NASA Is Rolling SLS Back To The Barn For Repairs
NASA to Discuss Status of Artemis I Moon Mission
“Due to upgrades required at an off-site supplier of gaseous nitrogen used for the test, NASA will take advantage of the opportunity to roll SLS and Orion back to the Vehicle Assembly Building to replace a faulty upper stage check valve and a small leak on the tail service mast umbilical. During that time, the agency also will review schedules and options to demonstrate propellant loading operations ahead of launch.”
Every SLS countdown ends with, WHAT?, WAIT, & HOLD!
The other day I began to hear the launch is slipping to July, but if its back to the VAB and then back to the pad for more tests, is Sept too soon?
They’ll probably be aiming for the late July launch window (July 27 to August 10.) The window after that is August 21 to September 7.
A summer launch still looks the more likely outcome.
There’s launch windows in early June-mid June, late June-early July, mid July to early August and mid August through late August.
I don’t think they could make the early June launch window unless they choose to do WDR and the first launch attempt in the same rollout campaign, which is one of the options they’re looking at.
If not then an additional rollout after a late May or early June WDR would likely add weeks of schedule, so either late June or sometime in July.
Depends on how much work they’ll get done before the off-site GN2 facility upgrades are finished and how many more tanking attempts will be needed to finish the test
I have now begun to hear NASA people speak about a reschedule to September. So since that is still five months away, I think perhaps the end of 2022 is more realistic.
We’ll see it in 2023!
Man, if SpaceX doesn’t get slapped with a full EIS on Boca Chica launches, they might actually beat SLS to orbit with Starship now.
does it really matter who is first off the pad given once starship gets the go to fly orbital tests they will probably rack up at least a dozen flights in between SLS’s first and second launch?
I think it would be a huge embarrassment for SLS’s supporters, although it won’t change anything about the program nor its funding.
I think the entire program is already a huge embarrassment.
I wonder how close Elon actually is to the first Starship orbital test flight. He has the aft dome fitted with plumbing for the 33 Raptor 2 engines. But are 33 engines available now?
And those 33 Booster engines still need to be static fired a few times together before attempting a launch.
And, of course, the FAA still has to finish that PEA and issue a FONSI if Starship is to be permitted to lift an inch off the Orbital Launch Mount.
I think Boca Chica gal and a few others have spotted a few raptor V2 on site plus a bunch have been up at Macgregor being tested.
“But are 33 engines available now?”
Sounds like they’re cranking them out like sausages at a new factory at McGregor and Hawthorne & ramping, and now they have several test stands including vertical and horizontal. Raptor 2 serial number 42 just arrived at Starbase.
https://youtu.be/GCqQLthjDxU
All NASA had to do is say we will fix it and test again.
They haven’t decided whether or not they’ll test it again (i.e. redo the full wet dress rehearsal.)
You are correct. I was saying that would be the best way forward. SLS clearly has no idea of progressing forward and has not for years.
Because that the test that used to be so critical may become less critical.
Imagine you are the astronauts set to GO AROUND THE MOON on a rocked that launches only once before your flight, and they skipped certain tests!
STS-1 was tested with people on board.
And I’ve never heard anyone describe that as anything other than an extraordinarily bad idea.
I totally agree.
STS-1 was equipped with ejection seats good to over 100,000 ft.
Yes, and that was extremely risky and fortunately turned out mostly fine. But did STS “require” tests that they subsequently waived?
I’d go with Space X.
NASA and its old world contractors are “saving money” by building one-off units. Far more expensive, and also far more dangerous because they do not get the kind of testing or allow the kinds of life space upgrades, so its a false economy.
Space X is constantly building to test, building to fly, upgrading amd their people will know far more about the components and performance. Its a far safer system and over a pretty short term becomes far less expensive.
You have our representation in Congress for the ridiculous design requirements of SLS.
How many starship launches ? 14 ???? SLS can do it in one launch
Sounds like you’ve been reading blue origin FUD. One launch to Earth orbit, one docking when with a Depot to go somewhere else. How much the Depot has stored depends on the destination, roughly four tanker loads for the Moon.
Before decrying this consider that all of the Artemis Landers need to refuel on the way, not just Starship.
Except that SLS is not a one-off vehicle.
It’s a part of a production line that is currently producing 4 additional vehicles, with many more under contract.
The difference with SpaceX is the actual competency of that production line.
The one for Starship lacks basic FOD control, they have literally cryo tested prototypes that they knew had lots of FOD in their propellant tanks.
Among many other problems SpaceX doesn’t and won’t disclose to the public.
SpaceX should hold a cocktail party in orbit from which to observe the first manned SLS launch attempt.
It might be a big cocktail party. With this Saturday’s launch on 04-23-22 Space X will have launched 26 people to orbit. They are likely to launch a total of 30 with the Crew 5 launch this September which is likely to be before Boeing gets their first astronauts to orbit.
Boeing’s been batting .000 lately with space and certain airliners.
I was being sarcastic when I suggested a couple of years ago, that they should call the SLS vehicle 1 the ‘Hanger Queen’. Now I’m wondering.
I’ve read that the stack is certified for seven moves like this. They’ll use the second one to get it back to the VAB. Another cycle out and back for a second attempt at the WDR will use two more, with a fifth trip to get it out to 39B for launch. That leaves just one spare cycle out & back. Does anyone know what the constraints are that limit the number of trips on the crawler? If they needed more trips than seven, what would that mean? De-stacking the rocket and re-building it? Inspection and refurbishment? Something else?
They’ve already had to extend the life of the solids since they are past their originally certified “fly before” date.
Maybe they’ll do a combined test2 then launch?
it would have to be sporty given the FTS is armed (good for 30 days) in VAB and only accessible there so you would have to roll out, pass without issue and then be ready to launch all in one month.
The vehicle is rated for 22 full tanking cycles.
So far they still have about 20 cycles left, this is not a constraint
“NASA will take advantage of the opportunity…” means in plain English “we have a good spin on another failure”.
Watch the offsite gaseous N2 facility closely. This may prove to be a long pole.
Is it a purity issue, a capacity issue, or both?
Bet if you look close we find a Coyote is building SLS
“Acme”?
Wet Dress Rehearsal Rehearsal successfully concluded!
NASA funding markup has begun. Now is the time to contact your Congressanimals and tell them to kill SLS:
https://www.congress.gov/me…
In these troubled times we should buy only useful stuff.
Could a valve issues on SLS and CST-100 be somehow connected?