PJYoung said:

---

So - there's the rocket you though you designed, and the rocket you actually built. It takes a while to learn how the rocket you actually built works. A few more wet dress rehearsals masquerading as launch attempts may be in the cards.

— Jonathan McDowell (@planet4589) August 29, 2022

---

yeah, that's what they should have done months/weeks ago

It was always going to be a longshot for the rocket to go on the first try. It felt insane to watch them put out weekly videos of how "WE ARE GOING" and "WE ARE READY". Like, is it a requirement of modern government to just 1984 everything and pretend there's zero chance of failure?

will25u said:

---

AgBQ-00 said:

---

We're gonna get scrubbed today aren't we? Next window for launch is Sept 3?

---

Sept 2, and Sept 5. If they don't launch either of those windows, then Artemis has to be taken back to the hanger.

---

Why would it have to be taken back to the hanger?

Decay said:

---

Was really hoping to be proved wrong, dang. I'm not above a reverse jinx.

Valve issues, so hot right now

---

I was going to go with left shoulder discomfort.

aTmAg said:

---

will25u said:

---

AgBQ-00 said:

---

We're gonna get scrubbed today aren't we? Next window for launch is Sept 3?

---

Sept 2, and Sept 5. If they don't launch either of those windows, then Artemis has to be taken back to the hanger.

---

Why would it have to be taken back to the hanger?

---

Granted if they can't repair on the pad it has to go back to the VAB. If it goes back to the VAB I don't see any way they make the window on the 19th.

It's already been out there for nearly 2 weeks. Do would they dare leave it on the launchpad for over a month if they target the window on the 19th?

Forbes Article -- With Launch Window

Quote:

---

The long gaps between launch windows is down to the position of the Moon in relation to Earth and also to the flight plan. The solar-powered Orion spacecraft's trajectory must not take it through the path of an eclipsethe shadow of the Moonfor more than 90 minutes otherwise it will completely lose power.

After September 5 the next launch window would be September 19, 2022.

---

Also August started with all of these "on the docket" or close to it, and we ended up with:

No Artemis
No RS1
No Firefly
No Relativity Space
No Starship

and like 10 Falcon 9 launch and landings no biggie

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Quote:

---

The long gaps between launch windows is down to the position of the Moon in relation to Earth and also to the flight plan. The solar-powered Orion spacecraft's trajectory must not take it through the path of an eclipse the shadow of the Moon for more than 90 minutes otherwise it will completely lose power.

After September 5 the next launch window would be September 19, 2022.

---

---

We need these guys to make a rap on eclipse the shadow of the moon and Artemis launch windows.

Also, the crewed mission should test their isolation endurance by listening to this song on repeat the entire journey.

Listening to the presser, we weren't likely to go even with a good engine chill due to weather. It was no-go due to precipitation at window open, and there were lightning strikes in the latter portion.

Also, they apparently didn't achieve the desired engine temp on ANY of the engines. They did change the diameter of the lines after the issues with the bleed system noted during the Green run at Stennis, but apparently they're still not right. They have not developed a plan going forward yet, they will meet in the morning and review data/info then.

This thing is gonna roll back to the VAB. They have no solution even planned, let alone validated, procured, and ready to go. Maybe late November?

How much longer are the expired-but-pencil-whipped SRB's approved to sit around for?

Remind me again, the concern about the SRBs expiring is due to the seals between the different segments deteriorating, correct?

Yes that is correct. Supposed to be 12 months, but that was in January this year. I think they changed some of the lining material somehow, can't remember the specifics on that but something about no more asbestos.

Maximus_Meridius said:

---

Listening to the presser, we weren't likely to go even with a good engine chill due to weather. It was no-go due to precipitation at window open, and there were lightning strikes in the latter portion.

Also, they apparently didn't achieve the desired engine temp on ANY of the engines. They did change the diameter of the lines after the issues with the bleed system noted during the Green run at Stennis, but apparently they're still not right. They have not developed a plan going forward yet, they will meet in the morning and review data/info then.

---

How did they ever think it was ready to launch with all these issues?? Why go full press with all the PR of returning to the moon, only to come away with egg on their face? There has to be an ulterior motive knowing that the chances of actually flying are so low.

I am reluctantly doubling down on my post from 18 months ago:



Edit: this was after the failed "green-test" run in January 2021.

YellowPot_97 said:

---

Maximus_Meridius said:

---

Listening to the presser, we weren't likely to go even with a good engine chill due to weather. It was no-go due to precipitation at window open, and there were lightning strikes in the latter portion.

Also, they apparently didn't achieve the desired engine temp on ANY of the engines. They did change the diameter of the lines after the issues with the bleed system noted during the Green run at Stennis, but apparently they're still not right. They have not developed a plan going forward yet, they will meet in the morning and review data/info then.

---

How did they ever think it was ready to launch with all these issues?? Why go full press with all the PR of returning to the moon, only to come away with egg on their face? There has to be an ulterior motive knowing that the chances of actually flying are so low.

---

That's sanity talking. We don't have that in government anymore.

Quote:

---

Summary of Artemis scrub briefing, which are only preliminary results, with more informed briefing to follow tomorrow.

They expanded the bleed system diameter after Green Run at Stennis, to add margin, but the data today showed they actually lost margin. Not clear yet if that is related to the diameter change or something else.

The impact of this is that all 4 engines were slower to reach target temperature, with #1,2,4 eventually in compliance, but #3 not.

To address this, they tried to adjust the bleed vent valve to get more flow, but found it wasn't working properly. This is the valve they used in the last WDR to stop the bleed flow to mitigate the bleed line leak.

At this point they realized that without full function of that valve, there was a possibility of over pressurizing the LH2 tank, so they scrubbed the attempt out of caution.

Today after the scrub, they kept the vehicle tanked and ran tests to gather data on the bleed flow problem. Tomorrow they will inspect the valve and bleed system, and afterwards provide another briefing.

---

I've yet to read any informed discussion as to a likely timeline for a redesigned valve/analyses/installation/validation will take, but I am still hazarding a swag that it is the late Nov. window they shoot for next…

Just hit it with a wrench and get it back out there

YellowPot_97 said:

---

Maximus_Meridius said:

---

Listening to the presser, we weren't likely to go even with a good engine chill due to weather. It was no-go due to precipitation at window open, and there were lightning strikes in the latter portion.

Also, they apparently didn't achieve the desired engine temp on ANY of the engines. They did change the diameter of the lines after the issues with the bleed system noted during the Green run at Stennis, but apparently they're still not right. They have not developed a plan going forward yet, they will meet in the morning and review data/info then.

---

How did they ever think it was ready to launch with all these issues?? Why go full press with all the PR of returning to the moon, only to come away with egg on their face? There has to be an ulterior motive knowing that the chances of actually flying are so low.

---

It's almost like they've never fired a rocket before.

TexAgs91 said:

---

PJYoung said:

---

So - there's the rocket you though you designed, and the rocket you actually built. It takes a while to learn how the rocket you actually built works. A few more wet dress rehearsals masquerading as launch attempts may be in the cards.

— Jonathan McDowell (@planet4589) August 29, 2022

---

yeah, that's what they should have done months/weeks ago

---

Here's the biggest, no SLS apologist can duck it elephant in the room..... the WHOLE POINT of paying them all these billions of dollars, just like starliner, was that they allegedly weren't going to have all these teething issues. That's not what I'm claiming, that's what the contractors and politicians claimed.

So when do we start holding people to the promises they make, and stop making excuses for them? You don't get to claim "we don't need as much real world testing and integration testing bulecause our engineering and simulation is so good", and then not be able to load a fuel, that we've been putting in rockets since the 50s, without it leaking everywhere.

Time delays happen, but they should result in solid hardware being delivered, not the same **** that's also late.

Pressure need to be put on congress to get away from it. There are other programs they can pork with that have a real chance to work. I don't mind a bit of pork IF it gets us there, without killing people.

Shuttle killed people for the pork and the bad design. This thing is going to kill someone, or at the least cost us an IFA, for bad design.

Not every significant space program is taking 1 step forward and 2 back.

We've come a long way since this image was taken a few months ago. We will be releasing updated images of Tenacity soon.

— Sierra Space (@SierraSpaceCo) August 30, 2022

Listening to the NASA audio press conference now. Launch is now on for this Saturday afternoon. They will start the engine bleeds sooner to allow more time to chill

Edit...afternoon, not morning.

I'm late to the party. When the fudge did Shelby Foote become an engineer? This ol' boy is speaking slow as molasses in winter!

New World Ag said:

---

Listening to the NASA audio press conference now. Launch is now on for this Saturday morning. They will start the engine bleeds sooner to allow more time to chill

---

Just heard anticipating a 60% chance of weather violation.

And they can't even say for certain if the engine chill failed because of a lower quality sensor that was used at Stennis or if they (if I understand correctly) started too late trying to conserve consumables.

Didn't they recently do a big overhaul on the cryogenic systems to increase their capacity as part of the SLS upgrades to the pad?

Kind of amazed this might happen, still.

Quote:

---

The teleconference is interesting. I sounds like they don't think they need to make any physical changes to the engine bleed system, just going to give it more soak time. They are also tightening the TSMU LH2 connections to reduce chance of leak (I guess this is what the scaffolding is for).

Apparently they had similar bleed issue during Green Run and also ended up giving it more soak time. I wonder if that is why they increased the pipe size, but it seems that change didn't really help. It was mentioned that if they had found this during WDR they would have also just increased soak time for launch. I guess that maybe it takes a while for temperature to stabilise on the plumbing and let enough bleed through.

EDIT: Just got really good info from John Honeycutt, basically they think the temperature sensor on engine #3 is faulty. It is only a development quality sensor not a flight quality sensor as not needed for flight (and I presume will not be fitted on later SLS?). They saw good pressure and temperature on the engine bleed outlet ground side when only engine 3 was enabled for bleed (closing the valves on the other) so they are confident the engine was cooling down but the faulty sensor didn't show it.

EDIT 2: They changed the bleed start time from Green Run back to the original time to try and save on waste LH2. I wonder if they thought the bleed diameter change would allow them to go back to the original start time that didn't work at Green Run,

---

The thought of a faulty sensor crossed my mind. The thing of it is, he's saying they were aiming for ~-450 F, and even then #3 was only off by 30 degrees. The whole point is to avoid thermal shock, I think they were close enough to have avoided it. I'm curious just how willing they are to risk it on Saturday if they think that sensor is faulty, because to replace that sensor means they're rolling back to VAB.

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Pressure need to be put on congress to get away from it. There are other programs they can pork with that have a real chance to work. I don't mind a bit of pork IF it gets us there, without killing people.

Shuttle killed people for the pork and the bad design. This thing is going to kill someone, or at the least cost us an IFA, for bad design.

---

The design is literally meant to kill people seeing as it was chosen to keep the US building SRB engines for ICBMs.

I guess. But this thing really is just an issue prior to ignition; I'd think they could somehow mount a 'temporary' thermometer/sensor to work for this unmanned launch for 'good' data for that engine.

C'mon, all of us sophisticated BBQ geniuses even have a good infrared thermometer. Get it together nasa.

Given the chance of a weather violatio, sounds like another wet dress rehearsal is all we're really getting.

nortex97 said:

---

I guess. But this thing really is just an issue prior to ignition; I'd think they could somehow mount a 'temporary' thermometer/sensor to work for this unmanned launch for 'good' data for that engine.

C'mon, all of us sophisticated BBQ geniuses even have a good infrared thermometer. Get it together nasa.

---

Nope. Flight Director pretty much said to do anything to that sensor would just about require a rollback.

And I'm not sure Saturday will even be a WDR. If weather's not favorable they can't even start to tank.

nortex97 said:

---

Not every significant space program is taking 1 step forward and 2 back.

We've come a long way since this image was taken a few months ago. We will be releasing updated images of Tenacity soon.

— Sierra Space (@SierraSpaceCo) August 30, 2022

---

The comments are all about the lack of diversity in that photo, ignoring the black man at the center of the pic or the fact that Sierra is owned by a couple Turks.

lb3 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Not every significant space program is taking 1 step forward and 2 back.

We've come a long way since this image was taken a few months ago. We will be releasing updated images of Tenacity soon.

— Sierra Space (@SierraSpaceCo) August 30, 2022

---

The comments are all about the lack of diversity in that photo, ignoring the black man at the center of the pic or the fact that Sierra is owned by a couple Turks.

---

I thought Sierra was public?