![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
thewayneOnce again proving that space is hard. It's even harder when Congress orders you to use 40 year old technology that was twitchy to begin with in order to create jobs in Congressional districts, rather than newer tech that's more robust.
And now they were allegedly trying to fit into a flight window without having successfully completed a full fueling cycle. This attempt hit 1/9th of the rocket's capacity. The previous test got a lot fuller.
The current problem is an 8" liquid hydrogen fuel line and its quick disconnect. Hydrogen is really small and leaks easily. They expect this, and allow for a 4% leak rate. Unfortunately this was rapidly exceeded and became a KAABLOOEY risk. The process was stopped and restarted in hopes of getting a better seal in the quick disconnect line, but it was not achieved, and ultimately the "launch" had to be aborted.
I did not expect a launch to happen, my odds were placed towards a Unscheduled Rapid Disassembly if it did manage to lift off the pad.
At this point, while they say that they might be able to pull off a launch before Tuesday, the most likely scenario is rolling the rocket back to the Vehicle Assembly Building. Aside from the liquid hydrogen leak, they're very close to exhausting the batteries that power the emergency escape system, which forms an absolute limit on how long the rocket can remain out. There's also the issue of literal wear and tear on the rocket sitting there, fully assembled, without launching. It's going to have to be taken apart, inspected, and patched up here and there.
The SLS will be capable of launching every two years. Tops. It's already billions of dollars over budget. SpaceX will eat its proverbial lunch by launching multiple times a year. NASA just bought additional seats on SpaceX to keep flying to the space station until 2030. Oh, and a Boeing seat? Approx $188 million per. SpaceX seat? $88 mill.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/09/years-after-shuttle-nasa-rediscovers-the-perils-of-liquid-hydrogen/
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/09/nasa-will-pay-boeing-more-than-twice-as-much-as-spacex-for-crew-seats/
And now they were allegedly trying to fit into a flight window without having successfully completed a full fueling cycle. This attempt hit 1/9th of the rocket's capacity. The previous test got a lot fuller.
The current problem is an 8" liquid hydrogen fuel line and its quick disconnect. Hydrogen is really small and leaks easily. They expect this, and allow for a 4% leak rate. Unfortunately this was rapidly exceeded and became a KAABLOOEY risk. The process was stopped and restarted in hopes of getting a better seal in the quick disconnect line, but it was not achieved, and ultimately the "launch" had to be aborted.
I did not expect a launch to happen, my odds were placed towards a Unscheduled Rapid Disassembly if it did manage to lift off the pad.
At this point, while they say that they might be able to pull off a launch before Tuesday, the most likely scenario is rolling the rocket back to the Vehicle Assembly Building. Aside from the liquid hydrogen leak, they're very close to exhausting the batteries that power the emergency escape system, which forms an absolute limit on how long the rocket can remain out. There's also the issue of literal wear and tear on the rocket sitting there, fully assembled, without launching. It's going to have to be taken apart, inspected, and patched up here and there.
The SLS will be capable of launching every two years. Tops. It's already billions of dollars over budget. SpaceX will eat its proverbial lunch by launching multiple times a year. NASA just bought additional seats on SpaceX to keep flying to the space station until 2030. Oh, and a Boeing seat? Approx $188 million per. SpaceX seat? $88 mill.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/09/years-after-shuttle-nasa-rediscovers-the-perils-of-liquid-hydrogen/
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/09/nasa-will-pay-boeing-more-than-twice-as-much-as-spacex-for-crew-seats/
no subject
Date: 2022-09-04 11:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2022-09-05 12:49 am (UTC)Hugs, Jon
no subject
Date: 2022-09-05 02:38 am (UTC)I recall from somewhere, someone (sorry for the vagueness, just don't remember) asking a senior USAF procurement officer (off the record) what would make the ideal fighter plane. Answer: a contractor in every state and a subcontractor in every congressional district.
no subject
Date: 2022-09-10 05:13 pm (UTC)I'm guessing the space budget will only ever get an infusion if someone gets into office who is absolutely convinced that the idea of space remaining neutral and non-weaponized is a cover for [INSERT ENEMY HERE] to try and defeat OUR FREEDOMS, and therefore, rather than just giving Space Force a name and a patch, they'll pour at least some amount of the substantial Pentagon budget into NASA in an attempt to make things more militaristic and less scientific. And that somehow all the scientists manage to use all of that newfound budget to advance science without making things any more militarized off-planet.