Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
NASA Space

Component Failure Found in Crew Capsule NASA Hoped to Launch in 2021 (theverge.com) 146

Posted by EditorDavid from the we-have-a-problem dept.
The Verge reports that a power component failed on the Orion deep-space crew capsule that NASA hopes to launch (unmanned) from its Space Launch System (or SLS) in late 2021, in a mission called Artemis 1.

The problem? It's buried deep within one of the spacecraft's power/data units (or PDUs) within the adapter that connects the capsule to its power/propulsion trunk "service module," so there's no easy way to fix it: As many as nine months would be needed to take the vehicle apart and put it back together again, in addition to three months for subsequent testing, according to the presentation. Lockheed has another option, but it's never been done before and may carry extra risks, Lockheed Martin engineers acknowledge in their presentation. To do it, engineers would have to tunnel through the adapter's exterior by removing some of the outer panels of the adapter to get to the PDU. The panels weren't designed to be removed this way, but this scenario may only take up to four months to complete if engineers figure out a way to do it. A third option is that Lockheed Martin and NASA could fly the Orion capsule as is. The PDU failed in such a way that it lost redundancy within the unit, so it can still function. But at a risk-averse agency like NASA, flying a vehicle without a backup plan is not exactly an attractive option...

If engineers choose to remove Orion from its service module, the capsule's first flight on the SLS may be delayed past its current date of November 2021. But the SLS has experienced its own set of delays: it was supposed to fly for the first time in 2017 but hasn't done so yet. It's not clear if the SLS itself will make the November 2021 flight date either; a key test of the rocket coming up at the end of the year has been pushed back, with no new target date set. So it's possible that Lockheed Martin and NASA can fix Orion before the SLS is ready to fly.

Any further delays to Artemis I add uncertainty to NASA's lunar landing timeline. NASA is hoping to land astronauts on the Moon by 2024, though many experts are skeptical that such a mission can be pulled off in time. Artemis I is vulnerable to other possible delays, but the component failure adds one more level of uncertainty to when the Orion and SLS combo will get off the ground.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Component Failure Found in Crew Capsule NASA Hoped to Launch in 2021 More

Component Failure Found in Crew Capsule NASA Hoped to Launch in 2021

Comments Filter:

  • This is a reusable spacecraft?? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jfdavis668 ( 1414919 ) on Sunday December 06, 2020 @12:37PM (#60800454)
    How is this supposed to be a reusable spacecraft if it takes 9 months to replace a failed part? You might as well build a new one in that time.

    • Seriously! (Score:5, Funny)

      by Brain-Fu ( 1274756 ) on Sunday December 06, 2020 @12:48PM (#60800478) Homepage Journal

      How hard could it be to build these things to be re-usable? It's not like this is rocket science!

      Oh, wait...

    • No shit. This isn't how this works. This isn't how ANYTHING works, What kind of monkeys are doing the systems engineering over there these days?!

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Ed_1024 ( 744566 )

        The problem of repair access is not the engineers fault, as further investigation has discovered layers of hardened pork products up to 20 feet deep in places that are blocking the way in...

    • Maybe: to be easily replaceable nuts and bolts would need to be used instead of glue - how much would this add to the weight ? I do not know, but this could be the sort of reason why it is hard to take to bits.

      • Would building a new one be an option? It does sound odd that any single component can't be replaced without dismantling the entire thing.

    • Seriously. Seems to me that as NASA starts pushing things toward a permanent commercial presence in space, fast and easy serviceability should be a major design criteria for anything they fund development of. Mass constraints are rapidly being loosened dramatically, but if we expect things to function for years or even decades, they need to be easy to service in space.

      • It seems to me that everything has become less and less serviceable over the last 50 to 60 years. Just look at cars. On a 60's Volvo you can swap spark plugs over a coffee break. On a modern car you may have to remove the engine.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by sconeu ( 64226 )

          I had a 1975 Chevy Monza V8 (graduation gift, not my choice). Even back then, you had to dismount the engine to replace the plugs.

        • To be fair, spark plugs used to last 20,000 miles and be completely shot. Now it's reasonably common for a car to roll 100k miles with nothing more than oil and filter changes.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by k6mfw ( 1182893 )

      I recall back in the days (15 years ago!) vision of Orion is it be carry seven people, able to land on land, and be reusable. It will back the first flight in 2014, dock with ISS a couple times and then on to moon, Mars, and beyond. And ISS be splashed in 2015. Of course there were other projects like finish the ISS with Shuttle by 2010 and then stop flying it. In those four years we will hitch rides with the Russians. There was also the Altair lunar lander. And VSE was "going off the rails" as well. This i

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by quenda ( 644621 )

        Not just Orion. SpaceX Crew Dragon was also many years late, and lost the ability to land on land. The landing legs were dropped to simplify the heat shield, I believe. And then there is Starliner ...

        • The propulsive landing was dropped for many reasons. The biggest one was man rating it. It would have needed many tests before they would rate it to carry people. When Spacex found out that NASA was only looking for twice a year launches, that gave plenty of time to fix the water damage between launches. No need to go through the hassle. It also helped with the heat shield design.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Indeed. Sounds like really crappy design to me.

    • This isn't about being 'reusable'. It's about being maintainable, serviceable, and it looks like it ain't.

      And that's really unacceptable. If it takes 9 months to remove and replace a critical component, well, that's a deal breaker for me.

      Let's not further explore the real problem, that such a component has actually failed. This is Apollo 13 stuff, pre-launch, and should spur redesigns and improvements throughout the program. But that can't happen, they are over budget and late, and can't afford a redo.

    • Or at very least, have a spare you can swap in as necessary. Didn't they used to do that with the shuttle? Always a backup prepared to fly?

  • More evidence of new space superiority. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Sunday December 06, 2020 @12:52PM (#60800488) Journal
    Seriously, this has become insane because old space no longer cares about QA but about profits. OTOH, SX, BO, Bigelow, etc are showing over and over that new space WITH competition is the right place to go.

    • OTOH, SX, BO, Bigelow, etc are showing over and over that new space WITH competition is the right place to go.

      SpaceX certainly are, but Blue Origin are very much in the old space/go slow model. They might come the party with a great spacecraft, but until they do I'll reserve judgement. On the plus side they are doing it on their own dime (except for some relatively small grants from NASA), so there is no great loss if they deliver late or not at all.

      The other New Space success story is Rocketlab, with their economical rocket for small satellites. They have an innovative design, a high launch rate, and like Spa

      • Bigelow laid off all their employees in March.

      • go slow is fine. Lack of QC is the real problem. Old space no longer cares about their QC. All they care about is profits.
        New space, such as Bigelow (BA) and BO have been about QC, which is in part why BA is temporarily closed (but not bankrupted ) due to state of Nevada.
        Look at SX. It took them 4 launches to get the first F1 to work correctly. However, what going on between F1-1, and F1-2, was not just a re-design, but more importantly a massive upgrade to their QC program. Quality really became job # 1
    • Be careful what you wish for. The more parties involved with getting into space, the greater the risk in collisions occurring. This can render entire sections of space entirely unusable and very expensive to pass through should they absolutely have to. This isn't exactly like air traffic control where a pilot can more easily adjust course and if they don't the fallout is a year long investigation. This can have decade long consequences.

  • Maintenance (Score:5, Funny)

    by xonen ( 774419 ) on Sunday December 06, 2020 @12:56PM (#60800498) Journal

    Reading that story mostly makes me wonder what iFixit rating they'd get.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by TWX ( 665546 )

      Certainly better than an iPhone or a Surface.

      • I don't know about the Surface, since I've never done any of those, but iPhones are no big deal, if you're careful, organized, mechanically inclined, have the proper tools, and can follow simple iFixit instructions. I just replaced the screen on an iPhone XR, including the transfer of the ambient light detector and the other little doo-dads at the top of the glass, two days ago. Hardest part was... hmm. Can't think of one. I don't care for those tri-point screws, but eh.

  • When reading this story last week... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by WoodstockJeff ( 568111 ) on Sunday December 06, 2020 @12:58PM (#60800508) Homepage

    The PDU in question functions, but does not have a backup. The capsule could be launched as-is, since it's to be an unmanned launch, which would test how everything else works.

    From reading the source material, the cost to replace the module would be about as much as launching it and it failing spectacularly, and having to replace it with a new one for further testing.

    Except that there is no booster for it yet, anyway.

  • Contract out to SpaceX (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ukulele-hans ( 7518328 ) on Sunday December 06, 2020 @12:58PM (#60800510)
    I'll state the obvious: NASA should get out of the business of building rockets and spacecraft, and just contract out the work. I've always believed that the traditional aerospace companies doing NASA's work have no interest in seeing their work actually fly. Their main business is grifting the government for money. SLS and Orion should have been cancelled years ago. Today, SpaceX launched their 4th mission to the ISS. NASA should get out of the way and let companies like SpaceX do their work.

    • Re:Contract out to SpaceX (Score:4, Interesting)

      by mustafap ( 452510 ) on Sunday December 06, 2020 @01:31PM (#60800592) Homepage

      >NASA should get out of the business of building rockets and spacecraft

      NASA have never built this stuff. It's always been outsourced. The questionable part is, to whom, and why, under what political motivations?

      Agreed, lets leave this to private corporations, properly regulated, without the politics.

    • I have a strong feeling that SpaceX will beat the SLS to the Moon with a manned mission.With far superior capabilities and crew numbers, when they land the "lunar" version of the Starship there. [tesmanian.com] The first one probably won't be manned, but will be left there as a "base station" for subsequent landings.

    • I was originally going to respond to the title of your post, "contract out to SpaceX", but you kinda cut me off with the last line of your post, "let companies like SpaceX do their work".

      SpaceX is doing well, they have a huge amount of successes and should be proud. They have an excellent launch vehicle, an excellent unmanned platform and an excellent manned platform - and they are rapidly moving forward with their next gen platforms.

      But they are still only one supplier - and this is why NASA needs to move

  • Just strap another one under the seat and get 'er done already. Also, when's James Webb going to fly?

  • I always thought that cars were built that way to save money. No chance of that here.

    • I always thought that cars were built that way to save money. No chance of that here.

      Well, it's done that way with cars to keep it as compact as possible, so that could still be the situation. The thing is though, worst case scenario on a car is that you have to remove the engine to get at whatever it is.
      But 9 months? No way is that possible unless someone is purposely bullshitting you.

    • My first thought when reading the article was "That's worse than a BMW Mini!"

    • Tried to replace a leaky windshield washer tank on a modern car lately? Bad enough to have to have to pull the intake manifold to get to the back three spark plugs and coil towers, removing the bracket that is placed where you cannot.get.at.it, but it turns the job from 2 hours to 12 hours.

      Mind you, I serviced a few typewriters back in the day (all you whippersnappers) that had parts I never actually *saw*, but could feel for and deal with. Bui modern cars some interesting serviceability issues. Not even li

  • Lessons to be learned. These systems need to be fixable. We're not at the point where spacecraft can be like modern cars, where you gotta disassemble the entire engine compartment to get to something at the center. You can't make everything accessible, but electronic modules go bad every now and then. They need to be accessible somehow.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by igny ( 716218 )
      As a Lego enthusiast, I can feel their pain. Sometimes I discover a missing step that would literally require take the whole thing apart without an option to drill through.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      These systems need to be fixable.

      Probably some left over design philosophy from single use spacecraft. Once it works, it only has to work once. It's never going to be overhauled.

      Where it looks like they messed up was in catching the fault too late in the assembly process. If you are going to seal an assembly in, you have to unit test the components and functionally test the systems before you weld the hood shut.

      • Probably some left over design philosophy from single use spacecraft. Once it works, it only has to work once. It's never going to be overhauled.

        Well, the article says it's a redundant part that was tested when assembled. I assume the plan was to not have to work on it after mounting the capsule on the service module. Of course, when you take literally years to launch the rocket, things probably will fail just sitting there.

        More interesting is that even though it could take 9 months to fix it, that won't matter since the SLS itself won't be ready in 9 months.

  • just do an Capricorn One and fake it! (Score:3)

    by Joe_Dragon ( 2206452 ) on Sunday December 06, 2020 @01:25PM (#60800572)

    just do an Capricorn One and fake it!

  • Schedule Chicken (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ameline ( 771895 ) <<ian.ameline> <at> <gmail.com>> on Sunday December 06, 2020 @01:29PM (#60800584) Homepage Journal

    At IBM we used to call this "Schedule Chicken" Every team knew they were not going to meet the schedule, but nobody wanted to be the first ones to admit it. Once one group flinched and admitted they were blowing their dates, other teams would own up to it. Same thing will happen here -- other parts of the system, in addition to this one, will turn out not to be ready for November 2021.

    • At IBM we used to call this "Schedule Chicken" Every team knew they were not going to meet the schedule, but nobody wanted to be the first ones to admit it. Once one group flinched and admitted they were blowing their dates, other teams would own up to it. Same thing will happen here -- other parts of the system, in addition to this one, will turn out not to be ready for November 2021.

      The artlicle already said that the SLS itself won't be ready for a year anyhow.
      So this already doesn't really matter.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by TWX ( 665546 )

        Theoretically a crew module could be launched on a different rocket, if it could be launched at all.

  • During the months dismantling it, they'll find other problems, that need to be fixed and when fixing these they ...

  • design flaw. So a little less than a year before launch. a minor part fails but they would need to disassemble and reassemble the spacecraft which takes what, a few years.
    Artemis/Orion system sounds like your typical big corp/government project. Ultra expensive and really clunky.

    Sounds like the same engineers that made my car designed this. Where you can not replace a $2.00 part because to get to after assembly costs more than the car is worth.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by TWX ( 665546 )

      The problem with most modern cars is they're designed to be manufactured , not to be serviced . Powertrain assembly is put together on a temporary skid, ignition components are installed, wiring harnesses are connected, and then this engine and transmssion assembly is shoved up from below into the vehicle body into the engine bay, fastened-down from below. Harnesses are connected to matching harnesses on the body/chassis, the drive shaft(s) are connected, and then further work on the suspension continue

      • "designed to be manufactured , not to be serviced "

        OK, I am asking the question. Is that the way we should do it? Maybe we should rethink things?
        After all, should we be a throw away society? Is that sustainable?
  • This seems a bit odd. We know that the Orion vehicle is a brand new design... We know how much component testing and assembly testing that the discrete elements get subjected to before anything gets joined to the vehicle. So it seems reasonable that this PDU will have received pretty rigorous testing.

    We also know that it was a faulty component that did for Apollo 13, after which NASA have been rigorous with their component testing.

    So how come this part got to be added to the assembly before the failur

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by TWX ( 665546 )

      Please familiarize yourself with how MTBF is determined. In short, a bunch of assemblies are tested for a particular number of hours, and the hours times assemblies versus the number of failed units defines it for that set.

      Anything and everything could fail. It's all about probabilities. That said someone could've farked up something in the design but that doesn't guarantee it.

      I'm more upset that they've designed this thing to where a baby can be conceived and born before the repair could be completed.

  • This is why the Russions use bolts and rivets (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Antique Geekmeister ( 740220 ) on Sunday December 06, 2020 @01:49PM (#60800640)

    They're bulkier, and heavier and you may need more of them to assemble your gear and spend more weight on connectors. But keeping the assembly and mounting simple and consistent keeps the vehicles cheaper and easier to repair. The equivalent in the software is "why do we use shell" rather than crafting a new language and use an exciting new technology for every task.

    • The equivalent in the software is "why do we use shell" rather than crafting a new language and use an exciting new technology for every task.

      I recently spoke with a company who wants devs that have experience with Nuxt.js. Nuxt.js is - get this - a framework for Vue.js. Do you know what Vue.js is?

  • History is important (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tiqui ( 1024021 ) on Sunday December 06, 2020 @01:53PM (#60800650)

    The Eisenhower administration started the Saturn rocket program with Werner Von Braun at the Army Ballistic Missile Agency as the Juno V in 1958. Von Braun's team and the project were then moved into the newly-created NASA - but this establishes 1958 as the earliest start anybody can reasonably make for the original moon program. In 1962 John F Kennedy gave his famous "We choose to go to the moon..." speech - Most people think of this as the moment the Apollo program began, and that's ok, but the point is that the First Saturn rocket had already flown on October 27 of 1961. Man landed on the moon in July of 1969. This sets the window for the Entire original moon program to be 1962 to 1969 (7 years) at best, or 1958 to 1969 (11 years) as worst-case.

    Space Shuttle Columbia broke up on reentry on Feb 1, 2003. Planning for the Space Shuttle replacement program began in 2004, and the first RFP issued in March of 2005. Lockheed was selected to design and build the Orion capsule on August 31, 2006. The capsule OML (Outer Mold Line - i.e. its shape) was selected to be just an enlarged Apollo capsule shape with the justification that all the aerodynamics (how it would fly through air), hydrodynamics (how it would splash, float, roll etc in water), space handling characteristics (thus where to place, and how to orient and scale thrusters etc), and other mechanical and structural issues were all well tested, understood and proven and thus would save the taxpayers money and save NASA time - This was all used to justify the Orion capsule design over several other better more modern and more capable options.

    ORION BEGAN 14 YEARS AGO! The mission in question is not even a manned mission... the first manned Orion flight is scheduled for 2022 that's 16 YEARS from design selection to first manned flight.

    Remember: The Apollo program was doing the completely unknown and untried. Under Apollo, the USA had to build huge new facilities in Texas, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, Virginia, California, and Ohio. New materials had to be developed. New manufacturing techniques had to be developed. New computers that could fit in a spacecraft had to be developed. All the software had to be developed for the first time. New types of spacesuits had to be invented. New techniques including rendezvous and docking, spacewalks, etc had to be worked out and tested. The entire Gemini-Titan program was done as part of the effort (THAT was a new rocket (the Titan) and new spacecraft (the Gemini capsule)). The entire thing took only 7 to 11 years as outlined earlier.

    Having won the contract for Orion, Lockheed set about to do the actual design and fabrication work. They then happily re-created all the aerodynamics, hydrodynamics, structural etc tests they had claimed they would not need to do. They spent YEARS and piles of cash re-doing all the Apollo work they had claimed the Apollo OML would save them from repeating (they're apparently going to start another set of water impact tests soon at Langley). They formulated all new heat shield materials and tested them, then abandoned them and are using the same formulation on Orion that was used on Apollo. They made the design too heavy, then re-designed it to be lighter. They spent all the time and all the cash they had previously claimed would not be needed because of the OML choice. They even flew the first unmanned flight (EFT-1) atop a Delta IV Heavy on December 5, 2014, SIX YEARS AGO!. They should not even NEED a second unmanned flight (SpaceX didn't for Dragon) and NASA/McDonnell Aircraft didn;t for Gemini.

    This PERFECTLY illustrates why NASA and the Pentagon should NEVER again be allowed to issue "cost-plus" contracts (where the contractor is guaranteed a profit margin and that margin is set as some percentage of the program cost (which is a MASSIVE incentive to drag a program out and make it as expensive as possible). Every single "oops, we made a mistake" becomes a huge windfall profit for the company! This fix alone is more important than any engi

    • Re:History is important (Score:5, Informative)

      by beep999 ( 229889 ) on Sunday December 06, 2020 @04:07PM (#60800904)
      Just remember that in 2020 adjusted dollars the Apollo command module cost was about $80 billion. The Space Shuttle orbiter cost was around $27 billion. The Orion program is expected to cost about $12-13 billion after its all said and done. So, while I completely agree that cost-plus is a crazy way to award contracts, and Lockeed is being incompetent on this project, to say that they are raking in truck-loads of amounts of money is a little hyperbolic. Space is expensive. The fact that SpaceX managed to develop Crew Dragon for $2 billion is nothing short of miraculous.
    • +1 Insightful but no mod points ;)
    • Insightful post indeed. While not exactly an appropriate apples to apples comparison, don't forget how long it took to develop the ISS to be developed. Space Station Freedom [wikipedia.org] was first proposed by Reagan in 1984. It went through a few redesigns, then when the Cold War ended, it was redesigned again as an international collaboration [wikipedia.org] with the Russians and minor space powers (Europe, Japan). Fourteen years had passed between initial proposal (1984) and the first module put into orbit (1998). The ISS's last p

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by MacMann ( 7518492 )

      This PERFECTLY illustrates why NASA and the Pentagon should NEVER again be allowed to issue "cost-plus" contracts

      No it doesn't.

      If I'm customer asking for a short run, or just one, of a highly technically detailed device then my choices for people to go to is small. The people I go to will not agree to make what I want unless there is a guarantee for a profit. If I allow the people that bid for my money to sell the product, as is, to other people then perhaps they might be willing to give some leeway on the price they ask. If there's no ability to make up for the engineering costs by selling more items, by either th

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by eth1 ( 94901 )

        This PERFECTLY illustrates why NASA and the Pentagon should NEVER again be allowed to issue "cost-plus" contracts

        No it doesn't.

        If I'm customer asking for a short run, or just one, of a highly technically detailed device then my choices for people to go to is small. The people I go to will not agree to make what I want unless there is a guarantee for a profit.

        Except (at least for space-related things) there are a lot more players these days. At the very least, the government should be required to only consider fixed-price contracts for a specified period of time before a cost-plus one is accepted. That way, anyone holding out for the cost-plus gravy train risks losing the contract to someone willing to take the risk, or that just knows they can do it efficiently enough to meet the terms.

      • You use "cost plus" when you can't predict how much the project will cost (new science, need r&d, time to build unknown, number of units to build unknown). For projects where you do know how much it should cost you must do fixed cost contracts, or you'll end up paying $900 for a hammer.
  • You Never need redundant systems,... until you fly 737 Max

  • But at a risk-averse agency like NASA, flying a vehicle without a backup plan is not exactly an attractive option...

    Wait, there's no secondary backup?

    GILORA: Starfleet code requires a second backup?
    O'BRIEN: In case the first backup fails.
    GILORA: What are the chances that both a primary system and its backup would fail at the same time?
    O'BRIEN: It's very unlikely, but in a crunch I wouldn't like to be caught without a second backup.

    Are you telling me that nobody at NASA ever watched Star Trek: Deep Space 9?

    I

  • Dragon Capsule slated to fly, EXPLODES! One year later - Two crew to the ISS.... NASA needs a new Von Braun (or Elon)

  • 500 million and we're back on track.
    To launch 2 billion dollars of nonreusable seventies tech.

    Cancel SLS. Now!

  • aren't we just going to YOLO this?

  • I would say the bigger problem is that it would take 9 months to replace the part,IMHO that's a major design flaw of the capsule.
  • If maintenance on a ship is this hard, by design, then I guess we can call this capsule defective by design.
    I.e.: not designed to be repaired, maintained, etc.

  • Wow, remember when we went to the moon with 1960s technology? It seems like we've lost something in the intervening years.

Slashdot Top Deals

Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand.

Close