NASA Stops SLS Test Before It Happens (Again)
NASA to Discuss Final Test Status Today Before Artemis Moon Mission
“NASA will hold a media teleconference at 4 p.m. EDT today on Tuesday, April 5, to provide another update on the final major test with the agency’s mega Moon rocket and Orion spacecraft at the launch pad ahead of the uncrewed Artemis I lunar mission. Audio of the teleconference will stream live on the agency’s website.”
Artemis I Wet Dress Rehearsal Called off for April 4
“The Artemis I team has ended today’s attempt at the wet dress rehearsal test at 5 p.m. The countdown ended after partially loading liquid oxygen into the Space Launch System core stage tank. This provided the teams a valuable opportunity for training and to make sure modeled loading procedures were accurate. This was the first time using new systems at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39B. The team was able to monitor the Artemis I core stage as it was exposed to cryogenic liquids and gather data that will inform updates to propellant loading procedures.”
NASA to Provide Update Today on Last Major Artemis Test Before Launch
“The approximately two-day test, known as the wet dress rehearsal, began Friday, April 1, and was halted Sunday prior to tanking due to loss of ability to pressurize the mobile launcher using two fans. The fans are needed to provide positive pressure to the enclosed areas within the mobile launcher and keep out hazardous gases. Without this capability, technicians are unable to safely proceed with remotely loading the propellants into the rocket’s core stage and interim cryogenic propulsion stage.”
fans? really?
Hey, at least it’s not bellows…
You’d think that whole billion dollars would’ve been able to cover testing the tower before it became part of the critical path. I guess money doesn’t go as far as it used to.
It took 17 days to wet test the Saturn V quite sure Elon has had weather problems . once SLS is operational like the Soyuz launches are more likely to go on time unlike space x and space shuttle who need weather to recover first stage .
That’s not a really a fair comparison, is it? After all there are only going to be a few SLS launches. SpaceX is and will be flying far more frequently.
You are correct though: SLS doesn’t have to worry about good weather for stage recovery because the stack is disposable. Of course when Starship comes online, SLS will become redundant and irrelevant, at least in terms of technology, cost, capability, and certainly reusability.
“once SLS is operational” ? wot, in the 22nd Century ??
SpaceX has proven itself many times in many ways. SLS has failed in many ways including cost, reliability, and being on schedule. So we are now twice delaying the SpaceX Axiom launch for a failed SLS wet dress rehearsal.
I seem to recall a Falcon 9 launchpad fueling explosion which destroyed the vehicle and the payload. Then there was a resupply failure and resulting explosion and loss of payload. Then there was a loss of Dragon 2 during a stand test. It hasn’t all been roses. I don’t think NASA feels it can push that hard.
I also recall how many F9 boosters have been recovered to fly again…. How they have developed re usability into their system. How their crew capsule was developed while Orion and Boeing capsules, which had years
of a head start, were left behind in SX’s dust. SpaceX incremental design & development strategy has more than proven which approach works better. I do agree NASA is not failure tolerant, & I don’t blame them. Of course, I blame congress for constraining NASA.
I am sadly amused that SpaceX failures are used to compare and contrast the financial boondoggle which SLS is.
Fans? Is NASA using eye of newt and toe of frog, wool of bat and tongue of dog to prepare SLS for first flight, too?
SpaceX is flying, will be flying, chalking up success after success, yet NASA cannot get its act together for relatively simple tests when compared to the black hole of money sunk into, and lost, on SLS.
Kill SLS. Now.
Dress rehearsals are not expected to be perfectly smooth, especially for the first launch of what amounts to a bespoke system. It makes no sense to criticize NASA for this process being bumpy. Scheduling the Axiom launch so tightly on top of this wet dress shows deeply wishful thinking.
from tanking standpoint how is this much different than the probably 150 propellant loads they did with the shuttle?
New tower, probably a nearly entirely-new crew, considering it’s been 11 years since the last time Shuttle was launched. While the tech is old, it’s still a new system. It would not surprise me to see them take a couple of weeks to complete the WDR. They’re learning and bringing down risk.
well seems like the new team should have done more sims and testing of the system before rolling out the rocket. this WDR shouldn’t be finding issues with the tower and the team, but focus on the integration issues between vehicle and launch system.
As far as I know all of the fuel loading hardware is different. Starting with new LOX and hydrogen storage tanks at the launch pad. The tanks that were used for Shuttle dated from the Apollo program. The new tanks are refrigerated and greatly minimize boiloff while the cryos are stored in the tanks. This allows several consecutive days of launch attempts, whereas the old tanks had to be refilled every third day.
Shuttle used those two TSM’s (Tail Service Masts) for fuel loading, one for hydrogen and one for LOX. The same concept is being used for SLS, the new ones seem to retain the legacy name as they are called TSMU (Tail Service Mast Umbilical).
The beanie cap used for venting LOX away from the ET is gone since there is now a capsule sitting on top of the core stage. Not sure where they vent LOX now, maybe they decided it’s okay to simply vent it out the side of the core stage.
There are new umbilical’s for nitrogen purging.
Not sure if they are using the wet/dry fuel level sensors like were used on Shuttle. They tended to be problematic on Shuttle, maybe they have come up with a new system for SLS.
Super Heavy did a cryo test on its launch mount yesterday.
KILL SLS. Nothing else to discuss or consider.
ITAR fans….
It’s difficult to understand why NASA continues to set up telephone-only press conferences. It feels like they’re stuck in the 1970s. How do they accommodate participants with hearing impairments? How difficult would it really be these days to make these videoconferences with captioning available? Can they really be meeting federal accessibility standards with this ancient technology?
If you saw what goes on in a NASA meeting…
Pressurization fans? That is as low tech as you can get. The contractor obviously didn’t pay much attention to commissioning the GSE.
How do ou know the lighting strikes didn’t fry something that went undetected?
No surge protection in Fla, ?
Seem the point I was making went flying way over your head.
That seems pretty unlikely. Those big towers around the launch pad are lightning rods. They are there to prevent a rocket or the pad facilities from being damaged by lightning.
Oh dear.
Don’t take what I wrote too literally.
I just gave a quick example of something that could have happened that an outside observer wouldn’t know about.
My point is there’s no reason to assume the contractor of the GSE wasn’t doing a proper job.
I wonder why the MLP hasn’t had regular maintenance to ensure that safety-critical systems like this are working on demands? At the very least, had no-one bothered to do a pre-roll-out check?
Perhaps it worked fine up until now?
SLS is certainly an easy target, but just because a problem occurred doesn’t mean that nothing with the MLP had been previously tested. It’s certainly possible that this part of the system was tested recently and worked fine. We don’t at this point have those details to know one way or the other. We don’t even know yet what caused the failure. Bashing may at some point be appropriate if it turns out to be caused by some glaring error due to deficient QA processes. While I realize many are making that assumption already, I think it’s best to wait until hopefully more info is released about it. Although if the problem is relatively minor and they are able to fix it quickly and continue the test with minimal delay then we probably won’t hear much more about it.
It sure beats “ground crew members succumb to noxious fumes during pad test”. No?
for want of a nail, a battle was lost ?
https://uploads.disquscdn.c…
Not a big fan of SLS but to be fair, how many remember, or even knew about the testing and infrastructure problems associated with Saturn I and V. Whatever the problems being experienced right now with SLS, they pale in comparison with what happened then with Saturn. Take a look at https://www.hq.nasa.gov/off… to get an idea. The wonder is that Saturn V got off the ground at all.
saturn V wasn’t leveraging 30+ years of experience launching space shuttle with the same LH2/LO2 set up/
Shuttle was new compared to Saturn, SLS is new compared to Shuttle. Some of the SLS hardware is the same as Shuttle (main engines and boosters), but the support infrastructure is either all new or extensively refurbished. The plumbing external and internal to the rocket is all different.
An end-to-end test cannot be performed unless the entire ensemble is in place – you can’t fully exercised pad hardware, with confidence, until the rocket is plugged in. What we are witnessing is the painful slog through testing that is needed for any major project. We have not witness this before, but it did occur for Saturn and Shuttle and every other launcher. It is a necessary part of the work and is meant to uncover problems and find ways to solve them.
Again, not necessarily a fan of SLS but am a fan of solid engineering work.
That’s fine. The problem is how NASA described the test. They did not say they were testing the procedure and process, to see what worked and what needed to be changed. It was described as the final “dress rehearsal”, to verify that their carefully worked out process and procedures worked. If they had accurately described the test, I don’t think anyone would be complaining now that it’s run into a number of snags.
Engineers are bad at playing with words and many observers may jump to conclusions. The dictionary indicates that a dress rehearsal is the last practice before the first performance (launch). A dress rehearsal uses all of the same costumes, props, lighting, and sound, (rocket, ground support hardware, communications, etc.), as in the first performance (launch).
There will actually be a halt and full recycle during a first countdown; a second countdown; and then a scrub just before the main engine start point. This test is meant to verify the functionality (or not) of the hardware before a real launch attempt. Problems discovered can be corrected and operational lessons are learned (as they are).
From an engineering point of view, the test is achieving its goals and objectives.
If they keep pushing off manned flights until SLS gets through its ground tests, we may have lost the ability to launch humans again for quite some time.
My Google search for “Vegas odds on SLS WDR completion” returned no results so what are you all thinking? It’ll definitely be finished before the 17th of April 2022, right?
If this was all ITAR how do we know what went wrong???
Third slip now.
Does SLS stand for Slipped Launch Schedule?