NASA's Artemis 1 moon megarocket launch was just delayed | Mashable.
NASA's moon megarocket launch was just delayed
NASA's new Space Launch System rocket. Credit: NASA /Joel Kowsky |
NASA's former Space Shuttle manager saw this delay coming.
The space agency scrubbed the much anticipated first launch of its colossal new megarocket, the Space Launch System (SLS), on Monday morning, Aug. 29, due to a fueling problem with one of the rocket's engines. Wayne Hale, who ran flights for the retired Shuttle, recently gave 50-50 odds for the launch happening on its initial try. The next launch opportunity for the Artemis l mission, however, is quite soon, on Sept. 2.
"It’s the first launch of a new complex rocket and there are likely still bugs to be worked out. Sorry if that makes folks upset but best to be realistic," Hale recently tweeted.
The official problem is that NASA couldn't get one of the rocket's four engines on its core stage (the big orange "backbone" of the rocket that's filled with liquid oxygen and hydrogen) within an acceptable temperature to safely launch the rocket. NASA engineers tried to fix the issue on the launchpad, but were unsuccessful. Importantly, "The Artemis I rocket and spacecraft are in a stable, safe condition," the space agency noted after the canceled launch.
"You don't want to light the candle until it's ready to go," NASA administrator Bill Nelson said on NASA TV after the agency scrubbed the launch.
"This is just a part of the space business," he added.
"You don't want to light the candle until it's ready to go."
NASA ran into buggy pre-launch testing issues this spring, too. But while it might be easy to criticize another delay, it's common for kinks to be worked out during test launches. And, critically, NASA has the responsibility of demonstrating an extremely safe rocket: If this launch is successful, the space agency will put astronauts on its next launch to the moon (a mission called Artemis ll). By late 2025, NASA plans for astronauts to once again walk on the chalky lunar surface, this time in the moon's shadowy south pole (Artemis ll).
This mission, Artemis l, seeks to prove that both the new Space Launch System and the Orion spacecraft atop the rocket perform as planned and hold up to extreme space environs. Ultimately, NASA plans to use this colossal rocket to establish a permanent U.S. presence on and around the moon. After a 50-year lunar absence, SLS — though hugely expensive, delayed, and tangled in U.S. politics — will enable NASA to restart its human exploration of deep space.
This story is developing and will be updated.
More in NASA
a good decision. not good to proceed with doubts.
ReplyDeleteSomewhere elonmusk is laughing knowing he's gonna do more launches than NASA...
ReplyDeletebut elon musk doesn't have a partnership or collaboration with nasa?
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddXjVyYccik
DeleteDesde 2017 han venido diseñando y probando, publicidad por toneladas yaun no tienen balo control el proceso de lanzamiento.
ReplyDelete"Don't worry, there's another launch attempt happening soon."
ReplyDeleteThat's if it's not delayed again
Always on Friday and 2 times already postponed?
ReplyDeleteI think they should change the day.
Not twice on Friday, it was once on Friday that was postponed to today Monday.
Delete"The Artemis I rocket and spacecraft are in a stable, safe condition," the space agency noted after the canceled launch.
ReplyDeleteok, not launched yet so due to miscalculation
And what do you mean by that?
ReplyDeleteWhat do I mean by that?, that the United States is always wanting to be the United States. Nasa being nasa, always wanting to bring her things before others to say it was the first this, the first that...
ReplyDeleteWho’s surprised? Anyone? Anyone at all? Bueller??
ReplyDeleteI mean, this -is- rocket science...
DeleteThe SLS is that far behind schedule, it was only originally supposed to do these tests in 2016. They chose the SLS over SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy because one rocket “existed” and the other was just in planning. I’m sure it’ll be years before the Falcon Heavy is ready and there’s no way that they’ll be able to launch it at 1/10th the cost of the SLS....
DeleteThat the incredibly complicated thing had an issue the first time it was fully tested? No.
DeleteSo you’d rather see a failed launch because they didn’t do their jobs right? Grow up.
DeleteAaaand it’s been scrubbed. Surprise.
ReplyDeleteI mean, it’s like a million pieces made by hundreds of subcontractors that all have to operate within specific operating parameters before this thing takes off.
DeleteDelays are inevitable.
Oh I know, I was expecting the weather to be the cause though lol
DeletePlus, Boeing is involved, so they probably cut corners on parts to save a buck.
DeleteHopefully it doesn’t have MCAS so it flies like an Apollo capsule with minimal training.
DeleteI just learned that manikins is a real word.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the launch getting scheduled totally bummed out my day. Ugh. I came into work all excited, turned on the huge tv in the support center. Went to NASA’s live feed and watched the guy in the NASA Hawaiian shirt say scrubbed like 4 times before it clicked. HUGE BUMMER.
One of four engines refuses to play ball.
DeleteMeanwhile, the Elon Starship has 33 engines... Will be interesting to see how well they orchestrate together (we know that spin-up tests apparently aren’t an issue, after that big ole fireball a few weeks ago.)
They do have experience with syncing a large number of engines, though. Falcon 9 uses 9, and Falcon Heavy uses 27, although in 3 groups of 9. It’s rocket science, but once you can get the task down to the point of simply repeating the same task over and over again, you can generally derive from it step by step without having to reinvent that entire section of rocket science.
ReplyDeleteYes, but there must undoubtedly still be valves an shit involved which need to actuate when asked to - I assume this is what happened here, it’s “always” a valve getting stuck whenever a rocket refuses to get off the launchpad. So more engines = more valves, more (critical!) moving parts which need to work.
ReplyDeleteYou’d think they would have figured out valves by now over at Boeing/NASA, even if it is cryogenic liquids involved... :P
But yeah, SpaceX hasn’t had much issues with that with Falcon Heavy - even though that rocket has only made a handful of launches total.
Rocket science rocks!
Rockin Rocket Science, man!
DeleteStrange that NASA is having such trouble with these venerable engines, which are essentially more than 40-fucking-year-old designs, and made like 130 launches or thereabouts with the Space Shuttle.
ReplyDeleteI don’t get it. Just put some guys in thermal suits, hand ‘em each a flashlight and a monkey wrench, and then send them in under those thermal blankets to do some percussive maintenance on that engine until the lights turn on on the control board. How hard could it possibly be!
After all, I saw it work in “Armageddon”...
It’s not even 40 years old designs... these are literally old engines.
DeleteThey saved a number of RS-25D engines from the shuttle program and those are actually what is installed on the SLS right now. Every one of these engines has already been to space as a shuttle main engine. Once those are used up, they will switch to “new” RS-25E engines, which are the same engine, but just designed without all the unnecessary reusability components for the D models, since these are being tossed in the ocean with every use (don’t get me started).
three manikins
ReplyDeleteIs there an inside joke here, or is speling naut his fortay?
Nope:
Deletehttps://www.engeniumstaffing.com/blog/files/What-is-the-Difference-Between-a-Manikin-and-a-Mannequin.html
tl;dr: Mannikin has fake insides for science, mannequin doesn’t.
Issue not addressed during dress rehearsal comes back to bite launch in the ass. Shocking.
ReplyDeleteAnd not exactly unexpected.
Delete