When is the NASA SLS launch date?

[OverTheTop]

What's the latest on the EPA review for Starship's launch?

April 29 was the last date I heard for the release of the report. Will it get pushed again? Quite possibly.

 

[Ez2cDave]

Almost 55 years ago, we were flying men to the Moon . . . Now,we can't even get a man out of LEO ( not even that, anymore, since the Shuttle was cancelled ) . . . We have been moving in the wrong direction, for decades !

Dave F.

 

[Lord Rory Gin]

It’s already obsolete. But that won’t stop NASA from launching it - they’re committed. My personal opinion is two launches (if the first one is successful that is - if Artemis 1 fails that’s it) with a slim but possible chance at a third. And that’ll be the last big rocket NASA ever builds. Then SpaceX, et. al. takes over providing launch services to whatever spacecraft NASA builds. To be brutally honest that’s probably the best possible outcome - let NASA transition to strictly developing/building spacecraft and payloads while others (who can do it better/faster/cheaper) provide the lift to get them where they need to be.

More likely to go with a min. of 5 launches.
FYI on the status of the Artemis 1 from the article below. The next wet test is happening now. Lower in the article it mentions a June launch.
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme...ss-for-sls-moon-rocket-following-valve-issues

 

[Reinhard]

What's the latest on the EPA review for Starship's launch?

It's been by the end of next month now for a while. Which is pretty fast if you compare it to the perpetual 50 years that we are away from nuclear fusion power plants.

Reinhard

 

[aerostadt]

https://spaceflightnow.com/2022/04/12/nasa-restarts-moon-rocket-wet-dress-rehearsal-countdown/This article says that after the shortened wet dress rehearsal Artemis 1 will need to be taken back to the VAB to replace a helium valve.

 

[Arnie]

More likely to go with a min. of 5 launches.
FYI on the status of the Artemis 1 from the article below. The next wet test is happening now. Lower in the article it mentions a June launch.
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme...ss-for-sls-moon-rocket-following-valve-issues

Why a minimum of 5 launches?

 

[Scott_650]

Why a minimum of 5 launches?

It’s sort of a “circular” logic thing - NASA has Artemis I - V planned and in their triennial and projected budgets - Artemis V is projected to be a follow-on to the prior Gateway missions to deliver the in-place lander shuttle vehicle - so if II through III actually happen, Gateway is delivered to orbit by Artemis IV and functioning properly, Artemis V makes it all worth the effort (and cubic yards of money) by providing a sustainable method for continuous lunar landings. This is all predicated on whether Gateway really does what NASA says it can do -though I’ve read fairly serious discussions that it won’t and the “classic” Apollo model for going to the Moon and back is actually more efficient. Regardless of all the plans and projections it will come down to, as always, how much Congress will appropriate - no bucks, no Buck Rogers. If commercial launch providers can convince Congress that they can do what NASA wants for less the SLS program will end and Artemis will fly on a different rocket. How many $2 billion launches will it take for that to happen is something we’ll see…

 

[Scott_650]

https://spaceflightnow.com/2022/04/12/nasa-restarts-moon-rocket-wet-dress-rehearsal-countdown/This article says that after the shortened wet dress rehearsal Artemis 1 will need to be taken back to the VAB to replace a helium valve.

Plus the added factor of the “shelf life” of the stacked SRBs - I think it’s one year from whatever point in assembly they do the certification - that date is coming up soon - July-ish, maybe? I’d have to imagine that NASA will be very hesitant to ask for an extension of that timeframe considering the past history, not that the SRBs would be allowed to fly unless they’re as safe as they can be but imagine the backlash if something did go wrong with an SRB with an extended service life. The facts wouldn’t matter in the face of the PR firestorm. All spaceflight has a big political element - for NASA it’s X10 compared to commercial launches and providers.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Wet Dress Rehearsal

I love a Wet Dress Rehearsal. This might be Zendaya’s best look yet, with her sultry, wet-look dress courtesy of Balmain.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

My understanding is that the SLS holdup has to do with a few things NASA is still waiting on from the Black Friday sales. Should be shipping in about 2 weeks.

 

[rharshberger]

I love a Wet Dress Rehearsal. This might be Zendaya’s best look yet, with her sultry, wet-look dress courtesy of Balmain.

View attachment 514161

Uhh Damn! and Wow!

 

[Ronz Rocketz]

The "conspiracy theory" is that someone up high is pushing FAA to put the brakes on Starship to let SLS catch up. If true, eventually the FAA is gonna have to relent if NASA keeps delaying. Elon's supposed problem is that he doesn't have his rocket production in several States with Congressional backing like NASA has. Just rumors so take it as it is.

 

[Scott_650]

The "conspiracy theory" is that someone up high is pushing FAA to put the brakes on Starship to let SLS catch up. If true, eventually the FAA is gonna have to relent if NASA keeps delaying. Elon's supposed problem is that he doesn't have his rocket production in several States with Congressional backing like NASA has. Just rumors so take it as it is.

I’m more inclined to look to a modified version of Hanlon's razor - "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by [incompetence]."

 

[Lord Rory Gin]

After the third failed attempt at the wet rehearsal, they are going to roll the SLS back to the assembly building for additional work on the SLS and on the tower fuelling. I guess this means another delay - probably until later in the summer before they "rock 'n roll".
https://www.space.com/nasa-artemis-1-moon-rocket-rolling-off-launch-pad

We'll learn more about the decision and the plans going forward soon; NASA will hold an Artemis 1 press conference Monday (April 18) at 3 p.m. EDT (1700 GMT). You can follow it live at Space.com.

Artemis 1: unmanned ~1 month mission orbital of the moon
Artemis 2: manned ~ 3 week flyby of the moon (3 Americans, 1 Canadian)
Artemis 3: manned crew landing on the south polar region of the moon; 2 crew in orbit; 2 crew on the moon
Artemis 4: manned crew to assemble the Gateway station (power/propulsion and habitat/logistics delivered previously by Falcon Heavy prior to habitat module)
Artemis 5: manned crew to add 2 more modules (refuelling/communication and Canadarm and lunar terrain vehicle)

 

[cerving]

So in 60+ years of space technology they can't figure out how to keep the plumbing from leaking? Unbelievable...

 

[Cape Byron]

So in 60+ years of space technology they can't figure out how to keep the plumbing from leaking? Unbelievable...

They’re scientists, man, not plumbers. Different degrees at technical school.

 

[FredA]

Come On Man.....plumbers get paid tons more than engineers....get the job done.

 

[aerostadt]

Ten years ago launching the large liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen Space Shuttle on a fairly regular basis seemed to be fairly easy. It seems like NASA and its partners have lost a lot of that capability.

 

[Antares JS]

So in 60+ years of space technology they can't figure out how to keep the plumbing from leaking? Unbelievable...

It's hydrogen plumbing. Hydrogen is basically impossible to contain completely and the shuttle was also plagued with hydrogen plumbing problems right up to the end.

 

[rharshberger]

It's hydrogen plumbing. Hydrogen is basically impossible to contain completely and the shuttle was also plagued with hydrogen plumbing problems right up to the end.

That may be, but NASA has over 50 years of plumbing Liquid Hydrogen and LOX, by now they should know the issues and how to deal with them.

 

[Antares JS]

That may be, but NASA has over 50 years of plumbing Liquid Hydrogen and LOX, by now they should know the issues and how to deal with them.

They are perfectly aware of the issues and how to deal with it, but that knowledge doesn't stop dealing with it from being difficult. If you happen have an easy way to cool pipes down to 20 Kelvins for testing without actual hydrogen and find nano-scale sized imperfections in seals that hydrogen molecules can slip through, I'd love to hear it.

 

[NAR29996]

They are perfectly aware of the issues and how to deal with it, but that knowledge doesn't stop dealing with it from being difficult. If you happen have an easy way to cool pipes down to 20 Kelvins for testing without actual hydrogen and find nano-scale sized imperfections in seals that hydrogen molecules can slip through, I'd love to hear it.

Stop making sense.

 

[MidOH]

That may be, but NASA has over 50 years of plumbing Liquid Hydrogen and LOX, by now they should know the issues and how to deal with them.

They know the issue, and how to deal with it. It's leaking, bring it back to the shop and try again.

If leaks were easy, or made any sense at all, I'd be out of a job (almost). Many leak repairs, leak even more than before.

 

[FredA]

IF indeed that plumbing is that hard to get right, waiting till you're on the pad seems WAY LATE to test for leaks.
Like building a house and not testing the plumbing before final inspection.
They should know better.....either how to get the plumbing right or how to test early.
Black eyes abound.....

 

[Antares JS]

IF indeed that plumbing is that hard to get right, waiting till you're on the pad seems WAY LATE to test for leaks.
Like building a house and not testing the plumbing before final inspection.
They should know better.....either how to get the plumbing right or how to test early.
Black eyes abound.....

They did test for leaks beforehand, but as has been said before, cryogenic hydrogen is extremely difficult to handle and contain. The slightest imperfection will result in leaks. The wind could have blown something microscopically off-kilter or a tiny crack may have developed in a seal that's just a little bit too old or been exposed to a little bit too much weather.

Hydrogen is a MASSIVE pain in the *** and these kinds of problems are par for the course when handling it. This is not the result of any negligence on NASA's part.

 

[FredA]

Massive PITA that you can't get right makes it a poor choice regardless of how shiny perfection looks to be.

 

[Antares JS]

Massive PITA that you can't get right makes it a poor choice regardless of how shiny perfection looks to be.

Hydrogen first stages are indeed a case of the perfect being the enemy of the good in the case of SLS. It's much better suited to upper stages that don't require as much fuel and can take better advantage of the massive specific impulse by not fighting drag.

However, they were stuck with using hydrogen because NASA was mandated to use space shuttle engines in the SLS, which used hydrogen because they ran fuel-rich staged combustion and trying to use RP-1 in a fuel-rich engine results in massive coking that isn't great for the prospects of reusing that engine.

 

[FredA]

Seems like NASA mandated themselves into a corner..........not smart.

 

[Antares JS]

Seems like NASA mandated themselves into a corner..........not smart.

NASA does not mandate themselves. Blame for decisions like that rest squarely on Congress, whose main priority was to keep shuttle workers employed, not to return to the moon.

 

[FredA]

Blame for decisions like that rest squarely on Congress

Congress chose the motors?
Really?
Kinda doubt that .... instead they constrained the budget.

If they indeed mandated the engines, you would think they would have learned their lesson with the O-Rings..............
Stupid is as stupid does.....