The F-22 is good but it can't hold a candle to the P-51 (or mall parking lots)

We'll be streaming the launch of @NASAArtemis to the Moon in 4K on @YouTube.https://t.co/UxIQDsA4D9

— NASA (@NASA) August 27, 2022

Share the #Artemis launch experience with your @Facebook network via this event.https://t.co/zQaqSt1X18

— NASA (@NASA) August 27, 2022

I'm being generous and going with 1/20 odds that it launches.

I'd really love to see it but I just don't think it will happen tomorrow.

I haven't found an updated countdown time-line, I'm assuming they'll begin tanking sometime tonight?

Since they're throwing everything away... we've got enough inventory for three more of these boondoggles?

Yes. Unless something has changed, RJ/AD has enough engines for about three more flights, but have not produced any actual new engines. Last I heard they where whining wanting billions more


Part of the problem is the vintage of the engine means it was pieced together like the f1 was. While they kept flying them, the actually assembly line shut down decades ago, and restarting it is ridiculous!

A shame these workhorse shuttle engines are going to end up in the Atlantic as opposed to attached to the orbiters at the Smithsonian, etc. It would be one thing if using them was actually a cost cutting measure, but it doesn't seem to be.

Even still, I'm hoping for success tomorrow.

I did see a video today... I suppose a glimmer of good news before we chuck them into the Atlantic...

They've further improved them to run at 118% nameplate thrust opposed to the 104% at the end of the shuttle program.

IIRC they chose them because they were ready to fly faster. The shuttle contractors were worried they would get boxed out and lobbied to reuse a lot of the shuttle tech. This thing was supposed to launch five or six years ago. Thank goodness they didn't contract with Blue Origin for a new engine design.

Here's a great video to help explain the history of the shuttle replacement, why the powers that be chose the design, and what the delays were (this was filmed in 2018...so more delays since the release):


The shuttle program was a waste and inefficient. It was supposed to be simple and quickly reusable, but it turned into a money pit that couldn't even do what it was designed to do (Congress and the military meddled, but that's another story). There have been expendable replacement designs in the works since the 1980s but the politicians and corporate partners were too invested in the shuttle and kept doubling down on the sunk costs.

For those who can't watch the video- the genesis of this design really came about in the 1990s in the form of the NLS. After that design was scrapped the engine designs eventually became the RS-68 engines and were used on the Delta IV. Constellation was announced in 2005 with a design similar to what became the SLS and was based on using the cheaper and expendable RS-68. When that program was scrapped by the political hack machine and eventually reformed into SLS, the politicians chose to use the shuttle engines (likely at the request of their favorite donors and lobbyists).

Senator Richard Shelby can EAD, BTW.

Yep. The story of government spaceflight begins and ends with congressional lobbying, contractor placement, and funding. NASA did not build the best rocket it could build, it built the best rocket it could fund.

double aught said:

---

A shame these workhorse shuttle engines are going to end up in the Atlantic as opposed to attached to the orbiters at the Smithsonian, etc. It would be one thing if using them was actually a cost cutting measure, but it doesn't seem to be.

Even still, I'm hoping for success tomorrow.

---

Agreed. Definitely a shame that pieces of history are just getting thrown away like this.

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Since they're throwing everything away... we've got enough inventory for three more of these boondoggles?

---

Correct. After that they will use a new expendable version of the RS-25.

Ag_of_08 said:

---

I haven't found an updated countdown time-line, I'm assuming they'll begin tanking sometime tonight?

---

I wanna say they said T - 6 hours at the briefing this morning, but don't quote me there.

Edit to Add: my biggest concern is the hydrogen leak they kept experiencing during the WDR. If they get that fixed to where they can make it to launch, I'll go 80% chance to reach orbit.

That doesn't exist except roughly in CAD yet.

6hrs sounds right, the streams look like it's tanking, but we won't know for a while.

I give it 80-90% to reach orbit IF it clears the tower. I'm stixk with 50/50, maybe even 40/60 on it clearing the tower. The leak, and the concern over the clamps not releasing/the tower being...marginal to hold the vehicle, they all add up to...issues.

Some more hydrogen leaks. They manually chilled the lines and are still proceeding

The countdowns are different on different streams. Everyday Astronaut has about an hour longer countdown than the others. Assuming he's considering the built in hold?

Artemis launch scrubbed until at least Thursday. Fuel leak showed up again.

— Jazz Shaw (@JazzShaw) August 29, 2022

To exactly no-one's surprise. Check back in on Thursday…

I don't see anything else corroborating that tweet. Berger would've mentioned it.

NSF stream has countdown proceeding. Keep in mind that there is a 30 minute hold at T - 10 minutes.

There's a Crack in the intertank flange and a frost line formed, but NSF is running the count as t-1:18:00. They're still evaluating the engineering cameras apparently, but they just stated it is fueled at this time

Yeah, had it on mute as I was still in bed (wife is nowhere near as excited as I am). I'm hearing about it now.

Here's the official NASA stream, slated to start in about 10 minutes.

On NASA Live they're saying that they're having issues getting the bleed valve through Engine 3 to work (basically what SpaceX calls an engine chill). They are currently working the issue.

Both core tanks are filled, upper stage is nearly filled.

To add, this is one step they couldn't test in June.

So the video link I posted isn't working yet. They just bumped it back 15 more minutes. They're giving brief (and I mean brief) updates on the NASA TV Youtube channel. I won't post it here because I don't want to cause link confusion, but apparently the current plan to chill #3 didn't work, and they're also still chasing down a hydrogen leak too.

Confidence in launch today is dwindling.

Even if they don't launch they are using as another dress rehearsal so it is beneficial.

I think at this point they have to scrub

They're going to go into a HOLD at T-40 minutes to allow for the liquid hydrogen team to brief launch director on their plan of action. My understanding is a 10 minute hold.

Dont HAVE to, but we're about an hour from have to. My feeling is they WILL scrub if this hold doesn't resume. They have a 30 minute hold scheduled at t -:10 they can pull time off of.

This is ridiculous, those engines have been launched so many times, and they can't even get the single m9st well understood part of this thing to work.

They also normally have some built in holds. The launch window does not start until 8:33EST, right? So will still need a longer hold to get there.

They redesigned the chilling system iirc. The engine itself is fine. They could not test this part of the system during the dress rehearsal due to the hydrogen leak. One of the few things they didn't get to test.

Private PoopyPants said:

---

They redesigned the chilling system iirc. The engine itself is fine.

---

So what you're saying is that anything touched by a NASA engineer in the past 10 years is currently a dumpster fire, and only the stuff designed before those engineers were born is working...

There was already a 30 minute scheduled hold at 10, and there have been other delays. They're also in a 2hr window for lunar launch today.

They've had a bunch of other issues as well. I'm starting to get concerned with metal fatigue, if they're worrying about cracks already, with the one and off tanking.

Sooooo they redesigned a functional system to make it what...not work.

They've also already had significant issues with engine control units, and even failed a greennrun with one of the engines on fire....it's not just thebcooling system

I mean they had to redesign that part of it, since the RS-25s were on the orbiter instead of on the tank itself.

I'm confused as to why the location of the mounting would make a difference in how the thing was cooled in the instance. Every reference I've seen to it was to "improve" the engine, not a necessity.