Artemis 1

[astroron (Ron)]

Originally Posted by DarkArts

Well, yes, obviously! But is that via a PC using YouTube, direct from the NASA website, an app on a smartphone/tablet, a streaming box app? It probably makes no difference, but I'm curious.

Direct from NASA on my Computer.
Not using UTube.
All is well now.

[ChrisD (Chris)]

It is not looking good for a launch in this window. I hope they get the Hydrogen leak fixed.

Edit: another scrubbed launch

[astronobob (Bob)]

try again in a couple more days ?

[glend (Glen)]

Yeah, scrubbed again. Hydrogen leaks. That makes one more pressurisation cycle (4th) ticked off the list of possible (6) before tanks have to be scrapped.
US news services are reporting that it looks like an October reschedule, due to launch window requirements, but complicated by a co-scheduled nearby SpaceX NASA. If they have to wait till October they might as well return the ship to the VAB, where they can work on it more easily. Maybe start by replacing all the hydrogen valves. Does anyone know if they ever did a static fire on those core engines?
The word cursed comes to mind.

[Startrek (Martin)]

Originally Posted by glend

Yeah, scrubbed again. Hydrogen leaks. That makes one more pressurisation cycle (4th) ticked off the list of possible (6) before tanks have to be scrapped.
US news services are reporting that it looks like an October reschedule, due to launch window requirements, but complicated by a co-scheduled nearby SpaceX NASA. If they have to wait till October they might as well return the ship to the VAB, where they can work on it more easily. Maybe start by replacing all the hydrogen valves. Does anyone know if they ever did a static fire on those core engines?
The word cursed comes to mind.

Not sure if they perform Static fire tests on these engines ( they didn’t for the Shuttle , just Hot Fire testing )

I watched the HFT ( Hot Fire Test) last year of the 4 core engines

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yEItmSRB44g

I always said Artemis was a waste of taxpayers dollars
Old technology ( hydrogen propulsion)
Old design ( ex Space Shuttle )
Limited crew capacity
Only capable of Low Earth Orbit and Lunar missions
Almost non reusable
Mega expensive to launch 4.1 billion
And so on …….

Just give Elon a bit more time and they will have Starship in orbit
Starship to the Moon in a few years and Mars in 10 years for a fraction of the cost and direct costs borne by a private company

[glend (Glen)]

Further news coming to light, if they are delayed beyond next week, the launch termination system (ie self destruct) battery will have to replaced, a VAB job apparently.

By contrast, the Starship self destruct charges mount on the exterior surface of the tanks, and connect via dedicated wiring to the Tesla ship battery in the nose. You can usually see the techs mount the charges via cherry picker before a flight test. The Tesla battery is charged via the quick disconnect arm, so I hear. Data link is via Starlink now.

[alpal]

Originally Posted by glend

Yeah, scrubbed again. Hydrogen leaks. That makes one more pressurisation cycle (4th) ticked off the list of possible (6) before tanks have to be scrapped.
US news services are reporting that it looks like an October reschedule, due to launch window requirements, but complicated by a co-scheduled nearby SpaceX NASA. If they have to wait till October they might as well return the ship to the VAB, where they can work on it more easily. Maybe start by replacing all the hydrogen valves. Does anyone know if they ever did a static fire on those core engines?
The word cursed comes to mind.

Begs the question of how they fueled up
the Apollo tanks without all those leaks?
It looks like we have lost technology from 53 years ago.

[Crater101 (Warren)]

Just the other day I watched a History channel doco on the Apollo 11 launch, with a lot of live footage. There was a hydrogen valve problem in the final hour or two before launch that was fixed by the techs not long before liftoff.


I'm not one to entertain unnecessary risks, but...what did we know then that we've forgotten now?



Looking forward to seeing it finally launch. Third time lucky.

[DarkArts]

Originally Posted by Crater101

I'm not one to entertain unnecessary risks, but...what did we know then that we've forgotten now?

After the end of the Shuttle program in 2011, many staff left. They're back up to ~12,000 staff now but I wouldn't be surprised if much of the hands-on expertise was lost and has not been fully regained.

Also, during Apollo, and again earlier in the Shuttle program, risks were taken. As we all know, that approach cost lives. Part of the "issue" of delays, I think, is that the tolerance for defects is lower now but the SLS design is adapted from the 70s-era Shuttle design, with a high maintenance load and likely still prone to defects.

Still, the SLS is a versatile system that is supposed to, eventually, lift much bigger payloads to orbit and power human Mars missions.

[gary]

Originally Posted by Startrek

Just give Elon a bit more time and they will have Starship in orbit
Starship to the Moon in a few years and Mars in 10 years for a fraction of the cost and direct costs borne by a private company

Also keep in mind that NASA awarded a USD$2.89 billion contract,
paid for by US taxpayers, to SpaceX to develop the Human Landing System
(HLS) vehicle for Artemis, the SLS equivalent of the Lunar Module.

The HLS is based on the SpaceX Starship.

And only last week, NASA announced it has awarded five more
astronaut missions to Elon Musk’s SpaceX, with a contract worth an
additional USD1.4 billion to the company.

Like in the 2022 Netflix documentary, "Return to Space" - directed by
Elizabeth Chai Vasarhely and Jimmy Chin (the husband and wife team
that made the Academy Award winning "Free Solo") - there is a point
where SpaceX has suffered a series of setbacks when rockets fail
on launch. Elon Musk is pretty much saying to the team they are down
to their last dime. He's starting to run out of cash to fund it. They are
excited to win a NASA contract that, along with a final successful
launch, gets them out of the hole.

The private US aerospace and defence industry has always survived and will
likely to continue to survive predominantly on the largesse of Uncle Sam
and the US taxpayer.

Apollo prime contractors were companies such as Boeing, Grumman,
Rockwell and IBM.

[astroron (Ron)]

Originally Posted by Startrek

Not sure if they perform Static fire tests on these engines ( they didn’t for the Shuttle , just Hot Fire testing )

I watched the HFT ( Hot Fire Test) last year of the 4 core engines

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yEItmSRB44g

I always said Artemis was a waste of taxpayers dollars
Old technology ( hydrogen propulsion)
Old design ( ex Space Shuttle )
Limited crew capacity
Only capable of Low Earth Orbit and Lunar missions
Almost non reusable
Mega expensive to launch 4.1 billion
And so on …….

Just give Elon a bit more time and they will have Starship in orbit
Starship to the Moon in a few years and Mars in 10 years for a fraction of the cost and direct costs borne by a private company

I guess you have forgotten all the "tests" that musk rocket tanks blew up and spread debris across the test area.
NASA cant afford to spread tax payers across the desert willy nilly.
They've been through that process and now proceed with caution.
Not bravado.
Just sayin.
Cheers

[Stonius (Markus)]

Originally Posted by Startrek

Not sure if they perform Static fire tests on these engines ( they didn’t for the Shuttle , just Hot Fire testing )

I watched the HFT ( Hot Fire Test) last year of the 4 core engines

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yEItmSRB44g

I always said Artemis was a waste of taxpayers dollars
Old technology ( hydrogen propulsion)
Old design ( ex Space Shuttle )
Limited crew capacity
Only capable of Low Earth Orbit and Lunar missions
Almost non reusable
Mega expensive to launch 4.1 billion
And so on …….

Just give Elon a bit more time and they will have Starship in orbit
Starship to the Moon in a few years and Mars in 10 years for a fraction of the cost and direct costs borne by a private company

I think perhaps part of the equation is that China and india are looking at going to the moon too. It's been 2 generations since America put people on the moon. If China were to go there now, it would underline the shift in global dynamics with China on the ascendancy and the US in decline. I suspect there is a little bit of nationalist pride to be the first 'again', so they can't wait around to develop new technology lest they get 'Sputniked'.

[Startrek (Martin)]

Originally Posted by gary

Also keep in mind that NASA awarded a USD$2.89 billion contract,
paid for by US taxpayers, to SpaceX to develop the Human Landing System
(HLS) vehicle for Artemis, the SLS equivalent of the Lunar Module.

The HLS is based on the SpaceX Starship.

And only last week, NASA announced it has awarded five more
astronaut missions to Elon Musk’s SpaceX, with a contract worth an
additional USD1.4 billion to the company.

Like in the 2022 Netflix documentary, "Return to Space" - directed by
Elizabeth Chai Vasarhely and Jimmy Chin (the husband and wife team
that made the Academy Award winning "Free Solo") - there is a point
where SpaceX has suffered a series of setbacks when rockets fail
on launch. Elon Musk is pretty much saying to the team they are down
to their last dime. He's starting to run out of cash to fund it. They are
excited to win a NASA contract that, along with a final successful
launch, gets them out of the hole.

The private US aerospace and defence industry has always survived and will
likely to continue to survive predominantly on the largesse of Uncle Sam
and the US taxpayer.

Apollo prime contractors were companies such as Boeing, Grumman,
Rockwell and IBM.

I take your point but it’s still a private company no matter whether the funds come from other private companies / contractors or the Government and the buck stops with the CEO. They just can’t bail themselves out if things run off the rails and they need high risk capital ( banks aren’t interested)
Yes Elon almost went bankrupt but drive , innovation , determination , a dedicated hard working management team , loyal hardworking employees got his company back on track to where it is today
The Space industry is pretty unique, most mega contracts are Government contracts so the majority of his income will always be derived from Government sources

Cheers

[ChrisD (Chris)]

So... Does Artemis gets 2 more launch attempts, then the crawler picks it up, drives past the VAB and drives along the Beachline Expressway to the nearest recyclers?

[glend (Glen)]

Originally Posted by ChrisD

So... Does Artemis gets 2 more launch attempts, then the crawler picks it up, drives past the VAB and drives along the Beachline Expressway to the nearest recyclers?

Based on this morning's reporting ( by The Angry Astronaut), it seems the last failure was due to "human error", whereby some one allowed the hydrogen fueling pressure to reach 3x the designed pressure on the hose links and valves. This over pressure event blew the valve seals. Good bet it will roll back to the VAB where they can tear down the hoses and valves out of the public gaze, and replace what needs to be replaced. At the same time the launch termination system certification is expiring, and will have to be redone (the internal battery is only useful for a limited period, which has now expired). No ship is allowed to launch without a certified Launch Termination System, for safety reasons.
Next launch window is likely in October, assuming they do not find anything else.

[glend (Glen)]

As predicted, roll back until October window, and other launches will get priority.

https://www.livescience.com/nasa-meg...-delayed-month

[DarkArts]

CNN is reporting that the next proposed launch window is Sep 27 with Oct 2 as a potential backup (though the backup is under review).

[gary]

Looks like Artemis is not the only new rocket with scrubbed launches due to gas pressurization issues.

Stephen Clark at spaceflightnow.com reports :-

Originally Posted by Stephen Clark, spaceflighttnow.com, 12 September 2022

Firefly Aerospace said Monday it will try again Sept. 19 to launch its second Alpha rocket from California after scrubbing back-to-back launch attempts due to a helium pressure issue and unfavorable wind conditions.

The Texas-based company is preparing for the second test flight of its Alpha launch vehicle, a nearly 10-story-tall rocket designed to haul small satellites into low Earth orbit. A test launch last year failed when one of its four main engines shut down shortly after liftoff from Vandenberg Space Force Base, California.

Firefly’s second commercial Alpha rocket was scheduled to launch from Vandenberg on Sunday, but the launch team scrubbed the launch attempt to investigate a drop in helium supply pressure to the rocket’s second stage. The company was ready to try again Monday, but called off the countdown “due to violation of wind constraints.”

We refer to it as rocket science but often it just comes down to plumbing.

Story here :-
https://spaceflightnow.com/2022/09/1...er-two-scrubs/

[DarkArts]

According to the BBC, the Sep 27 launch window has been abandoned. Storm Ian (which could become a hurricane) is threatening Florida.

NASA will decide on Sunday (US time) whether to move Artemis 1 back to the assembly building.

[DarkArts]

Hurricane Ian is shaping up to be a bad one.

Artemis 1 was moved back to the vehicle assembly building on Tuesday (AEST). NASA crews are now preparing for weather - a "ride out" team will stay at Kennedy Space Centre to monitor conditions.

The launch window has likely slipped to November.