NASA scrubs today's Artemis SLS Moon rocket launch
- Reference: 1661780156
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2022/08/29/nasa_sls_artemis_scrubbed/
- Source link:
The unmanned rocket was supposed to blast off around 0830 ET (1230 UTC). The [1]flight would have been the first proper test of the multi-billion-dollar SLS – the US agency's two-stage [2]super heavy-lifter rocket – which is designed to eventually take astronauts to the Moon by 2025 under the Artemis program.
Today's rocket, with an empty Orion crew capsule sitting atop the stack, was due to go fly around the Moon to evaluate its abilities and design ahead of any manned mission. However, that's been called off after one of the engines couldn't be set to the correct temperature.
[3]
Here's confirmation from NASA on the scrub:
The launch of [4]#Artemis I is no longer happening today as teams work through an issue with an engine bleed. Teams will continue to gather data, and we will keep you posted on the timing of the next launch attempt. [5]https://t.co/tQ0lp6Ruhv [6]pic.twitter.com/u6Uiim2mom — NASA (@NASA) [7]August 29, 2022
It had already been somewhat of a fraught countdown as the loading of its cryogenic fuel was briefly postponed while managers eyed lightning storms lurking off the Florida coast.
After a delay of nearly an hour, fueling commenced and all initially seemed to go well. A chill-down of the main propulsion system and transfer lines went as expected. First, the liquid oxygen was transfered, and then the liquid hydrogen.
[8]
[9]
The sense of déjà vu was palpable as a hydrogen leak was detected; this also [10]came up in earlier tests. A spike in the amount of hydrogen permitted to leak into a purge can was the issue.
Having taken engineering advice, managers pressed on. After a pause, the filling of the liquid hydrogen tank resumed first with a slow and then a fast fill. The concentration of leaking gas didn't increase outside of constraints, and yet another bullet appeared to have been dodged as the cryogenic tanks were filled and topped off.
Artemis I will get 3 launch attempts after termination system extension agreed [11]READ MORE
Even an apparent crack in an intertank flange – appearing as a line of frost – was [12]explained by engineers as simply air being trapped and chilled in the flange's insulating foam, forming the ice that we could see. In other words, nothing to worry about.
However, it was one of the SLS's RS-25 engines that eventually halted NASA's first attempt to launch its Artemis Moon rocket. While three of the four engines were chilled correctly, by bleeding some of the cryogenic propellant to the engines, engine number three did not cooperate despite the best troubleshooting efforts of engineers, and could not get to the right temperature. Unfortunately, NASA had been unable to test this step during the previous wet dress rehearsal.
[13]
The countdown, which was already hanging by a thread, went into a hold at the T-40 minute mark before managers decided to throw in the towel and scrub this morning's launch.
NASA did not immediately confirm if the scrub would require a roll back to the Vehicle Assembly Building, or if the issue could be resolved at the pad. While the latter would keep the back-up launch dates of September 2 and 5 in play, a rollback would push back the launch date deeper into September or October.
The latest update from NASA [14]reads :
The launch director halted today's Artemis I launch attempt at approximately 8:34 a.m. EDT. The Space Launch System rocket and Orion spacecraft remain in a safe and stable configuration. Launch controllers were continuing to evaluate why a bleed test to get the RS-25 engines on the bottom of the core stage to the proper temperature range for liftoff was not successful, and ran out of time in the two-hour launch window. Engineers are continuing to gather additional data.
Finally, we note that SpaceX was able to launch a Falcon 9 rocket on Saturday from Florida, carrying 54 Starlink broadband satellites to put into orbit. ®
Get our [15]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/launches-and-events/events-calendar/2022/august/rocket-launch-nasa-sls-artemis-i
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2022/08/24/nasa_sls_artemis/
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2YwzinBDWbHgW5Czd9wBhaAAAABU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[4] https://twitter.com/hashtag/Artemis?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
[5] https://t.co/tQ0lp6Ruhv
[6] https://t.co/u6Uiim2mom
[7] https://twitter.com/NASA/status/1564232429279272962?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
[8] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YwzinBDWbHgW5Czd9wBhaAAAABU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[9] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YwzinBDWbHgW5Czd9wBhaAAAABU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2022/06/21/artemis_cygnus/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2022/08/15/artemis_fts/
[12] https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2022/08/29/engineers-troubleshooting-engine-conditioning-issue/
[13] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YwzinBDWbHgW5Czd9wBhaAAAABU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[14] https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2022/08/29/launch-attempt-scrubbed/
[15] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: 200% trust in NASA
Seconded. This is, literally, rocket science. Hang on in there NASA.
Re: 200% trust in NASA
* since STS-114.
Re: 200% trust in congress
I am confident congress will keep funding this no matter how many times it scrubs. Even if it does not launch on time (2016) funding will be approved. A commercial alternative for under a tenth of the cost that has been operational since 2018 hasn't come close to ending SLS. An explosion might make a difference but scrubs can continue until the main tank cracks.
Re: 200% trust in congress
A commercial alternative for under a tenth of the cost that has been operational since 2018
If you're refering to Falcon Heavy then you're not quite right.
SLS (Block 1) is supposed to be able to lift 95t to LEO whereas Falcon Heavey can only lift 63.8t.
Re: 200% trust in congress
SLS (Block 1) is supposed to be able to lift 95t to LEO whereas Falcon Heavey (sic) can only lift 63.8t.
As they say, "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush".
Re: 200% trust in congress
Also Falcon Heavy doesn't cost a tenth of an SLS...
Tons to LEO is not a good figure as SLS will never deliver a payload there. It can (and will only ever) do 27t to trans-lunar injection. I have not seen an official quote but popular guesses at Falcon Heavy payload to TLI are between 22t and 24t.
SLS can be diced two different ways: replace Orion+Service Module with something not designed to be too heavy to be launched with anything but SLS to get the mass down to FH range or split crew and cargo into different launches. 2x Falcon Heavy + Crew Dragon is still well under a tenth of the cost of SLS+Orion.
There is one critical area where SLS totally demolishes FH: election campaign contributions.
200% trust in NASA
This is a typical example of how NASA engineers always do a great job, if they see a problem then they fix it, and then they verify that it's fixed, before just moving on and getting things going. What would the world be like today if NASA had built a phone called Voyager in 1977 that was still working?