6 ms·

NASA Artemis I Launch

154 points by sj00123 4y ago

mrargie 4y ago
For updates: https://spaceflightnow.com/2022/08/29/artemis-1-launch-live-coverage/ https://spaceflightnow.com/2022/08/29/artemis-1-launch-live-...
hericium 4y ago
Already discussed[1] under the (live as well) link to nasa.gov[2] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32634787 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32634787 [2] https://www.nasa.gov/nasalive/ https://www.nasa.gov/nasalive/
- taspeotis 4y ago
  The NASA link is currently dead.
  - huhtenberg 4y ago
    Works for me. The YT embed points at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21X5lGlDOfg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21X5lGlDOfg
melling 4y ago
I suppose while we wait, we can discuss the value of NASA doing manned flight vs private enterprise, which is the point of the Economist article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32636643 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32636643
- ghaff 4y ago
  Enjoy, but that's a debate that's been going on for literally decades. It's also the case that, if you take manned missions of the table into an indefinite future, a lot of the rationale for many unmanned missions goes away too.
  - melling 4y ago
    There’s a lot to explore in the solar system. Several satellites orbiting every planet and several interesting moons. Building “smarter” robotic missions to explore… Seriously, with a little imagination …
    - p_l 4y ago
      Imagination is something the bean counters deciding the budget do not have, which is why "ideal project" is always some variation on how we can spread jobs across most districts.
      - ghaff 4y ago
        It's also the case that voters--i.e. those who at least theoretically control the purse strings--generally get more excited about human space exploration. If you cross humans off the options list, those voters are probably going to be less excited about space projects in general with the possible exception of things with fairly direct benefits such as solar and earth projects. Those voters, by the way, also like jobs.
        p_l 4y ago
        I do wonder at times if the jobs focus isn't super specific to USA, but I don't know many other places. Here in Poland usually the issue is about "will it be done in country or bought elsewhere?" and the likes, though there was obvious malfeasance based around local jobs with the canceling of Caracal contract
  - p_l 4y ago
    Consider how even if you try to optimize the costs the projects get cut down until the rationale for cost optimization disappears, like with Cassini-Huygens where a promising serial production drone body for handling unmanned missions was effectively canceled. At least with manned missions it's easier to drum up popular support or play on politicians' ego about being without a manned capability.
drno123 4y ago
I got here late - why is launch stalled?
- puffoflogic 4y ago
  Because SLS is vaporware/yet another scam on the American taxpayer.
- huhtenberg 4y ago
  Some unexpected ice formed on the exterior of one of the tanks. They checked if it was due to a crack, but apparently the conclusion is that it was not.
- perihelions 4y ago
  Multiple issues: - "... Engineers are now investigating two other issues. The first is a possible “crack in an intertank flange.” The second is that a hydrogen bleed line to chill one of the four core-stage engines before ignition is not quite working correctly. When the countdown clock reaches T-10 minutes, there is a planned hold. That is when managers will decide a target launch time (Unless the launch is called off before then)." - "The countdown is paused at T-40 minutes as engineers try to troubleshoot the issue with the hydrogen bleed line." https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/08/29/science/nasa-moon-launch/d5de45c8-b653-5a73-b9f6-5884706071c9 https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/08/29/science/nasa-moon-la... https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2022/08/29/engineers-troubleshooting-engine-conditioning-issue/ https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2022/08/29/engineers-troubles...
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - gsibble 4y ago
jacquesm 4y ago
Given the number of delays I would not be surprised at all if the launch is called off. Better to fix things properly than to risk a blow-up, which may well be the end of the program. BTW: from a casual point of view it looks suspiciously like a shuttle launch stack without the shuttle. edit: it looks like it has been scrubbed
- melling 4y ago
  Yes, that’s well understood. That’s why people have repeatedly explained for decades why manned space flight is too costly and extremely slow. It’s probably 100 times cheaper, and 10x faster, to focus on unmanned space projects: https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2004/04/08/the-wrong-stuff/ https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2004/04/08/the-wrong-stuff/ In the year 2100, a lot more humans will have gone to space if we iterate quickly with unmanned projects for a few decades then as our capabilities increase, send humans.
  - jjk166 4y ago
    Except that unmanned missions are not that much cheaper for the same level of capability - robots and probes have limited sensor capabilities, little or no ability to improvise especially not in time critical circumstances, and generally are just physically inferior to humans. For example the opportunity rover averaged 28 feet per day of travel. The lunar rover on Apollo 17 drove further in 5 hours than the curiosity, spirit, perseverance, and sojourner rovers put together. Humans have excellent strength and dexterity, able to easily move or reorient objects weighing many kilograms of arbitrary shape, and overcome arbitrary obstacles. While there are significant costs for this additional capability, the fact is robots simply can't be made to outperform humans at these tasks at the moment. The divide was even worse in the early days of space exploration. Then, the idea that things would be substantially cheaper without man-rating is also based on shaky assumptions. The fact is large space probes are extremely expensive pieces of hardware and launch windows for certain missions are uncommon, so even if humans aren't on board it is still extremely undesirable to lose a probe to an engineering failure. Indeed while putting a price on human life is extremely taboo, the fact is that in situations where such a price must be determined, it usually comes out to the low tens of millions of USD. Compared to the multibillion dollar costs of many space missions, it makes sense to treat them with the same care as human life. Finally, the idea that quickly iterating unmanned projects will make human spaceflight safer doesn't make much sense. If you're not using safety systems regularly, and you're not under pressure to improve them, why would one expect to gain useful experience and develop better improved versions? If anything, in the future we should have more capable probes that swing the pendulum further away from human spaceflight.
bilekas 4y ago
I can't even imagine the stress of the engineers when they hear there is a problem. I get anxiety just when the DEV pipleline fails after my change.
- sgtnoodle 4y ago
  I worked on falcon 9 and cargo dragon, and was on a control shift for the C2 mission. Finding out about problems wasn't the stressful part. Actually launching the rocket and seeing it leave the launch pad was stressful. Waiting for the capsule to detach from the second stage and deploy its solar panels was stressful. Watching it approach the space station was stressful. Learning about problems and solving them were comforting. It increased everyone's confidence that we had built a robust and predicable system. The head of the software test team would have snuck into the capsule if he could!
  - bilekas 4y ago
    Wow.. I actually never thought about it that way, of course I knew they would be stressful but getting the opportunity to fix them before they're up there actually would be comforting!
    - sgtnoodle 4y ago
      Tons of little problems happen throughout a typical mission and it's normal. Space ships are designed with a lot of redundancy so that the overall vehicle keeps working while folk on the ground work through the problems. Robust and flexible telemetry and command systems are incredibly important. I help design UAVs for medical deliveries now, and while it's really satisfying work, launching a new UAV prototype is only a small fraction of the adrenaline rush of launching a falcon 9 rocket!
andyjohnson0 4y ago
12:36 UTC: The launch director has scrubbed the launch
ISL 4y ago
Launch has been scrubbed for today, as of 8:36 eastern.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
yardie 4y ago
It's been scrubbed! Hydrogen leak in one of the H2 lines. Bummer!
addaon 4y ago
Scrubbed due to engine bleed temperature issue. Sounds like this was a point of concern, but also something that was specifically tested during the dress rehearsal. More debugging being done on the pad (not defueling yet), but no going to space today.
- zardo 4y ago
  > More debugging being done on the pad (not defueling yet), but no going to space today. Does that mean they sent people out to the pad while it was still fueled?
- xeromal 4y ago
  FYI, I believe the solid rocket boosters are due to expire this summer so if they delay any more, they may really bone themselves.
  - IshKebab 4y ago
    They'll just say "we re-evaluated and they're fine for a bit longer". I'm pretty sure they've already done that for something.
- nordsieck 4y ago
  For those who don't know, SLS gets 3 launch attempts per launch window (essentially per month). This is due to a number of constraints, but 2 big ones are the length of time the Flight Termination System batteries are certified to last and how much hydrogen they keep on hand in local storage.
  - tppiotrowski 4y ago
    Do they pump the hydrogen back into storage or bleed it all into the atmosphere if they need to empty the fuel tanks?
    - nordsieck 4y ago
      > Do they pump the hydrogen back into storage or bleed it all into the atmosphere if they need to empty the fuel tanks? They pump it back. But some of it warms and turns to gas while it's being "used", so that part bleeds off. > While the vehicle is filled with liquid propellant, some of the LH2 is consumed for engine conditioning and some boils off inside the tanks. If a launch attempt was to be scrubbed after waiting through a whole two-hour launch window, and the propellants in the tanks were drained back into the spheres, they would end up being over 280,000 gallons short of the LH2 needed for another attempt. https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2021/11/artemis-1-launch-periods/ https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2021/11/artemis-1-launch-per...
nerdjon 4y ago
Sad to see it scrubbed, but I hate that this is becoming the expectation on this thing. More and more I have to wonder how long they will continue to work on this and just cut their losses? At some point this isn't just a money sink but is a bad look and I worry can put doubt on space and NASA in general?
dylan604 4y ago
What does Artemis I and 3 men in a tub have in common? Scrub-a-dub-dub
onphonenow 4y ago
It’s fun to see nasa “facts” vs others. The nasa “countdowns” are comically unreliable - when you get to x minutes left in the countdown there are NOT x minutes left. They should just call their stuff phases. Listening to nasa administrator Nelson go on about how effective SLS is - also a bit mind warping. On what measure? The Biden admin has some bug going on about spaceX - Kathy got demoted / sidelined a bit at NASA after doing commercial crew - she or many others in nasa far better administrators. Instead we get sn old white guy Nelson - and I’m an old white guy. His claim to fame is sls support. Ugh
- nordsieck 4y ago
  > The nasa “countdowns” are comically unreliable - when you get to x minutes left in the countdown there are NOT x minutes left. They should just call their stuff phases. I think most people who are familiar with rocket launches understand that the countdown is really a time indexed checklist, which can pause or even reverse depending on sensor readings from the rocket. Admittedly, that can be a bit confusing for the casual observer.
macinjosh 4y ago
What clowns, how much time and money do they need?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

154 points by sj00123 4y ago

For updates: https://spaceflightnow.com/2022/08/29/artemis-1-launch-live-coverage/ https://spaceflightnow.com/2022/08/29/artemis-1-launch-live-...

hericium 4y ago

Already discussed[1] under the (live as well) link to nasa.gov[2] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32634787 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32634787 [2] https://www.nasa.gov/nasalive/ https://www.nasa.gov/nasalive/

taspeotis 4y ago
The NASA link is currently dead.
- huhtenberg 4y ago
  Works for me. The YT embed points at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21X5lGlDOfg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21X5lGlDOfg

melling 4y ago

I suppose while we wait, we can discuss the value of NASA doing manned flight vs private enterprise, which is the point of the Economist article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32636643 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32636643

ghaff 4y ago
Enjoy, but that's a debate that's been going on for literally decades. It's also the case that, if you take manned missions of the table into an indefinite future, a lot of the rationale for many unmanned missions goes away too.
- melling 4y ago
  There’s a lot to explore in the solar system. Several satellites orbiting every planet and several interesting moons. Building “smarter” robotic missions to explore… Seriously, with a little imagination …
  - p_l 4y ago
    Imagination is something the bean counters deciding the budget do not have, which is why "ideal project" is always some variation on how we can spread jobs across most districts.
    - ghaff 4y ago
      It's also the case that voters--i.e. those who at least theoretically control the purse strings--generally get more excited about human space exploration. If you cross humans off the options list, those voters are probably going to be less excited about space projects in general with the possible exception of things with fairly direct benefits such as solar and earth projects. Those voters, by the way, also like jobs.
      - p_l 4y ago
        I do wonder at times if the jobs focus isn't super specific to USA, but I don't know many other places. Here in Poland usually the issue is about "will it be done in country or bought elsewhere?" and the likes, though there was obvious malfeasance based around local jobs with the canceling of Caracal contract
- p_l 4y ago
  Consider how even if you try to optimize the costs the projects get cut down until the rationale for cost optimization disappears, like with Cassini-Huygens where a promising serial production drone body for handling unmanned missions was effectively canceled. At least with manned missions it's easier to drum up popular support or play on politicians' ego about being without a manned capability.

drno123 4y ago

I got here late - why is launch stalled?

puffoflogic 4y ago
Because SLS is vaporware/yet another scam on the American taxpayer.
huhtenberg 4y ago
Some unexpected ice formed on the exterior of one of the tanks. They checked if it was due to a crack, but apparently the conclusion is that it was not.
perihelions 4y ago
Multiple issues: - "... Engineers are now investigating two other issues. The first is a possible “crack in an intertank flange.” The second is that a hydrogen bleed line to chill one of the four core-stage engines before ignition is not quite working correctly. When the countdown clock reaches T-10 minutes, there is a planned hold. That is when managers will decide a target launch time (Unless the launch is called off before then)." - "The countdown is paused at T-40 minutes as engineers try to troubleshoot the issue with the hydrogen bleed line." https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/08/29/science/nasa-moon-launch/d5de45c8-b653-5a73-b9f6-5884706071c9 https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/08/29/science/nasa-moon-la... https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2022/08/29/engineers-troubleshooting-engine-conditioning-issue/ https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2022/08/29/engineers-troubles...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- gsibble 4y ago

jacquesm 4y ago

Given the number of delays I would not be surprised at all if the launch is called off. Better to fix things properly than to risk a blow-up, which may well be the end of the program. BTW: from a casual point of view it looks suspiciously like a shuttle launch stack without the shuttle. edit: it looks like it has been scrubbed

melling 4y ago
Yes, that’s well understood. That’s why people have repeatedly explained for decades why manned space flight is too costly and extremely slow. It’s probably 100 times cheaper, and 10x faster, to focus on unmanned space projects: https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2004/04/08/the-wrong-stuff/ https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2004/04/08/the-wrong-stuff/ In the year 2100, a lot more humans will have gone to space if we iterate quickly with unmanned projects for a few decades then as our capabilities increase, send humans.
- jjk166 4y ago
  Except that unmanned missions are not that much cheaper for the same level of capability - robots and probes have limited sensor capabilities, little or no ability to improvise especially not in time critical circumstances, and generally are just physically inferior to humans. For example the opportunity rover averaged 28 feet per day of travel. The lunar rover on Apollo 17 drove further in 5 hours than the curiosity, spirit, perseverance, and sojourner rovers put together. Humans have excellent strength and dexterity, able to easily move or reorient objects weighing many kilograms of arbitrary shape, and overcome arbitrary obstacles. While there are significant costs for this additional capability, the fact is robots simply can't be made to outperform humans at these tasks at the moment. The divide was even worse in the early days of space exploration. Then, the idea that things would be substantially cheaper without man-rating is also based on shaky assumptions. The fact is large space probes are extremely expensive pieces of hardware and launch windows for certain missions are uncommon, so even if humans aren't on board it is still extremely undesirable to lose a probe to an engineering failure. Indeed while putting a price on human life is extremely taboo, the fact is that in situations where such a price must be determined, it usually comes out to the low tens of millions of USD. Compared to the multibillion dollar costs of many space missions, it makes sense to treat them with the same care as human life. Finally, the idea that quickly iterating unmanned projects will make human spaceflight safer doesn't make much sense. If you're not using safety systems regularly, and you're not under pressure to improve them, why would one expect to gain useful experience and develop better improved versions? If anything, in the future we should have more capable probes that swing the pendulum further away from human spaceflight.

bilekas 4y ago

I can't even imagine the stress of the engineers when they hear there is a problem. I get anxiety just when the DEV pipleline fails after my change.

sgtnoodle 4y ago
I worked on falcon 9 and cargo dragon, and was on a control shift for the C2 mission. Finding out about problems wasn't the stressful part. Actually launching the rocket and seeing it leave the launch pad was stressful. Waiting for the capsule to detach from the second stage and deploy its solar panels was stressful. Watching it approach the space station was stressful. Learning about problems and solving them were comforting. It increased everyone's confidence that we had built a robust and predicable system. The head of the software test team would have snuck into the capsule if he could!
- bilekas 4y ago
  Wow.. I actually never thought about it that way, of course I knew they would be stressful but getting the opportunity to fix them before they're up there actually would be comforting!
  - sgtnoodle 4y ago
    Tons of little problems happen throughout a typical mission and it's normal. Space ships are designed with a lot of redundancy so that the overall vehicle keeps working while folk on the ground work through the problems. Robust and flexible telemetry and command systems are incredibly important. I help design UAVs for medical deliveries now, and while it's really satisfying work, launching a new UAV prototype is only a small fraction of the adrenaline rush of launching a falcon 9 rocket!

andyjohnson0 4y ago

12:36 UTC: The launch director has scrubbed the launch

ISL 4y ago

Launch has been scrubbed for today, as of 8:36 eastern.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

yardie 4y ago

It's been scrubbed! Hydrogen leak in one of the H2 lines. Bummer!

addaon 4y ago

Scrubbed due to engine bleed temperature issue. Sounds like this was a point of concern, but also something that was specifically tested during the dress rehearsal. More debugging being done on the pad (not defueling yet), but no going to space today.

zardo 4y ago
> More debugging being done on the pad (not defueling yet), but no going to space today. Does that mean they sent people out to the pad while it was still fueled?
xeromal 4y ago
FYI, I believe the solid rocket boosters are due to expire this summer so if they delay any more, they may really bone themselves.
- IshKebab 4y ago
  They'll just say "we re-evaluated and they're fine for a bit longer". I'm pretty sure they've already done that for something.
nordsieck 4y ago
For those who don't know, SLS gets 3 launch attempts per launch window (essentially per month). This is due to a number of constraints, but 2 big ones are the length of time the Flight Termination System batteries are certified to last and how much hydrogen they keep on hand in local storage.
- tppiotrowski 4y ago
  Do they pump the hydrogen back into storage or bleed it all into the atmosphere if they need to empty the fuel tanks?
  - nordsieck 4y ago
    > Do they pump the hydrogen back into storage or bleed it all into the atmosphere if they need to empty the fuel tanks? They pump it back. But some of it warms and turns to gas while it's being "used", so that part bleeds off. > While the vehicle is filled with liquid propellant, some of the LH2 is consumed for engine conditioning and some boils off inside the tanks. If a launch attempt was to be scrubbed after waiting through a whole two-hour launch window, and the propellants in the tanks were drained back into the spheres, they would end up being over 280,000 gallons short of the LH2 needed for another attempt. https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2021/11/artemis-1-launch-periods/ https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2021/11/artemis-1-launch-per...

nerdjon 4y ago

Sad to see it scrubbed, but I hate that this is becoming the expectation on this thing. More and more I have to wonder how long they will continue to work on this and just cut their losses? At some point this isn't just a money sink but is a bad look and I worry can put doubt on space and NASA in general?

dylan604 4y ago

What does Artemis I and 3 men in a tub have in common? Scrub-a-dub-dub

onphonenow 4y ago

It’s fun to see nasa “facts” vs others. The nasa “countdowns” are comically unreliable - when you get to x minutes left in the countdown there are NOT x minutes left. They should just call their stuff phases. Listening to nasa administrator Nelson go on about how effective SLS is - also a bit mind warping. On what measure? The Biden admin has some bug going on about spaceX - Kathy got demoted / sidelined a bit at NASA after doing commercial crew - she or many others in nasa far better administrators. Instead we get sn old white guy Nelson - and I’m an old white guy. His claim to fame is sls support. Ugh

nordsieck 4y ago
> The nasa “countdowns” are comically unreliable - when you get to x minutes left in the countdown there are NOT x minutes left. They should just call their stuff phases. I think most people who are familiar with rocket launches understand that the countdown is really a time indexed checklist, which can pause or even reverse depending on sensor readings from the rocket. Admittedly, that can be a bit confusing for the casual observer.

macinjosh 4y ago

What clowns, how much time and money do they need?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]