NASA Artemis 1 going to the Moon (launched Nov 16)

[mfb]

TL;DR Summary

For the first time in 50 years a crew capsule is sent towards the Moon again.

The Flight Readiness Review (FRR) for Artemis 1 concluded - the rocket is on track for a launch August 29, 12:33 UTC (08:33 local time) or in the two hours afterwards. Backup launch windows are daily from September 2 to September 6.

The first flight of the Space Launch System will launch an Orion capsule that enters an orbit around the Moon before returning to Earth a few weeks later. As a test flight it's uncrewed, but it is the first spacecraft designed for crew that will fly to the Moon since Apollo 17 (December 1972). The next flight, Artemis 2, will fly 4 astronauts around the Moon. It is currently planned for mid 2024. Artemis 3 (not before 2025) and Starship HLS will land two people on the surface again, over 50 years after the end of the Apollo program.

There will be extensive NASA coverage both before and after launch. Here is a list.

Over 100,000 visitors are expected to watch the launch in person, it's going to be crowded. Assuming no major delays it will become the most powerful operational rocket until Starship launches.

 

[.Scott]

This is a very high-stakes test. The SLS needs to be human rated to participate in the Moon program. If the full test cannot be completed or for any other reason needs to be redone, time will become a huge issue for this $21B program. On the other hand, if successful, it will become human-kind's most powerful orbital booster.

 

[Borg]

Damn, that thing is big!

 

[Janus]

"Missed by that much" (If they launched a day earlier, it would have been on my birthday.)

 

[fresh_42]

Saturn V is still taller:

 

[.Scott]

"Missed by that much" (If they launched a day earlier, it would have been on my birthday.)

Happy Birthday!

 

[berkeman]

If Artemis 1 launches from KSC toward the east, why will the separated core stage fall into the ocean east of Hawaii?

source: https://www.cnn.com/interactive/world/artemis-1-in-numbers-scn/

 

[russ_watters]

If Artemis 1 launches from KSC toward the east, why will the separated core stage fall into the ocean east of Hawaii?

I would think it's on a nearly orbital trajectory at that point and gets yeeted like an ICBM.

 

[dlgoff]

@mfb
I followed the US space program (Mercury, Gemini and Apollo) starting as a child when my father woke me one morning in 1957 telling me that the former Soviet Union had launched the Sputnik.
Here's a good reference: https://www.nasa.gov/specials/60counting/spaceflight.html

Artemis 3 (not before 2025) and Starship HLS will land two people on the surface again, over 50 years after the end of the Apollo program.

And this is why I feel like a kid again.

 

[mfb]

If Artemis 1 launches from KSC toward the east, why will the separated core stage fall into the ocean east of Hawaii?

The second stage is very light for such a massive rocket, so the core stage will almost reach orbit (~100 m/s or so short of a circular orbit). The trajectory is pretty similar to the planned Starship flight, which will also land near Hawaii (with the spacecraft , not the booster).

23 hours 30 minutes to launch. NASA is going through launch preparations (schedule).
The weather forecast sees 70% chance of acceptable conditions.

The go/no-go poll for tanking the rocket will be held 8:40 before launch, based on an updated weather forecast and the rocket status. Filling the tanks will take hours.Happy Birthday Janus.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Damn, that thing is big!

Well, the moon isn't exactly close.

 

[pinball1970]

A bit late to the party. I have learned a little bit about rockets since Webb.
Bank holiday in the UK tomorrow so I can relax and watch this.

 

[mfb]

"Go" for tanking
80% chance of acceptable weather
Livestream is active

T-08:30 (the livestream shows -6:40 but with a planned hold)

 

[mfb]

There were some minor issues with fueling that were resolved. They are working on an issue with one engine and study what appears to be a crack or some unexpected frost in the connection of two tanks in the core stage: Engineers Troubleshooting Engine Conditioning Issue

T-02:00 if there is no delay, but a delay is now likely. The launch window is 2 hours long.
Fueling is almost done.

Edit: Very interesting detail in the livestream commentary. The engine bleed, which fails now, was one of the test items in the wet dress rehearsal that got skipped.
Launch is certainly delayed now, no new time yet.

 

[Motore]

Frustrating to say the least, but what can they do now. The launch is not going to happen today I suppose. When is the next window?

 

[Borg]

Depends on the issue. If they have to roll it back to the VAB, it will be at least a few weeks. If they can resolve it on the pad, maybe later this week.

 

[mfb]

Scrub for today.
They are still running tests.

Next opportunity will be September 2. That's exactly the problem you risk with a shortened WDR. "No problem, we'll do the remaining tests before launch".
If they need to roll it back it will take at least weeks, but if they keep getting delays at some point they'll have to refurbish the boosters, which would take even longer.

There is also the concern that the core stage could run into its maximal certified fueling cycles. Not sure what the number was - something like 12? - but they might get close to it. Edit: 22 cycles, still several of them left.

 

[.Scott]

The Washington Post has called this mornings missed launch attempt a "setback".
It is not a setback. The purpose of this test is to collect information. If they get that information anytime in the next month or two, Artemis will continue unabated.

 

[bob012345]

The Washington Post has called this mornings missed launch attempt a "setback".
It is not a setback. The purpose of this test is to collect information. If they get that information anytime in the next month or two, Artemis will continue unabated.

The entire existence of this program is a setback. Rehashed Apollo. Gigantic expensive throw away rocket. One would have hoped NASA might have learned something in the half century since Apollo. Sadly, not much.

 

[.Scott]

The entire existence of this program is a setback. Rehashed Apollo. Gigantic expensive throw away rocket. One would have hoped NASA might have learned something in the half century since Apollo. Sadly, not much.

NASA learns very well. If enough powerful Congressmen want something for their districts, they will get it. When Elon put his starbase in Texas, he may have been looking for more orbital advantage for his rockets than equatorial proximity.

 

[mfb]

Try to find another east coast area with almost no one living within 5 km and at least 20 km to the nearest town, while still having a useful area to access and work with. Simply from geography there was no other choice for a new big launch site.

 

[Filip Larsen]

Eric Berger over at arstechnica also interprets what happened as a scheduled launch effectivly being turned into a WDR because they skipped the test of the engine chill at an earlier WDR:
https://arstechnica.com/science/202...ueling-test-before-todays-sls-launch-attempt/

 

[Paul Colby]

The entire existence of this program is a setback. Rehashed Apollo. Gigantic expensive throw away rocket. One would have hoped NASA might have learned something in the half century since Apollo. Sadly, not much.

Yeah, I recall asking myself why one big single point failure during the Apollo missions (okay, I was 16 and didn't frame the thought quite this way), why not park pieces in orbit using much smaller rockets? In todays world not doing this seems really wasteful and risky. Perhaps doing it without certain CEOs is a mission goal.

 

[hutchphd]

The Lunar Orbit Rendezvous was the method of choice for both the US and Soviet programs, because time was of the essence.
I find NASA manned space flight since Apollo to be largely the stuff of farce. Of course what hasn't been?

 

[bob012345]

The Lunar Orbit Rendezvous was the method of choice for both the US and Soviet programs, because time was of the essence.
I find NASA manned space flight since Apollo to be largely the stuff of farce. Of course what hasn't been?

I don't think SpaceX is a farce. I think Elon has definite goals a government program can't effectively do because of political and financial realities.

 

[hutchphd]

I don't think SpaceX is a farce.

Nor do I. I am pretty much in awe of Mr Musk. He will almost certainly fail grandly at some point but will be back the next day to make it better.
His reality is certainly different from NASA. I do think having the contrasting mix of cultures is a good idea.

 

[bob012345]

Nor do I. I am pretty much in awe of Mr Musk. He will almost certainly fail grandly at some point but will be back the next day to make it better.
His reality is certainly different from NASA. I do think having the contrasting mix of cultures is a good idea.

It's an interesting cultural difference between SpaceX and NASA in that what would be a failure for NASA is a 'test to failure mode to learn" experiment to SpaceX.

 

[anorlunda]

I find NASA manned space flight since Apollo to be largely the stuff of farce. Of course what hasn't been?

Today, I heard Newton Minnow (the famous ex head of the FCC) say, "Unfortunately, Vietnam and Watergate turned many journalists from skepticism to cynicism." I'm afraid that is analogous to public reactions about this news. NASA has turned many once loyal space fans into cynics.

 

[neilparker62]

Nor do I. I am pretty much in awe of Mr Musk. He will almost certainly fail grandly at some point but will be back the next day to make it better.
His reality is certainly different from NASA. I do think having the contrasting mix of cultures is a good idea.

If there's anything that will make us old cynics "feel like kids again" , it's Elon's plan to put a man on Mars. Most likely himself!

 

[bob012345]

If there's anything that will make us old cynics "feel like kids again" , it's Elon's plan to put a man on Mars. Most likely himself!

In the Apollo era they said* humans would land on Mars by 1985. Still waiting...

*World Book Encyclopedia circa 1967.

 

[hutchphd]

I am certainly jaded. But I carefully limited my comments to the manned side NASA. The unmanned Rovers and trips to the gas Giants have been breathtaking in scope, planning, and execution. The Huygens probe for instance (although much of it was ESA I guess) was maybe as good as it gets. And even though jaded I am amazed to have shared an office with the woman who later fixed Hubble..Kathy tossing the bad solar arrays off the Canada arm to flap in the thruster wash is a picture for the ages (mine at least). One of NASA's great saves IMHO. And look at what Hubble did
But the rediculous PR about shuttle safety throughout, the Challenger debacle, the endless pork and then recycled pork for promised next steps belies ferocious mismanagement. I will be surprised if Aries actually delivers a moon landing.
But Elon keeps stickin those landings. Fingers crossed.

 

[neilparker62]

In the Apollo era they said humans would land on Mars by 1985. Still waiting...

Like nuclear fusion, it might never happen. But then again just imagine both do for if one then definitely the other!

 

[Borg]

Launch will be attempted again on Saturday.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/30/nasa-artemis-1-moon-mission-update-saturday-launch-attempt.html

 

[mfb]

Saturday September 3, 2:17 pm local (18:17 UTC), again a two hour window.

NASA blog
I don't see a discussion what exactly they want to change/fix, apart from starting the engine chilldown earlier.

Last year we got this launch window planning document. It says at least 48 hours between a first and a second launch attempt, and at least 72 hours between a second and third attempt, based on the time needed to refill hydrogen and oxygen tanks on site. With the five days between attempt 1 and 2 now it's likely that a third attempt 48 hours later will be possible: September 3 as baseline, and September 5 (5:12 pm local or 22:12 UTC, 90 minute launch window) as option if needed.
If they miss both they need to roll the vehicle back to VAB and we won't get a launch before October.

 

[.Scott]

Yeah, I recall asking myself why one big single point failure during the Apollo missions (okay, I was 16 and didn't frame the thought quite this way), why not park pieces in orbit using much smaller rockets? In todays world not doing this seems really wasteful and risky. Perhaps doing it without certain CEOs is a mission goal.

Big rockets are more efficient than smaller ones.

The formative SLS decisions were made around 2011 when SpaceX was applying itself to making the Falcon 9 usable for astronauts. There was some expectation that SpaceX might progress so swiftly and that ULA might encounter so many blocks - but not enough to make SpaceX a contender.

Since then, the SpaceX option has not been enough to displace the ULA option. In fact, SpaceX has benefitted from NASA's policies that encourage at least two available launch providers.

 

[Paul Colby]

Big rockets are more efficient than smaller ones.

Sorry, I didn't follow your comment. Doesn't mean it isn't spot on or incorrect somehow. My track record even while in aerospace wasn't what I consider stellar when it came to big picture stuff. As far as big rockets are more efficient, what are the metrics? Energy, time, money, mean fatalities per launch?

 

[.Scott]

Sorry, I didn't follow your comment. Doesn't mean it isn't spot on or incorrect somehow. My track record even while in aerospace wasn't what I consider stellar when it came to big picture stuff. As far as big rockets are more efficient, what are the metrics? Energy, time, money, mean fatalities per launch?

You're post was related to getting functional mass to orbit. Elon has described the reasoning behind the mammoth size of Starship as being the proportional size of its components as the scale goes up. Basically, there's a bunch of stuff that has to be on the rocket no matter what the rocket's size, so with a semi-fixed numerator, make the denominator big.

There's also been a lot of discussion about the practicalities of routinely assembling large components in orbit. Clearly it can be done (as with ISS), but in the Apollo era, the rendezvous maneuver alone was "new". Obviously, later space stations were assembled and refueled in orbit. Orbital refueling is planned for Starship. Blue Origin ULA has criticized the practicalities of the Starship refueling as related to the lunar landing mission (with obvious partiality to their own proposed solution).

So the "efficiency" is one of economy (your "money" option) and seems to be a combination of overall engineering efficiency and that numerator issue.

 

[Paul Colby]

Yeah, I get the trade in the era of Apollo given the state of the technology. In the present if one claims larger reusable rockets are better than more smaller reusable rockets, this is also quite a reasonable trade result. What I definitely don’t get a single massive one time use rocket.

 

[Filip Larsen]

https://arstechnica.com/science/202...attempt-to-launch-the-sls-rocket-on-saturday/:

During a news conference on Tuesday evening, NASA's program manager for the SLS rocket, John Honeycutt, said his engineering team believed the engine had actually cooled down from ambient temperature to near the required level but that it was not properly measured by a faulty temperature sensor.

If true that certainly makes it more likely the next launch attempt will at least move past this step (assuming here they will have enough time to replace the sensor over the next few days - even though it is NASA).

 

[gleem]

According to this article https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/tech...launch-its-moon-rocket/ar-AA11k1Mp?li=BBnbfcL , they are not replacing the sensor. (?) Examination of the engine does not show any problem so they assume the sensor is faulty. Replacing it would mean too much of a delay. The other engines did not reach the target temperature so they are starting the chill down sooner.

 

[.Scott]

Yeah, I get the trade in the era of Apollo given the state of the technology. In the present if one claims larger reusable rockets are better than more smaller reusable rockets, this is also quite a reasonable trade result. What I definitely don’t get a single massive one time use rocket.

The expectation is that Starship will be the best of all worlds. Big and 100% (both stages) reusable.
Rocket reusability has been criticized and then adopted by Europe and China.

 

[.Scott]

According to this article https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/tech...launch-its-moon-rocket/ar-AA11k1Mp?li=BBnbfcL , they are not replacing the sensor. (?) Examination of the engine does not show any problem so they assume the sensor is faulty. Replacing it would mean too much of a delay. The other engines did not reach the target temperature so they are starting the chill down sooner.

That's not the whole plan. According to that same article, they are going to give the engine more time to cool down and the sensor more time to detect the change. That wait could be enough. If it isn't, they are where they started and the article does not say where they would go from there.

 

[mfb]

ULA has criticized the practicalities of the Starship refueling as related to the lunar landing mission (with obvious partiality to their own proposed solution).

That was Blue Origin. ULA had nothing to do with that, they didn't propose any Moon lander either.

According to this article https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/tech...launch-its-moon-rocket/ar-AA11k1Mp?li=BBnbfcL , they are not replacing the sensor. (?)

If they can't replace the sensor on the pad then there is not much else they can do at the moment.
The past months have shown how problematic that approach is: Too many things that need fixing just to find the next things that also need to be fixed, leading to months of delays. No redundancy in the temperature measurement is another issue.

SpaceX can replace Raptor engines on the launch pad within a day. Not just a temperature sensor - the whole engine.

 

[PeroK]

If there's anything that will make us old cynics "feel like kids again" , it's Elon's plan to put a man on Mars. Most likely himself!

Best place for him, if you ask me!

 

[.Scott]

Best place for him, if you ask me!

Elon does seem to rub some people the wrong way. I can't say I understand how. I've heard him called "arrogant". Is that your impression?

 

[Paul Colby]

Elon does seem to rub some people the wrong way. I can't say I understand how. I've heard him called "arrogant". Is that your impression?

Elon turned rubbing people the wrong way into an art form. At the moment this make little practical difference.

Rocket reusability has been criticized and then adopted by Europe and China.

I have a difficult time taking such criticism seriously. If I reuse a rocket 10 times I recoup 9 of those launches minus the turnaround cost. The turnaround cost appear to be a small fraction of a launch given the observed turnaround time is so small (assuming fuel cost are small).

In the days of Apollo the business models were adopted from the economy of ICBMs. Reusability was a silly question in the 1960s.

 

[PeroK]

Elon does seem to rub some people the wrong way. I can't say I understand how. I've heard him called "arrogant". Is that your impression?

He seems to me like a mad megalomaniac, who believes we're living in a computer simulation from the future. It's frightening how much wealth and power are in the hands of one man, especially one with crackpot notions.

Others, no doubt, will see him as mankind's saviour.

 

[anorlunda]

Others, no doubt, will see him as mankind's saviour.

IMO, better than someone from the public sector.

 

[.Scott]

He seems to me like a mad megalomaniac, who believes we're living in a computer simulation from the future. It's frightening how much wealth and power are in the hands of one man, especially one with crackpot notions.

Others, no doubt, will see him as mankind's saviour.

I don't see him as either a maniac or a savior. I'm not sure what you mean by "crackpot notions". He often completely misses the mark (calling the Tesla driver assistant "autopilot" and the notion of parachuting from orbit come to mind), but he seems to be able to drive engineering to find very pragmatic solutions. Anyone in engineering for more than a decade or two has seen persistent management over-optimism. It's part of the process. I don't fault him for his aspirational goals - it's what keeps his engineering efforts energetic.

In the American democracy there are several ways of gaining influence. Pleasing the electorate is one. Gaining wealth is another. Both have elements of meritocracy and each drives different decisions.

Contemporary US statesmen are compelled to address basic constituent survival issues as a priority. If followed to its logical conclusion and wars are avoided, it would result in a very large population committed to survival. In contrast, shooting for the stars measures society by challenging accomplishments and is better at creating "purpose".

 

[Janus]

In the Apollo era they said* humans would land on Mars by 1985. Still waiting...

*World Book Encyclopedia circa 1967.

It might have been a reality, if Nixon hadn't cut funding to the NERVA project. By the end of 1968 they had already had developed an engine that met the requirements for such an endeavor. It was a lack of political will more than anything else.