New Short-Duration Test Firings of SpaceShipTwo’s Engine

Posted
by
Doug Messier
on December 20, 2012, at 4:40 am
in News
. Tags: , , , , .
Comments: 6 responses
6 Comments

ss2_landing_june29-wide
RocketMotorTwo Hot-Fire Test Summaries

Courtesy of Scaled Composites

UPDATE: For some unexplained reason, Scaled Composites edited out all references on its log page to the length of the test firings (5 seconds) on three of the four listings below. I have heard that the other test, which took place on Dec. 6 in Mojave, was relatively short as well, an estimated 10 seconds.

Fire: 21
Date: 14 Dec 12

Objectives:
Twenty-first full scale flight design RM2 hot-fire. Continued evaluation of all systems and components:
- Pressurization
- Valve/Injector
- Fuel formulation and geometry
- Nozzle
- Structure
- Performance

Results:
All objectives completed. Performed targeted 5 second hot fire as planned. Duration of burn chosen to allow examination of internal geometry.

Fire: 20
Date: 06 Dec 12

Objectives:
Perform third full scale rocket motor hot-fire at Scaled’s test facility:
- Test stand evaluation
- Data Acquisition system evaluation
- Rocket Motor Controller performance
- Pressurization System Controller performance
- Rocket system performance
- Valve / Injector / Igniter evaluation
- Fuel formulation evaluation
- CTN structural evaluation

Results:
Third full scale firing of a rocket motor at Scaled’s test site under full control of the spaceship’s Rocket Motor Controller (RMC). All objectives achieved.

Fire: 19
Date: 27 Nov 12

Objectives:
Nineteenth full scale flight design RM2 hot-fire. Continued evaluation of all systems and components:
- Pressurization
- Valve/Injector
- Fuel formulation and geometry
- Nozzle
- Structure
- Performance

Results:
All objectives completed. Performed targeted 5 second hot fire as planned. Duration of burn chosen to allow examination of internal geometry.

Fire: 18
Date: 02 Nov 12

Objectives:
Eighteenth full scale flight design RM2 hot-fire. Continued evaluation of all systems and components:
- Pressurization
- Valve/Injector
- Fuel formulation and geometry
- Nozzle
- Structure
- Performance

Results:
All objectives completed. Performed targeted 5 second hot fire as planned. Duration of burn chosen to allow examination of internal geometry.

Be Sociable, Share!

Permalink

Post Comment

  • Winglet

    Doug -

    What you’ve posted here does not sync with what’s here:

    http://www.scaled.com/projects/test_logs/33/model_339_spaceshiptwo

    You may want to check if your using the newest test summaries link. A few months ago Scaled changed the URL structure and forked things apart. Not sure if they just updated one wrong and maybe mine is wrong? Not sure…

  • http://www.parabolicarc.com Doug Messier

    No, I’ve got the right page. Same as yours. I always access these pages directly from Scaled Composites’ main landing page. It’s easier to get to both WK2 and SS2 logs that way. And I was aware of those changes a few months ago.

    Scaled edited the entries since I accessed them last night. Clark Lindsey over at NewSpaceWatch has the same information I do. He got the information this morning.

    Now, I wonder why they would have done that?

  • Winglet

    Yeah I figured that out after I wrote the comment. Thanks for checking though.

  • Warshawski

    It is interesting that they are still doing 5 second burns to check internal geometry. Especially in the “updated” version no mention of time of burn is made. It does not give a good feel that they have a working engine, if they were doing burns at different duration fairly quickly it would be for statistical purposes but stuck at 5 seconds, and taking a week or so between burns does not give confidence in the burn geometry or the quick turn around capability.

  • Michael Kitz

    From the movie “Contact”:

    Rachel Constantine: I assume you read the confidential findings report from the investigating committee.

    Michael Kitz: I flipped through it.

    Rachel Constantine: I was especially interested in the section on Arroway’s video unit. The one that recorded the static?

    Michael Kitz: Continue.

    Rachel Constantine: The fact that it recorded static isn’t what interests me.

    Michael Kitz: [pauses] Continue.

    Rachel Constantine: What interests me is that it recorded approximately eighteen hours of it.

    Michael Kitz: [leans forward so he is looking directly in the camera] That is interesting, isn’t it?

  • Travis Spurling

    The reason for short run testing seems obvious – the initial flights would be with abbreviated rocket operation and this must be tested first. The editing was an attempt to forestall ill-informed speculation, as illustrated by your responses.