8 ms·
NASA – Artemis I – Liquid Hydrogen Leak Detected Once Again
- geerlingguy 4y agoLaunch has been officially scrubbed for the day :(
- zinekeller 4y agoI mean it's Jeff, but here's NASA's short announcement confirming the scrub: https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2022/09/03/artemis-i-launch-attempt-scrubbed/ https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2022/09/03/artemis-i-launch-a...
- geerlingguy 4y agoHeh, I probably should've linked a source. I was just too disappointed to remember :(
- joak 4y agoAre non-reusable rockets the future?! Why don't we just stop Artemis program? What's the point?
- cantaloupe 4y agoI think NASA missions are ideated, planned, and executed on the scale of 10-20 years. The first re-launch of a booster by SpaceX happened just over 5 years ago, in March of 2017.
- pantalaimon 4y agoThe Delta Clipper flew and landed successfully already back in the 90ies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X
- nine_k 4y agoIt was cool but apparently the highest it went was 3 km. Not the same as landing from a nearly orbital speed.
- coffeeblack 4y agoTo keep all the people employed in all the states where parts are produced.
- multiplegeorges 4y agoIt spreads money, jobs, and expertise around the country. The goal of the program is not to be the most nimble, reusable, most cost-effective way to space. This page illustrates that it is very successful at the true goal: https://www.nasa.gov/content/artemis-partners https://www.nasa.gov/content/artemis-partners
- defterGoose 4y ago
- systemvoltage 4y agoThink a little less cynically. SpaceX is a vendor of NASA and whole bunch of people work for each other: https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/489058main_ASK_40_space_x.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/489058main_ASK_40_space_x.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/as-artemis-moves-forward-nasa-picks-spacex-to-land-next-americans-on-moon https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/as-artemis-moves-forward-...
- nine_k 4y agoI wish the capable society found a way to build a reusable rocket, now that it had been amply demonstrated as doable. Very expensive expendable rockets is a guarantee that only the military, colossal communication companies, and a few lucky science projects get access to space. Imagine that ocean ships were expendable, only good for one ocean crossing. How many geographic discoveries would have been made?
- Kukumber 4y agoDecades of trying to get help from private sector, as a result NASA stagnated, and China took the lead As a result, the only option for NASA to compete with China is to take back the role of leader with public money and public R&D with public and state funded universities It was a mistake to seek help from Musk, Bezoz and that Virgin dude who wants to create space tourism
- KerrAvon 4y agoBut SpaceX, at least, is successful, and NASA is behaving like it’s 1982. Let’s ask a different question. SpaceX, Blue Origin, etc areis not currently going to the moon. Would SpaceX be having this much trouble if it went to the moon? What would a SpaceX moon launch look like?
- Kukumber 4y agoSpaceX would have failed if they didn't receive the billions of government subsidies https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-list-government-subsidies-tesla-billions-spacex-solarcity-2021-12?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-list-government-su...
- brandonagr2 4y agoCalling a contract to provide services a subsidy is intentionally disparaging.
- bewaretheirs 4y agoSpaceX is developing a version of its Starship intended to land astronauts on the moon as part of the Artemis program: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_HLS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_HLS Blue Origin worked on a "Blue Moon" lander and later teamed up with LockMart, Northrop-Grumman, and Draper on the ILV lander proposal.
- fnordpiglet 4y agoBuilding space refueling and seed moon base infrastructure has such a huge startup cost that it’ll be nearly impossible to make it profitable, which is critical to a for profit company. NASA has no profit motive thus they can fund the basic infrastructure for interplanetary travel and colonization dramatically improving the economics for everyone and creating incentive for everyone to use it. Final note we should have redundant heavy lift capability independent of private companies as a national security goal. The only keys to interplanetary space being in Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos hand should creep us all out. Final note, in real dollars these programs of NASAs are a blip on the federal budget. All the hand wringing bothers me since it’s not proportional to the scale.
- giantrobot 4y agoReusable rockets optimize for cost while sacrificing total launch capacity. They need to reserve fuel to land. They don't get to put all of their fuel into launching their payload. They're great if you're doing commercial launches and making margins. They're less great if you're trying to launch a large mass a long distance. SpaceX is betting on in-orbit refueling for getting Starship anywhere but low Earth orbit. They have yet to demonstrate that capability, even between two Dragon capsules. So the Starship is not a guaranteed vehicle for any missions NASA wants to run.
- fnordpiglet 4y agoTo build an in orbit refueling station as a gateway to the moon and mars to accelerate public and private interplanetary infrastructure. The reuse of parts minimizes cost which is crucial to the survival of a for profit entity. Public work doesn’t have a profit motive and can choose to focus on lift capacity and building the non economic stepping stones to vastly accelerate things we as a society consider key stepping stones for some broader purpose. I don’t want nasa to be wasteful per se, but choosing to focus on heavy lift and the gateway and base infrastructure seems like a wise focus of engineering talent and money. If they were planning thousands of launches of SLS then fine.
- cantaloupe 4y agoNASA gets so few opportunities. It always weighs on me when they run into issues, because I fear their charter and funding will be further reduced as a result of a big failure. Hoping for the best for the mission!
- verdverm 4y agoIt's better if NASA focuses on space science rather than rocket engineering at this point. Private companies can build & fly them cheaper (discluding certain legacy contractors)
- m2fkxy 4y agoyou would be afraid to see the list of SLS subcontractors, i.e. who actually builds it. "private companies" indeed. unless, of course, "private companies" is your shortcut for "SpaceX". which other launcher of the same class are being designed, build and launched at the moment by the way?
- dylan604 4y agoYes, but the list of NASA contractors are behemoth companies that are not focused on any one purpose. SpaceX is only focused on launching things into orbit, even if the majority is their own constellation. I’m guessing the money received by NASA contractors is pennies compared to other contracts they receive. Apples and oranges you’re comparing here.
- verdverm 4y agoI thought "(discluding certain legacy contractors)" would be clear in my first comment Relativity and Rocket Lab are working with NASA https://www.relativityspace.com/press-release/2022/jan27/nasavclsrelativity https://www.relativityspace.com/press-release/2022/jan27/nas... https://www.rocketlabusa.com/updates/rocket-lab-moon-mission-for-nasa-a-success/ https://www.rocketlabusa.com/updates/rocket-lab-moon-mission...
- 1958325146 4y agoI'm not sure if this is the point you're trying to make or if you're implying private companies aren't up to it, but... the other launcher of the same class, which will probably be launching within a year and is much more capable, is Starship. https://everydayastronaut.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Super-Heavy-Lift-Launcher-Capabilities-1536x864.jpg https://everydayastronaut.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Sup...
- sebazzz 4y agoHydrogen is difficult to work with.
- _joel 4y agoIf only they'd had 40 years of experience with the same tech (just shrunk a bit).
- slfnflctd 4y agoUgh. This not only makes Boeing & NASA look bad, it makes the whole country look bad. The global general public is not going to be understanding, especially with all the PR bluster. Engineers may be sympathetic to the immense challenges here, but maybe we shouldn't have hyped this particular launch so much. The launch system is not yet proven.
- verdverm 4y agoDo people focus on the apollo failures? (there were a lot along the way to the moon the first time)
- mcbutterbunz 4y agoThat was a long time ago and people my age only see that we went to the moon a few times. The only failure most people are aware of is due to a movie.
- dylan604 4y agoWas right there with until you said whole country. This just makes SpaceX look even better. It shows that what ever the established procedures with NASA are not working, while whatever SpaceX has going on is working. The weight of bureaucracy keeping NASA from iterating faster? The complacency of Boeing knowing they are getting paid regardless? NASA basically just being a jobs program? All of that compared to SpaceX has to work or company goes bust.
- slfnflctd 4y agoThat's why I used the phrase 'global general public'. Your average citizen in India, China or many other places is only going to see egg on Uncle Sam's face here. I do agree that it makes SpaceX look better, especially in terms of Falcon 9. But their fate is so closely tied to Starship now that if it runs into serious problems and/or has to go back to the drawing board, the company's very viability could be threatened and it would be yet another big blow to the national image. Our hopes are riding on a lot of untested stuff right now, and the hype magnifies every failure along the way.
- cosmiccatnap 4y agoWith as many issues as they have had you would almost think that their budget had been significantly cut year over year despite almost universal agreement among Americans that it is one of our most noble institutions
- verdverm 4y agoThis particular program is delayed and over budget
- dylan604 4y agoI think JWST might have bought NASA a bit of leeway with the delayed/over budget budget hawks. Also, the NASA footprint is spread out into too many congressional districts to be an easy pull the plug decision. Everyone learned after the super conducting super collider was killed.
- ck2 4y agoAs long as they get it right before humans use it, no worries. I'm from the generation that had to endlessly watch "go at throttle up" over and over and over and over and over and over again in high school and it's still traumatizing. It was the original 9/11 in some ways for the media. Why they did that to kids and general population is beyond me.
- Dalewyn 4y ago>Why they did that to kids and general population is beyond me. I'm absolutely shocked, shocked I tell you, that the media would endlessly foist sensationalist hit pieces and shock factors one after another! Shocked!
- ck2 4y agoWell not that they get a pass but the media was slightly better back then until maybe that point, remember we are talking 35 years ago There was still investigative journalism and things like that going on, the idea of "clickbait" couldn't even exist, there were only three major networks.
- dylan604 4y agoWas it the first? JFK was the first time that TV broke the story before newspapers. CNN made its foothold with 24/7 coverage of Desert Shield=>Storm
- KerrAvon 4y agoMost people would have heard about JFK over AM radio or word of mouth. Desert Storm (1991?) was after Challenger (1986?).
- dylan604 4y agotrue, but challenger wasn't 24/7. it was looped/repeated to be sure, but not 24/7 Edit: here's a documentary about how JFK changed TV news: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0450362/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0450362/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
- dylan604 4y agoLuckily, it’s just a hydrogen leak and not something highly reactive that could explode just because you looked at it funny. /s Hydrogen scares the bejeebus out of me. Did a high altitude balloon launch that was meant to be a hydrogen balloon. When attempting to purchase the tank of gas, the sales person went out of his way to educate/convince on the hazards. In the end, switched out everything needed to use helium instead. I knew nothing about it, but hydrogen tanks have connectors that are uniquely sized so that you can’t accidentally connect to a tank of hydrogen when you were expecting something else. I was convinced when he explained that the hydrogen fire has no color and is only noticeable when something else starts to burn. “You don’t want the first sign there’s a fire to be your arm burning”
- CrazyStat 4y agoHydrogen isn't that dangerous. Creating hydrogen gas through electrolysis is a common chemistry class activity, or at least was back when I was a teenager. Perhaps the salesperson was paid on commission, and helium would result in a much more profitable sale for them.
- dylan604 4y agoIt's way more dangerous than non-flammable inert gas. Why would you even try to whitewash it like that? It's just silly. The amount of gas produced in a high school chemistry lab compared to a full tank is just silly. To compare a high school lab environment with safety equipment and assuming a trained teacher to a couple of knuckleheads with no safety training or equipment doing a balloon launch in a very drought striken part of the state is so not even close to the same. But thanks for trying to make it seem so much less dangerous than what it is
- CrazyStat 4y agoOr perhaps you're trying to make it seem so much more dangerous than it is.
- bandyaboot 4y ago> It's way more dangerous than non-flammable inert gas. Well yeah, but inert gas doesn’t really help you accelerate massive objects to orbital velocity. It is good for taking up space in the tanks as you burn the propellant though. Edit: nevermind, should probably understand the context of the discussion before joining it.
- smileysteve 4y agoA related thought. Hydrogen fueling 1 spaceship (at a restricted access, highly maintained area) at a specific time regularly presents problems, but Toyota (and others) bet on gas stations operated by consumers across the world maintaining a hydrogen refueling economy for cars. Gas stations regularly can't maintain windshield squeegees, paper towels, or trash cans, but they were going to replace seals and keep them clean regularly.
- KerrAvon 4y agoI don’t think the paper towels are the same problem as the fueling infrastructure itself. But I was curious and I found this proposal: https://h2tools.org/sites/default/files/App2_Consolidated_Safety_Plans.pdf https://h2tools.org/sites/default/files/App2_Consolidated_Sa... Tbh, it didn’t fill me with as much confidence as I’d have liked. But I suspect it’s moot: the future is clearly battery-electric with renewable-based generation. Hydrogen missed the window of opportunity, if there ever was one.
- alamortsubite 4y agoThat seems more than a little disingenuous, given windshield squeegees, paper towels, and trash cans don't explode if not regularly maintained.
- smileysteve 4y agorotting rubber fuel hoses and rusted couplers are likely a better example. from an electric standpoint, a truck knocked over a charging station and it hasn't been repaired in 2 months at my neighborhood Park. (Though, I feel positive it has had the breaker turned off)
- mjhay 4y agoHydrogen infrastructure/cars/etc is unworkable for a lot of reasons, but safety-wise its no more dangerous than natural gas or propane - the later of which tons of gas stations sell.
- 4y ago
- mardifoufs 4y agoWas this caused by the same issue that led to canceling the previous attempt? Or is it a different part of the hydrogen system? In any case, this is not ideal :(. But early scrubbed launches won't matter Artemis program ends up in successfully achieving its objectives. As long as it doesn't explode in its first launch, delays are fine!
- bandyaboot 4y agoThey did have trouble with these same hydrogen leaks during the previous attempt. I’m unclear if they ultimately got that leak stopped and the vehicle fully tanked or not. What was the final nail in the coffin on Monday was the chill down issue with engine 3. Though the consensus seems to be that that was not a chill down issue at all but a bad temperature sensor.
- Trouble_007 4y agoNASA to Stand Down on Artemis I Launch Attempts in Early September, Reviewing Options : https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2022/09/03/nasa-to-stand-down-on-artemis-i-launch-attempts-in-early-september-reviewing-options/ https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2022/09/03/nasa-to-stand-down...