Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Ars Technica)   Maybe the SLS Launch scrub could have been avoided had NASA actually tested the fueling system beforehand   (arstechnica.com) divider line
    More: Facepalm, Kennedy Space Center, Rocket, launch team, wet dress rehearsal, technical problem, hard work, RS-25 rocket engine, Monday's attempt  
•       •       •

916 clicks; posted to STEM » on 29 Aug 2022 at 11:05 PM (21 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



38 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2022-08-29 6:16:16 PM  
I'm starting to thing NASA stands for
Not
A
Scrub
Again!
 
2022-08-29 7:05:55 PM  
Artemis and Apollo were both bastards. Zeus was married to Hera when he knocked up their mother, Leto.
 
2022-08-29 8:02:01 PM  
Meh
I don't think any first flight went of on the first try. It's almost expected that it will scrub.
 
2022-08-29 8:34:55 PM  
Go back to taking orders at Del Taco, submitter.
 
2022-08-29 8:34:56 PM  
This problem was ultimately resolved by stopping the process and then restarting propellant loading-yes, NASA resolved the problem by essentially turning off the SLS and turning it back on again.


They must have consulted this guy:

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-08-29 11:08:43 PM  
Fark it! We'll fix it in post.
 
2022-08-29 11:20:44 PM  

cretinbob: Meh
I don't think any first flight went of on the first try. It's almost expected that it will scrub.


yeah but usually those other flights actually successfully tested things beforehand, or else were "meant" to fail, whereas SLS failed its dress rehearsal... four times? Five?

in other words, it isn't surprising that it didn't work here considering it didn't work the last half-dozen times it was tested (including the first green run test, which was supposed to demonstrate that everything is working fine)
 
2022-08-29 11:34:35 PM  

dionysusaur: I'm starting to thing NASA stands for
Not
A
Scrub
Again!


Scrubs are farking common in space flight. Even when NASA is no where to be seen.

And if anything, NASA took much greater risks with the early Saturn V launches.
 
2022-08-29 11:43:40 PM  
Test sequences are usually long and convoluted, the product of many, many hours of thoughtful interaction between disciplines. Rushing over parts, skipping others is a good way to go nowhere.
 
2022-08-29 11:48:44 PM  

edmo: Test sequences are usually long and convoluted, the product of many, many hours of thoughtful interaction between disciplines. Rushing over parts, skipping others is a good way to go nowhere.


Yes, but it's going nowhere in style.
 
2022-08-29 11:52:58 PM  
Rocket testing from The Right Stuff
Youtube 6rwi_0DEd_0
 
2022-08-30 12:23:04 AM  
Once the launch team got into propellant loading, work to fill the large liquid hydrogen tank was stymied by a leak at an 8-inch inlet leading into the tank. This problem was ultimately resolved by stopping the process and then restarting propellant loading-yes, NASA resolved the problem by essentially turning off the SLS and turning it back on again.

Unless you can prove to me a valve failed because the logic was bad, sounds more like a seal was farked, and represurizing the line sealed it in the bead. Other than a cheeky joke, not sure how that sounds particularly stupid. But I've never fueled hydrogen before.
 
2022-08-30 12:32:32 AM  
They couldn't test during the wet rehearsal because there was a leak in a quick connect downstream of the engine that's required to remove the gaseous hydrogen from vehical after it's passed through the engine to chill it down. Since it's necessary for the H2 tank to be filled to operate the engine chilldown, it's either do another wet rehearsal, or give it a try during a launch attempt. Since there isn't any payload that's really time sensitive and a failure of the system is easily detected before launch by abnormal temperature feedback and it was the only real major problem during the rehearsal, there isn't really any excess risk in rolling an aborted launch into a wet rehearsal for exercising the rest of the systems and training.

In my engineering judgement, they made the right call in going for a launch attempt.
 
2022-08-30 1:36:32 AM  

TheMysteriousStranger: dionysusaur: I'm starting to thing NASA stands for
Not
A
Scrub
Again!

Scrubs are farking common in space flight. Even when NASA is no where to be seen.

And if anything, NASA took much greater risks with the early Saturn V launches.


Or the Shuttle, which carried crew on its very first launch.
 
2022-08-30 2:57:34 AM  

Nicholas D. Wolfwood: TheMysteriousStranger: dionysusaur: I'm starting to thing NASA stands for
Not
A
Scrub
Again!

Scrubs are farking common in space flight. Even when NASA is no where to be seen.

And if anything, NASA took much greater risks with the early Saturn V launches.

Or the Shuttle, which carried crew on its very first launch.


It was before my time, but I think Apollo 1 was crewed, too.
 
2022-08-30 3:06:29 AM  

dbirchall: Nicholas D. Wolfwood: TheMysteriousStranger: dionysusaur: I'm starting to thing NASA stands for
Not
A
Scrub
Again!

Scrubs are farking common in space flight. Even when NASA is no where to be seen.

And if anything, NASA took much greater risks with the early Saturn V launches.

Or the Shuttle, which carried crew on its very first launch.

It was before my time, but I think Apollo 1 was crewed, too.


Apollo 1 was a test and not a launch.
 
2022-08-30 3:20:14 AM  
I think the real question is whether Jadzia is her own character, or too much Kurzon.

Like Kurzon, she's a gambler, a hedonist, a Klingophile. Brilliant, sure. Scientist, sure. But otherwise she seems overwhelmed with Kurzon's persona.
 
2022-08-30 6:46:09 AM  
SLS is running scared (of what?) and they wanted a launch to beat Starship and the next Falcon Heavy; their sponsors feel the need to show something for all those wasted billions, although they really don't have to worry because as long as the jobs are there, nobody will mind if no rocket is launched.

They got lucky this time, because that bird is nowhere near ready to fly
 
2022-08-30 7:39:27 AM  
The delay was understandable. Do you have any idea how many 5 gallon jerry cans it takes to fill this rocket?
 
2022-08-30 8:04:57 AM  
Lots of publicity for a wet dress rehearsal
 
2022-08-30 8:27:37 AM  

8tReAsUrEz: SLS is running scared (of what?) and they wanted a launch to beat Starship and the next Falcon Heavy; their sponsors feel the need to show something for all those wasted billions, although they really don't have to worry because as long as the jobs are there, nobody will mind if no rocket is launched.

They got lucky this time, because that bird is nowhere near ready to fly


Yeah, bullshiat.  Artemis and Orion has been in the works for much longer than Starship and Falcon and this is the fruition of a lot of a long, incremental process by people much more experienced with spaceflight.  Sorry, go fellate your billionaires on your own time.
 
2022-08-30 8:30:15 AM  

UberDave: This problem was ultimately resolved by stopping the process and then restarting propellant loading-yes, NASA resolved the problem by essentially turning off the SLS and turning it back on again.


They must have consulted this guy:

[Fark user image 500x281]


I was thinking more of this one:

: Tech Support : Foamy The Squirrel
Youtube AmD_8cBqhW0
 
2022-08-30 8:47:34 AM  

Dhusk: 8tReAsUrEz: SLS is running scared (of what?) and they wanted a launch to beat Starship and the next Falcon Heavy; their sponsors feel the need to show something for all those wasted billions, although they really don't have to worry because as long as the jobs are there, nobody will mind if no rocket is launched.

They got lucky this time, because that bird is nowhere near ready to fly

Yeah, bullshiat.  Artemis and Orion has been in the works for much longer than Starship and Falcon and this is the fruition of a lot of a long, incremental process by people much more experienced with spaceflight.  Sorry, go fellate your billionaires on your own time.


Yes but they've also been saddled by the whim of idiot politicians.  Using old shuttle components was supposed to make this a fairly easy (as rockets go) project.  And now after going way over budget and waaaaay past the expected delivery date, there is a rocket with 40 year old engines that are already flight proven that can't fly.

Apollo this ain't.
 
2022-08-30 8:50:10 AM  
Test something before you run it out to the pad?  Why?  Its a valve.  It opens and closes.  Its not rocket science!!

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-08-30 9:27:19 AM  
kawarthanow.comView Full Size
 
2022-08-30 9:52:17 AM  
qorkfiend: Apollo 1 was a test and not a launch.

The astronauts that were supposed to fly on Apollo 1 really got burned.
 
2022-08-30 9:55:03 AM  

Dhusk: 8tReAsUrEz: SLS is running scared (of what?) and they wanted a launch to beat Starship and the next Falcon Heavy; their sponsors feel the need to show something for all those wasted billions, although they really don't have to worry because as long as the jobs are there, nobody will mind if no rocket is launched.

They got lucky this time, because that bird is nowhere near ready to fly

Yeah, bullshiat.  Artemis and Orion has been in the works for much longer than Starship and Falcon and this is the fruition of a lot of a long, incremental process by people much more experienced with spaceflight.  Sorry, go fellate your billionaires on your own time.


which is complimentary to Artemis and Orion how?
 
2022-08-30 10:35:55 AM  

Snotnose: qorkfiend: Apollo 1 was a test and not a launch.

The astronauts that were supposed to fly on Apollo 1 really got burned.


UnCSB: I worked for a few years at a high-altitude site built in the late 1960s.  Even back then, they knew folks have trouble thinking in thin air - like 0.6 atmospheres - so the doors to the room I worked in were all either double ("airlock" style) or had rubber seals on them, and at one end of the room there were gauges to show the flow of oxygen into the room to help people think better.

But after Apollo 1, they decided to not feed in oxygen after all, even though they'd built the infrastructure for it already.  So we just had to try to think as well as we could.  On the bright side, I'm not extra crispy.
 
2022-08-30 10:40:35 AM  

dbirchall: Nicholas D. Wolfwood: TheMysteriousStranger: dionysusaur: I'm starting to thing NASA stands for
Not
A
Scrub
Again!

Scrubs are farking common in space flight. Even when NASA is no where to be seen.

And if anything, NASA took much greater risks with the early Saturn V launches.

Or the Shuttle, which carried crew on its very first launch.

It was before my time, but I think Apollo 1 was crewed, too.


Not for long
 
2022-08-30 11:28:07 AM  

dbirchall: Nicholas D. Wolfwood: TheMysteriousStranger: dionysusaur: I'm starting to thing NASA stands for
Not
A
Scrub
Again!

Scrubs are farking common in space flight. Even when NASA is no where to be seen.

And if anything, NASA took much greater risks with the early Saturn V launches.

Or the Shuttle, which carried crew on its very first launch.

It was before my time, but I think Apollo 1 was crewed, too.


No.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Apollo_missions#Uncrewed_test_flights
 
2022-08-30 11:42:37 AM  
If it's Boeing, it ain't going.
 
2022-08-30 12:25:30 PM  
As always these days, the author is biased as a motherf*cker and beating everyone over the head with his personal agenda.

He is apparently an Elon Musk fanboi, and wrote a book about him and how wonderful SpaceX is.

So of course he's going to try and sh*t all over NASA. Of course.
 
2022-08-30 1:41:03 PM  

ColleenSezWhuut: Dhusk: 8tReAsUrEz: SLS is running scared (of what?) and they wanted a launch to beat Starship and the next Falcon Heavy; their sponsors feel the need to show something for all those wasted billions, although they really don't have to worry because as long as the jobs are there, nobody will mind if no rocket is launched.

They got lucky this time, because that bird is nowhere near ready to fly

Yeah, bullshiat.  Artemis and Orion has been in the works for much longer than Starship and Falcon and this is the fruition of a lot of a long, incremental process by people much more experienced with spaceflight.  Sorry, go fellate your billionaires on your own time.

Yes but they've also been saddled by the whim of idiot politicians.  Using old shuttle components was supposed to make this a fairly easy (as rockets go) project.  And now after going way over budget and waaaaay past the expected delivery date, there is a rocket with 40 year old engines that are already flight proven that can't fly.

Apollo this ain't.


And Starship and Falcon are saddled by the whims of idiot billionaires and their runaway egos.  I see no difference.  The idiot politicians have at least come through in the past, and the same with NASA.  Did you forget there's a space station orbiting above your head right now with 30-year old hardware?  or that the Russians are still successfully using hardware and designs form the beginning of the Cold War?

The people at NASA are not stupid, despite the Elon and Bezos cultists wanting us to believe different.  They would not be launching unless they were sure they could pull this off.
 
2022-08-30 1:45:58 PM  

New Farkin User Name: Dhusk: 8tReAsUrEz: SLS is running scared (of what?) and they wanted a launch to beat Starship and the next Falcon Heavy; their sponsors feel the need to show something for all those wasted billions, although they really don't have to worry because as long as the jobs are there, nobody will mind if no rocket is launched.

They got lucky this time, because that bird is nowhere near ready to fly

Yeah, bullshiat.  Artemis and Orion has been in the works for much longer than Starship and Falcon and this is the fruition of a lot of a long, incremental process by people much more experienced with spaceflight.  Sorry, go fellate your billionaires on your own time.

which is complimentary to Artemis and Orion how?


Because that approach has been proven to work.  How long were the Space Shuttle and the ISS and the JWST, and Hubble and New Horizons or dozens of other successful projects in the development pipeline?  If Elon and Bezos ever tear themselves away from their ego-stroking cultists and get that kind of long-range, proven track record, then I'll be impressed.
 
2022-08-30 1:53:42 PM  

Dhusk: ColleenSezWhuut: Dhusk: 8tReAsUrEz: SLS is running scared (of what?) and they wanted a launch to beat Starship and the next Falcon Heavy; their sponsors feel the need to show something for all those wasted billions, although they really don't have to worry because as long as the jobs are there, nobody will mind if no rocket is launched.

They got lucky this time, because that bird is nowhere near ready to fly

Yeah, bullshiat.  Artemis and Orion has been in the works for much longer than Starship and Falcon and this is the fruition of a lot of a long, incremental process by people much more experienced with spaceflight.  Sorry, go fellate your billionaires on your own time.

Yes but they've also been saddled by the whim of idiot politicians.  Using old shuttle components was supposed to make this a fairly easy (as rockets go) project.  And now after going way over budget and waaaaay past the expected delivery date, there is a rocket with 40 year old engines that are already flight proven that can't fly.

Apollo this ain't.

And Starship and Falcon are saddled by the whims of idiot billionaires and their runaway egos.  I see no difference.  The idiot politicians have at least come through in the past, and the same with NASA.  Did you forget there's a space station orbiting above your head right now with 30-year old hardware?  or that the Russians are still successfully using hardware and designs form the beginning of the Cold War?

The people at NASA are not stupid, despite the Elon and Bezos cultists wanting us to believe different.  They would not be launching unless they were sure they could pull this off.


Ah, can't come up with a reasonable retort so you accuse me of being a billionaire fanboi.

I'm bagging on this program because it has been horrifically mismanaged from the word go.  That's a direct quote from an old college friend of mine who is working on it. (super cool job but the BS she deals with...)

It should have flown last decade, and yet here we are staring at it while it continues to hold down the launch pad.  Using off the shelf engines was supposed to (and absolutely should have) made the SLS a rapid project.
 
2022-08-30 1:55:47 PM  

qorkfiend: dbirchall: Nicholas D. Wolfwood: TheMysteriousStranger: dionysusaur: I'm starting to thing NASA stands for
Not
A
Scrub
Again!

Scrubs are farking common in space flight. Even when NASA is no where to be seen.

And if anything, NASA took much greater risks with the early Saturn V launches.

Or the Shuttle, which carried crew on its very first launch.

It was before my time, but I think Apollo 1 was crewed, too.

Apollo 1 was a test and not a launch.


Apollo 1 was a space mission which was intended to orbit the Earth.  When the the astronauts started that test which cost them their lives they expected to launched into orbit in a few weeks.
 
2022-08-30 3:57:24 PM  

Dhusk: ColleenSezWhuut: Dhusk: 8tReAsUrEz: SLS is running scared (of what?) and they wanted a launch to beat Starship and the next Falcon Heavy; their sponsors feel the need to show something for all those wasted billions, although they really don't have to worry because as long as the jobs are there, nobody will mind if no rocket is launched.

They got lucky this time, because that bird is nowhere near ready to fly

Yeah, bullshiat.  Artemis and Orion has been in the works for much longer than Starship and Falcon and this is the fruition of a lot of a long, incremental process by people much more experienced with spaceflight.  Sorry, go fellate your billionaires on your own time.

Yes but they've also been saddled by the whim of idiot politicians.  Using old shuttle components was supposed to make this a fairly easy (as rockets go) project.  And now after going way over budget and waaaaay past the expected delivery date, there is a rocket with 40 year old engines that are already flight proven that can't fly.

Apollo this ain't.

And Starship and Falcon are saddled by the whims of idiot billionaires and their runaway egos.  I see no difference.  The idiot politicians have at least come through in the past, and the same with NASA.  Did you forget there's a space station orbiting above your head right now with 30-year old hardware?  or that the Russians are still successfully using hardware and designs form the beginning of the Cold War?

The people at NASA are not stupid, despite the Elon and Bezos cultists wanting us to believe different.  They would not be launching unless they were sure they could pull this off.


NASA, by its own admission can not replicate Apollo Era tech.  For you to state NASA won't do something until they are sure shows lack of historical knowledge about NASA.

Others are doing it better, faster, and cheaper
 
2022-08-30 4:19:35 PM  

mjbok: Dhusk: ColleenSezWhuut: Dhusk: 8tReAsUrEz: SLS is running scared (of what?) and they wanted a launch to beat Starship and the next Falcon Heavy; their sponsors feel the need to show something for all those wasted billions, although they really don't have to worry because as long as the jobs are there, nobody will mind if no rocket is launched.

They got lucky this time, because that bird is nowhere near ready to fly

Yeah, bullshiat.  Artemis and Orion has been in the works for much longer than Starship and Falcon and this is the fruition of a lot of a long, incremental process by people much more experienced with spaceflight.  Sorry, go fellate your billionaires on your own time.

Yes but they've also been saddled by the whim of idiot politicians.  Using old shuttle components was supposed to make this a fairly easy (as rockets go) project.  And now after going way over budget and waaaaay past the expected delivery date, there is a rocket with 40 year old engines that are already flight proven that can't fly.

Apollo this ain't.

And Starship and Falcon are saddled by the whims of idiot billionaires and their runaway egos.  I see no difference.  The idiot politicians have at least come through in the past, and the same with NASA.  Did you forget there's a space station orbiting above your head right now with 30-year old hardware?  or that the Russians are still successfully using hardware and designs form the beginning of the Cold War?

The people at NASA are not stupid, despite the Elon and Bezos cultists wanting us to believe different.  They would not be launching unless they were sure they could pull this off.

NASA, by its own admission can not replicate Apollo Era tech.  For you to state NASA won't do something until they are sure shows lack of historical knowledge about NASA.

Others are doing it better, faster, and cheaper


In addition to which, and correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think people are necessarily accusing *NASA* of being Stupid.

CONGRESS, now Congress, yeah, they're dumber'n a box of rocks!
 
Displayed 38 of 38 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.