SpaceX and other space news updates

1,874,352 Views | 18910 Replies | Last: 1 day ago by Kenneth_2003
hph6203
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Someone's a Boeing fan on the forum. Most negative response to a post I've ever seen on Texags.
ABATTBQ11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I guess someone starred and got deleted?
ErnestEndeavor
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ag_of_08 said:

NASA is a great exploration agency. They, since Apollo ended, have done a piss poor job of managing or supervising the building and launch of rockets( and arguably vehicles, given the 50/50 record the CC and the problems/inadequacies of Artemis) themselves.



It's a Congressional grift problem. Their targets change every 5 minutes. Engineers are being told their goals are one thing and then it changes mid-development so that some Senator or House member can get something built in their district. Even the space shuttle was supposed to be one thing then turned into something else when the requirements changed midstream. You are never going to have an efficient program with that type of mission creep and legislator interference. NASA has been mandated by non-experts to build Artemis the way that it did, just like the prior canceled Constellation program and so on and so forth.

That's why SpaceX has been able to be so innovative. They basically have to convince one guy something could work and then they run with it. Engineers get to be engineers.

Not sure we can say the same thing about Boeing.
AtlAg05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Per NASA after WDR 2, NET March 6th for Artemis II launch.
Kenneth_2003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AtlAg05 said:

Per NASA after WDR 2, NET March 6th for Artemis II launch.

Kenneth_2003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG


I'm not going to say I told you so....
I will say that given all available data at the time and in light of the history associated with the program this seemed like a highly foreseeable outcome.


Page 538 -- 9 Feb 2026
Quote:

Lol I'm still figuring SLS has a rollback to the VAB in the cards.

nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
LOL, next question; how many more roll backs to the VAB are going to happen before this thing launches?
Ag87H2O
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG


And in the least surprising news of the day ...
YellowPot_97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The only surprising thing about this mission is that they tried a Feb launch date.
PJYoung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG



Quote:

NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman
@NASAAdmin
32m
As an update to my earlier post.

- The ICPS helium bottles are used to purge the engines, as well as for LH2 and LOX tank pressurization. The systems did work correctly during WDR1 and WDR2.

- Last evening, the team was unable to get helium flow through the vehicle. This occurred during a routine operation to repressurize the system.

- We observed a similar failure signature on Artemis I.

- The Artemis II vehicle is in a safe configuration, using ground ECS purge for the engines versus the onboard helium supply.

- Potential faults could include the final filter between the ground and flight vehicle, located on the umbilical, though this seems least likely based on the failure signature. It could also be a failed QD umbilical interface, where similar issues have been observed. It could also be a failed check valve onboard the vehicle, which would be consistent with Artemis I, though corrective actions were taken to minimize reoccurrence on Artemis II.

Regardless of the potential fault, accessing and remediating any of these issues can only be performed in the VAB.

As mentioned previously, we will begin preparations for rollback, and this will take the March launch window out of consideration.

I understand people are disappointed by this development. That disappointment is felt most by the team at NASA, who have been working tirelessly to prepare for this great endeavor. During the 1960s, when NASA achieved what most thought was impossible, and what has never been repeated since, there were many setbacks. One historic example is that Neil Armstrong spent less than 11 hours in space on Gemini 8 before his mission ended prematurely due to a technical issue. A little over three years later, he became the first man to walk on the Moon.

There are many differences between the 1960s and today, and expectations should rightfully be high after the time and expense invested in this program. I will say again, the President created Artemis as a program that will far surpass what America achieved during Apollo. We will return in the years ahead, we will build a Moon base, and undertake what should be continuous missions to and from the lunar environment. Where we begin with this architecture and flight rate is not where it will end.

Please expect a more extensive briefing later this week as we outline the path forward, not just for Artemis II, but for subsequent missions, to ensure NASA meets the President's vision to return to the Moon and, this time, to stay.


Kenneth_2003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
nortex97 said:

LOL, next question; how many more roll backs to the VAB are going to happen before this thing launches?

Artemis I rolled back to the VAB 2x as I recall???



The real reason is simply that those RS-25 engines were never meant to go into the drink and they just don't want to be wasted like that.
First Page Refresh
Page 541 of 541
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.