NASA Declares Megarocket Rehearsal Complete, Setting Stage For Inaugural Launch (gizmodo.com) 44
The fourth and most recent attempt at a full launch rehearsal of NASA's Space Launch System went reasonably well, and despite some lingering issues and uncertainties, the agency is sending the rocket back to the hangar for final preparations in advance of its first flight. That inaugural launch will represent Artemis 1, the first mission in NASA's Artemis lunar program. Gizmodo reports: In a press release today, NASA -- to my surprise -- said it is done testing SLS after reviewing data from the recent launch rehearsal. That another full-blown rehearsal would be required seemed likely to me on account of an unresolved hydrogen leak linked to a faulty quick-connect fitting, which subsequently prevented ground teams from practicing the fully scheduled launch countdown on Monday. The goal was to reach T-10 seconds, but the launch controllers decided to quit the rehearsal at T-29 seconds for safety reasons. "NASA plans to return SLS and Orion to the pad for launch in late August," says the release. "NASA will set a specific target launch date after replacing hardware associated with the leak."
Despite the hydrogen leak and the incomplete countdown, Monday's wet dress did appear to go well. The ground teams finally managed to fully load SLS with propellants. Upwards of 755,000 gallons of cryogenic liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen were supplied to the rocket's two stages, which the teams had failed to do during the first three attempts. What's more, all of the issues experienced during the first three wet dress rehearsals appear to have been resolved. The Orion spacecraft, currently sitting atop the rocket, also performed well during the test. Said Tom Whitmeyer, NASA's exploration systems manager, during a media teleconference on Tuesday: "We think that we had a really successful rehearsal," adding that there is "relative risk" is running a fifth wet dress, with the 322-foot-tall (98-meter) rocket standing fully exposed on the launch pad.
Despite the hydrogen leak and the incomplete countdown, Monday's wet dress did appear to go well. The ground teams finally managed to fully load SLS with propellants. Upwards of 755,000 gallons of cryogenic liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen were supplied to the rocket's two stages, which the teams had failed to do during the first three attempts. What's more, all of the issues experienced during the first three wet dress rehearsals appear to have been resolved. The Orion spacecraft, currently sitting atop the rocket, also performed well during the test. Said Tom Whitmeyer, NASA's exploration systems manager, during a media teleconference on Tuesday: "We think that we had a really successful rehearsal," adding that there is "relative risk" is running a fifth wet dress, with the 322-foot-tall (98-meter) rocket standing fully exposed on the launch pad.
So that's 100 million off the bill (Score:1, Insightful)
Time for NASA to stop trying to stop using the ripoff dinosaur space companies.
https://www.inverse.com/science/nasa-sls-launch-cost
Re:So that's 100 million off the bill (Score:5, Insightful)
Or at least move away from cost-plus contracts.
Some of the arguments for those types of contracts was that developing cutting-edge technology was hard to predict and budget for, would provide more flexibility for changing requirements or specs, and that we didn't want contractors to cut corners to save costs. That all makes sense in theory.
But I think the results of the SLS program (which still has yet to fly) versus what SpaceX has done with fixed-cost contracts has demonstrated that cost-plus provides no real benefits in reality, while directly incentivizing massive corruption, waste, and delays. And SLS can hardly even claim to have developed any sort of new, innovative technology.
We need to make those old space companies actually compete, or get out of the way for companies willing and able to actually produce rockets on a reasonable budget.
Re:So that's 100 million off the bill (Score:4, Interesting)
The cost-plus idea is particularly silly in the case of SLS, which was sold as mostly re-use. It's basically an amalgamation of shuttle parts. The big R&D effort would have been building a production line for an expendable variant of the SSME, but they haven't actually done that yet.
Re: (Score:2)
So, I decided to look up comparatives.
So far, the SLS program is running ~$23B ( per inverse.com [inverse.com]) in development, nearly flight-ready.
The Saturn V rocket series was $96B (in 2020 dollars... $9B at the time) per planetary.org [planetary.org].
The Space Shuttle similarly was $49B (in 2020 dollars... $10.6B at the time) per planetary.org [planetary.org]
So, by the measure of previous NASA development programs - SLS is financially quite successful, or even "cheap", when compared in inflation-adjusted dollar amounts.
Still radically expensive next
Re: (Score:2)
Previous NASA endeavors had a purpose, and served that purpose.
SLS is just a big fucking rocket with no future, other than being a big expensive fucking rocket. They're only budgeted to make like 4 of them, and way over budget, and way over schedule?
If they don't have a manufacturing line for the SSMEs on the bottom that lift the whole damn thing, and they aren't recovering the few they have left, they aren't going to be able to make more, now are they?
It's a huge waste of money in the form of billions in
Re: (Score:3)
The Saturn V rocket series was $96B (in 2020 dollars... $9B at the time) per planetary.org.
So, by the measure of previous NASA development programs - SLS is financially quite successful, or even "cheap", when compared in inflation-adjusted dollar amounts.
Uh, no. Not even close. Not even remotely. Per your own link (and many others like it), that $96 billion in inflation adjusted expenses for "Saturn launch vehicles" is for all of them, including all of their development costs for three different rockets. That $96 billion paid for the development of the Saturn I, the Saturn IB, and the Saturn V, and then paid for all of their launches including test launches. That $96 billion paid for 10 launches of Saturn I, 9 launches of Saturn IB (and one failed laun
Re:So that's 100 million off the bill (Score:5, Insightful)
Time for NASA to stop trying to stop using the ripoff dinosaur space companies.
The bigger problem is not the contractors or billing model, but that the project has always been driven by senate pork-barrelling, rather than any technical requirements. Wasn't the SLS invented to keep plants in business that were formerly working on shuttle components?
Re: (Score:2)
"senate pork-barrelling": as indicated by its acronym, SLS: Senate Launch System
Re: So that's 100 million off the bill (Score:2)
What amazes me is that just the rocket itself is $2.2 billion per launch. What could possibly cost that much on a recurring basis?
The potential cool things that could be done with this are awe-inspiring, so I'm torn between being excited by this vs frustrated that it's so expensive, especially when the private sector is advancing so quickly. How long before Starship of some other platform is ready, at a price tag under a billion/launch? Will NASA still insist on using SLS when cheaper alternatives are out
Re: (Score:2)
Re: So that's 100 million off the bill (Score:2)
Fair point but I was assuming that the heavy lifting was needed for components that had no chance of being broken apart for lifting in smaller bits. In that case you still need some heavy lifting capability.
Either way, this seems like a project that simply is surviving on momentum - hatched before commercial rocketry was really demonstrating success and now too far along to abandon.
Re: (Score:2)
In a word, yes. There are already cheaper alternatives out there. A couple-three Falcon9 Heavies could handle the Earth-Moon trips just fine...
Oblig. Commander Keen reference (Score:2)
Can it be fueled with beans and bacon [shikadi.net]?
We just want it to end... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We just want it to end... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes they will but not because of Leftist asshats. Because of both parties. There are components and assemblies stragegically scattered throughout enough congressional districts that is is politically impossible to kill, and a boon to the asshats that make this thing. Boeing, et al, are super successful at extracting Washington money. They know how to stroke the leviathan's cock.
There's a possibility of being able to kill the project with a fairly small group of people, if they all work together.
There's been enough problems with the program (and Boeing) that, were I an astronaut, I'd be rather nervous about getting into the thing. If they all get together and publicly say they have no confidence in it, and won't fly on it due to safety concerns, it leaves it relatively useless.
Re:We just want it to end... (Score:5, Insightful)
You really think the leftists are going to let some capitalist pigdog have all the spaceflight glory to themselves
In other news at least one idiot here doesn't realise that pork is a pretty bipartisan thing. While you keep inanely blithering about "leftists"---also where the fuck did you eve get that idea about leftists anyway---nothing will ever change.
Or you know keep cheering for your tribe as if politics is sports. Because that's working out so well.
Re: (Score:2)
Big government is a right-wing thing.
If you say so. Always struck me as a bipartisan thing.
Re: (Score:1)
Big government is a right-wing thing.
If you say so. Always struck me as a bipartisan thing.
Yeah, way to go, taking that quote out of context which clearly indicates I was being sarcastic. Further proves that there's no point in attempting discussion with you.
Re: (Score:3)
Big government is a right-wing thing.
If you say so. Always struck me as a bipartisan thing.
Your mistake is assuming that the Republican Party is conservative, and possibly even thinking the Democratic Party is liberal or democratic.
Re: (Score:2)
Mistake: what mistake? Does that mean I'm wrong in my claim that neither party is actually interested in a, small government?
Re: (Score:2)
Even if it blows up, I gaurantee you the senators and congressmen who's districts include the factories that are supporting this colossal waste of money are not going to let the project go away.
Re: (Score:2)
https://arstechnica.com/scienc... [arstechnica.com]
Martin said that the operational costs alone for a single Artemis launch—for just the rocket, Orion spacecraft, and ground systems—will total $4.1 billion.
Significantly overbudget, years behind schedule and not reusable. You're deluding yourself if you think this kind of corruption is isolated to NASA.
cash cow (Score:1, Troll)
I grew up watching the Gemini and Apollo flights. NASA should be ashamed of itself for what it has become.
Re:cash cow (Score:4, Insightful)
NASA should be ashamed of itself for what it has become.
Yeah all the smart scientists and engineers doing the best job with cool stuff should be ashamed. Not the political machine that's mandating this particular route. Big defence contractors lobbying politicians for a big old slice of corporate socialism have nothing to do with it.
IT'S THE SCIENTISTS FAULT!
Re: (Score:1)
Orlando sentinal aticle [orlandosentinel.com]
Most of the real work is done by contractors. Most NASA employees have the word "manage" in their job title.
I agree that Congress has mismanaged the US space flight effort at every turn. But that doesn't let NASA bureaucrats off of the hook.
Re:cash cow (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't read the article... but there's a reason it's known as the Senate Launch System. It's pretty much a congress project for contractors being managed by NASA. NASA don't have the authority to say no.
Objoke for old people (Score:5, Funny)
The Artemis mission is a success, two astronauts land on the moon.
The astronauts are exploring the surface and collecting samples. The mission is going well, but one of the astronauts notices something strange in the distance.
"Hey, what's that thing on the ground?" the astronaut points.
They cannot make out what it is, so the two astronauts approach the thing on the ground. Soon the strange object takes shape as they get closer.
They cannot believe their eyes.
It was a corpse. But not just any corpse.
It was a dead woman. She was not an astronaut, but a normal woman in her street clothes.
She was an American woman who wore a skirt, a shirt, and high heels; her attire was formal for a woman her age.
The astronauts are baffled on how she got up here on the moon. They decide to get a good look at her face...
And their worst fears are confirmed. The big bruise on her kisser was proof enough.
"Good lord!" the astronaut says. ***"It's Alice Kramden!"***
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To the moon, Alice, to the moon!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Three.
Great fireworks display (Score:2)
Get ready for a great fireworks display come August as NASA and Boeing demonstrate why QA is a mandatory step in space engineering.
Test to find faults or tick boxes? (Score:2)
Despite the hydrogen leak and the incomplete countdown
The hydrogen leak was a new problem. Either one that was not detected in earlier (incomplete) testing or that was created since the last series of tests. Although there was also a hydrogen leak that caused the end of the third wet test, too.
This does not fill a person with confidence that there will not be more leaks found later, nor that the testing process is robust.
Meanwhile, in other news... (Score:2)
Data point (Score:2)
Orion has a launch escape system, so there is still hope we'll see some part of this launch in powered flight. ;)
Thiokol by any other name... (Score:2)
I was born and raised in Brigham City, Utah, a "city" of like 18,000 people who work at whatever stage name Thiokol is going by these days. The Space Shuttle boosters were built and refurbished nearby. I've seen my share of booster tests (which are awesome, by the way), but SpaceX and other private efforts have really jammed a wrench in the machine and if there were ever a time for the gov to throw in the towel, it's now. It took private industry to make PRACTICAL reusable rockets. Gov was never going to do