Monday, April 18, 2022

Artemis to Roll Back to VAB

On Friday, we covered that the Artemis Wet Dress Rehearsal never completed and the next step  was uncertain.  On Saturday, the agency held a teleconference to discuss the progress and announced they will roll the vehicle back to the VAB.  

The decision comes after three tries during the last two weeks. Each fueling attempt was scuttled by one or more technical issues with the rocket, its mobile launch tower, or ground systems that supply propellants and gases. During the most recent attempt, on Thursday April 14, NASA succeeded in loading 49 percent of the core-stage liquid oxygen fuel tank and 5 percent of the liquid hydrogen tank.

While this represents progress, it did not include the most dynamic portion of the test, during which the rocket is fully fueled and pressurized; and it, the ground systems, and computer systems are put into a terminal countdown when every variable is closely monitored. NASA had hoped to complete this wet dress rehearsal test to work out the kinks in the complicated launch system so that, when the rocket is rolled out later this year for its actual launch, the countdown will proceed fairly smoothly.

NASA said that they and their contractors will use the next several weeks to address the problems found during the test.  Something I hadn't read before was that some issues were found with nitrogen system contractor Air Liquide's hardware, which will have to upgrade its capabilities.  Technicians will replace the faulty check valve on the upper stage of the rocket, as well as fix a leak on the mobile launch tower's "tail service mast umbilical," a 10-meter-tall structure that provides propellant and electricity lines to the rocket on the pad.  

Under the "nothing happens quickly" rule of thumb, it seems like a reasonable guess to say it will take them a week to prepare and roll the mobile launch tower and Artemis back to the VAB.  Under the same assumption, I expect the work to take the month of May.  

At some point, NASA has to decide if they roll Artemis back out to the pad and complete the WDR successfully, roll it back to the VAB for some tasks typically done between WDR and then roll it to the pad for the third time to launch, or if they take a riskier approach and roll it to the pad essentially ready to fly.  If they do that, once the WDR passes, they could conceivably launch within days.  

There's a gotcha here.  The "tasks typically done" in the VAB between WDR and launch include arming the flight termination system or FTS.  All vehicles are required to carry such a system to destroy the vehicle if it threatens other people or places, and everyone who has listened to launch coverage of Falcon 9s or other launches have heard call-outs about the FTS being armed or being made safe.  

During a teleconference on Friday, Artemis Launch Director Charlie Blackwell-Thompson confirmed that there is a 20-day timeline once the flight safety system is armed. (This is a range safety mechanism used by all orbital rockets that destroys the booster in case it veers off course.) After the system is activated, it will take about a week to make final preparations in the Vehicle Assembly Building and a week to roll to the launch pad and make preparations there. That would leave just a single week for a fueling test, recycling of commodities, and perhaps one or two launch attempts before the 20-day window closes.

With a 20-day window, the system would have to be virtually flawless and it seems like a large bet they could approach flawless.  Which implies the earliest they could possibly launch the unmanned test flight would be around the start of July, but from August into the fall might be more realistic.  


Artemis SLS rollout on March 17th.  You can just mentally move the stack left (back into the VAB) or right (back out to pad 39B) and use the same image for the next few months. 



9 comments:

  1. Yet another failure of legacy aerospace.

    ReplyDelete
  2. **IT Happens - It IS Rocket Science. If this stuff was easy, ANYbody could do it!
    I say take the riskier route, let's get this boat anchor off the ground already!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To quote Bill Nelson about SLS, 11 years and $30 billion ago when he was just our senator, "If we can't do a rocket for $11.5 billion, we ought to close up shop."

      Delete
    2. Yes, rocket science is hard. Very hard. But... SLS is not remotely an experimental system like Starship is. It's just pieces-parts of legacy equipment mashed together. Engines from the Saturn era (which is what the main engines are, just reworked J2s...) and boosters based on the Shuttle and an evolution of the shuttle tank and the Orion (which has been around since, what, 2000ish?)

      No. Science is hard. But this is just engineering. Engineering using stuff whose properties are known. This isn't theoretical science, this is ordering stuff from SpaceMcMaster-Carr and slapping it together.

      It is a national disgrace. And a shame. We can't, with NASA, even build something the Communist Chinese can build, or India, or the Russians. Only our civilian non-NASA people (including Blue Origin with their New Shepard) have achieved anything in the last 10 years.

      Yes, ULA has VULCAN, but that's a nothing-burger until Blue Origin gets working non-prototype, production, proven BE4 engines. Until then, doesn't matter how good the Centaur upper stage is, until BE4 shows up, not gonna fly.

      Seriously, SLS is just a continuation of, what, three or four different iterations of Shuttle-Forward. Orion and Constellation. Remember that? That's SLS, all of it. SLS is nothing but a reworking of all of that.

      Constellation. That's it. Just with happy-sunshine introduced by the Lightbringer rather than evil-darkness introduced by evil Chimpy McBush.

      Constellation which was based on 2 different programs to follow up on the Shuttle.

      None of this is new. None of it. Maybe some new manufacturing processes, but... not really. SLS is Constellation is SLS is Constellation is legacy paperwork going back to Shuttle and... Saturn-Forward (seriously, look at Saturn-Forward plans and then look at SLS and all it's future launch vehicles and tell me there's a significant difference. And Saturn-Forward was, what, late 1960's?

      Nothing about this program is really new. Nothing is really different. And yet they can't get it right yet?

      A billion for a launch tower that was supposed to cost 14 million?

      Kill it. Or launch it and prove it works and then have the companies that have bilked the US for 10 years give us discounts on new ones.

      Delete
    3. I think that's very well said. The whole SLS system was put together to (1) keep people in Bill Nelson's district employed, (2) extend the two way gravy train between DC and the contractors. I'd be surprised if there was single new part design on the entire thing.

      Back in October, NASA put out a Request for Quote on making the system worthwhile. "Cut the price by 50% and we'll fly it until 2050." (Source on Sam.gov is linked here) At a cost of $4 billion per launch, how can they possibly justify it in today's world?

      While they're playing make-work, the world has gone around them. The only thing is has on other platforms is size. For the moment. Size is nice, but reusable cargo rockets refueled in space eventually get you there faster, cheaper, better.

      Delete
    4. And Elon keeps occasionally dropping that 12 meters was probably the better idea for Starship. There are those peristent rumors that Starship2.0 will be 12 or even 15 meters in diameter, with corresponding increase in length.

      I can see it now, 10-15 years in the future, "Oh, you have a 15 tonne payload to the Moon? Yah, we'll just put it in the tertiary hold."

      Delete
  3. The legacy companies are just money machines. I don't think the bird will ever fly. How's that Starliner coming?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Time to just end this.

    If NASA wants to continue building 'exploration' craft, to be lifted on a working launch system (SPACEx?), great. NASA is pretty good at science and such but too much of the engineering stuff has become a make-work program.

    AFWIW, this is from someone that lives in HSV and has family/friends in the space industry.

    ReplyDelete
  5. With this delay, there goes further delay in the Boca Chica PEA. It would not surprise me in the least if the FAA goes for a new, full Environmental Assessment for Boca Chica at this point. And I don't hold out hope that things will go well at the Cape for Starship.

    I think there is more than just delaying for SLS to launch first. I think Elon Musk has not kowtowed to the Leftist and Great Reset crowd as have most all the other very rich and therefore the Government which is controlled by them will do all that is possible to delay and stop Elon. Elon is even in trouble in the electric vehicle realm with the Elites, which does not portend well.

    ReplyDelete