be Mothballed After Testing

NASA?s J-2X Engine To Be Mothballed After Testing
By Frank Morring, Jr.
Source: Aerospace Daily & Defense Report

http://tinyurl.com/q7d2mvj

"NASA's J-2X engine, once considered the pacing item for the
next U.S. human-rated rocket, will go on the shelf after
development testing wraps up next year because it will be
years before the engine is needed to push humans toward Mars.
While the agency is actively seeking other missions for the
heavy-lift Space Launch System (SLS) in the planetary science
and military arenas, most of the human flights it has in
sight for the big new rocket probably can be accomplished
with an upper stage powered by the RL-10 engine instead of
the J-2X. "The J-2X for certain [design reference missions]
is somewhat overpowered," said Todd May, NASA's SLS program
manager."

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

Originally Posted by Jeff Findley[_2_]

NASA?s J-2X Engine To Be Mothballed After Testing
By Frank Morring, Jr.
Source: Aerospace Daily & Defense Report

http://tinyurl.com/q7d2mvj

"NASA's J-2X engine, once considered the pacing item for the
next U.S. human-rated rocket, will go on the shelf after
development testing wraps up next year because it will be
years before the engine is needed to push humans toward Mars.
While the agency is actively seeking other missions for the
heavy-lift Space Launch System (SLS) in the planetary science
and military arenas, most of the human flights it has in
sight for the big new rocket probably can be accomplished
with an upper stage powered by the RL-10 engine instead of
the J-2X. "The J-2X for certain [design reference missions]
is somewhat overpowered," said Todd May, NASA's SLS program
manager."

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

It should be carefully noted the article says the J-2X will be 'mothballed', not scrapped. This is only logical as the rest of the SLS has yet to come off the drawing board.

What is bizarre about this situation is that NASA has historically wanted to go to Mars, but cannot see the wisdom of going with current engine technology. The above-mentioned RL-10 family of engines is up to the task and has a proven track record. Yet NASA insists on spending tens of billions of dollars for giant rockets that have few, if any, applications outside the NASA program. Cost efficiency fir the SLS is dubious at best. Booz-Allen recently released a report suggesting real unit costs for SLS Block II Heavy Cargo Lifter could be up to $2.5 Billion, instead of the $1.5 Billion currently claimed by NASA. Why does this sound so familiar?

Atlas, Delta and Falcon are all capable of getting U.S. astronauts to the Mon and Mars, given a suitable strategy and funding. We should scrap SLS before it is too late. Assuming it is not already. . .

In article , MercuryAlpha.c9a1188
@spacebanter.com says...

It should be carefully noted the article says the J-2X will be
'mothballed', not scrapped. This is only logical as the rest of the SLS
has yet to come off the drawing board.

Yes, the word "mothballed" is in the title of this thread, so I thought
it was fairly obvious. The fact remains that the initial versions of
the SLS will only require the RL-10, which is currently in production
and in use on the EELV's (RL10A-4-2 and RL10B-2).

The fact is, the J-2X is overpowered (nearly 300,000 lbs thrust) for
most missions and its thrust to weight ratio (55) and ISP (448 seconds
in vacuum) aren't terribly impressive.

What is bizarre about this situation is that NASA has historically
wanted to go to Mars, but cannot see the wisdom of going with current
engine technology. The above-mentioned RL-10 family of engines is up to
the task and has a proven track record. Yet NASA insists on spending
tens of billions of dollars for giant rockets that have few, if any,
applications outside the NASA program. Cost efficiency fir the SLS is
dubious at best. Booz-Allen recently released a report suggesting real
unit costs for SLS Block II Heavy Cargo Lifter could be up to $2.5
Billion, instead of the $1.5 Billion currently claimed by NASA. Why
does this sound so familiar?

A more sane engine for NASA to have developed would have been the RL-60,
which has been partially (90%) developed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RL-60

The RL-60 was envisioned from the beginning as an "low cost" RL-10
replacement (manufactured using modern materials and methods), so it
would have a much higher chance of being used in vehicles other than
SLS.

Atlas, Delta and Falcon are all capable of getting U.S. astronauts to
the Mon and Mars, given a suitable strategy and funding. We should
scrap SLS before it is too late. Assuming it is not already. . .

As far as Congress is concerned, it is far too late. Spending money in
congressional districts is their primary goal and SLS does just that.
Actually launching U.S. astronauts is a distant secondary goal.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

"MercuryAlpha" wrote in message
...


Yet CONGRESS insists on spending
tens of billions of dollars for giant rockets that have few, if any,
applications outside the NASA program.

There, fixed that for you. Remember, it's not NASA setting the direction,
it's Congress trying to spread the pork around.

I'll make a bet here that Falcon 9 Heavy will put far more payload into
orbit than SLS ever will.






--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

Originally Posted by Greg \(Strider\) Moore

"MercuryAlpha" wrote in message
...


Yet CONGRESS insists on spending
tens of billions of dollars for giant rockets that have few, if any,
applications outside the NASA program.

There, fixed that for you. Remember, it's not NASA setting the direction,
it's Congress trying to spread the pork around.

I'll make a bet here that Falcon 9 Heavy will put far more payload into
orbit than SLS ever will.






--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

Congress says 'yes' or 'no' to missions and to the equipment with which they are conducted. It is NASA that brings the mission plans - and the technical requirements - to Congress. It is absolutely true that Congress is more interested in sustaining funds to districts to keep voters employed. It is NASA, however, that continues to promote unsustainable, unnecessary and unproductive technology developments when what is desired are actual missions. They just don't want the ride to end.

Originally Posted by Jeff Findley[_2_]

In article , MercuryAlpha.c9a1188
@spacebanter.com says...

It should be carefully noted the article says the J-2X will be
'mothballed', not scrapped. This is only logical as the rest of the SLS
has yet to come off the drawing board.

Yes, the word "mothballed" is in the title of this thread, so I thought
it was fairly obvious. The fact remains that the initial versions of
the SLS will only require the RL-10, which is currently in production
and in use on the EELV's (RL10A-4-2 and RL10B-2).

The fact is, the J-2X is overpowered (nearly 300,000 lbs thrust) for
most missions and its thrust to weight ratio (55) and ISP (448 seconds
in vacuum) aren't terribly impressive.

What is bizarre about this situation is that NASA has historically
wanted to go to Mars, but cannot see the wisdom of going with current
engine technology. The above-mentioned RL-10 family of engines is up to
the task and has a proven track record. Yet NASA insists on spending
tens of billions of dollars for giant rockets that have few, if any,
applications outside the NASA program. Cost efficiency fir the SLS is
dubious at best. Booz-Allen recently released a report suggesting real
unit costs for SLS Block II Heavy Cargo Lifter could be up to $2.5
Billion, instead of the $1.5 Billion currently claimed by NASA. Why
does this sound so familiar?

A more sane engine for NASA to have developed would have been the RL-60,
which has been partially (90%) developed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RL-60

The RL-60 was envisioned from the beginning as an "low cost" RL-10
replacement (manufactured using modern materials and methods), so it
would have a much higher chance of being used in vehicles other than
SLS.

Atlas, Delta and Falcon are all capable of getting U.S. astronauts to
the Mon and Mars, given a suitable strategy and funding. We should
scrap SLS before it is too late. Assuming it is not already. . .

As far as Congress is concerned, it is far too late. Spending money in
congressional districts is their primary goal and SLS does just that.
Actually launching U.S. astronauts is a distant secondary goal.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

I completely agree.

On Tuesday, October 8, 2013 10:37:32 PM UTC-4, MercuryAlpha wrote:
Greg \(Strider\) Moore;1255648 Wrote:

"MercuryAlpha" wrote in message

...-





Yet CONGRESS insists on spending

tens of billions of dollars for giant rockets that have few, if any,

applications outside the NASA program.-



There, fixed that for you. Remember, it's not NASA setting the

direction,

it's Congress trying to spread the pork around.



I'll make a bet here that Falcon 9 Heavy will put far more payload into



orbit than SLS ever will.



-





-



--

Greg D. Moore

http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/

CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.netCongress says 'yes' or 'no' to missions and to the equipment with which

they are conducted. It is NASA that brings the mission plans - and the

technical requirements - to Congress. It is absolutely true that

Congress is more interested in sustaining funds to districts to keep

voters employed. It is NASA, however, that continues to promote

unsustainable, unnecessary and unproductive technology developments when

what is desired are actual missions. They just don't want the ride to

end.









--

MercuryAlpha

A rocket system is like a bridge. It needs a destination. The destinations available depend on the cost of transiting the bridge. There are the following operations;

Weapons, Intelligence, telecom, remote sensing, tourism, high value mining, medium value mining, low value mining, high value manufacturing, medium value manufacturing, low value manufacturing, food, forests.

There are the following destinations;

Suborbit, Orbit, Cislunar, Earth Crossing Asteroids, Lunar, Inner Planets, Main Belt Asteroids, Outer Planets, Solar Surface, Kuiper Belt, Nearby Stars (32 ly), Medium Stars (32 100 ly), Distant Stars (100 ly 320 ly), Far Stars (320 ly 1,000 ly).

There are the following energy levels on the Kardashev scale, developed by the Russian astronomer Nikolai Kardashev in 1963 and refined by the American astronomer Carl Sagan in 1968;

K = (log(P)-6)/10

Using Sagan's formula we can relate each unit on the scale to the following;

K = -4 -- minimum
K = -3 -- molecule
K = -2 -- cell
K = -1 -- organism
K = 0 -- tribe
K = +1 -- planet
K = +2 -- star
K = +3 -- galaxy
K = +4 -- cosmos

The average adult has a basal metabolic rate of 72.6 Watts. This is K= -0.41

Humanity consumes 30 billion barrels of crude oil and 5.5 billion tons of coal along with 3 billion liters of natural gas each year. This is energy being released at a rate of 14 trillion watts which is K=+0.71 for human industry at present.

A steady 4% growth in energy production will achieve K=1.00 in 2180 AD and K=2.00 in 2768AD and K=3.00 in 3355AD.

Just as the energy binding molecules can be used to determine the temperature at which the molecule will evaporate, so too can we use the energy binding people to Earth can be used to estimate the energy per person needed to free people from Earth's surface. In a similar fashion we can estimate the energy per person needed to free people from the Sun's influence and to travel to the nearby, middle, far and extremely far stars.

At present a 20 ton to LEO highly reusable multi-stage chemical rocket operated inexpensively by a commercial operator can be used to deploy the next phase of telecommunications and sensing equipment for Earth, to provide a variety of data services throughout the world.

In the near term a 200 ton to 1,000 ton to LEO highly reusable multi-stage chemical rocket operated inexpensively by a commercial operator can be used to deploy a power satellite network supplying Earth with energy from space..

In the middle term, a 200 ton to 1,000 ton payload interplanetary stage can deploy near sun power satellites to expand energy production from space, and deploy cities on the Moon, Mars and Asteroids, as well as deploy Earth orbiting space colonies and mine asteroids.

In the far term a 1,000 ton payload laser propelled lightcraft that launches from Earth and traverses the inner solar system at one gee, and the outer solar system at 1/10th gee, will permit interplanetary resource and residential development.