Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
posted by hubie on Tuesday September 06 2022, @08:35AM   Printer-friendly

When will the space agency get another shot? They're still figuring that out:

NASA will not slingshot a spacecraft around the moon this week following two previous called-off launch attempts, officials confirmed at a news conference Saturday evening.

That means the team will likely haul the gigantic, 322-foot Space Launch System rocket back to its hangar, the Vehicle Assembly Building, and perhaps take another shot at the moon in October. The U.S. space agency is bumping up against a launch blackout period and can't conflict with a SpaceX flight carrying astronauts to the International Space Station in a few weeks.

[...] Mission leaders are weighing various options and will announce next steps in about a week. Engineers and technicians may perform some work at the platform before the rocket leaves the launchpad.

Launch director Charlie Blackwell-Thompson canceled the second launch attempt a little after 11 a.m. on Saturday, after the team discovered a large fuel leak that engineers couldn't stop. The liquid hydrogen seeping out was two or three times the permissible level, Sarafin said. When high concentrations of hydrogen are mixed in the air, there is a high risk for flammability.

"It was pretty clear that we weren't going to be able to work our way through it like we did on Monday, in terms of managing the leak," he said.

NASA is still investigating the cause of the leak. One possibility the team will look into is whether an accidental overpressurization of the fuel line earlier in the morning could have been the culprit.


Original Submission

This discussion was created by hubie (1068) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 2) by Opportunist on Tuesday September 06 2022, @10:25AM (3 children)

    by Opportunist (5545) on Tuesday September 06 2022, @10:25AM (#1270438)

    It's still better than the N1 approach. I.e. "it builds, launch it and cross your fingers".

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 07 2022, @12:06AM (1 child)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 07 2022, @12:06AM (#1270522) Journal
      It's just as bad for much the same reasons. There's a bunch of troublesome known problems that are that way because they're reusing Shuttle infrastructure. Two big ones are those inevitable hydrogen leaks (which are really larger than normal hydrogen leaks - there is no scenario under which the rocket doesn't leak hydrogen once it's fueled) and that dependency on solid motor rockets (which creates huge risks from the place of manufacture through to the launch pad). As I dimly recall, the Shuttle had launch delays on a third of its launches due to hydrogen leaks. And NASA has crossed their fingers for a long time concerning the scenario of a solid rocket booster igniting in the Vehicle Assembly Building (if it happens, it'll probably be a decade or more before a replacement building is constructed).

      Basically, there are huge risks in the system, and NASA's engineering approach will be to hope those risks don't happen.
      • (Score: 2) by Opportunist on Wednesday September 07 2022, @10:50PM

        by Opportunist (5545) on Wednesday September 07 2022, @10:50PM (#1270647)

        Say what you want about von Braun, but in one thing he was absolutely right to put his foot down: No solid boosters on man-rated rockets, period!

    • (Score: 2) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Wednesday September 07 2022, @01:52AM

      by Beryllium Sphere (r) (5062) on Wednesday September 07 2022, @01:52AM (#1270530)

      I forget who came up with it but there's a fundamental principle that the N-1 violated.

      The phrasing was something close to "Any complex system that works will inevitably be found to have evolved from a simpler system that worked".

  • (Score: 4, Touché) by Snotnose on Tuesday September 06 2022, @11:31AM (1 child)

    by Snotnose (1623) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 06 2022, @11:31AM (#1270444)

    I guess not idiots, they did get a cost plus contract. They're re-using 40 year old tech and re-experiencing 40 years of problems.

    Not to mention, they're proud they're getting 15% more thrust than the Saturn-V. Hate to say it, but 15% improvement in 50 years is, well, evidently good enough for government work.

    --
    Of course I'm against DEI. Donald, Eric, and Ivanka.
    • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2022, @12:28PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2022, @12:28PM (#1270453)

      It was the humble hydrogen molecule wot done it. It tends to leak.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2022, @11:41AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2022, @11:41AM (#1270445)

    And in totally (no, really!) unrelated news, the paperwork necessary for SpaceX to fly their Starship rocket will not be approved for the time being. The dog ate it.

  • (Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday September 06 2022, @12:21PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 06 2022, @12:21PM (#1270451) Journal

    China had their Jade Rabbit, we have our White Elephant. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5zsUatKGmg [youtube.com]

    --
    “I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
  • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Tuesday September 06 2022, @02:36PM (1 child)

    by PiMuNu (3823) on Tuesday September 06 2022, @02:36PM (#1270463)

    ... doing stuff is hard

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2022, @02:56PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2022, @02:56PM (#1270466)

      It's real hard when you get paid more for failing. 👀

(1)