Space Launch System dress rehearsal canceled for repairs NASA's third attempt at an Artemis I wet dress rehearsal has ended with a plan to roll the agency's Moon rocket back to the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) for repairs. It is the latest in a long line of setbacks for the Space Launch System (SLS) on which NASA hopes to send astronauts to the Moon. The first attempt at the …
> a date for a return to the pad for another dress rehearsal has yet to be set.
ISTM that the FCC approvals for SpaceX to launch their Artemis killer, sorry: Starship, from Texas will be delayed until such a time that NASA get a successful launch in, first.
Given that SpaceX are also building a launch facility for this monster in Florida and seem to be amassing more Starships as the days go by, it would be highly amusing to see them have two flight-ready vehicles (one in Tx the other in Fl) on the pad, waiting for someone to light the blue touch paper, the day after Artemis fiiiiinaly lifts off.
Come on, that was a bit harsh.
NASA has had plenty of successes, some of them downright awesome. Wasn't there this thing with the telescope last year where NASA learned to maneuver it using solar wind ? Is that not a bloody awesome success ? Don't its rovers regularly exceed their life expectations by years at a time (um, when they land successfully, that is) ?
It's called rocket science. It's difficult.
I think we can cut them some slack.
It seems to me that all new Rovers are going to exceed life expectation by living most of it here on traditional terra firma!
By the time that the SLS actually works properly, we'll have all had a visit from the genuine 'Vulcans' and 'Klingons'.
Indeed. It's probably worth bearing in mind that NASA is being held, somewhat unfairly IMO, to a rather different set of standards here compared to SpaceX thanks to the rather different ways in which the two organisations are funded - no-one really bats an eyelid if the latter suffer yet another RUD event whilst testing their latest designs (and let's not forget just how many Falcons were "sacrificed" whilst getting the whole land-n-reuse concept finessed to the point where it's now not even newsworthy when a Falcon returns safely to terra firma), yet if NASA so much as sneeze at the wrong point during a test it leads to media responses like the one you've just highlighted here.
The reason there is a difference is down to the use of different development methodologies. NASA use design with modelling and simulation with the aim of producing a product that works "first time" (after some extended integration testing). SpaceX design a feature, build and test (without the long, drawn out modelling and simulation phase) - with the expectation that there will be failures leading to design iteration.
SpaceX used this for Falcon and doing the same for Starship (none of the test plans for the flights to date where required to land in one piece).
NASA's method should give a reliable, fully-functional vehicle on first launch, but the contract structure that's been used does not give any really priority to this being "on time" or "on budget"; SpaceX are working to a fixed price.
Each SLS launch is going to come in at something like $7.8B (vehicle and amortised project costs), and there are only enough parts for 5 (I think). Each flight dumps four engines in the sea that could easily have been reused something like 16 times.
Starship costs are not yet publicly available, but Elon has mentioned $2M per launch; even if they is off by two orders of magnitude, it will still make SLS a very expensive launch vehicle.
Zero Falcon 9s were "sacrificed" getting the land-n-reuse concept. They had ALL successfully completed their missions before attempting to land. If they hadn't tried to land them, then they would have just been dumped in the sea, like every other rocket.
By this logic, 100% of every other orbital launch system have sacrificed their launchers (apart from the Shuttle and X37B which were/are reusable after extensive refit and still threw some bits away). Blue Origin New Shepard is re-usable, but can't get into orbit.
The Falcon 9 Block 5 has a 100% mission success record. If you include earlier versions of the Falcon 9, they have only had 1 total in flight failure across the whole Falcon 9 program from 151 launches. One other mission was a partial failure. The primary satellite made the correct orbit but a ride share payload didn't as NASA (the primary payload customer) wouldn't let them relight an engine that switched off early. The only other failure was a launch pad explosion during a static fire test.
Compare to other programs:
Space Shuttle. 135 missions, 2 failures, vehicles lost with crew.
Ariane: 253 missions, 12 failures
Seems a pretty good record to me.
I think you miss the point of my "sacrificed" comment... I'm not suggesting for one second that SpaceX *wasted* those Falcons, just noting that in order to get to the point where they are now able to land boosters so reliably that it's no longer newsworthy, not every booster survived the process.
"If at first you don't succeed, you're probably in the rocketry business, because it IS rocket science..."
But they were not sacrificed in any way. They were used to test the landing until they got it right. with each attempt they gathered data and had a chance of getting it back intact. if they didn't try, they definitely would not get it back, ergo, no sacrifice.
Zero sum calculation. Definitely lose it VS possibly not losing it and collecting valuable data if they did lose it.
Still missing the point. The author of this otherwise decent article saw fit to take a cheap shot at NASA with the "if at first you don't succeed" subtitle.
Except that, as my variation on that notes, what NASA are doing IS rocket science, which means it's hard, and things will go wrong. So to poke fun at them for one non-event of a failure which hasn't resulted in the loss of any hardware or humans, when SpaceX have now had millions of dollars-worth of kit go kaboom (intentionally or otherwise) in a variety of entertaining ways in the pursuit of knowledge and understanding without generating much in the way of scorn or ridicule, feels wrong.
And please note that I'm not in any way being critical of SpaceX here - I'm deeply in awe of what they've achieved so far and where they're heading, and as an engineer myself I know only too well that sometimes the best way to learn how to make something work is to first get it wrong a bunch of times. It's the comparison between the way their "failures" are treated by the public and media alike, and the way NASA are treated when they so much as sneeze at the wrong time, which is the point I'm trying to get across here.
I just don't get your point.
When you start building rockets, things will go boom during development. You can either spend vast sums trying to prevent this (and likely failing anyway) or do iterative designs with cheap prototype that you expect to not have a long life. Whether it fails or not, you incorporate the things learned into the next one so even if it doesn't fail it is likely to be scrapped and not fly again. You effectively don't care if it goes bang, you have got the data either way. This allows very cheap, very fast progress.
NASA had their fair share of failures when they started out too, when they were doing iterative design. A few minutes searching YouTube will find you many spectacular NASA launch failures. Very few SpaceX rockets have failed during launch phase, even their test articles as this was all based on stuff that had been done before. Their failures were pushing the envelope to do something nobody has tried before. Propulsive landing of an orbital rated rocket. Most of these "failures" were tests using rockets that had already completed the mission they were built for, so didn't cost anything.
I doubt if all of the money spent on all of SpaceX "sacrifices" match just one of NASAs kabooms, not to mention the fact that several NASA failures also killed astronauts (Apollo 1, Challenger, Columbia).
NASA can't afford to do this sort of program with SLS as the engines are in a limited supply and they, along with everything else to do with the system are astonishingly, eye-wateringly expensive.
I don't think NASA are being criticized unfairly for minor issues with SLS. They (or rather the contractors) are being justifiably criticized for spending astronomical (pun intended) amounts of cash and still not having a working launcher while being years behind schedule. Some of this is due to political interference and some is due to contractor ineptitude.
If they spent less but blew up a few test articles along the way (like they did in the early days) I don't think there would be too much criticism if it produced a cheaper working system in a shorter time frame.
SpaceX often get massively criticized for missing dates, but they are no-where near as far behind schedule as anything from NASA or the established rocket industry.
Agree.
I felt that the comment "NASA opted to change what success meant and "modified" the dress rehearsal" was also a little unfair. If I were them, I wouldn't wheel the thing back to the VAB to replace one check valve and then wheel it out again, just to find another issue. I'd continue testing as much as I could while it was there and set up, find as many bugs or issues as I could. Then wheel it back in for repairs. Which is exactly what happened. Seems like common sense.
Now, if they choose not to do another WDR and just assume that the stuff they couldn't test because of the discovered errors was all fine... well, if they didn't have a damn good reason I'd think a lot less of them.
Generally, I think that the SLS project is a huge waste (from an engineering / space exploration perspective), but there's plenty of good reasons to rag on it. We don't need to resort to bad ones.
First two places on the list of shame should be the US Senate and Congress. Two of the last three presidents (briefly) proposed ending SLS because it is a huge waste of money but quickly abandoned the idea when they found out the extent of the push-back they would get from the rest of government if they tried. AFAIK Biden has not even tried to cancel SLS (if I am being generous that could be because he knows he would have no chance at all). The previous administrator of NASA fired some of the NASA employees who were working for Boeing. As replacement administrator, Biden selected one of the senators for Boeing (again if I am being generous there was a worse option available).
Third place is harder to pick:
A) US voters not informing their representatives that they are unhappy about they money wasted on SLS (when the money could genuinely be wasted on something slightly less embarrassing instead).
B) Journalists blaming NASA when there are better places to aim a blame thrower.
C) NASA for not drawing attention to the US government requirements that made sure SLS would be a jobs program instead of a launch program. They have also failed at honestly communicating a sane schedule. The OIG pointed out the schedule was fantasy but NASA filled the boosters with propellant. As expected, delays have push the boosters beyond their sell by date. Their condition is closely monitored and can still fly on a waiver but at some point they are going to crack and need to be replaced.
You can blame Boeing if you like, but as lead contractor they have worked tirelessly on what they were required to do: They have stretched the program out for years, driven up the costs and even dropped the main tank.
The real problem is the pork barrel procurement process, for both space and defense.
In order to guarantee survival they spread out the work across a bunch of states. Then if cancellation of SLS or some weapons program comes up, lobbyists can show most of congress a preview of the ads they'll be running for their opposition during the next election, claiming they "cost thousands of jobs in the state/district" and "gravely impaired US space leadership/national security".
That's enough to scare them back into line and continue funding despite whatever delays, cost overruns, mismanagement or outright corruption is happening. When you hear congresscritters talking about canceling such programs most of the time they are only posturing for voters back home so they can claim they are against "waste, fraud and abuse". Which is a pretty useless thing to be against, as if anyone would declare otherwise!
The lobbyists know they have to play that game, so they will let them talk about it a bit, but if they feel it is gaining momentum then the preview ads go out and everyone shuts up until next year.
Of course, trundling a big, complex machine like that back and forwards isn't without risk of breaking stuff either...
Maybe the simpler is better approach is onto something?
Lets face it, the only reason SLS isn't dead yet is because it's a money printing machine for certain electoral battlegrounds. On any rational basis; Starship plus a Dragon can do everything that SLS can do a hell of a lot cheaper, better and quicker with a hell of a lot less unknowns.
Like the Ares programme; the money-printing aspect will eventually catch SLS out; it is only a question of when.
You have a point technically that the SpaceX booster hasn't got off the pad yet.
I do however, as many others, have full confidence that Musk-produced kit will get off the pad successfully way quicker than the SLS kit even if the his tuff has an aberration or two beforehand.
A "long line of setbacks" doesn't begin do it justice if the 16 delays and 5 years mentioned by Wikipedia is right. It's not just Boeing's doing but a bunch of usual suspects from past NASA collaborations. And the eye-watering cost per launch sort of turns on its head Alan Shepard's comment about "every part built by the lowest bidder". Sadly SpaceX were given short shrift by Neil Armstrong and Eugene Cernan before proving they could actually build working rockets. Pork barrel indeed.
In Alan Shepard's case; there's no question the Mercury programme was run off a shoestring. The early Redstone and Atlas rockets were absolutely terrifying machines from the perspective of sticking your rear end on top of one; witness the very long string of US launch failures in those early days. Atlas in it's original form was barely more than a pressurised metal balloon.
Nobody rated the survival chances of the early astronauts particularly highly. Consider how cheap life was in 1950s flight test. Losing a test pilot was practically a weekly affair.
By time of Apollo, the pork-barrel contractors were established; so that the Space Shuttle was conceived as a way out of the hole which had been dug. Political games ensured Shuttle was every bit as problematic, if not more so. Shuttle also seriously messed with NASA's management of risk. Quite apart from it being a risky design from the get-go; Challenger lead to development of some very risk-averse management processes... Ones not compatible with the risky operation that was launching a shuttle. Seeking perfection out of a badly flawed design added to the cost of operation immensely; and, could not undo the decisions of the 1970's baked into the hardware.
NASA didn't have a clue how to procure anything new by the late 90's; ULA and others were quite happy with their money-printing satellite launchers that had no alternative. Ares took shuttle parts and reshuffled them in a way to try and undo the problems of the shuttle stack - probably would have worked too - but was terribly expensive for what it was (Cough, SLS). The very high barrier to getting started in rocketry was a blocker, and projects like VentureStar were hopelessly expensive. Against this backdrop; enter private spaceflight capability - there is absolutely no wonder why it has been successful.
"The first attempt at the start of this month was halted due to problems with the fans required to pressurize the mobile launcher."
The should bring in some of Musk's fans. They're rabid, but they know how to apply pressure, especially if you fail to fully appreciate his awesome magnanimousness.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
