Another Artemis II Issue Arises (Update)

Keith’s note: Things change fast in the Artemis II world. On Friday NASA posted an update: “NASA is targeting no earlier than Friday, March 6, for the launch of Artemis II, pending completion of required work at the launch pad, analysis of test data, and the outcome of a Flight Readiness Review in the coming days.” Then today (Saturday) according to this post: “NASA is taking steps to potentially roll back the Artemis II rocket and Orion spacecraft to the VAB … after overnight Feb. 21 observing interrupted flow of helium in the SLS rocket’s interim cryogenic propulsion stage. … This will almost assuredly impact the March launch window.“ Update: Detailed description from Jared Isaacman below:

From Jared Isaacman @NASAAdmin

As an update to my earlier post.

– The ICPS helium bottles are used to purge the engines, as well as for LH2 and LOX tank pressurization. The systems did work correctly during WDR1 and WDR2.

– Last evening, the team was unable to get helium flow through the vehicle. This occurred during a routine operation to repressurize the system.

– We observed a similar failure signature on Artemis I. – The Artemis II vehicle is in a safe configuration, using ground ECS purge for the engines versus the onboard helium supply.

– Potential faults could include the final filter between the ground and flight vehicle, located on the umbilical, though this seems least likely based on the failure signature. It could also be a failed QD umbilical interface, where similar issues have been observed. It could also be a failed check valve onboard the vehicle, which would be consistent with Artemis I, though corrective actions were taken to minimize reoccurrence on Artemis II.

Regardless of the potential fault, accessing and remediating any of these issues can only be performed in the VAB.

As mentioned previously, we will begin preparations for rollback, and this will take the March launch window out of consideration.

I understand people are disappointed by this development. That disappointment is felt most by the team at NASA, who have been working tirelessly to prepare for this great endeavor. During the 1960s, when NASA achieved what most thought was impossible, and what has never been repeated since, there were many setbacks. One historic example is that Neil Armstrong spent less than 11 hours in space on Gemini 8 before his mission ended prematurely due to a technical issue. A little over three years later, he became the first man to walk on the Moon.

There are many differences between the 1960s and today, and expectations should rightfully be high after the time and expense invested in this program. I will say again, the President created Artemis as a program that will far surpass what America achieved during Apollo. We will return in the years ahead, we will build a Moon base, and undertake what should be continuous missions to and from the lunar environment. Where we begin with this architecture and flight rate is not where it will end.

Please expect a more extensive briefing later this week as we outline the path forward, not just for Artemis II, but for subsequent missions, to ensure NASA meets the President’s vision to return to the Moon and, this time, to stay.