Common Extensible Cryogenic Engine
Uploader Comments (Ronsmytheiii)
Top Comments
-
It creates icicles because when you mix bad ass and awesome, you get super cool.
-
I'm aware of the developments, thanks. I wouldn't loose any seep over the cancellation of Ares I & V; An even more shuttle derived heavy lift launch vehicle would be better for the agency.
All Comments (103)
-
It seems engine start was at atmospheric pressure in a chamber -airtight- except for exhaust duct. As engine runs, supersonic exhaust flow entrains and ejects almost all air in test chamber. Only in vacuum would such a large engine be able to run with such extreme smoothness that long, skinny icicles would not break off instantly. Notice that at engine shutdown, the icicles are blown off violently, but not down exhaust duct; rather they're blown sideways into the test chamber. Ice hits lights!
-
Was this test in a vacuum chamber?
-
I thought they tested these in a vacuum chamber, so shouldn't liquid water have not formed? O.o
Seems kinda odd to test it in a specialized chamber like that but not a vacuum chamber :P
-
@RoboTekno :D
-
Nooo the bell is COOLED with liquid hydrogen and as the BURNED gases blow past it, they condense of the surface..... hot water vapour meet super cooled engine component = water --> ice --> icicle.
-
@Thesterness I would say no because the nozzles are the trailing piece of the rocked. Any icicles would just fall off into the atmosphere, not hit the rocket or payload.
-
They seriously need to get puffer protection on their mikes.
-
In all seriousness, wouldn't the icicles pose a possible debris hazard to the engine or other parts of the spacecraft?
-
This has to be the oddest engine ever made. Ice forming as it's running and it can go WAY down to 10% thrust. The SSMEs also form ice on the nozzles, but not to the extreme.
-
Hypergolics are nice but VERY toxic. The RCS jets on Apollo used hypergolics, and the astronauts on Apollo Soyuz almost died when the RCS system was left on and fumes from them were sucked into the capsule.
"Therefore, NASA can use this weight savings to bring a bigger spacecraft with a greater payload to the moon than with the same amount of conventional propellants."
Uh.... I thought that O2 and H2 WERE conventional propellants! What's new?
DTHRocket 1 year ago
@DTHRocket : Lunar landers have not used hydrolox engines, until now only used hypergolics
Ronsmytheiii 1 year ago