This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
SLS and Orion

Summary Of Today's SLS Media Briefing

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
April 11, 2022

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

36 responses to “Summary Of Today's SLS Media Briefing”

  1. Keith Vauquelin says:
    0
    0

    Sounds like Apollo 1, Challenger, and Columbia all over again.

    KILL SLS, not astronauts. Now.

  2. Brian_M2525 says:
    0
    0

    What was the point of the test if they cannot do the test? How much did this diversion cost?

    • ed2291 says:
      0
      0

      In addition to the extra costs for repeated failures, Space X’s Axiom was delayed multiple times. Perhaps the biggest cost of SLS is the delay of legitimate space programs.

    • Todd Austin says:
      0
      0

      I would expect that they plan to get as much as they can out of the testing that can still be done, as they’ve invested quite a lot in setting up this opportunity. It makes sense. Imagine the field day that the pundits and wannabe pundits would have if they did no testing now and then, three months from now, ran the whole test and found issues with the first stage that could have been identified in April, but were not because they stood down without doing the testing that was still possible.

  3. Jack says:
    0
    0

    Maybe the second stage will blow up when they attempt to launch.
    I wonder what they would say then………

    • James in Southern Illinois says:
      0
      0

      It might be the best thing that could happen could even put an end to this money sucking black hole program.

    • Tally-ho says:
      0
      0

      I doubt any CS heads will roll, only be reassigned.

    • Keith Vauquelin says:
      0
      0

      As long as it’s unmanned, I won’t be disappointed OR surprised.

      NASA will take yet another deserved black eye, there will be a lot of government handwringing and mea culpas.

      It’s a fool’s errand which the tax payer is saddled with.

      Kill SLS Now – not astronauts.

      • Christopher James Huff says:
        0
        0

        “Space is hard”, “no other rocket can do what SLS can do”, “SLS is the way back to the moon and Mars”…

        This is probably optimistic, but maybe they see it as likely that there will never be a second launch. If everything goes absolutely perfect with Artemis I, there’ll still be a minimum of two years of Starship getting orbital, showing off its capabilities, and getting ready to do a demo landing of a Starship on the moon in the same year Artemis II plans to just send some people in a capsule around it. A successful Artemis I might not mean much, a failure might just give them an excuse to kill SLS.

        More likely, they’ll just hand Boeing a performance bonus and double down on the “multiple launches are scary!” argument against orbital refueling.

    • Todd Austin says:
      0
      0

      If problems show up during the loading for the actual launch (which is still a test), then they’ll stand down in the same way that they would for any other launch. Problems that might crop up after launch won’t be found by any WDR, regardless of when it’s done.

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        So what about safe recovery from a scrubbed launch? They would need to remove propellent from the second stage, reset everything and get ready for the next launch opportunity. And, oh, they’ve deleted that part from the Wet Dress Rehearsal. So I guess we won’t find out if they can safely drain the fuel and recycle for another launch attempt until they actually try to do so.

        • Steve Pemberton says:
          0
          0

          They will be flowing propellant through the launch pad and ICPS plumbing, but not filling the tanks. So they can test draining at least that amount of propellant, but yes they will not be able to test draining a fully fueled ICPS. I agree that should be tested prior to the Artemis 2 launch, as it’s not a good idea to drain the upper stage for the first time when there are crew onboard.

          I expect they will do another fuel loading and draining either prior to the Artemis 1 launch, or prior to the Artemis 2 launch. They don’t have to go through a full test of the countdown to T-minus 9.3 seconds like they they are doing in WDR, they can just build into the launch schedule for either Artemis 1 or Artemis 2 an additional fueling and draining session prior to launch day.

  4. Winner says:
    0
    0

    This again shows the value of the GOALPOST methodology! Testing can still pass without the second stage ever being filled!

    • Todd Austin says:
      0
      0

      Actually, they do plan to put cryogenics into the upper stage, just not do a full load. As they describe it, that will capture the vast majority of the potential points of failure. Not all of them, granted, but will still provide valuable data. I do hope that they will run a second full-up test before launch, which they have not ruled out.

      • Skinny_Lu says:
        0
        0

        Agree 100%. The 2nd stage has been proven on Delta 4… so not as scary for an non crew test. If they end up not repeating WDR to include ICPS cryo loading, the first launch attempt would be the ICPS WDR… I believe the “brilliance” of this rocket is this: NASA can continue to test it, test after test…. a few times, roll back to VAB… rinse and repeat. roll it out to the pad again…. drag this out for a couple of years. Ha!

  5. Winner says:
    0
    0

    How would you feel, being the first astronauts to launch around the moon, on a legacy rocket that has only every launched one time?

    • Con says:
      0
      0

      I’d do it but only because I’m desperate.

    • Todd Austin says:
      0
      0

      I’d feel better than John Young and Bob Crippen did on April 12, 1981. Remember also that Apollo 8 was the very first journey of the Apollo-Saturn system to the Moon.

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        Yes, but Apollo 8 was the third flight of a Saturn V and the second flight of an Apollo Command and Service module.

        • Steve Pemberton says:
          0
          0

          As he said it was the first test flight of the Apollo-Saturn system to the Moon. Thus the first Apollo test of TLI, LOI, TEI, mid-course corrections, and reentry from the Moon had crew on board.

          Some of this was because of space race schedule pressures. However similar to STS-1 it was somewhat due to necessity. Unlike the Block I CSM which had special hardware installed to allow the CSM to be controlled from the ground, Block II could only fly with astronauts.

          It can also be pointed out that Apollo 7, with crew on board, was the first test flight of the Block II spacecraft. Block II had several changes made to it compared to Block I, including a modified heat shield, and different arrangements of the fuel cells, propellant tanks, and RCS thrusters. All tested for the first time with crew on board.

    • Ben Russell-Gough says:
      0
      0

      More alert and with a tighter grip on the ‘abort’ lever during ascent.

  6. Bad Horse says:
    0
    0

    A decision to launch with open severity 1 or 2 technical risks is a decision to just get the rocket off the pad. It also indicates that success is no longer a goal but an option. It’s like the program is ending after the launch attempt. It’s ok to fail, but you have to try. Not just go thru the motions. For 12 billion dollars you have to try.

    • Ben Russell-Gough says:
      0
      0

      So, you’re getting Ares-I-X vibes too? “We’re testing this to confirm that we know how to test things”?

  7. SouthwestExGOP says:
    0
    0

    Looks like schedule pressure is taking priority over safety. Again.

    • Zed_WEASEL says:
      0
      0

      Well the clock is running down with the stacked solid rocket boosters. Which were already waived to extended their time to July before they have to be de-stacked for safety reasons.

      AIUI there is only about a 3 week window for the SLS to be ready for the first launch before time runs out with the solid rocket boosters.

      Unless NASA waived another extension (rolling the dice) to extended the time the solid rocket booster remains stacked,

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        I think that’s mostly correct. It does look like NASA has two, not one, launch window for Artemis I’s solid rocket boosters pass their stacked lifetime. But, if that becomes a problem, I suspect NASA will find another excuse to extend that lifetime. It would be (as a Project Scientist on a NASA planetary mission put it, under similar circumstances) a “disturbingly easy stroke of a pen.”

        • Zed_WEASEL says:
          0
          0

          Yes, there are 2 remaining launch window of about a week each before the solid rocket booster should be de-stacked. They are within the 3 week period that I posted previously with a non-viable period in between the windows. IIRC.

  8. Con says:
    0
    0

    The only thing that can be done at this point is simply just clutching your pearls and hoping that there aren’t any ****ing disasters.

  9. Todd Austin says:
    0
    0

    I read a summary of the news conference. NASA does not rule out a second WDR. They will be putting a partial load of cryogenic fuel into the upper stage, so will be able to collect a significant amount of data on it, if not quite everything. Do I hope there will be a second and complete WDR? Yes. Do I think it’s the end of the world if they don’t? No. If they don’t, because all the rest of the data look solid, then they’ll effectively get those missing data when they do the full load in preparation for the initial launch, yes? The first use of the system will be uncrewed, so that technical issues and can be caught and worked out before crew are added to the mix.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      That sort of begs the question. Why did they felt a wet dress rehearsal (i.e. going through the whole launch sequence from the start to T -10 seconds) was necessary? I mean, as opposed to going through parts of the sequence separately. If it was considered necessary, then what’s changed? What is the justification for not doing something they originally considered necessary? Because that’s what they’ll be doing if there isn’t a second wet dress rehearsal.

      • Zed_WEASEL says:
        0
        0

        Because if there is a Kaboom without a wet dress rehearsal. There will many investigations, many Congressional hearings and a lot of time wasted.

        Time that can’t be make up. When the SLS will be eclipsed by a certain Shiny vehicle.

      • Skinny_Lu says:
        0
        0

        That is the purpose of (Requirement) Waivers. “We gave it a good try” but is too hard to meet, so… sing here.

  10. richard_schumacher says:
    0
    0

    Your Tax Dollars at play.