"Es handelt sich hierbei um sehr maßgeschneiderte Komponenten," Das sagte der stellvertretende NASA-Administrator Amit Kshatriya am Dienstag und beschrieb jedes SLS als ein eigenes, einzigartiges Fahrzeug, das es zu lernen und zu verstehen gilt.
Traurig, dass die NASA wenig aus der Vision des Shuttle-Programms gelernt hat, ganz zu schweigen von der rücksichtslosen – und erfolgreichen – Fixierung von SpaceX auf Wiederholbarkeit.
https://www.space.com/space-exploration/artemis/nasa-had-3-years-to-fix-fuel-leaks-on-its-artemis-moon-rocket-why-are-they-still-happening
14 Kommentare
„No way to prevent this“ says the only rocket where this regularly happens.
I called NASA sad (pathetic) in another post and got downvoted into oblivion. Now a report of how sad (pathetic) it is for them to continue to repeat mistakes and it will probably be praised.
Your point on the R-35s is completely valid but you can’t compare SLS with spaceX though. As much as political pressured that SLS development was, a fail-fast design approach would have killed it on inception. However liquid hydrogen is a completely different monster compared methane/kerosene, which is why starship decided not to even remotely consider it.
Apparently hydrogen was a pain for the Space Shuttle as well. [This article](https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/09/years-after-shuttle-nasa-rediscovers-the-perils-of-liquid-hydrogen/) says it scrubbed on average once per mission. So if NASA could never fix it for the Space Shuttle, it isn’t surprising that they couldn’t fix it for the SLS.
how do you fix it on the moon?
if its hard enough to manage hydrogen here how harder it going to be with gloves on?
Ariane 5 has a hydrolox first stage, is their reliability as impacted as on SLS or as it was on STS?
Artemis is not a space vehicle, it’s a job vehicle. Literally no one in charge cares about if it will fly or not. Its main purpose is (was) to create jobs and fill the pockets of congressmen. That’s why it’s such a frankenstein monster and barely usable for the goal NASA set for the program.
Because it takes a lot of things working together to lift 5.7 million lbs into space.
Because the laws of physics. Hydrogen leaks through anything.
Artemis II launch is also still within schedule of a launch between February and early may.
Apparently when you use cost plus contracts…. There is no incentive to make things that work
For the millionth time on this sub, hydrogen is incredibly difficult to work with. ALL rockets that use hydrogen face issues with hydrogen leaks. I literally don’t know of a single one that hasn’t faced this problem. Not to mention one of the constraints put on SLS was for it to use the existing shuttle launch infrastructure, where this exact issue plagued the tail service masts during the shuttle era. Why anyone would expect this to be different is beyond me.
Because the SLS is a white elephant designed to reuse Space Shuttle technology. It’s not rocket science. Oh, actually, this time it literally is!
NASA isn’t the same organization it was in the 60s. This is what happens when you try to fly rockets designed by bureaucrats who’s only interest is empire and legacy building.
Is this MAGA propaganda of „give all munei to Musk?“ Stuff?