Page 24 of 66 FirstFirst ...
14
22
23
24
25
26
34
... LastLast
  1. #461
    Banned cubby's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    35,050
    Quote Originally Posted by PACOX View Post
    The use liquid hydrogen, which is extremely cold. The rocket is insulated but you can actually keep the all the hydrogen from heating up. When it heats up it turns back into a gas. Some hydrogen is expected to leak out of the rocket, they have to much leaking out of it. Technically the leak might not have been big enough to scrub the launch alone but NASA is very slow and methodical.

    We won't find out until they do a press briefing but apparently they are more concerned that they steps they used to control the leak on Monday didn't work after the followed the same steps. There's something that wasn't accounted for and they want to find out what that something is. It's like knowing you have to tap your hood before starting your car every morning to get it to run and then one morning it does work. You the car will probably start if you just crank it long enough but you really want to know why the old method suddenly stopped working.


    So they scrubbed. If they decide to try again on Monday they will most likely run into the same "leak" but hopefully the solution will work again and they will have figured out what caused the anomaly.
    Interesting - and thanks as always for the great explanation/analogy. Hope they can light it off on Monday.

  2. #462
    It's apparently heading back to the vehicle assembly bay

    https://twitter.com/Erdayastronaut/s...72629379211269

  3. #463
    Pit Lord
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    2,305
    Forgive me, but what is the artemis mission goal? Anything of scientific relevance?

  4. #464
    Merely a Setback PACOX's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ██████
    Posts
    27,519
    Going back to the VAB makes sense. They only have a narrow window left and likely to encounter the same issue while burning through the number of times they can cycle fuel through the rockets. Just take the month off the exam the leaky seal.

    The issue most likely lies in the mobile platform again. I believe that was the focal point of the problems during the rehearsals. They really should have just belt a new one, the thing goes all the way back to the OG Moon landings I believe. You can only retrofit something so many times before it becomes a burden, which it has been for the rocket. Thankfully they are building a brand new one that [shouldbe ready for Artemis 3 (the actual moon landing)

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Hypasonic View Post
    Forgive me, but what is the artemis mission goal? Anything of scientific relevance?
    Artemis as a whole represents the total lunar program. The goal is to reestablish Moon landings, put a station in orbit around the Moon that will then support Moon expeditions, and to become more proficient at deep space stuff so we can send astronauts to asteroids and Mars.


    SLS is the first vehicle (2nd if you count its capsule) to be ready for launch. It will be used to fly astronauts to the Moon. Another rocket in development, Starship, will be tasked with landing astronauts on the Moon and eventually phase out SLS altogether.


    Artemis 1 will be SLS's fight flight. Basically they are just going to do a practice run of the route future missions will take. It's unmanned. Artemis 2 will have people but it will not land on the Moon. Artemis 3 is the actual Moon landing, well see SLS and Starship both go up. SLS will have the astronauts, Starship will have the lander for the astronauts. Why 2 rockets? SLS doesn't have have room to hold a capsule and a lander, Starships situation is complicated so two rockets are needed at least until Starship can do it all on its own.

  5. #465
    Quote Originally Posted by Hypasonic View Post
    Forgive me, but what is the artemis mission goal? Anything of scientific relevance?
    The main goal is to send federal funds to certain aerospace companies.
    "There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
    "The bit about hardcore players not always caring about the long term interests of the game is spot on." -- Ghostcrawler
    "Do you want a game with no casuals so about 500 players?"

  6. #466
    Over 9000! ringpriest's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    The World-Continent
    Posts
    9,686
    Quote Originally Posted by PACOX View Post
    Going back to the VAB makes sense. They only have a narrow window left and likely to encounter the same issue while burning through the number of times they can cycle fuel through the rockets. Just take the month off the exam the leaky seal.

    The issue most likely lies in the mobile platform again. I believe that was the focal point of the problems during the rehearsals. They really should have just belt a new one, the thing goes all the way back to the OG Moon landings I believe. You can only retrofit something so many times before it becomes a burden, which it has been for the rocket. Thankfully they are building a brand new one that [shouldbe ready for Artemis 3 (the actual moon landing)
    Delaying the launch also increases concerns with the Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs). When the SRBs were assembled in January of last year, they were certified for 12 months. Obviously, we're now the better part of a year past that original certification - NASA is aware but "thinks they're ok" (yes, they re-examined the technical specs, but let us not pretend there wasn't immense pressure to extend their certification). Our younger readers may need a reminder of what happened the last time NASA management put desire to launch on schedule as a higher priority than SRB O-ring specifications. Hopefully they won't try to cut any more corners on the Flight Termination System battery (the battery for the system of explosives that allows the SLS to be destroyed mid-flight if it goes dangerously off course) any more than they already have (they were pushing that out, too, but now I doubt Range Safety will let they try again without replacing and re-certifying it). And there may be some impact on the secondary payloads as well, if their batteries start to run down.

    All in all, I'm starting to hope this one (harmlessly) fails in a dramatic fashion. NASA management is cutting corners and rushing things, which is a recipe for disaster. If Artemis I fails spectacularly, they'll be a top-down review of the program, and such recklessness will be deservedly called out. If it muddles through, they'll all pat each other on the back and little will change... and next time they'll be putting astronauts lives on the line.
    "For the present this country is headed in directions which can only carry ruin to it and will create a situation here dangerous to world peace. With few exceptions, the men who are running this Government are of a mentality that you and I cannot understand. Some of them are psychopathic cases and would ordinarily be receiving treatment somewhere. Others are exalted and in a frame of mind that knows no reason."
    - U.S. Ambassador to Germany, George Messersmith, June 1933

  7. #467
    Merely a Setback PACOX's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ██████
    Posts
    27,519
    Quote Originally Posted by ringpriest View Post
    Delaying the launch also increases concerns with the Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs). When the SRBs were assembled in January of last year, they were certified for 12 months. Obviously, we're now the better part of a year past that original certification - NASA is aware but "thinks they're ok" (yes, they re-examined the technical specs, but let us not pretend there wasn't immense pressure to extend their certification). Our younger readers may need a reminder of what happened the last time NASA management put desire to launch on schedule as a higher priority than SRB O-ring specifications. Hopefully they won't try to cut any more corners on the Flight Termination System battery (the battery for the system of explosives that allows the SLS to be destroyed mid-flight if it goes dangerously off course) any more than they already have (they were pushing that out, too, but now I doubt Range Safety will let they try again without replacing and re-certifying it). And there may be some impact on the secondary payloads as well, if their batteries start to run down.

    All in all, I'm starting to hope this one (harmlessly) fails in a dramatic fashion. NASA management is cutting corners and rushing things, which is a recipe for disaster. If Artemis I fails spectacularly, they'll be a top-down review of the program, and such recklessness will be deservedly called out. If it muddles through, they'll all pat each other on the back and little will change... and next time they'll be putting astronauts lives on the line.
    The chances of anything catastrophically falling are slim. Of course you can't rule out anomalies but a lot of the SLS has actually gone up into space before (numerous times even) or just updated iterations of parts that have flown for decades (the SRBs for instance).

    The biggest concern is the constant refueling and purging of the core stage.

    The FTS should be fine for the October attempt with SLS going back to the VAB.


    I only recently learned this but the flight director SLS really knows her stuff, have worked on the shuttles, the development of the Orion, capsule, to her current role as flight director. Her hands on experience with SLS and it's various systems is wild.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Char...kwell-Thompson

    They are in no hurry because SLS is weirdly ahead of schedule compared to the rest of Artemis. The rocket that's been delayed for years ironically has a lot of time right now.

  8. #468
    Quote Originally Posted by jonnysensible View Post
    sorry lads cant go to mars its a bit foggy out
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

  9. #469
    Over 9000! ringpriest's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    The World-Continent
    Posts
    9,686
    Quote Originally Posted by PACOX View Post
    The chances of anything catastrophically falling are slim. Of course you can't rule out anomalies but a lot of the SLS has actually gone up into space before (numerous times even) or just updated iterations of parts that have flown for decades (the SRBs for instance).

    The biggest concern is the constant refueling and purging of the core stage.

    The FTS should be fine for the October attempt with SLS going back to the VAB.


    I only recently learned this but the flight director SLS really knows her stuff, have worked on the shuttles, the development of the Orion, capsule, to her current role as flight director. Her hands on experience with SLS and it's various systems is wild.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Char...kwell-Thompson

    They are in no hurry because SLS is weirdly ahead of schedule compared to the rest of Artemis. The rocket that's been delayed for years ironically has a lot of time right now.
    While other parts of the program are way behind schedule, too, this particular rocket does not have a lot of time. It's already over seven months beyond the latest it was supposed to launch (January 2021). And that date was not picked for project management reasons, it was picked because the assembled stack of boosters and tank is only supposed to sit on the ground in fully assembled state for so long. If the SLS was a carton of milk, it would be past the use-by date, with NASA saying "it still tastes fine". If this drags out into 2023, all the hand-waving and glad-handing in the world isn't going to suffice to keep it assembled and certified for launch. If they don't launch soon, NASA is going to have to unstack it and effectively rebuild it. And that could take years, again. And I suspect that is going to be driving some very poor decision-making in coming months.
    "For the present this country is headed in directions which can only carry ruin to it and will create a situation here dangerous to world peace. With few exceptions, the men who are running this Government are of a mentality that you and I cannot understand. Some of them are psychopathic cases and would ordinarily be receiving treatment somewhere. Others are exalted and in a frame of mind that knows no reason."
    - U.S. Ambassador to Germany, George Messersmith, June 1933

  10. #470
    Merely a Setback PACOX's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ██████
    Posts
    27,519
    Quote Originally Posted by ringpriest View Post
    While other parts of the program are way behind schedule, too, this particular rocket does not have a lot of time. It's already over seven months beyond the latest it was supposed to launch (January 2021). And that date was not picked for project management reasons, it was picked because the assembled stack of boosters and tank is only supposed to sit on the ground in fully assembled state for so long. If the SLS was a carton of milk, it would be past the use-by date, with NASA saying "it still tastes fine". If this drags out into 2023, all the hand-waving and glad-handing in the world isn't going to suffice to keep it assembled and certified for launch. If they don't launch soon, NASA is going to have to unstack it and effectively rebuild it. And that could take years, again. And I suspect that is going to be driving some very poor decision-making in coming months.
    They have plenty of launch windows left before decoupling is considered. They are practically 2-2 so it's not like they can't launch the rocket (2nd WDR would have gone up if it was a real attempt, the first attempt would have gone up if they knew they just had a faulty sensor).


    The stack is going to sitting in the VAB for a month, they access how long it can actually stay stacked then but don't seem to worried about. Like a carton of milk, printed expiration dates are only a conservative suggestion. There's no reason at this point to assume they won't hit the October window or even slip into 2023.


    Worst worst case scenario is that they just nix the Artemis 1 stack and replace it with the one meant for Artemis 2 in 2023. Artemis 2 gets pushed back, but they planned around delays anyway being astronauts aren't even selected not do we have spacesuits yet. That would surely push back Artemis 3, but again it is not like the rest of the program is waiting on SLS. Starship has yet to complete an orbital test, let alone produce even a mock up of a cabin for the Lunar module or figure how fueling Starship for the journey is going to play out.


    Artemis 1 is still in a very comfortable position. Better yet, NASA might be able to put MLP-1 out of its misery before it messes up any future flights.

  11. #471
    Billions of dollars and all we get is a tourist attraction, dead astronauts, and Kool-Aid.

    The fuck does Nasa do these days? I guess Elon is the best hope we have to explore space now.

  12. #472
    Quote Originally Posted by NotBigzo View Post
    Billions of dollars and all we get is a tourist attraction, dead astronauts, and Kool-Aid.

    The fuck does Nasa do these days? I guess Elon is the best hope we have to explore space now.
    If that's the case, we're truly fucked.

  13. #473
    Banned cubby's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    35,050
    Quote Originally Posted by ringpriest View Post
    Delaying the launch also increases concerns with the Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs). When the SRBs were assembled in January of last year, they were certified for 12 months. Obviously, we're now the better part of a year past that original certification - NASA is aware but "thinks they're ok" (yes, they re-examined the technical specs, but let us not pretend there wasn't immense pressure to extend their certification). Our younger readers may need a reminder of what happened the last time NASA management put desire to launch on schedule as a higher priority than SRB O-ring specifications. Hopefully they won't try to cut any more corners on the Flight Termination System battery (the battery for the system of explosives that allows the SLS to be destroyed mid-flight if it goes dangerously off course) any more than they already have (they were pushing that out, too, but now I doubt Range Safety will let they try again without replacing and re-certifying it). And there may be some impact on the secondary payloads as well, if their batteries start to run down.

    All in all, I'm starting to hope this one (harmlessly) fails in a dramatic fashion. NASA management is cutting corners and rushing things, which is a recipe for disaster. If Artemis I fails spectacularly, they'll be a top-down review of the program, and such recklessness will be deservedly called out. If it muddles through, they'll all pat each other on the back and little will change... and next time they'll be putting astronauts lives on the line.
    My concern is that this SLS launch will succeed, but then when we gear up for the humans-on-board launch, it will be another series of spectacular delays. Pushing the entire program, and therefore the project, back years or indefinitely.

    SpaceX has had spectacular success. At this point it might be better to send all the money for the SLS to SpaceX and see what they can do with it.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ursus View Post
    If that's the case, we're truly fucked.
    Your total intellectual honesty failure here is hysterical.

    SpaceX has objectively been nothing but a string of fantastic successes. Turning the entire Artemis project over to them, with other private companies assisting, and NASA essentially playing the role of FAA for space, would be the best choice right now.

  14. #474
    Merely a Setback PACOX's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ██████
    Posts
    27,519
    Update on SLS:

    The seal they figure needs to be replaced can be replaced at the launchpad. Still has to go back to the VAB to replace the FTS but that was expected.

    Still no issues with the rocket itself.

  15. #475
    Banned cubby's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    35,050
    Quote Originally Posted by PACOX View Post
    Update on SLS:

    The seal they figure needs to be replaced can be replaced at the launchpad. Still has to go back to the VAB to replace the FTS but that was expected.

    Still no issues with the rocket itself.
    I keep finding myself of two minds with the SLS. Even as early as a year ago I was a staunch opponent, but recently with the rocket on the pad, I find myself hoping for success. And now with the delays, I'm sort of in the middle. Even with unbridled success it will only fly a few times, and cost a ton. Of course we need it for Artemis, which I support 100% and advocate for even a more expanded plan (whatever that would be ).

    But now I'm concerned that SLS-unmanned will fly, after more delays, and then the SLS-human will be perpetually delayed. If I understand the project plan, Artemis is predicated on the SLS-human flight working. It's hard to imagine SLS-human getting off the ground even in the next 5 years.
    @PACOX - re the above, even with an easy fix, we're delayed until the moon is back in the correct position, right? Monday was our last window IIRC.

  16. #476
    Merely a Setback PACOX's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ██████
    Posts
    27,519
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    I keep finding myself of two minds with the SLS. Even as early as a year ago I was a staunch opponent, but recently with the rocket on the pad, I find myself hoping for success. And now with the delays, I'm sort of in the middle. Even with unbridled success it will only fly a few times, and cost a ton. Of course we need it for Artemis, which I support 100% and advocate for even a more expanded plan (whatever that would be ).

    But now I'm concerned that SLS-unmanned will fly, after more delays, and then the SLS-human will be perpetually delayed. If I understand the project plan, Artemis is predicated on the SLS-human flight working. It's hard to imagine SLS-human getting off the ground even in the next 5 years.
    @PACOX - re the above, even with an easy fix, we're delayed until the moon is back in the correct position, right? Monday was our last window IIRC.
    There's absolutely no reason to think it won't fly. Scrubs are normal. Thing is no one remembers them. SLS has had 2. One was actually due to a bad sensor. The last one was due to something common with rockets that use the same propellant. The reason why there's a month gap now is because the Moon is out of the way. The only reason they have to put it back in the VAB for a few days is to replace a battery on a device that has nothing to do with abilities of the rocket, it's a device they use to blow up rockets just incase they go off course.


    Get anxious when something actually happens to the rocket.

  17. #477
    Banned cubby's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    35,050
    Quote Originally Posted by PACOX View Post
    There's absolutely no reason to think it won't fly. Scrubs are normal. Thing is no one remembers them. SLS has had 2. One was actually due to a bad sensor. The last one was due to something common with rockets that use the same propellant. The reason why there's a month gap now is because the Moon is out of the way. The only reason they have to put it back in the VAB for a few days is to replace a battery on a device that has nothing to do with abilities of the rocket, it's a device they use to blow up rockets just incase they go off course.

    Get anxious when something actually happens to the rocket.
    I realize that these delays are just the normal course of business, you've outlined them very well (and thank you for that).

    Good point - we'll just wait and see.

    Out of curiosity what needs to happen for SLS-2(human) to happen? Is it an entirely new capsule? I thought I recalled SLS-1 is the human rated capsule, just empty.

  18. #478
    Merely a Setback PACOX's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ██████
    Posts
    27,519
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post

    Out of curiosity what needs to happen for SLS-2(human) to happen? Is it an entirely new capsule? I thought I recalled SLS-1 is the human rated capsule, just empty.
    All the individual parts (boosters, capsule, core stage) for next rocket are complete. The core stage gets shipped to Florida in March then they can plugging everything in.

    The capsules are actually particularly reusable but I don't think NASA plans to reuse them.


    So it still needs the actual astronauts. Probably spacesuits too because NASA would want to test them.

  19. #479
    Banned cubby's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    35,050
    Quote Originally Posted by PACOX View Post
    All the individual parts (boosters, capsule, core stage) for next rocket are complete. The core stage gets shipped to Florida in March then they can plugging everything in.

    The capsules are actually particularly reusable but I don't think NASA plans to reuse them.


    So it still needs the actual astronauts. Probably spacesuits too because NASA would want to test them.
    Excellent - well, I'm fulling on board with being behind SLS. I really hope it all works out.

    Moonbase!

  20. #480
    Scarab Lord plz delete account's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    No matter the topic, someone will find a way to redirect it to complain about their current aggro.
    Posts
    4,803
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    I keep finding myself of two minds with the SLS. Even as early as a year ago I was a staunch opponent, but recently with the rocket on the pad, I find myself hoping for success. And now with the delays, I'm sort of in the middle. Even with unbridled success it will only fly a few times, and cost a ton. Of course we need it for Artemis, which I support 100% and advocate for even a more expanded plan (whatever that would be ).

    But now I'm concerned that SLS-unmanned will fly, after more delays, and then the SLS-human will be perpetually delayed. If I understand the project plan, Artemis is predicated on the SLS-human flight working. It's hard to imagine SLS-human getting off the ground even in the next 5 years.
    @PACOX - re the above, even with an easy fix, we're delayed until the moon is back in the correct position, right? Monday was our last window IIRC.
    one of the reasons SLS took so long, is it is literally designed to be human-rated at the first launch... as in We could send up humans on Artemis 1 if we wanted.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Also IIRC Orion can be reused up to twelve times before needing retrofitting. it'd be a shame to not reuse Orion.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •