SPACE - random thread about space stuff

[Kurth]

Seems like a clown show to me. Sad.

[jztemple2]

Speculate: Given their bespoke nature, will future Artemis stacks be as finicky as the first one, or will they get smoother with each iteration? Assume at least three missions with the current configuration.

It will get better. Lessons are learned on each loading, procedures are tweaked and people get more familiar with the eccentricities of their systems. In Shuttle we had the advantage that due to problems with foam on the External Tank we had several cryo loadings before the first launch attempt.

Seems like a clown show to me. Sad.

What the news reports don't talk about are all the Artemis I systems that worked well and didn't have any issues. Unfortunately it only takes one problem to scrub a launch.

[Unagi]

Seems like a clown show to me. Sad.

What the news reports don't talk about are all the Artemis I systems that worked well and didn't have any issues. Unfortunately it only takes one problem to scrub a launch.

Yeah, I wanted to point out that while this launch problem looks almost ridiculous, there is a tremendous amount of serious effort and professionalism behind all of this. I agree with the frustration that this looks (my words ->) like a stupid plumbing problem, and I also think the 'accidental manual' over pressurized feed sounds completely amateur... This is basically an example of how many things must be perfect for this to go off, and I cringe when I see people conclude that it's all a clown show.

This is rocket science.

[jztemple2]

and I also think the 'accidental manual' over pressurized feed sounds completely amateur...

I suspect that this situation came out of the leak that occurred on the first attempt last Monday. My guessed at scenario is this: A plan was put together to alter the way that hydrogen chilldown was to take place to avoid or at least mitigate the possible leak at the quick disconnect. Since the time frame till the next attempt was so short it would have not been possible to design, review, code, validate and test an automated solution. So instead a procedure was developed to "manually" move valves, in other words click icons on a screen. They would have written up the procedure and everyone and their brother review it. Then, hopefully, the procedure would have been verified and rehearsed against the math model; at least that's the way I would have done that.

What actually happened on console on the second launch attempt I do not know. I can speculate that everyone and their brother (again) would be wanting explanations and woe betide the management members if their explanations do not stand up to scrutiny. And the biggest scrutiny falls on the Launch Director, she is the person that would have given the final go/no-go on using the manual procedure. Ultimately she is where the buck stops, everyone above her doesn't have the technical knowledge to have asked the right questions about the procedure. Bill Nelson can stand in front of cameras and answer questions for the press, but she will be standing up in front of her management, which goes all the way up to Bill Nelson, and have to explain how this occurred.

I await more info on this. Quick disconnects were a huge pain in the ass in Shuttle and since SLS is Shuttle based, I have no doubt they are still a pain in the ass

[malchior]

While it is rocket science it has been a huge waste of money. Soon to be 6 years overdue - many billions over budget - and they just got embarrassed with a failed launch. It's not all that unfair to call it a bit of a clown show at this point.

The Economist just prior to the failed launches had published a piece which is mostly P&R. The author aimed his ire at Congress and how they forced the bulky, wasteful concept for Artemis and not so much at NASA which is stuck trying to execute their flawed space policy.

On August 29th or soon after, more than a decade after the shuttle programme came to an end, nasa will test its newest rocket for the first time. The Space Launch System (sls) is the first step in the agency’s Artemis programme, which aims to take humans back to the Moon and, eventually, to Mars. sls is the successor to the Space Shuttle and heir to the legendary Saturn V rocket that took Apollo astronauts to the Moon.

It is also a colossal boondoggle. The conception and execution of the project has been a near-perfect example of pork-barrel politics. The result is a rocket that privately built models will probably outclass soon after its maiden launch. Don’t blame the scientists and engineers at nasa for the debacle, though. The fault lies, once again, with Congress.

...

Developing the sls has cost American taxpayers around $23bn in the past decade. Over the same period, the commercial-launch industry has boomed—Elon Musk’s SpaceX, for instance, has shown it is possible to build reusable rockets that can send astronauts and cargo into space for around $50m per launch, far less than the projected $2bn (or more) for each ride aboard the sls. Within the next six months, SpaceX will put Starship into orbit. Its biggest rocket yet, the heavy-lift vehicle will be able to carry similar payloads into space as the sls for, Mr Musk reckons, just a few million dollars a launch. Given the increasing competition from companies such as Blue Origin, owned by Jeff Bezos, it is hard to see a role for nasa’s bloated sls

[Unagi]

While it is rocket science it has been a huge waste of money. Soon to be 6 years overdue - many billions over budget - and they just got embarrassed with a failed launch. It's not all that unfair to call it a bit of a clown show at this point.

Hey, yeah - that's fine. It's a big clown show- if you want.

But honestly - about 99% of the people involved in this launch and entire project have been doing a job that very few Americans can pull off - and it's entirely not a clown show.

[malchior]

But honestly - about 99% of the people involved in this launch and entire project have been doing a job that very few Americans can pull off - and it's entirely not a clown show.

We can admire those people and recognize they were put in an difficult, possibly impossible position to succeed. It isn't automatically a reflection on them. Edit: Heck in a way it part of a basis of defense of their effort. They were possibly given a overly complex mess and told to make it work.

[Zaxxon]

possibly

Lol.

[malchior]

possibly

Lol.

Haha. Bending over backwards trying to be fair but they were given a bucket of lego bricks from across the decades and forced to compete with entities that were able to ... you know advance technology. The whole thing is a bit of a boondoggle.

[Unagi]

But honestly - about 99% of the people involved in this launch and entire project have been doing a job that very few Americans can pull off - and it's entirely not a clown show.

We can admire those people and recognize they were put in an difficult, possibly impossible position to succeed. It isn't automatically a reflection on them. Edit: Heck in a way it part of a basis of defense of their effort. They were possibly given a overly complex mess and told to make it work.

Yeah, I'm sorry - but that does not conclude in the declaration of "Seems like a clown show. Sad."

Please. Just agree.

And I don't at ALL mean to come down on Kurth, as I also feel like this is a sad moment, and I'm not sure at all how he meant it.

To me - a clown show implies a total joke and a group entirely composed of a team of fools that do not know what they are doing. That label comes with a pretty broad stroke and seems to apply to the entire 'show'.


And I disagree.

[Kraken]

We have a thread for US space policy in R&P so I won't dive *too deeply* into that rabbit hole here. Suffice it to say that commercial space was barely even imagined, and reusable boosters not at all, when Bush ordered NASA to build the Constellation moon rocket. Those game-changers were just starting to come into focus when Obama canceled it (2015) -- SpaceX didn't land a Falcon 9 successfully until 2017. Congress might have just kept doling out moon rocket pork for much longer had Pence not picked up the mantle (2019) and set an aspirational landing date of 2024. (To the degree that he had any interest in space at all, trump wanted to bypass the moon and head directly for Mars.)

If you're looking for a clown show, look at the political process that finally put the world's biggest rocket on a launch pad to fly to the moon.

[Zaxxon]

SpaceX didn't land a Falcon 9 successfully until 2017.

12/2015.

Without disagreeing with the thrust of your post.

[Kraken]

SpaceX didn't land a Falcon 9 successfully until 2017.

12/2015.

Without disagreeing with the thrust of your post.

Thanks for the correction. I misread this wiki line: "Since 2017, the first stage of Falcon 9 missions has been routinely landed if the rocket performance allowed it," the key word being "routinely."

[Zaxxon]

I only remember because I was at a Christmas dinner watching the landing on my phone. Everyone thought I was crazy.

[jztemple2]

I only remember because I was at a Christmas dinner watching the landing on my phone. Everyone thought I was crazy.

Maybe you just misinterpreted their motivation

SpaceX just launched another Falcon from the Cape, I could hear it on ascent. It happens so often now I don't even bother turning on the local news station that covers all the launches. I'm assuming they nailed the landing, since they have been nailing the landing for quite a while.

If you're looking for a clown show, look at the political process that finally put the world's biggest rocket on a launch pad to fly to the moon.

I have to agree with this. While I admire the engineering of the SLS and the Artemis missions, it is a politically motivated as was the whole Apollo program. But I won't delve into that anymore here as it does belong in that US Space Policy thread.

[malchior]

SpaceX didn't land a Falcon 9 successfully until 2017.

12/2015.

Without disagreeing with the thrust of your post.

I mostly agree with the framing but the context matters. If SLS launched in 2-4 years ago - late but not extremely late and very over budget - then the situation wouldn't look so bad. Still when it launches a lot of this will be forgotten but it remains to be seen if this will program will be a curiosity in the scheme of things.

[raydude]

Just a reminder that there is still exciting space stuff to look forward to in September. As part of the preparation for the impact of the DART spacecraft on Dimorphos the project has confirmed its orbit. By doing so we can establish the baseline orbit of Dimorphos around the larger Didymos asteroid. Then after impact the team will be able to measure the change in orbital parameters in order to assess how much we nudged it.

We're still on schedule for impact on Sept 26.

[AWS260]

[Montag]

How many of the cubesats will be non-operational because their batteries are dead from such a long delays? If they roll it back to the VAB, will they let the auxiliary payloads be serviced.

[jztemple2]

How many of the cubesats will be non-operational because their batteries are dead from such a long delays? If they roll it back to the VAB, will they let the auxiliary payloads be serviced.

I read something about that a week or two ago. The answer is that there is no intention of destacking which would be the only way that the CubeSats could be serviced. The article IIRC also mentioned that NASA wouldn't provide any means to recharge the batteries when the CubeSat carrier was being developed. So the answer, again IIRC, is that there will be no servicing unless something new happens that would require destacking.

Anyone who has more info on this please post.

[The Meal]

I'm the guy who posted the article you are referencing, and I'm the guy who works for a satellite company which has provided batteries for at least one of these space vehicles (and who has components on eight of the ten cubesats). I don't have any additional details. But I'm guessing that the primary mission is worth thousands of times as much as any given individual satellite mission, there's zero consideration given to those secondary operations (as it should be). But I've never been part of launch or flight or ops (just development, test, and manufacturing), so all guesswork on my part.

That said, the battery systems are extremely robusto. Months ago I had perused the spec sheets and was floored at their retention capabilities (but sadly I haven't hang onto any of the specifics). I believe the article I posted stated things were put in place ahead of the Orion capsule and left untouched since that installation, and that occurred over a year ago.

The initial battery charge is there to allow the satellite to use course sensing to find the sun, use onboard inertial guidance features to point towards the sun, and deploy the solar arrays. Comms and actual navigation and control and science missions can all then follow.

I could easily see this being a you-get-what-you-get situation, and we'll all find out together.

[jztemple2]

I'm the guy who posted the article you are referencing, and I'm the guy who works for a satellite company which has provided batteries for at least one of these space vehicles (and who has components on eight of the ten cubesats).

It's hell getting old, you start forgetting who posted what

So, more Artemis news. From Space.com, NASA to replace seal on leaky Artemis 1 moon rocket at the launch pad

This work will be done at Pad 39B at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) in Florida, where the Artemis 1 stack has been perched for the past three weeks.

"Performing the work at the pad requires technicians to set up an enclosure around the work area to protect the hardware from the weather and other environmental conditions but enables engineers to test the repair under cryogenic, or supercold, conditions," NASA officials wrote in the Tuesday update.

"Performing the work at the pad also allows teams to gather as much data as possible to understand the cause of the issue," they added. "Teams may return the rocket to the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) to perform additional work that does not require use of the cryogenic facilities available only at the pad."

And a rollback to the VAB may be required whether or not the team wants to perform more repairs there. The U.S. Space Force has certified Artemis 1's flight termination system (FTS), which would destroy the rocket if it veered off course during liftoff, for just a 25-day stretch. (The Space Force oversees the Eastern Range, the huge rocket-launch region that includes KSC.) That deadline will have passed by Sept. 19, when the next Artemis 1 launch window opens.

Recertification requires testing the FTS, which can only occur in the VAB. NASA officials have said they might apply for another waiver to extend the certification period, which would allow Artemis 1 to stay on the pad longer, but it's unclear at this point if they will do so. (Artemis 1 has already received one such waiver, from 20 days to 25.)

And from the official NASA Artemis I blog, Teams Continue to Review Options for Next Attempt, Prepare to Replace Seal

After standing down on the Artemis I launch attempt Saturday, Sept. 3 due to a hydrogen leak, teams have decided to replace the seal on an interface, called the quick disconnect, between the liquid hydrogen fuel feed line on the mobile launcher and the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket while at the launch pad.

Performing the work at the pad requires technicians to set up an enclosure around the work area to protect the hardware from the weather and other environmental conditions, but enables engineers to test the repair under cryogenic, or supercold, conditions. Performing the work at the pad also allows teams to gather as much data as possible to understand the cause of the issue. Teams may return the rocket to the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) to perform additional work that does not require use of the cryogenic facilities available only at the pad.

To meet the current requirement by the Eastern Range for the certification on the flight termination system, NASA would need to roll the rocket and spacecraft back to the VAB before the next launch attempt to reset the system’s batteries.

Additionally, teams will also check plate coverings on other umbilical interfaces to ensure there are no leaks present at those locations. With seven main umbilical lines, each line may have multiple connection points [wait, may have multiple connection points? Don't they know? ].

OK, so a few thoughts here. As noted, staying at the pad "enables engineers to test the repair under cryogenic, or supercold, conditions", but doesn't specifically identify which cryogenic fluid they will use. If they were going to use, say, liquid nitrogen, they could do that at the VAB. However, I will tell you from my previous experience that it is a big no-no to use anything other than liquid hydrogen or liquid helium in a system that will eventually see liquid hydrogen unless you're going to do a lot of purging and sampling. Any other fluids will freeze out in liquid hydrogen and can clog filters, turbopumps, valves, etc.

Using liquid helium is also not likely. First of all, liquid helium (LHe) is at -452 degF, while liquid hydrogen (LH2) is at -423 degF. That would put unnecessary stress on seals and components, plus liquid helium is a pain in the ass to work with and to test the quick disconnect would require a set up that could flow lots and lots of LHe through an eight inch pipe. It all seems unlikely.

So that leads me to believe that the testing will use liquid hydrogen. And the easiest way to get that liquid hydrogen flowing through that disconnect is by doing a loading like we just did in the two launch attempts, except that you don't need the other systems active. I'm not sure if liquid oxygen (LOX) also needs to be loaded, probably not. In fact the LH2 can just be flowed up through the eight inch disconnect and then drained out through the bleed system. Or something like that

Anyway, what this does mean to me at least is that some bright person will suggest that if you are going to flow LH2 and may have to flow LOX, why don't you do another Wet Dress Rehearsal (WDR)? It would be good to make sure that everything is working OK and makes sure that the bleed issue has been addressed.

And then some really bright person will suggest that maybe someone can lean on the range safety folks and get the waiver that extended the period for the Flight Termination System (FTS) extended some more. Like enough to change that proposed next Wet Dress Rehearsal (WDR) into another launch attempt.

So what I'm saying is that launch window of September 19th to October 4th may not be out of consideration after all . Remember you read it hear first

[jztemple2]

Oops, forgot to post this link, it downloads a PDF of the Artemis I launch windows from now through July 2023, although here's hoping it won't take that long

[Kraken]

So you're saying duct tape isn't going to work.

[Zaxxon]

And then some really bright person will suggest that maybe someone can lean on the range safety folks and get the waiver that extended the period for the Flight Termination System (FTS) extended some more. Like enough to change that proposed next Wet Dress Rehearsal (WDR) into another launch attempt.

I was hoping you'd comment on this. While I unfortunately didn't hear the idea of a potential September launch here first, I did wonder how that would work given the FTS certification age and range requirements.

A September launch attempt would be great if it can be arranged.

[jztemple2]

I've been racking my brain (OK, I've just been buying it drinks and whispering in its ear) to try to remember how Shuttle dealt with it's Flight Termination System and I can't remember it ever being mentioned that we had to rollback to the VAB to service it. I could probably look it up but what fun would that be?

Anyway, I don't think Shuttle did need to rollback to the VAB, which means someone decided that even though SLS is Shuttle related, it wasn't necessary to have access on the pad. Seems like not a very good decision now

[The Meal]

I'm the guy who posted the article you are referencing, and I'm the guy who works for a satellite company which has provided batteries for at least one of these space vehicles (and who has components on eight of the ten cubesats).

It's hell getting old, you start forgetting who posted what

I figured as much, and especially with all the great information (and experiences!!) you've been sharing, it's understandable that you can't remember where you heard what and from whom. Keep sharing (and keep questioning)!

[Zaxxon]

Regarding the odds of a waiver:

[Unagi]

So you're saying duct tape isn't going to work.

I’ve generally found that any problem that can’t be solved with duct tape can usually be solved with a lot of duct tape.

[Zaxxon]

So you're saying duct tape isn't going to work.

I’ve generally found that any problem that can’t be solved with duct tape can usually be solved with a lot of duct tape.

True.

[Zaxxon]

They're going for lucky #14 this weekend...

[jztemple2]

From SpaceFlightNow: NASA to repair Artemis 1 moon rocket’s leaky hydrogen connector at launch pad

My italics

NASA officials said after Saturday’s scrubbed launch attempt that they were considering options to repair the hydrogen leak at the pad or inside the Vehicle Assembly Building, which would require the rocket to roll the 4.2-mile (6.8-kilometer) distance back to the hangar on a diesel-powered crawler-transporter. A benefit of repairing the leak at the pad is that the launch team will be able to confirm the tightness of the umbilical seal under cryogenic conditions.

Teams will flow super-cold liquid hydrogen, chilled to minus 423 degrees Fahrenheit, through the umbilical line to see if it still leaks. The shape and size of seals and gaskets can change when exposed to super-cold temperatures, creating a leak path that wasn’t detectable at ambient temperatures.

NASA is expected to ask the range to extend the certification of batteries on the flight termination system, which would destroy the SLS moon rocket if it veered off course and threatened populated areas during launch.

I think we might be looking at a launch attempt later this month

[Zaxxon]

They're certainly trying for one.

[jztemple2]

From Space.com, NASA targets Sept. 23 for next Artemis 1 launch attempt, but a lot has to go right. Ain't it the truth?

Jim Free, NASA's associate administrator for exploration systems development, said today (Sept. 8) that NASA's Artemis 1 moon mission launch — the debut of its giant Space Launch System (SLS) rocket — could lift off on Sept. 23 or Sept. 27. Those launch dates depend on a number of requirements, including NASA securing a waiver to extend the time needed to check batteries on the SLS' flight termination system (FTS), which is designed to destroy the rocket if it veers off course during launch. The U.S. Space Force, which oversees the Eastern Range used for Florida rocket launches, requires NASA to test the FTS every 25 days, a process that requires the 322-foot-tall (98 meters) rocket to leave the launch pad and roll back to its hangar. Extending that time frame could allow NASA to avoid weeks of additional delay that would push the Artemis 1 launch into October.

Free said Artemis 1 mission managers submitted a waiver request to the Eastern Range this week. "After meeting with us several times, they've been very gracious and understanding of what we're trying to do," he said in a teleconference today. "Our job is to live to their requirements. That is their range. And it's our job to comply with their requirements."

Free did not reveal how long of an extension NASA is seeking. The agency already had secured one such FTS waiver, pushing the limit from 20 to 25 days.

And again, I'm wondering what process came up with an FTS requirement that's apparently not in any way hard and fast. And who decided to not build in the ability to remotely test the batteries? And for heaven's sake, the original requirement was for only twenty days from when the batteries were installed in the VAB. It's the rainy season in Florida, there could be several scrubbed launch attempts just due to weather.

NASA must fix that leak by replacing a seal around an 8-inch (20 centimeters) fuel line on the SLS' core booster. The agency is also working on a smaller fuel connector that saw a different leak on Aug. 29. That work is ongoing this week at the Artemis 1 rocket's Pad 39B launch site at Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

The Artemis 1 SLS rocket must then pass a fueling test to check if the seal fix worked. That test is currently scheduled for no earlier than Sept. 17, but the schedule is tight, Mike Bolger, NASA's Exploration Ground Systems manager, said in today's press conference.

"I would not be surprised to see it slip a day or two," Bolger said. Even if it slips a few days, NASA would still be able to pursue the Sept. 23 or Sept. 27 windows, he added.

NASA has not confirmed if an "inadvertent" manual command that briefly overpressurized the hydrogen fuel line caused the leak, but the agency is investigating the incident. Bolger said new manual processes replaced automated ones during the second attempt and the launch team could have used more time to practice them.

"So we didn't, as a leadership team, put our our operators in the best place we could have," Bolger said. During the Sept. 17 fueling test, NASA will try out a slower, "kinder and gentler" process that should avoid such events.

Again, my italics. So, in hindsight, the team could have used more time to practice them? I'd love to know who in the management chain (if anyone) said "We need more time to practice" and who above them said "Nope, we're in too much of a rush".

Sheesh. Paying my salary for an extra eleven years would be a drop in the bucket for the costs they are incurring right now

[jztemple2]

From NASASpaceFlightNow.com, NASA discusses path to SLS repairs as launch uncertainty looms for September, October. This article has a lot more detail on what needs to be done and what the upcoming schedule options are.

I include this one quote, with my italics

This FTS carries a certification limit of 20 days — that was waived to 25 days for the previous launch window that closed on September 6th. For a late-September launch attempt, NASA is asking for more than a doubling of the 20-day limit to avoid a rollback to the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB).

This requirement from the Range has been known by NASA for the entire decade-plus development of SLS, but the agency chose to design the rocket in a way that the FTS can only be accessed in the VAB, thus necessitating a rollback.

A look at the two Tail Service Masts (TSMs), those things at bottom center with pipes leading into the vehicle.

[Zaxxon]

[jztemple2]

From the NASA Artemis I blog, Repair Work Underway, Preparations Continue for Next Launch Opportunity

Technicians constructed a tent-like enclosure around the work area to protect the hardware and teams from weather and other environmental conditions at Launch Pad 39B. They have disconnected the ground- and rocket-side plates on the interface, called a quick disconnect, for the liquid hydrogen fuel feed line, performed initial inspections, and began replacing two seals – one surrounding the 8-inch line used to fill and drain liquid hydrogen from the core stage, and another surrounding the 4-inch bleed line used to redirect some of the propellant during tanking operations. The SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft are in good condition while remaining at the launch pad.

[Kurth]

But honestly - about 99% of the people involved in this launch and entire project have been doing a job that very few Americans can pull off - and it's entirely not a clown show.

We can admire those people and recognize they were put in an difficult, possibly impossible position to succeed. It isn't automatically a reflection on them. Edit: Heck in a way it part of a basis of defense of their effort. They were possibly given a overly complex mess and told to make it work.

Yeah, I'm sorry - but that does not conclude in the declaration of "Seems like a clown show. Sad."

Please. Just agree.

And I don't at ALL mean to come down on Kurth, as I also feel like this is a sad moment, and I'm not sure at all how he meant it.

To me - a clown show implies a total joke and a group entirely composed of a team of fools that do not know what they are doing. That label comes with a pretty broad stroke and seems to apply to the entire 'show'.


And I disagree.

I agree. My comment was made without much thought, mostly out of frustration. I so badly want to see our manned space program succeed, and it's incredibly difficult to watch what appears to be a slow motion train wreck of a program. None of this is to suggest that the individuals and teams at NASA working on SLS are a bunch of clowns. Far from it. But like many have already said in this thread, they're in the impossible position of trying to execute against a plan that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

[Zaxxon]

Hopefully they get their waiver and can move forward soon.

So we can eventually get to the fun part...

[jztemple2]

Hopefully they get their waiver and can move forward soon.

So we can eventually get to the fun part...

[tweets about SpaceX's HLS plan]

Yeah... that's an awful lot of new tech to be completed in a planned three to four years. By the way, I see that SpaceX persists in not using the proper terminology Moonship