6 ms·

This is a minor mechanical issue scrub that nearly everyone will use to express opinions they already had about the program. Please just stop.

ekianjo 4y ago
alternatively you could see it as "yet another issue in a program that's been plagued with issues for years". When you find the 300th bug in the same piece of code, it's a pattern, not a coincidence.
tdehnel 4y ago
“Your opinions are no longer valid and will not be acknowledged. Please stop talking.”
MichaelCollins 4y ago
If the opinions being expressed were "SLS is great, that launch was fantastic", would you still be trying to silence the expression of those opinions? I seriously doubt it. I guess we'll find out if you leave such a comment in 4 days after SLS successfully launches right? Well, maybe not..
qbasic_forever 4y ago
Seriously. It seems like the two things that really rile up all the garbage opinions here are NASA launches and COVID posts. Holy cow, just some pure trash comments.
- GuB-42 4y ago
  And cryptocurrencies, and everything by Elon Musk, and Kubernetes, and AI, and search engines, and privacy, and China, and... Trash comments everywhere (but also good ones).
  - koheripbal 4y ago
    I've definitely correlated those topics to lower quality comments
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> minor mechanical issue scrub Engine fuckup is minor. But it’s also uncommon with modern engines. (At this stage, assembled and fuelled on the pad.) SLS’s choice to use an old engine is relevant to the discussion.
- btilly 4y ago
  Do you have a source for it being uncommon? See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-89xl-v0gs&t=2590s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-89xl-v0gs&t=2590s for a recent rather larger engine fuckup with the other major launch system under develop.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    That’s an engine test. Not a rocket with payload attached.
    - btilly 4y ago
      You're moving the goalposts. Still, https://www.noozhawk.com/article/missile_test_ends_in_explosion_seconds_after_launch_from_vandenberg_sfb https://www.noozhawk.com/article/missile_test_ends_in_explos... is a rocket that blew up early last month, 11 seconds into flight. See https://www.space.com/biggest-launch-failures-2021 https://www.space.com/biggest-launch-failures-2021 for a list of notable failures last year. Failures, particularly with new rockets, are much more common than you believe.
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > You're moving the goalposts Don’t believe I am. I specifically caveated “at this stage, assembled and fuelled on the pad” because an engine under a fully-assembled rocket has assumptions made about it that one on the test stand obviously does not. > list of notable failures last year How many of these are engine failures? None, based on my scan. The engine can be tested separately. That makes them wildly more predictable in a way the rest of the rocket, which can’t usually be similarly tested, is not. As someone with a background in aerospace engineering, I perk up when someone’s engine fails at the pad, because that—nowadays—shouldn’t happen.
cratermoon 4y ago
It's also something that could have been discovered and worked way back at the wet dress rehearsal, if they'd completed it. Instead, they got a hydrogen leak that stopped the test before it got to the step that failed today. For whatever reason (GO fever?) NASA managers decided that a partial test that ended in failure was "good enough".
belter 4y ago
I can't avoid notice the irony that, although NASA is still investigating, you already seem to scope the issue, and troubleshoot it as a minor mechanical problem... What's is your analysis on the SRB's being 1 month past their validity date per @gsibble reference?
- 93po 4y ago
  Snark doesn't add much to conversations here. It is possible for something to be preliminarily marked as minor while also still being investigated. There's no need to be pointlessly antagonistic.
  - belter 4y ago
    > There's no need to be pointlessly antagonistic. Did you notice the post I replied to, was asking the whole discussion to stop?
- colechristensen 4y ago
  They scrubbed because the bleed procedure that cools the fuel wasn’t working. This usually doesn’t point to major issues.
daoist_shaman 4y ago
I agree. Delaying the launch is not a big deal. Launching and going boom is a big deal. There isn't much to discuss because this is literally business as usual in this line of work.
tomp 4y ago
How exactly can you use this news to express the opinion similar to: “NASA & Boeing are the best, props for using cutting edge technology, SpaceX is a scam and not worth taxpayers money, Elon Musk suck!” ?
frozencell 4y ago

ekianjo 4y ago

alternatively you could see it as "yet another issue in a program that's been plagued with issues for years". When you find the 300th bug in the same piece of code, it's a pattern, not a coincidence.

tdehnel 4y ago

“Your opinions are no longer valid and will not be acknowledged. Please stop talking.”

MichaelCollins 4y ago

If the opinions being expressed were "SLS is great, that launch was fantastic", would you still be trying to silence the expression of those opinions? I seriously doubt it. I guess we'll find out if you leave such a comment in 4 days after SLS successfully launches right? Well, maybe not..

qbasic_forever 4y ago

Seriously. It seems like the two things that really rile up all the garbage opinions here are NASA launches and COVID posts. Holy cow, just some pure trash comments.

GuB-42 4y ago
And cryptocurrencies, and everything by Elon Musk, and Kubernetes, and AI, and search engines, and privacy, and China, and... Trash comments everywhere (but also good ones).
- koheripbal 4y ago
  I've definitely correlated those topics to lower quality comments

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> minor mechanical issue scrub Engine fuckup is minor. But it’s also uncommon with modern engines. (At this stage, assembled and fuelled on the pad.) SLS’s choice to use an old engine is relevant to the discussion.

btilly 4y ago
Do you have a source for it being uncommon? See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-89xl-v0gs&t=2590s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-89xl-v0gs&t=2590s for a recent rather larger engine fuckup with the other major launch system under develop.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  That’s an engine test. Not a rocket with payload attached.
  - btilly 4y ago
    You're moving the goalposts. Still, https://www.noozhawk.com/article/missile_test_ends_in_explosion_seconds_after_launch_from_vandenberg_sfb https://www.noozhawk.com/article/missile_test_ends_in_explos... is a rocket that blew up early last month, 11 seconds into flight. See https://www.space.com/biggest-launch-failures-2021 https://www.space.com/biggest-launch-failures-2021 for a list of notable failures last year. Failures, particularly with new rockets, are much more common than you believe.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > You're moving the goalposts Don’t believe I am. I specifically caveated “at this stage, assembled and fuelled on the pad” because an engine under a fully-assembled rocket has assumptions made about it that one on the test stand obviously does not. > list of notable failures last year How many of these are engine failures? None, based on my scan. The engine can be tested separately. That makes them wildly more predictable in a way the rest of the rocket, which can’t usually be similarly tested, is not. As someone with a background in aerospace engineering, I perk up when someone’s engine fails at the pad, because that—nowadays—shouldn’t happen.

cratermoon 4y ago

It's also something that could have been discovered and worked way back at the wet dress rehearsal, if they'd completed it. Instead, they got a hydrogen leak that stopped the test before it got to the step that failed today. For whatever reason (GO fever?) NASA managers decided that a partial test that ended in failure was "good enough".

belter 4y ago

I can't avoid notice the irony that, although NASA is still investigating, you already seem to scope the issue, and troubleshoot it as a minor mechanical problem... What's is your analysis on the SRB's being 1 month past their validity date per @gsibble reference?

93po 4y ago
Snark doesn't add much to conversations here. It is possible for something to be preliminarily marked as minor while also still being investigated. There's no need to be pointlessly antagonistic.
- belter 4y ago
  > There's no need to be pointlessly antagonistic. Did you notice the post I replied to, was asking the whole discussion to stop?
colechristensen 4y ago
They scrubbed because the bleed procedure that cools the fuel wasn’t working. This usually doesn’t point to major issues.

daoist_shaman 4y ago

I agree. Delaying the launch is not a big deal. Launching and going boom is a big deal. There isn't much to discuss because this is literally business as usual in this line of work.

tomp 4y ago

How exactly can you use this news to express the opinion similar to: “NASA & Boeing are the best, props for using cutting edge technology, SpaceX is a scam and not worth taxpayers money, Elon Musk suck!” ?

frozencell 4y ago