back to article NASA's Artemis mission finally launches after faulty Ethernet switch delayed countdown

NASA has successfully launched its first Artemis mission, after a faulty Ethernet switch threatened the debut of the USA's Space Launch System and return to Lunar exploration. The switch was on site at the Eastern Range radar facility, which NASA wrote is "necessary for launch." NASA's liveblog of the launch said the fault …

  1. Joe W Silver badge
    Pint

    Watched it (still have the stream in the background), the sheer grandeur of some of the language... And the overly verbose "go / no-go". Just... wow. Just compare it to the loops of the Apollo missions. This day is a good reason to give "Thirteen Minutes to the Moon" a listen (a BBC podcast, both seasons are interesting, the first one is about the first moon landing, the second about the events of Apollo 13).

    OK, still a good achievement, good luck to all involved. Cool stuff, I'm excited!

    1. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Pint

      I had the evening cable news on while busy on the computer, noted the switch in coverage, watched the coverage (about 5 min I think). Very nice launch. I think NASA has redeemed themselves from the delays etc.. Much better than a spectacular loss of system integrity.

      Looks like SLS will do the job. cheers!

      Sorta reminds me of watching all of those Apollo (and some of the Gemini) launches back in the 60's and early 70's.

    2. Andy The Hat Silver badge

      I thought the coverage was quite poor. One thing that SpaceX do and, so far, nearly all the other launchers fail to do is deliver is decent, sometimes spectacular, live video feeds from the launch stages along with a few bits of telemetry (great for throwing at the kids to get them enthused and pump into equations of motion!). Public engagement is not a requirement for a commercial organisation like SpaceX - arguably only providing some good publicity - but for "public" organisations, like ESA and NASA, I think this should almost be a prerequisite. Cartoons/3d models are great if directly driven from telemetry data but only as an addition or when video is unavailable (JWST was a good example where it worked) but isn't an excuse for only providing broken video feeds and wobbly ground based tracking of a bright dot ...

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Even my wife noted the "animated" timeline showing the mission stages didn't move in real time. It just updated at each stage AFTER the event had happened. And the few times they tried to show live feed from "inside" the launch, it dropped out almost as soon as they started to show it to us.

        The overall launch was impressive and I'm glad they finally got it going after all the false starts, but yeah, NASA really ought to be at the forefront of outreach and so forth regarding a live launch system. As you say, only SpaceX seem to have got that part right and reliable. I mean, FFS, SpaceX were showing views from the launches and landings, all the way up and down and then people complained when the rocket engine vibrations knocked out the feed on most of the early barge landings! No other launch organisation come even close to SpaceX on that score. And all the live video makes for a much more exciting and audience engaging launch. It'd be interesting to get viewing figures for various launches, especially the long engagement figures. I'd bet a LOT of people watched the SLS launch, but also bet the viewing figures tail of rapidly once the live action was over. I suspect that tail off is much slower and lower with SpaceX launches where we get to see each stage separation and even the satellite deployments, almost all from live feed.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Aren't those engines Russian by the way?!

      1. cray74

        Aren't those engines Russian by the way?!

        No, the SLS's engines are all US-developed and -built. The boosters are 5-segment versions of the shuttle's 4-segment solid rocket engines. The core uses four RS-25 engines, which was a US-developed hydrogen/oxygen rocket used on the shuttle. This SLS flight used an "interim upper stage" with RL-10 engines, a venerable US hydrogen/oxygen rocket.

        Basically, the SLS repackages a lot of shuttle hardware and technology.

        1. Missing Semicolon Silver badge
          Facepalm

          Basically it takes reusable Shuttle engines and uses them once.

          1. dave 81

            I am appalled at the waste. Are they going to have enough left over shuttle engines to do the whole Artemis program if they are obliterating four engines per launch?

            1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

              Yes. IIRC, the Artemis programme is based on the engine availability. I'm not sure what the plan is for when they run out of engines. Maybe they're hoping Bezos engines will be ready by then.

              1. MachDiamond Silver badge

                " Maybe they're hoping Bezos engines will be ready by then."

                The first BE-4 engines from Blue Origin have been shipped to ULA. By the time SLS has used up the RS-25's, there should be plenty of flight experience with the BE-4's.

                1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

                  Oh, that's good news. Last I heard they were way behind schedule.

                2. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Well that aint going to work

                  Hate to burst your bubble but NASA has zero plans to use engines from Bezos. Besides the SLS uses Hydrogen and Blue Origin methane.

            2. Sorry that handle is already taken. Silver badge

              Not only are they tossing all of the remaining SSMEs into the Atlantic, Aerojet Rocketdyne was handed a contract to build 18 more simplified RS-25Es specifically for Artemis.

          2. MachDiamond Silver badge

            "Basically it takes reusable Shuttle engines and uses them once."

            The engines have been upgraded and they are tapping them harder since they aren't going to be using them again.

            The launch rate isn't going to be so high that they'll have to build a new factory to crank out a big batch of new engines for some time. At that point, one can hope that something even better is available.

          3. dhartsock

            Yes, isn't that something?

            NASA just launched a dinosaur. They could have flown this stack back in the shuttle days, other than advanced technology for the capsule and service module. And it is all thrown away.

            I love NASA but, really?

            1. MachDiamond Silver badge

              "And it is all thrown away."

              So, you advocate that they build a rocket twice as big? A rocket that isn't expected to launch more than a couple of times a year at most?

              Reuse costs money and capability. It's takes an additional 45% of capability to return a first stage by landing it back where it can be refit for another flight. Even SpaceX has to discard their rockets when the requirements of the mission need the full capability of the Falcon 9. Building a rocket to reach the moon starts with the payload requirements and works back from there. It's a big job. Much bigger than putting something into Earth orbit. By many calculations, it takes about 10 reuses to break even on reusability. For a human rated stack boosting astronauts to the moon, the risk to reuse hardware isn't worth a paltry amount of savings (as a percentage of mission cost).

        2. Lars Silver badge
          Happy

          @cray74

          AC is no doubt thinking of the RD-180 engines that came from Russia.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-180

          "The RD-180 is a rocket engine designed and built in Russia. It features a dual combustion chamber, dual-nozzle design and is fueled by a RP-1/LOX mixture. The RD-180 is derived from the RD-170/RD-171 line of rocket engines, which were used in the Soviet Energia launch vehicle and are still in use in the Ukrainian Zenit launch vehicles.

          .. the engines were imported to the US for use on the Lockheed Martin Atlas III, with first flight in 2000. The engine is also used on the United Launch Alliance Atlas V, the successor to the Atlas III.

          RD-180 engines are also used for the first stage of the American Atlas V launch vehicle, which is being phased out due to the national security implications of being reliant on foreign parts[1] which became of concern after the Russian invasion of Crimea.".

          The story of those engines is actually quite interesting.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMbl_ofF3AM&t=91s

          The Engines That Came In From The Cold - And how The NK-33/RD-180 Came To The USA

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Certainly a moment to watch live (even if only on YT), given all the set backs.

    It was even better for the fact that it really wasn't expected to launch today, several issues right down to the line.

    And when the 10-minute hold changed to go, suddenly it was all real. Shame they didn't wait till day break, but that would have left it very late in the launch window.

    Would have been good to have more camera footage of the separation of the solid rocket boosters from the point of view of Artemis, (mostly graphics), but there have been several shots from the interim cryogenic propulsion stage itself, showing the solar panels deploy, but again momentarily.

    Given the footage from the high resolution cameras on board so far, the footage of the moon will be something to behold.

    1. Tom 7 Silver badge

      Re: Certainly a moment to watch live (even if only on YT), given all the set backs.

      To go slightly OT does anyone know (now Newquay has a licence to launch) if the release of the rocket over the sea south of Ireland would be visible from the UK coast - given the utter miracle of skies clear enough to see it?

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: Certainly a moment to watch live (even if only on YT), given all the set backs.

        A rough guess based on the flight path of the aircraft suggests the drop & launch point is about 500 miles west of Newquay. I can't find any indication of the launch direction, but I assume it will be generally eastwards, but probably heading some way south of east. I have no idea if that means it will be visible at all from mainland UK assuming optimal viewing conditions. Maybe as a "shooting star" going up rather than down?

        1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          Re: Certainly a moment to watch live (even if only on YT), given all the set backs.

          Any US resident ever seen a launch from 500 miles away? There must be people reading here who can give us an idea of how far away one can see a launch. On the other hand, this is a pretty small launch vehicle so I guess the exhaust will be less "impressive". I suppose we can only hope it will be a night launch, although I suspect not since the launch window is probably quite generous as they can easily adjust where they launch from to suit the time and intended orbit.

        2. Tom 7 Silver badge

          Re: Certainly a moment to watch live (even if only on YT), given all the set backs.

          According to my fading maths to be visible at 500miles it would need to be roughly 30,000 up feet so it has the potential to be visible.

  3. Potemkine! Silver badge
    Pint

    Better late than never. Well done chaps.

    == Bring us Dabbsy back! ==

    1. Paul Kinsler

      == Bring us Dabbsy back! ==

      Eh? Is the capsule going to rendezvous with him in lunar orbit? That would be really be something to happen on a weekend... :-)

  4. StrangerHereMyself Silver badge

    Flawed

    After almost 20 years this Boondoggle has finally turned into reality. Merely a rehashed version of the Space Shuttle it is nonetheless one of the most powerful rockets in the world, capable of bringing humans to the Moon.

    However, Starship too can fulfill this role and it will be very difficult for SLS proponents to keep this rocket alive after it has successfully demonstrated its capabilities.

    1. 45RPM Silver badge

      Re: Flawed

      Starship might be able to fulfil this role but, given how erratic the man at the top of SpaceX is, who can blame NASA for wanting another option? You know, just in case Musk shorts out or blows a fuse or something.

      Personally, I wouldn’t buy a firework off the man, or a dinky toy, let alone a rocket or a car.

      1. UCAP Silver badge

        Re: Flawed

        One thing NASA is leant time and time again - always have a Plan B.

      2. StrangerHereMyself Silver badge

        Re: Flawed

        You seem to forget that SpaceX as delivered and is has a huge track record of getting astronauts safely and cheaply to the ISS.

        This is the reason NASA selected SpaceX as the sole contractor to deliver humans to the Moon. Yes, they're also, after pressure from Congress, adding a second source for a HLS (human landing system) but if SpaceX delivers I don't see this coming to much.

        1. Dan 55 Silver badge
          Meh

          Re: Flawed

          Your "huge track record" is five crew launches to the ISS so far, the first one was two years ago.

          SpaceX employees see Musk as a liability and until he's gone NASA needs insurance.

      3. awavey

        Re: Flawed

        During prop load, NASA announced theyd awarded Artemis 4 landing contract to SpaceX, so they've got 2 missions now, I'd say that's every sign they have confidence in what's happening at SpaceX

        1. MachDiamond Silver badge

          Re: Flawed

          "I'd say that's every sign they have confidence in what's happening at SpaceX"

          And SX is buying ads on Twitter. Is this similar to SX buying "Solar Bonds" to keep Solar City afloat?

          SX needs to deliver a working HLS in two years. That's a whole lot of work to do and they still seem to be fixated on other projects with their big shiny rocket.

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Gwynne Shotwell now runs Starbase, the future of SpaceX. Give her some due credit.

        Except that Musk isn't running SpaceX as such. Gwynne Shotwell is. Society should give her more credit for what she has achieved, she has the ability to work with Musk and keep a steady ship, she really gets sold short in all of this (maybe that's the way she likes it). It's about time though, she got a lot more respect and recognition.

        She loves Scotland too, which probably does make me a little biased :).

        1. This post has been deleted by its author

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Gwynne Shotwell now runs Starbase, the future of SpaceX. Give her some due credit.

            @Def, I'd have met you half way (and probably agreed) if you'd had mentioned the midges, rather than the weather. Nothing wrong with a bit of rain, wind and snow, and mountains to clear the cobwebs. Midges though, hard not to disagree.

            1. Muscleguy Silver badge

              Re: Gwynne Shotwell now runs Starbase, the future of SpaceX. Give her some due credit.

              Rain keeps the midgies down though. Also a decent breeze will also do it.

        2. MachDiamond Silver badge

          Re: Gwynne Shotwell now runs Starbase, the future of SpaceX. Give her some due credit.

          "Except that Musk isn't running SpaceX as such. Gwynne Shotwell is."

          Elon is off playing with Starship. Gwynne is holding down the fort for Falcon and Starlink.

      5. Tom 7 Silver badge

        Re: Flawed

        Having worked in engineering most of my life I think its safe to say the most successful engineers are the ones who say yes to the boss and then proceed to implement correct engineering procedures knowing full well the boss will be happy to accept the success over their subordinates allowing the thing to blow up.

      6. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Flawed

        Since Starship is required to get the lander to the moon for the Artemis crews to Dock with, best hope he keeps his attention on Twitter and leaves SpaceX to Gwynn.

      7. itguy

        Re: Flawed

        Er no. SLS and Starship are not the same. Starship is being used to land the astronauts on the moon, while SLS is being used to get them there. Plus SLS costs $4B per flight and can only fly every two years at the most (more like 3/4).

        1. Lars Silver badge
          Happy

          Re: Flawed

          It easily gets confusing but:

          SLS refer to the Space Launch System, a launch vehicle developed by NASA.

          Starship is a fully-reusable, super-heavy-lift launch vehicle being developed by American aerospace company SpaceX. If successful, Starship will be the most powerful launch vehicle ever built and is expected to be the first to demonstrate total reusability.

          Starship HLS, or Starship Human Landing System, is a lunar lander variant of the Starship spacecraft that will transfer astronauts from a lunar orbit to the surface of the Moon and back. It is being designed and built by SpaceX under contract to NASA as a critical element of NASA's Artemis program to land a crew on the Moon in the 2020s.

          1. cray74

            Re: Flawed

            It is easily confusing.

            SLS refers to the Space Launch System, a launch vehicle developed by American aerospace companies Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, and Orbital ATK. Starship is another launch vehicle being developed by an American company.

            Both the SLS and Starship have a single customer currently: NASA, an organization that has never built an orbital launcher of its own.

    2. Ian Johnston Silver badge

      Re: Flawed

      Starship too can fulfill this role

      Can? It doesn't exist yet, and every prototype they have so far tried has exploded.

      1. StrangerHereMyself Silver badge

        Re: Flawed

        They've launched and landed safely several times.

        A successful launch next month will silence criticasters like yourself. Permanently.

        1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

          Re: Flawed

          A successful launch next month will silence criticasters like yourself. Permanently.

          Pics or it didn't happen. What did happen was a short test fire of a less than half-power booster. Or maybe around 14% of it's potential launch power, And blowing chunks out of it's launch stand, despite added shielding and supression systems. So that might require a re-design and re-build of the launch pad and a lot of delays, extra costs etc.

          Meanwhile, SLS finally got off the ground successfully. Rather delayed, and rather over budget, but that's more the fault of having a launch vehicle designed by committee. Especially when that committee was mostly Congress. Hey, let's recycle those Space Shuttle bits and git back to the Mun! If instead NASA had been given the objective and budget to just put boots on the Moon again, they may have already been there via a very different looking rocket.

          1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

            Re: Flawed

            You;re right about the Starship booster only doing engine tests. Starship itself has flown and landed multiple times. You're also right about the launchpad and a probably re-design if it's to cope with a proper launch. They can build rockets but can't yet pour concrete to survive the heat and pressure.

            On the other hand, SLS has been in development a lot, lot longer and has only just achieved it's first launch and NASA already has those skills and facilities that SpaceX are still learning. Mind you, it's an impressive launch, all the way to the Moon and hopefully back to a successful, if very quick, reentry. I hope they got their sums right on the heat shield.

            I strongly suspect the first Starship launch will, at the most, be to orbit. The SpaceX track record so far doesn't indicate that they will go for a full size mission on a first launch. But I also expect SpaceX to move quickly once they are ready for a full stack launch and to repeat and improve quickly too, probably with some spectacular failures along the way.

            1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

              Re: Flawed

              They can build rockets but can't yet pour concrete to survive the heat and pressure.

              That's one of those fun things I've learned. Like can anybody? I didn't realise the problem is mostly an acoustic/shockwave issue rather than just raw heat & power. But I don't build rockets, so can be forgiven. It's perhaps more questionable that SpacX wasn't aware of these problems, especially given the thrust it's needs to generate, and people pointed out it was almost certainly going to need a much better flame pit and damping design. But you learn from experience. I guess the challenge for SpacX is it's built an expensive launch tower & pad at Boca Chica and duplicating that in Florida as well. If it has to go back to the drawing board, it's going to be expensive and add a year or more.

              On the other hand, SLS has been in development a lot, lot longer and has only just achieved it's first launch and NASA already has those skills and facilities that SpaceX are still learning.

              Yup, but SLS is a more complete system, ie it's just launched Orion for the second time. Starship's still mostly an empty tube that's never reached orbit, so a long way to go before it's functionally equivalent or as capable as SLS. Then again, Orion's crash-test dummies need to make it back in one piece to see if it deserves it's human rating. I also wonder if NASA still does have it's skills given a combination of budget cuts, re-prioritisation and reliance on outside contractors. I saw an interesting documentary questioning whether NASA (or the US in general) has the design and fabrication skills to replicate a Saturn V. Downside to outsourcing engines to Russia (and Ukraine) I guess, and that supply chain having a few.. issues.

              I strongly suspect the first Starship launch will, at the most, be to orbit. The SpaceX track record so far doesn't indicate that they will go for a full size mission on a first launch.

              Agreed, and realisticaly I wouldn't expect it to. We have no idea if Starship's heat shielding would survive re-entry, if a practical, fully developed Starship could land successfully, how a crew and passenger escape system could work, how it could land, unload and lift off from the Moon, if chopsticks really work and much, much more. And I guess for SpacX, how much of that it can achieve before the money runs out. Musk's habit of overpromising and under delivering may be his downfall.

              For a space enthusiast cheering attempts for us to get off this rock, we're living in interesting times with all the activity going on though. Still not convinced catching a falling rocket with a helicopter is the wisest engineering solution..

              1. druck Silver badge

                Re: Flawed

                Yup, but SLS is a more complete system, ie it's just launched Orion for the second time.

                No it hasn't, Orion was first lofted by a Delta-IV heavy.

                1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

                  Re: Flawed

                  No it hasn't, Orion was first lofted by a Delta-IV heavy.

                  Yep, badly worded that as I meant second Orion launch.

            2. MachDiamond Silver badge

              Re: Flawed

              "Starship itself has flown and landed multiple times"

              Yes, a crash is a landing. Of course there was the one that exploded and the other one that touched down a bit hard, had a fire and then exploded. I suppose since the last one didn't wind up in tiny little pieces or on fire it can be considered a "good" landing.

        2. Lars Silver badge
          Coat

          Re: Flawed

          There is a long way (several years) before Starship is anything to count one.

          This doesn't mean it will fail but I must admit I have started to wonder if Musk has lost his ability to concentrate on anything these days.

          For some not too uptodate information:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Starship

      2. MachDiamond Silver badge

        Re: Flawed

        "It doesn't exist yet, and every prototype they have so far tried has exploded."

        Well, one didn't explode. It wasn't really more than a can with some engines on the bottom. It's not a complete rocket with internals that can accomplish something for a paying customer. Getting it to the point where it can dispense a stack of Ver2 Starlink sats, close up securely and re-land is still a ways off.

        All of the others burnt down, fell over and sank into the swamp surely enough.

        1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

          Re: Flawed

          Getting it to the point where it can dispense a stack of Ver2 Starlink sats, close up securely and re-land is still a ways off.

          I'm curious how reliably that will work, especially given the pressure to launch V2 Starlink sats. Or just having a functional clamshell fairing so Starship could also launch other payloads.

          1. MachDiamond Silver badge

            Re: Flawed

            "I'm curious how reliably that will work, especially given the pressure to launch V2 Starlink sats. Or just having a functional clamshell fairing so Starship could also launch other payloads."

            With the design as shown that includes a tank in the nose, only 1/2 of the nose could open. Some sort of arm or other mechanism would be needed to deploy satellites so they don't strike the rocket as they exit. Getting that huge door to hinge open will be a big task as well as making sure it closes securely. There would be no way to reenter and land if the door wasn't completely secure.

            There is also a big question over what other payloads starship would be good for. It's like the local gravel store having a mining hauler. They could deliver everybody's rock order for the year in one day, but not everybody needs their rock on the same day and anything less than filling up the bed would be wasteful. It's even worse for space launches as not many launches will be going to the same orbit. Many of the tag-along ride sharing satellites don't care about an orbit as their owners are just looking to get their cube sat into space wherever that happens to be and they'll get their data one way or the other. Falcon Heavy sat without a mission on the books for 3 years. Not many entities are going to build a payload that can only launch on one rocket (commercially). One Web found they needed to get the Indian's to launch their birds as flying with the Russians has become out of the question (and I think the Russians are sitting on at least one of their stacks). If those could only launch on a Soyuz, they'd have big problems.

    3. cray74

      Re: Flawed

      However, Starship too can fulfill this role and it will be very difficult for SLS proponents to keep this rocket alive after it has successfully demonstrated its capabilities.

      The SLS, for better or worse, is protected by shields of government lobbying and the bureaucratic inertia of the century-old corporations building it. The Starship is tightly wedded to Elon Musk, who is one public meltdown away from badly damaging his businesses. His Starlink program is an additional risk to SpaceX - one bad business report could spook investors to dumping it faster than you can say, "Iridium."

      Which leads to the thought that you shouldn't bet on Starship until it is making circumlunar flights.

      1. MachDiamond Silver badge

        Re: Flawed

        "The SLS, for better or worse, is protected by shields of government lobbying and the bureaucratic inertia of the century-old corporations building it. "

        The SLS is known in the space industry at the "Senate Launch System". Its main purpose has been to create jobs that a group of octogenarian senators can point to that will buy them more votes. The aerospace companies will do well, but they weren't the impetus behind the program. Most of NASA didn't want it as it took money from their budget and cancelled a whole bunch of science missions.

    4. Roj Blake Silver badge

      Re: Flawed

      Hi Elon!

  5. stratcat

    Looking forward to this week's instalment of "Who, Me?" where Joe, who works for an aerospace company that cannot be named, decides to do a last minute upgrade of newly released switch firmware.

    And I raise my beer to "The Red Team" engineers.

    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      "And I raise my beer to "The Red Team" engineers."

      Yeah, saw them being interviewed. The older guy said he'd been on Red team for 37(??) years and this was is first time out onto a "live" launch pad :-)

      I have visions of this guy coming in to work every day for 37 years, putting the kettle on, putting his feet up and wondering when he'll ever be called on to actually do something :-) Finally, THAT DAY has arrived :-)))

    2. MachDiamond Silver badge

      "Looking forward to this week's instalment of "Who, Me?" where Joe, who works for an aerospace company that cannot be named, decides to do a last minute upgrade of newly released switch firmware.

      That doesn't usually happen. The specs for everything are usually nailed down at the beginning of a project and aren't changed unless there is no choice. Not even if a NOS switch of the same era, model number and firmware rev is $500,000.68. The testing protocol is so tangled that updating anything means testing everything all over again. Shuttle software was locked down 18 months before a mission. If an experiment wasn't ready to go, there was very little chance in moving up something else unless it was completely autonomous or super simple that could plug into the now vacant astronaut time slots.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Faulty Ethernet switch?

    Am I going to be the first one to point out the bleedin' obvious, or is one of you lot? :-)

    #wherewasthefailover?

    PS: Otherwise, all due credit etc for 'doing hard science' and successfully hurling tons of metal out into the void successfully. Nice work.

    1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

      Re: Faulty Ethernet switch?

      Yes, other papers said that this was for the kill switch, which is not something you want to fail at a critical moment during launch. Some redundancy would seem essential to avoid the risk of dropping a faulty rocket on Florida.

      1. WanderingHaggis

        Re: Faulty Ethernet switch?

        You would expect a fail-over but to be fair I've never had an ethernet switch fail on its own they are solid beasts (unless there was a big thunder storm that blew out a port -- highly unlikely) -- the who me option sounds most likely explaination.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Faulty Ethernet switch?

          I used to produce 10G/1G switches that go into space on a regular basis.

          When I gave talks in schools, the first thing I used to do was hold a switch above my head height, drop it on the floor and then stand on it for the duration of the talk. The video feed was going through the switch from PC to projector throughout this time.

          It helped the kids to understand what rugged was. That and the videos of it working cased in ice, on a low gas ring (only did that once as the paint caught fire!) and on a vibration rig.

          These were the days when the SpaceX Grasshopper did its first hop, and that was the bit of video they liked most. I compared it to balancing a long pencil on its point on your finger.

          Anon as the fire video would have got me sacked and I may want to work for them in the future!

          1. MachDiamond Silver badge

            Re: Faulty Ethernet switch?

            "These were the days when the SpaceX Grasshopper did its first hop"

            It was even more impressive when Armadillo Aerospace were doing rocket hovers out the back of an industrial estate in Texas long before Elon got the idea.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Faulty Ethernet switch?

        I believe it's partially, sort of right. The Ethernet switch was in the radar system they use to detect whether the rocket is on course. If not, they hit the kill switch and blow it to bits.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Faulty Ethernet switch?

        In the post launch briefing, they seemed to mention adding some sort of failsafe on subsequent flights, for the crew to override the kill switch, by adding a notification and time delay, in which they (the onboard crew) could deactivate it. I'm not sure if I'd take my eyes off that notification.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Faulty Ethernet switch?

      Do we know for sure that they did NOT have a failover? If the switch was as critical as it sounds, they very well could have had a failover switch, but elected to delay and replace the primary in order to ensure they still had a redundant system during launch.

      1. Marty McFly Silver badge
        Facepalm

        Re: Faulty Ethernet switch?

        Nope, got that wrong.

        If the minimum required for safe launch is 2, then they did not have a N+1 high availability design.

  7. Zebo-the-Fat

    Amazed!

    I am amazed that it worked, pleased - but amazed.

    I don't see how this can be a long term system though, it's mainly a collection of ex shuttle parts, apart from the capsule very little new stuff being made to replace the bits that just get thrown away on every launch.

  8. awavey
    Pint

    No surprise El Reg takes its usual negative nelly the SLS is bad take, and clearly don't understand the concept of launch windows, or the t minus 10 hold position.

    This was a near flawless countdown, launch and Orion is now on its way to the moon, there are always issues in any launch attempt and these were worked through and solved.

    Celebrate that after nearly 50years(49 years 11 months) a human rated spaceflight vehicle, launched on the most powerful rocket humankind has ever developed & successfully launched is returning space exploration to our nearest celestial neighbour.

    SLS does work

    1. Adair Silver badge

      Yes, it worked - this time. Hopefully it will continue to work, BUT after fifty years is this really where we want to be, or the best we can do?

      1. MachDiamond Silver badge

        "BUT after fifty years is this really where we want to be, or the best we can do?"

        Perhaps. Until there is nuclear propulsion, we may be a the pinnacle of chemical propulsion. We can make lighter/stronger metal alloys. The difference in computing power per gram is off the charts and we have a better understanding of human health in zero G environments. Ever see all of the bizarre tests they did to astronauts? They have since found that a lot of that is unnecessary. We've made some "hole in ones" on Mars due to improved navigation techniques and hardware.

        From a vehicle standpoint, there isn't a lot more TO do. It's going to be more about getting equipment on Luna and setting up some habitats and labs. I'd really like to see some exploration rovers that can do down some of the caves they've spotted to see if that might be a good bootstrap for a protected habitat. Domes on the surface doesn't seem that secure. Doing useful things on the moon is the next step even if it means we have to pile into VW Microbus to get there.

    2. Joe W Silver badge

      Having yet another H2 leak is not "flawless". Having the ethernet problems is not "flawless"

      But yeah, the countdown halt points were documented well in advance. Yeah, SLS works so far, yeah, it is amazing. It is also over budget, delayed a lot, uses ancient hardware, and each launch is pretty expensive. The costs sort of come into a different perspective when you compare them to the prices of military weapon systems, and the military spending in total.

      I'm still happy when ElReg mocks damn near everything, that's what we come here for.

    3. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

      Re: understand the concept of launch windows

      Glad to hear SLS launched on time. Happy new year everyone and I hope we all have an excellent 2017. (SLS first launch was scheduled for the end of 2016)

      Bill Nelson: "If we can't do a rocket for $11.5 billion, we ought to close up shop."

  9. werdsmith Silver badge

    That is an absolutely incredible thing to witness, thousands of tonnes of chemicals being reacted to high velocity hot gas to lift itself in Newtonian fashion. A goosebump moment. I wish I was in Cocoa Beach for this.

    1. blackcat Silver badge

      There is a book titled 'Ignition!' by ex US navy rocket engineer John D Clark which is really worth a read. It is amazing that these things stay together given the temperatures, pressures and chemicals they are using.

      I'm sad that the shuttle main engines are not going to be recovered. I do get the feeling that when they run out of engines the SLS will get shelved.

      1. werdsmith Silver badge

        Thank you @blackcat. I have just pulled that one onto my Kindle.

        1. cray74

          I'll second "Ignition." It's not only an informative read, but it can be very funny at times. For example, the discussion of chlorine trifluoride also documents the first person to break the sound barrier on foot, a feat that immediately followed tipping over a 55-gallon drum of ClF3.

          1. blackcat Silver badge

            You have to wonder what was going through the head of the person who thought 'can we stick some fluorine to chlorine?'.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              John Clarke's suggestion would probably be "small chunks of laboratory glassware"

              1. blackcat Silver badge

                And they'd probably be on fire as well.

                Anything that can 'burn' asbestos is serious.

      2. Spazturtle Silver badge

        They are already building more, it is much cheaper to build a new RS-25 than to refurbish the old shuttle ones, but they were told they had to use the shuttle ones first.

        1. blackcat Silver badge

          Fair enough. I know the SME is ungodly complex so stripping it, cleaning it and inspecting it to within a nanometre of its life is not going to be cheap.

          Having seen an F1 up close and personal the workmanship is incredible. The fact they could make that in the 60s without the sorts of CNC, highly advanced welding and additive manufacture we have now is a testament to the designers and builders.

          1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

            Machine tool operators who were that good commanded very high salaries where only the best will do.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Indeed! The fact they could make those parts repeatably to spec was seriously impressive. No software toolpath planning.

              Didn't they get surfboard makers to help with the second stage (or was it the 3rd) on the saturn V as they were having trouble bonding the various layers of the tanks together.

      3. anothercynic Silver badge

        Ignition! is great. :-)

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Meanwhile aboard Capstone: "Better put the kettle on luv"

  11. Richard Gray 1
    Pint

    Launce from orbit

    Ok it took off, but did it launch a Paris mission??

    Oh back when the El Reg was young and exciting....

    1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

      . . . and not beholden to US lawyers.

  12. iron Silver badge

    > just one of many, many, delays to the launch, which was first scheduled for August 29th

    Actually SLS & Orion was originally scheduled to launch in 2015!

    And, the members of congress who started the project said "if we can't build it for $11.5B by 2015 then we should shut up shop." More than twice the cost and 7 years late is not a success.

    1. Aladdin Sane

      They didn't say which 29th August.

  13. Missing Semicolon Silver badge

    Valves

    So they tightened a few up. Can't these guys get stuff to seal properly from the get-go?

  14. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

    According to Wikipedia "The Register is a British technology news website", although it doesn't often seem so these days. According to Companies House El Regs parent, Situation Publishing still has Drew Cullen as Director and a registered office in Southport, Merseyside.

    So, only subject to the back and call of US lawyers to the extent they probably don't want to lose their 2 or 3 US offices or have them raided :-)

    (I didn't realise the El Reg empire had extended out from SF to Boston and Denver or the Asia-Pacific office had extend out from Sydney, Aus out to Hong Kong and Singapore in their bid to take over the world. Where next I wonder? Luxembourg for the fine wines and tax breaks?)

    This should have been a reply to Pascal Monetts comment ".. . and not beholden to US lawyers." But seems my log-in cookie expired while I was typing it and it ended up as a new post. Yet another "feature" that seems to arrived with the site update along with all replies to a removed post also going AWOL instead of just the offending one and those quoting the offending bit of the moderated post.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Not "Pigs in Space"

    So Shaun is on the way to the moon

    Should have been Gromit as he's got the experience of moon flights.

  16. wolfetone Silver badge
    Pint

    Red Team

    "A "red team" – technicians trained to work on the SLS while it is fueled – went onto the launchpad and "tightened connections in the area of a leaky valve on the mobile launcher.""

    It's a shame that they could never go on the rocket to space. The bollocks on them to do that job means they're simply too heavy to get off the ground.

  17. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

    For the cost of the Artemis programme...

    You could buy two Twitters and still have enough change a few superyachts :-)

    Should the Twitter or the Artemis be a new official El Reg unit? Or bot?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like