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.
Safety

NASA Is Moving The Goal Posts (Yet Again) On SLS

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
April 11, 2022
Filed under , ,
NASA Is Moving The Goal Posts (Yet Again) On SLS

Artemis I Wet Dress Rehearsal Update
“NASA is planning to proceed with a modified wet dress rehearsal, primarily focused on tanking the core stage, and minimal propellant operations on the interim cryogenic propulsion stage (ICPS) with the ground systems at Kennedy. Due to the changes in loading procedures required for the modified test, wet dress rehearsal testing is slated to resume with call to stations on Tuesday, April 12 and tanking on Thursday, April 14. Wet dress rehearsal is an opportunity to refine the countdown procedures and validate critical models and software interfaces. The modified test will enable engineers to achieve the test objectives critical to launch success. Following the modified test, the Space Launch System rocket and Orion spacecraft will return to the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) where engineers will evaluate the valve and replace if needed. Teams are confident in the ability to replace the valve once back in the VAB.” ?
Inspector General Flunks NASA Management On Artemis/SLS/Orion, earlier post
“Rather than resolving the major shortcomings with the Agencys cost estimating and reporting practices, the recent policy amendments formalized known deficiencies as acceptable management practices. NASA had previously stated that it intended to establish new policies and procedures that would provide additional transparency for major programs with multiple deliverables and unspecified end points.”
Keith’s note: So … a full-up test of loading the entire SLS with fuel was the official baselined program plan for what needed to be done on the pad in order to proceed toward the first launch. Then something did not work. Then something else did not work. Now a valve in the upper stage is not working. So NASA will skip that part when they try again. Then if everything else works they will roll SLS back to the VAB and maybe replace the ICPS valve. Or maybe not. But are they then going to roll SLS back out to the pad and do the full-up test – with all of the ICPS tests – that the program originally baselined – or skip some tests instead and check off some boxes with a waiver and a memo? If NASA is going to skip test steps then why have them as part of the test to begin with? Its a good thing that all NASA buys all of their goal posts with wheels.
NASA to Discuss Plans Today for Artemis Moon Mission Modified Test
“NASA will hold a media teleconference at 4 p.m. EDT today, Monday, April 11, to provide an update on the final major test of the agency’s mega Moon rocket and spacecraft on the launch pad at the agency’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida ahead of the uncrewed Artemis I lunar mission.”

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

20 responses to “NASA Is Moving The Goal Posts (Yet Again) On SLS”

  1. Winner says:
    0
    0

    In the spirit of NASA’s acronyms, I suggest that GOALPOST is their new methodology. “Give Our Active Longterm Projects Obfuscated Slipped Targets”. With the GOALPOST Methodology, projects delays are minimized due to the flexibility of the method.

    Do you think the Project Management Institute would entertain the inclusion of this methodology into the Project Management Body of Knowledge?

  2. ed2291 says:
    0
    0

    Keith’s comments are on target and consistent with the whole SLS program since 2011 – over 10 years now.

    I do not want or desire to believe that Starship is being deliberately delayed to make SLS look good, but it is increasingly looking that way.

  3. Keith Vauquelin says:
    0
    0

    Nothing to see here.

    S.S.D.D.

    KILL SLS. NOW.

  4. Johnhouboltsmyspiritanimal says:
    0
    0

    What test has this program done full up maybe pad abort 1?
    The area-1x test with the SRB was only a dead mass on top.
    Ascent abort was boilerplate capsule that went into the drink instead of full abort motor, coast, parachute splashdown.
    EFT-1 was delta second stage instead of service module.
    16 years has there yet to be a full up test vs the partials and subsystem levels up until now?

  5. Homer Hickam says:
    0
    0

    SLS is an experimental rocket. Built over years utilizing a problematic design that was supposed to use existing technology, it may have inherent flaws and QC problems that are not now evident and won’t be until it’s flown. NASA does itself a disservice by repeatedly stating that it will take but one launch for SLS to prove its design followed by a circumnavigation of the moon with people aboard. It could work out that way but, based on the history of such heavy lift boosters, there will probably be failures that will have to be addressed before humans can safely fly atop it. Meanwhile, other launchers that have gone through and past the experimental stage will come on line. NASA would be smart to announce that because it’s clear now that there are better, faster, and cheaper methods to go back to the moon that weren’t evident when it started building SLS, it’s decided to make the rocket into a cargo carrier and then plug along with it to keep Congress happy until they can say either “Mission Accomplished” or blame its failure on previous administrations. Either way, they get to go do something else, hands in their pockets, smiles on their faces, dewdrops on their rosy cheeks, and whistling along the sidewalk with SLS just one of those historical anomalies everyone will do their best to forget..

    • tutiger87 says:
      0
      0

      To throw all of this blame on NASA without throwing shade on Congress and its desire to keep the pockets of certain contractors full paints an incomplete story.

    • Brian_M2525 says:
      0
      0

      They can always fly one or two more unmanned tests. They have two more in assembly in addition to the one on the pad. That will be an extra $ 8 billion and about five more years until people can be placed on board. We were not really planning to land on the Moon in this decade.

  6. echos of the mt's says:
    0
    0

    Is there a limit on how many times they can fuel/defuel the tanks due to safety factor with the material they are made of?

    • Johnhouboltsmyspiritanimal says:
      0
      0

      The shuttle ET had quite a few tankings (I want to say I think 13) available for the hardware. Hopefully this is the case with this tank as well.

  7. Nick K says:
    0
    0

    For several weeks in response to the repeated delays for SLS, the old NASA vets have reiterated ‘well thats why we test” but with this latest update it looks like sometimes its easier to cancel the test and just say it passed because you don’t want your people, or vehicle, or procedures or… to look like they weren’t ready. So then the question becomes, why weren’t you ready for the test in the window you alotted?

  8. R.J.Schmitt says:
    0
    0

    This use of waivers to finish that wet dress rehearsal more or less on schedule is not surprising. NASA used the waiver process to authorize Space Shuttle launches even when there were anomalies occurring on almost every launch.

    Most notable were the scorched secondary O-rings on the Solid Rocket Boosters seen during the first 24 launches indicating that the O-ring design might not have the assumed redundancy. Challenger was the 25th launch (28Jan1986).

    And NASA used waivers on almost all of the first 112 launches when rigid foam insulation was observed to be shedding off the External Tank and striking the Orbiter heat shield. Columbia made the 113th shuttle launch (1Feb2003).

  9. Bob Mahoney says:
    0
    0

    Isn’t this how Shuttle got into trouble and endured a multi-year 1st-launch slip? Going cheap and thin on hardware testing?

  10. Bad Horse says:
    0
    0

    If you don’t test, you can’t find issues. If don’t find issues, you don’t need to test and the rocket is ready to fly. A decision to launch SLS with any open severity 1 or 2 technical risk is just an attempt to get it off the pad.
    The design and costs of SLS have been overcome by commercial technical advancements. To be fair, in 2011 it was a decision to preserve the industrial base and the solid propellent industry. Valid at the time. But the time has come to fly once if you can and move on. You know critical parts of SLS are made in Germany. Luckily for NASA is was not the Ukraine.

  11. Zen Puck says:
    0
    0

    “Rather than resolving the major shortcomings with the Agencys cost
    estimating and reporting practices, the recent policy amendments
    formalized known deficiencies as acceptable management practices.”

    Author Diane Vaughn, in her 1996 book: “The Challenger Launch Decision”, coined the phrase: ‘normalization of deviance’ to characterize the decision making culture at that time.

    From what the IG had to say (quote above) seems like the more things change, the more they stay the same.

  12. rb1957 says:
    0
    0

    it’s our game, and we can change the rules as we like …

  13. Oui Think says:
    0
    0

    Funny how NASA is voted each year as the best place to work in the federal government yet is unable to engineer optimal solutions. It is really due to many years of pushing diversity over the best qualified for job positions. Companies that hire the best qualified people build products like Falcon 9 and Star Ship compared to NASA.

    • Johnhouboltsmyspiritanimal says:
      0
      0

      well look at the competition for best federal agency. would you rather work at NASA or the IRS or the VA?

    • mfwright says:
      0
      0

      Maybe it is other parts of NASA, there are many more depts (and much smaller) besides those working on SLS.

    • tutiger87 says:
      0
      0

      Pushing diversity? Are you kidding? Please stop with the typical right wing tropes about diversity, because, in the engineering ranks, its actually gotten worse.

  14. Dan Mosenzon says:
    0
    0

    A lot can be said about this, but this sums it up pretty well.

    https://youtu.be/vmB3gfOMNFo