NASA Mega Moon Rocket Tanking Test Fails – Again
Artemis I WDR Update: Third Test Attempt Concluded, NASA
“Teams concluded today’s wet dress rehearsal test at approximately 5:10 p.m. EDT after observing a liquid hydrogen (LH2) leak on the tail service mast umbilical, which is located at the base of the mobile launcher and connects to the rocket’s core stage. The leak was discovered during liquid hydrogen loading operations and prevented the team from completing the test. Before ending the test, teams also met test objectives for the interim cryogenic propulsion stage by chilling down the lines used to load propellant into the upper stage. They did not flow any propellant to the stage because of an issue with a helium check valve identified several days ago.”
NASA to Discuss Initial Findings from Artemis Moon Mission Modified Test, NASA
“NASA will hold a media teleconference at 3 p.m. EDT on Friday, April 15, to discuss the wet dress rehearsal test of the agency’s Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and Orion spacecraft at Launch Complex 39B at the agency’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida ahead of the uncrewed Artemis I lunar mission.”
– Summary Of Today’s SLS Media Briefing, earlier post
– Inspector General Flunks NASA Management On Artemis/SLS/Orion, earlier post
– NASA Is Moving The Goal Posts (Yet Again) On SLS, earlier post
– NASA Stops SLS Test Before It Happens (Again), earlier post
– Earlier SLS posts
SLS would gain credibility if they openly admitted tests that went well and tests that failed as Space X does. Putting a happy face on everything for years does not fool anybody.
Turning everything over to Space X would not only save time and money, it would accomplish much more and be safer for the astronauts.
What’s amazing is how transparent SpaceX, a private company, has been. In the 60’s and 70’s the great telecasts were NASA. In the teens and twenties, it’s SpaceX. When I do see a NASA telecast, it’s about 90% Rah Rah look how great this is and about 10% actual valuable current event and technical information. The overhype gets kind of nauseating.
The beatings will continue till morale improves…
And SpaceX is getting ready to erect a Starship launch Tower, at lc39a, and they are building those segments at their facility on Roberts Road south of the VAB. Losing no time..
Turning NASA over to SpaceX is not likely, nor is it necessary to fix what is wrong with NASA. How about instead, expanding the Commercial Crew program to encompass cislunar space missions?
NASA could offer fixed price contracts to private companies for passenger transportation services to the Gateway space station. This expanded Commercial Crew program could operate in parallel to the SLS/Orion manned mission, and provide vital backup to Project Artemis in case of further delays or other problems with the SLS/Orion.
NASA needs to get rid most of the bureaucrats and turn it back over to the engineers.
I agree. Although I also sympathize with NASA judging by the negative comments they get on FB, Instagram etc. there’s a lot of hate out there and a lot of fanaticism for SpaceX at NASA’s cost. It’s almost like a kid trying to please a critical father.
I think Homer Hickam’s prediction is likely to come true. They will eventually make it through WDR. Then they will make it through whatever snafus are likely to occur when they try to actually launch. After they finally get it off the ground it will probably make it to the Moon, and maybe even make it through all of its planned test maneuverings in Lunar orbit. And then maybe, maybe, Orion will make it back to Earth with a successful splashdown.
But I won’t even put a “maybe” on the mission going so well that they won’t have to do another one before carrying crew. It’s probably not too early to begin thinking about what they should call the next mission, maybe Artemis 1B?
The primary milestone for putting people on Artemis 2 is a successful lunar re-entry and landing, which all things considered is quite likely to occur.
Unless Artemis 1 goes catastrophically wrong, which is rather unlikely, Artemis 2 will almost certainly carry crew
Obviously any problems catastrophic enough to prevent return to Earth, or any problems with reentry and landing will result in another uncrewed test flight. But I suspect that if there are enough non-catastrophic problems during the mission there will be pressure on NASA to do another test flight. NASA might make the rationale that problems that occurred were not life-threatening, and that they have figured out corrections. But they will be on the defensive to prove their case. If there are any doubts they will likely be pressured to do a second test flight prior to carrying crew. The only counter pressure would be concerns about adding yet other delay to the first crewed test flight. And of course the additional cost. But since realistically the first crewed lunar landing is still a few years off, it probably wouldn’t affect the schedule all that much.
Mega price tag for Mega problems good thing SpaceX is their to take over when the funds run out for this money sucking black hole.
It would take a congressional miracle for SLS to loose funding.
I don’t think SLS will reach the beach.
The last thing they want is to turn SLS into a hangar queen. They’ll get it to the beach. Leaving it…well…
NASA has its Spruce Goose
It IS a hangar queen.
Of that there is no doubt. You and I aren’t Boeing or NASA management, though. They’ll keep rinsing and repeating until it’s obvious.
Fourth time is the charm, not.
I tol’ Wilbur and I tol’ Orville and I tol’ Wernher and I’m telling you…it’ll never get off the pad! And if it does, I wouldn’t ride the beast if they paid me $55M!
That’s why big rockets like SLS are tested so extensively. To root out the problems. This is a new super heavy launch vehicle mounted for the first time on a new launch tower. Problems are expected to occur. It’s not the end of the world.
It is not good for the SLS program if the shiny vehicle flies successfully from South Texas first. With the next shiny vehicle awaiting its roll out to the pad.
But in the big picture who flies first will quickly be overtaken by starship flying dozens of times before SLS flies just twice. So if there really is nefarious red tape holding up starship for some optics it won’t matter given both need to get up and running for the return to the moon and starship has to not only get to orbit but practice refueling, returning to launch site, turn around and long term fuel depot in orbit so let’s stop this bureaucracy hold up and get going.
RJ- reminding you the SLS is mostly a modified Space Shuttle booster. The four SSME engines are all used engines, each having all flown at least three times before. They are 1970’s technology with updated avionics. The SRB’s are not new tech either…basically same SRB as the Shuttle but stretched with one additional ring segment. The upper stage is our old friend Centaur. Contrary to your opinion , I feel that NASA/Boeing is having w-a-a-a-y too many development problems with SLS Artemis-1 relative to the heritage of the hardware
The SLS Core Tank that Boeing builds looks a lot like the old Space Shuttle External Tank (ET) but is very different internally.
The ET had to carry the mechanical loads from the two Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) and from the attached Orbiter.
That SLS tank has the SRB loads plus the thrust loads on the bottom of that tank from the four SSMEs and the static and dynamic loads on the top of that tank from the second stage and the payload (the Orion spacecraft and its service module).
As far as I know the SRBs used on the SLS vehicle have not been the cause of any long delays or large cost overruns.
It’s the same for the Centaur–not a cause for delays or cost overruns.
The SSMEs are heritage engines from the Space Shuttle program and are what they are, namely the first reusable, staged combustion engines that have flown successfully on 135 Shuttle launches. IIRC, only one SSME had a problem in 135 launches and 135*3=405 engines flown. So, the measured, not estimated from a computer program, reliability of the SSME is 404/405=0.9975 (99.75%).
The SLS SSMEs are expended, not reused.
The solid rockets haven’t been a problem so far. But they have a limited lifetime after they are stacked. That lifetime ran out last November. NASA, based on additional information obtained during the stacking, decided to waive that limit and extend it by six months. Now it looks like they’ll need another waiver to extend it further. This does not give me a warm and comfortable feeling.
Yes, SRB shelf life is a concern. I wonder if any super large SRB like the ones used for the Space Shuttle in the past and the ones used now on SLS have been test fired after one or two years of storage.
Yes and no. The SRB’s have multiple issues and shelf lives. There is a five year limit after the propellent has been poured into the casing. They’ve test fired ones which had been in storage for a few years longer than that. Waving that five year limit (which I believe has already been done for SLS) isn’t too much of a concern. The current issue a twelve month limit on the assembled and stacked SRB. When it’s vertical and stacked, there are different issues, concerning the load on the joints (I don’t remember the details). For SLS, they’ve extended that by six months based on data collected during stacking. But even with that extension, they hit the limit at the end of May.
Interesting. Thanks for the info.
They are going to return Artemis I back to the VAB and a telecon will occur at 3PM EDT Monday 4/18 to discuss what steps are going to occur moving forward.
Now news just broke that the SLS will be rolling back into the VAB.