NASA/Artemis

[maw lod qan]

I just read a link on Google that said Artemis 1 is back on the pad to try once again the required "wet" test which it failed the last attempt.

It's sad to watch NASA, Boeing and it's partners struggle after being in the business for so many years.

They made the comment "rocket science isn't easy" but still?

I understand this is an entirely new design, but they continue to go the old throw it away process, not to mention struggle to stay on schedule. 

I really hoped to watch this one fly from the Cape, so I've saved all my vacation time I could.

With E. Musk's first launch of a manned flight it took me two mad dashes across the state. As bad as I want to witness this history first hand, I have doubts on being able to get the timing right.

[DaveL59]

They do seem to be struggling, their last one made it to the ISS but seemed to have a number of issues en route. Teething troubles perhaps or a sign of blight in the operational leadership as seems the case in the aircraft side judging by Boing's issues there?

[Astroscot2]

Seem to be  relying on old existing tech, boosters from the shuttle era. I'm a bit disappointed by the design, all those years and it looks like all they did was removed the shuttle and replaced it with the apollo command module.  

Edited June 7, 2022 by Astroscot2

[ONIKKINEN]

The SLS was an antique design when it was first drawn on paper, 10 years ago! It an embarrassingly bad launch vehicle by today's standards... 

It has no reusability and uses 4 of the most expensive rocket designs ever made, the RS-25, which were designed to be entirely reusable (hence the cost). Think about it, the engine was designed to be reusable with the shuttle and NASA is going to literally catapult 4 of them into the ocean every time one launches? Braindead design right there which is not excusable for an entirely new design since SpaceX has shown its actually viable to reuse big rockets time and time again.

[Alan White]

The Artemis Project is very big and bold and on the timescales and funding made available bound to use established technology.
This is not just the SLS rocket, its big, its a a whole plethora of vehciles and the like and is built for a purpose, to get back to The Moon.

Yes its painful to watch the process, but if big funding had been made available by the US, then things may have been different.

Let's face it, NASA suffers as a political play thing and it's vision and funding goes along with it.
Not wanting to set off banned plotics, but what I say is factually correct.

 

[malc-c]

The issue is that when the SLS was conceived the idea of having boosters that return and can be reused after a dust down a month later was just a pipe dream.   Since the project was signed off both Blue Origin and Space X have proved the ability to launch a rocket and have it return to a platform, land safely and after a short period of time be used again on the next flight.  I think Space X has reached double figures for one of its boosters which it has now retired.  By todays standards the SLS is very wasteful.  Yes it's "recycling" shuttle technology but it is so dated and hasn't been adapted as technology advanced over that time.

I think the pace at which Space X has been developing its starship program, which will also take over the falcon 9 launch vehicle to launch yet bigger starlink satellites frightened someone which is why the project has been delayed for so long by the recent environmental impact report... with organisations lobbying more and more objections thus postponing the first orbital flight of starship.

Mind you, I would love to be able to watch either or both SLS and Starship take flight.... 

[Astroscot2]

1 hour ago, malc-c said:

The issue is that when the SLS was conceived the idea of having boosters that return and can be reused after a dust down a month later was just a pipe dream.   Since the project was signed off both Blue Origin and Space X have proved the ability to launch a rocket and have it return to a platform, land safely and after a short period of time be used again on the next flight.  I think Space X has reached double figures for one of its boosters which it has now retired.  By todays standards the SLS is very wasteful.  Yes it's "recycling" shuttle technology but it is so dated and hasn't been adapted as technology advanced over that time.

I think the pace at which Space X has been developing its starship program, which will also take over the falcon 9 launch vehicle to launch yet bigger starlink satellites frightened someone which is why the project has been delayed for so long by the recent environmental impact report... with organisations lobbying more and more objections thus postponing the first orbital flight of starship.

Mind you, I would love to be able to watch either or both SLS and Starship take flight.... 

I believe there is hope that there will be a green light regarding the environmental discussions in the next few weeks and with luck a starship to orbit launch within a few months. Im amazed with the pace Space X are developing the starship program. Very entertaining. 

[DaveS]

Jordan Wright, AKA "The Angry Astronaut" has a thing or three to say (Mostly exceedingly caustic) about the whole Boeing / Starliner / SLS debacle

https://www.youtube.com/c/TheAngryAstronaut

The link is to the home page of his channel.

[Ags]

I don't think the issue was NASA wasn't given enough money to build a big rocket. The problem was they had to spend the money building SLS in order to keep legacy contractors in business and senators happy. There's no engineering sense to the thing at all, it is just a project to disburse money. It doesn't even have to fly.

Go Starship!

[Carbon Brush]

Following on from @Ags comment.
Go back 40+ years to Shuttle build. Why were the solid rocket boosters built in segments and assembled at site?
Answer. To keep the votes and dollars of the politicians representing areas hundreds or thousands of miles away from the launch site.
Result. Challenger on a cold day.
Alternatively. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

 

[ONIKKINEN]

The problem with the shuttle disaster(s) was that the orbiter was right next to the boosters and so there was no chance of survival in a launch failure like there is with a conventional design. It also meant that ice and debris falling off the boosters for any trivial reason will strike the fragile wings and damage them.

SRBs are sort of safe to use with normal rockets where the orbiter is on top of the stack, far away from the deathy end of the rocket. But they are most importantly cheap and powerful, hence their common use as boosters.

[DaveS]

 

He's not very happy.

[maw lod qan]

So another wet test. This one called a success, but!!

With these test they go thru the actual prep for a launch, hopefully getting down to T minus 9 seconds.

They stopped at T minus 23 seconds or so with complete fueling. But.

They had a hydrogen leak on one of the 4" lines where it attached from the retractable arm to the rocket. 

They had to "mask it from the computer" to continue the wet test.

Like Savic told James T. Kirk.

You cheated!

And sadly, with NASA wouldn't it be, again?