so, Artemis test flight AKA Should Launch Someday, 16-Nov-2022

[malc-c]

7 hours ago, DaveL59 said:

Kinda thinking too, are these a totally new coupling for the LOX and LH2 supply or another re-use from the parts bin of the old shuttle gear? 

 

This was my thoughts too.  If the previous designs used on Apollo or Shuttle worked then why change the design.  If they had a proven working system then it makes sense to stick with that system and use that on the SLS.  I mean they started work on the SLS in 2011 and the shuttles last flight was in 2011, so the parts would still be on the spares shelf !

If the old design was leaky then they've had 11 years to come up with an alternative and get it right.

Did anyone watch the live stream press conference after ?? - the Panel were more like politicians, not answering any awkward questions and skirting around the answers that we all know.  One was what financial impact each scrub costs NASA.  None could say that whilst some fuel could be recovered they didn't know how many tankers are used and do the simple math... This was the head of NASA, the flight director and several other top profile people ! 

[CCD-Freak]

I remember watching the launches back in the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo days and then the Shuttle era.  Launch delays were the norm and some would scrub time and time again until everything checked out before they pushed the button.  That is just part of the rocket biz.  When they get in a hurry and listen to the pressure from the media and politicians and then take chances that is when things go BOOM!!!   True.... Nasa is using Shuttle technology but the geometry of the stack is a new  configuration since they don't have the mass of the orbiter hanging off the side.  We just have to be patient and let then work through the issues.  Once the first rocket flies safely and all goes well with the mission then I think we will see things happen at a faster rate.  The development and construction phase has been a long and expensive process so I hope they don't muck it up this late in the game.    My $.02

[maw lod qan]

I saw that most likely it will be rolled back to the garage!

From what I understood, when this funding was divided up, the Boeing group got 3 or 4 to 1 compared to E. Musk.

Doesn't seem to be working out.

The delays of the STS and now SLS makes me wonder how I got lucky.

With my Uncle I went to watch Apollo 7, it launched on time.

With a very dear friend and her children, it was Apollo 11. Again, it launched on time.

Lately I've made 3 trips for 1 launch.

Get it right, but get it going!

[Dark Adaptation]

Hey I think they just launched something like an electron rocket!!!

[Mr Spock]

It's starting to sound like it was made in Detroit... 😜

[LukeSkywatcher]

I don't see it happening anytime soon.

50 yrs later and they can't get it right?. Is this just not bravado between USA  and Russia (another space race)?.

 

[Zeta Reticulan]

I don't know exactly who will land on Mars first. It's a good bet their first language will be Mandarin though.

[Stu]

I still find it confusing. People almost revel in the explosions which SpaceX went through, yet crucify NASA for these relatively minor hitches.

Yes, the Falcon rockets are awesome and have completely changed the game for low earth orbit, but let’s get things in proportion here. Starship has managed a couple of ascents to 10 miles or so, before belly flopping and landing successfully. It has not reached orbital speeds, completed an orbit or successfully re-entered the atmosphere from orbital speeds. It is basically an experimental shell, and has a long way to go before being operational.

SLS has its problems and delays, but I suspect most are underestimating the amount of new technology, certainly in terms of electronics and control systems which are on it. The first mission is for 38 days, travelling beyond the Moon and re-entering the atmosphere at a very fast 24,500mph. I don’t think you can compare the status of the two space ships.

I’m also sure that Apollo had its share of delays. Let’s not forget the tragedy of Apollo 1 after all.

Stop being so negative people!! 

[ONIKKINEN]

Delays are always going to be a thing in spaceflight. No way around them, or should maybe say no way around them without increasing risks of a launch failure like with the shuttle a few times so delays every now and then is a good thing in my book, it shows the business is being run with engineering facts first and pleasing the impatient public second.

Why i think many (me included) are disappointed with with every little trivial setback SLS gets is that there is no good product in the end. The design itself is flawed (in cost and practicality, not necessarily overall capability) and no amount of testing and delaying will fix that. It will still be a technically functional launch vehicle one day, and guaranteed to be so sooner than Starship will be so in that way it is doing more than Starship will be doing for a while. I am not the one paying the bills for NASA so i will be happy to see whatever launch vehicle manages to take humans to the Moon again!

[Peter_D]

A little bit off topic but I was watching a very interesting video on You Tube a while back where the question was posed why not use the Saturn V engines for modern space exploration. The video said that although Nasa still have the blueprints, the know-how, the work-arounds, the bespoke engineering all basically made each Saturn engine unique. It was interesting because it answered a question I had thought about previously.

[tomato]

Yes, those F1 engines were something else. There is still something to be said for a guy in a brown smock, fettling components with a fine file to make ‘em fit.

[maw lod qan]

2 hours ago, Peter_D said:

A little bit off topic but I was watching a very interesting video on You Tube a while back where the question was posed why not use the Saturn V engines for modern space exploration. The video said that although Nasa still have the blueprints, the know-how, the work-arounds, the bespoke engineering all basically made each Saturn engine unique. It was interesting because it answered a question I had thought about previously.

That was the same thing I had seen quite some time back. Mind fails me to just what it was I was watching.

To think they made those engines without all the computer controlled equipment we have today.

With today's lathes, mills and welders you would think it would be easier,  but it still goes back to the man gently slipping one part into another. 

 

[Tomatobro]

 Only the folks that have worked with Cryogenic fluids will know how difficult they are to handle. NASA share everything and long may it continue.

 

Edited September 5, 2022 by Tomatobro
wording

[Stu]

5 hours ago, ONIKKINEN said:

Delays are always going to be a thing in spaceflight. No way around them, or should maybe say no way around them without increasing risks of a launch failure like with the shuttle a few times so delays every now and then is a good thing in my book, it shows the business is being run with engineering facts first and pleasing the impatient public second.

Why i think many (me included) are disappointed with with every little trivial setback SLS gets is that there is no good product in the end. The design itself is flawed (in cost and practicality, not necessarily overall capability) and no amount of testing and delaying will fix that. It will still be a technically functional launch vehicle one day, and guaranteed to be so sooner than Starship will be so in that way it is doing more than Starship will be doing for a while. I am not the one paying the bills for NASA so i will be happy to see whatever launch vehicle manages to take humans to the Moon again!

I obviously agree with you totally about design, but that was something decided long before SpaceX had success with their reusable systems.

NASA is a supertanker vs SpaceX the speedboat. NASA has to account for public money, planning and budgeting for it in a way that makes politicians feel certain of success ultimately, even with delays, and across multiple administrations.

Let’s not forget that SpaceX is funded by NASA contracts and is, in effect, part of their strategy. NASA know they have their LEO cargo and astronaut delivery covered, allowing them to concentrate on the deep space stuff. I know SLS is wasteful and expensive, but it has also a low frequency of launches planned currently so overall the cost is manageable within budgets.

Where am I going with this? 

Are SpaceX type technology and  development methods the future? Yes I believe they are.

Is SLS costly, wasteful and does it have a limited lifetime? Yes it obviously is and does.

Does SLS fulfill a current need and allow NASA to deliver on key  deep space objectives that nothing else currently can? Yes it does, so it still has a place.

Will Starship ultimately take over on Deep Space too? Yes I think it will, but I also think it will take a lot longer than people think. It is much more massive than Falcon 9, and the control systems and engine technology has a lot of development work to go. Getting it to a stage where it is certified for human flight will take a long time. Musk is in the business of selling futures and dreams/ambitious goals to investors be they state or private, and he is very good at it. He also manages long delays in delivery or achieving goals such as with Tesla, although to date he always gets there.

NASA vs SpaceX to me is a bit like fine dining vs Uber Eats. One is expensive, slow but you know what you are going to get and it will be excellent. The other is faster, cheaper, alot more uncertain as to whether the moped is going to deliver to you or your neighbour, but it’s more fun and great when it works 😉

[DaveL59]

be interesting to hear what the issue is with the quick-connect tho. I know from high pressure hydraulics that a slight nick in the seal or a scratch on one of the mating surfaces can easily result in a leak. Might start as a small seep and nip the union up and it seems OK, till there's been enough cycles and then the seep starts again and progressively gets worse. What they're dealing with is a lot of pressure and super-cold temps which makes me think did they have something similar, got away with it first run but next run it wasn't going to play. Surprised they didn't pop the connector and check/swap that seal while they had time tbh rather than cross fingers for run 2. Just seems poor engineering practise is all.

Having been working (started the new job today) I've not had a chance to look, have there been any further updates at all?

Edited September 5, 2022 by DaveL59

[Stu]

17 minutes ago, DaveL59 said:

Just seems poor engineering practise is all.

Making quite a few assumptions there Dave, I’m sure if there was an easy fix they would have done it.

[DaveL59]

7 minutes ago, Stu said:

Making quite a few assumptions there Dave, I’m sure if there was an easy fix they would have done it.

Not really, considering that was one of their suggestions after fail-2. At the last conference I listened to they were saying that if they could replace the soft goods at the pad then they can do a proper cryo test run to verify it worked. They can't do that back in the garage so the only way they'd know is next time its back on the pad. Of course now time is ticking away before they have to roll it back so they may not get a chance to. Had they done this after fail-1 they'd have had days to get it done and know if they fixed it and may even have had a chance for a launch today. But instead they took the chance that they'd solved an issue they'd not investigated fully and it bit them in the ass... just sayin 😉 

[Gfamily]

According to the NASA Artemis blog

Quote

During today’s launch attempt, engineers saw a leak in a cavity between the ground side and rocket side plates surrounding an 8-inch line used to fill and drain liquid hydrogen from the SLS rocket. Three attempts at reseating the seal were unsuccessful. While in an early phase of hydrogen loading operations called chilldown, when launch controllers cool down the lines and propulsion system prior to flowing super cold liquid hydrogen into the rocket’s tank at minus 253 degrees C, an inadvertent command was sent that temporarily raised the pressure in the system. While the rocket remained safe and it is too early to tell whether the bump in pressurization contributed to the cause of the leaky seal, engineers are examining the issue.

I'm not sure if the following has been mentioned here or not, but depending on the length of investigations required, there is also the issue about the certification of the batteries on the Flight Termination System - and replacing them will require a return to the VAB. 

There is a timetable on the NASA site giving the launch windows - with the mission lengths possible for each artemis_i_mission_availability_aug2022.pdf 

[Stu]

Just now, DaveL59 said:

Not really, considering that was one of their suggestions after fail-2. At the last conference I listened to they were saying that if they could replace the soft goods at the pad then they can do a proper cryo test run to verify it worked. They can't do that back in the garage so the only way they'd know is next time its back on the pad. Of course now time is ticking away before they have to roll it back so they may not get a chance to. Had they done this after fail-1 they'd have had days to get it done and know if they fixed it and may even have had a chance for a launch today. But instead they took the chance that they'd solved an issue they'd not investigated fully and it bit them in the ass... just sayin 😉 

Fair enough. I hear what you are saying. My only point is that these guys actually launch big tall metal things and people into space so may know something about the challenges and best approaches. We don’t.

[DaveL59]

1 minute ago, Gfamily said:

According to the NASA Artemis blog

I'm not sure if the following has been mentioned here or not, but depending on the length of investigations required, there is also the issue about the certification of the batteries on the Flight Termination System - and replacing them will require a return to the VAB. 

There is a timetable on the NASA site giving the launch windows - with the mission lengths possible for each artemis_i_mission_availability_aug2022.pdf 

yep that was noted too, also the batteries in the payloads may need topping up, or may not they didn't know during the conference. 

[MarsG76]

Brings a tear to my eye... a tear of shame... in 1969 they put a man on the moon... 69!!!... there was a sense of adventure, risk, courage, intelligence, ingenuity, purpose and true team work... today.. they can't even get the thing of the launch pad... I guess thats what greed, red tape and a broken education system delivers.

What a sad age we live in... Oh but they'll colonise Mars and have Moon bases by 2027... come on....  

[Alien 13]

9 hours ago, Tomatobro said:

 Only the folks that have worked with Cryogenic fluids will know how difficult they are to handle. NASA share everything and long may it continue.

 

I used to be an engineer in charge of a number of liquid nitrogen environmental chambers and a huge 40 foot tall liquid nitrogen tank and know about the problems regarding its use, one of which was the formation of oxygen rich ice next to the pipes which could be a foot thick and as hard a iron and certainly enough to deform any suspect seals etc.

Alan

[Louis D]

Why doesn't Europe (Russia excluded) have a manned space program?  Y'all are smack talking the US effort without offering up anything better.  Seriously, without huge military expenditures like the US has, y'all could have a top notch space program.

[CraigT82]

18 minutes ago, MarsG76 said:

Brings a tear to my eye... a tear of shame... in 1969 they put a man on the moon... 69!!!... there was a sense of adventure, risk, courage, intelligence, ingenuity, purpose and true team work... today.. they can't even get the thing of the launch pad... I guess thats what greed, red tape and a broken education system delivers.

What a sad age we live in... Oh but they'll colonise Mars and have Moon bases by 2027... come on....  

Nostalgia ain’t what it used to be.

[Stu]

No politics please.

Thank you