Welp, that didn't go well... not that anyone is particularly surprised at this stage.

https://spacenews.com/nasa-works-to-tra ... down-test/

After several aborted attempts at a wet dress rehearsal on the pad, the SLS assembly is being rolled back to the VAB to allow the crew to look for and fix a number of issues, mostly relating with leaks it seems, including a hydrogen leak detected during one of the propellant loading attempts.
In SLS' defence, it seems most issues are with the pad and support equipment rather than the rocket itself. The rocket is being rolled back mostly to avoid prolonged environmental stress on it, especially from the wind.

Francoflier wrote:

Welp, that didn't go well... not that anyone is particularly surprised at this stage.

https://spacenews.com/nasa-works-to-tra ... down-test/

After several aborted attempts at a wet dress rehearsal on the pad, the SLS assembly is being rolled back to the VAB to allow the crew to look for and fix a number of issues, mostly relating with leaks it seems, including a hydrogen leak detected during one of the propellant loading attempts.
In SLS' defence, it seems most issues are with the pad and support equipment rather than the rocket itself. The rocket is being rolled back mostly to avoid prolonged environmental stress on it, especially from the wind.

Yes, it’s been widely reported that LC-39B has the issues.
Something not true with Starliner.

I remember how many times in the early days SpaceX people would go to the launch pad and pretty much hit a sticky cryo valve with a hammer to get things going.
If they'd used the proper methods of fixing something, they'd still be at it when the sun turned into a red giant.
The Shuttle had a lot of hydrogen valve troubles. It makes me think someone forgot about the basics in all the years they've been working on this thing.

Nomadd wrote:

It makes me think someone forgot about the basics in all the years they've been working on this thing.

Wouldn't be surprised. I'm guessing we're probably looking at a month delay at least.

744SPX wrote:

Nomadd wrote:

It makes me think someone forgot about the basics in all the years they've been working on this thing.

Wouldn't be surprised. I'm guessing we're probably looking at a month delay at least.

Just had a NASA teleconference, the rollback decision was taken because the nitrogen vendor asked for time to expand their pipeline capacity, which had been the source of delays on the earlier tests. They are looking at 3 options for completing WDR. Two of them involve double trips back to VAB, the third option is one trip with a combined WDR completion and launch. The first two would make the June 6 launch window challenging, with the next window on June 29th. The third option would preserve the June 6 window.

Eric Berger asked the question about loss of institutional knowledge, they said that they still have people from the shuttle days involved with Artemis. Also said that these problems (check valve and fitting leak) are expected for a first shakedown test. Wayne Hale has said this as well, if anything he thought they were too optimistic about how long WDR would take,

Avatar2go wrote:

Just had a NASA teleconference, the rollback decision was taken because the nitrogen vendor asked for time to expand their pipeline capacity, which had been the source of delays on the earlier tests. They are looking at 3 options for completing WDR. Two of them involve double trips back to VAB, the third option is one trip with a combined WDR completion and launch. The first two would make the June 6 launch window challenging, with the next window on June 29th. The third option would preserve the June 6 window.
Eric Berger asked the question about loss of institutional knowledge, they said that they still have people from the shuttle days involved with Artemis. Also said that these problems (check valve and fitting leak) are expected for a first shakedown test. Wayne Hale has said this as well, if anything he thought they were too optimistic about how long WDR would take,

The vendor waited till the stack was on the pad to tell them they were short on capacity?

Nomadd wrote:

The vendor waited till the stack was on the pad to tell them they were short on capacity?

The capacity exists, but is unreliable. Twice their systems shut down while flowing at the needed rate. Artemis needs several times more GN2 than other launch vehicles. They've had the new equipment in place but have not had an opportunity to tie it in to the NASA pipeline. They'll be given the time for that now. It was scheduled between WDR and launch in June, but WDR overstressed the system.

NASA announced today that the GN2 supply at KSC will not be sufficient for Artemis WDR or launch until June. So the rollback to the VAB today will be for an extended period.

Other launch vehicles with lesser requirements, such as Falcon and Atlas, will have the GN2 supply temporarily reactivated during their launch periods.

Artemis 1 is about to reenter the VAB as it rolls back for repairs.

Looks like the GN2 pipeline upgrade was pushed by Axiom-1, which pushed Crew-4, after which there will be a 2-week window for the upgrade before Starliner-1. That pushed Artemis WDR to late May or early June. KSC is a really busy place these days.

Also NASA has said in an interview that an older vendor N2 vaporizer failed 3 times in the span of a week, which prompted them to create the window for the vendor to upgrade. The vaporizer is only needed for Artemis. For smaller rockets the air separation system alone can meet the demand.

zanl188 wrote:

Artemis 1 is about to reenter the VAB as it rolls back for repairs.

Does it actually need repairs, or is it just the fueling system not being able to cope that's the problem here ?

LTEN11 wrote:

zanl188 wrote:

Artemis 1 is about to reenter the VAB as it rolls back for repairs.

Does it actually need repairs, or is it just the fueling system not being able to cope that's the problem here ?

The problem is that LiquidAire must vaporize additional stored LN2 in order to meet the purge demand for Artemis. For smaller vehicles such as Falcon and Atlas, the output of the air separator alone is able to meet the demand.

The vaporizers have been in place since the Shuttle era, so NASA did not expect problems with supply. LiquidAire knew the vaporizers were old so had added new units previously, but had not yet tied them into the pipeline that feeds NASA. So the downtime is to make that switch, from old to new vaporizers.

The issues on the Artemis side are a stuck helium feed check valve, which prevented loading of propellant into the ICPS, and will be replaced. And a small hydrogen leak in the platform mast umbilical plate purge can for the core stage. Both would be safety issues during propellant loading, so NASA decided to repair before next attempt.

Those repairs are probably a week or two at most. So they will try to complete some other launch preparation tasks during this rollback, while waiting for the LiquidAire GN2 upgrade. They have already completed most of the test objectives for WDR, but will repeat them until they complete the process end-to-end.

Avatar2go wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

zanl188 wrote:

Artemis 1 is about to reenter the VAB as it rolls back for repairs.

Does it actually need repairs, or is it just the fueling system not being able to cope that's the problem here ?

The problem is that LiquidAire must vaporize additional stored LN2 in order to meet the purge demand for Artemis. For smaller vehicles such as Falcon and Atlas, the output of the air separator alone is able to meet the demand.

The vaporizers have been in place since the Shuttle era, so NASA did not expect problems with supply. LiquidAire knew the vaporizers were old so had added new units previously, but had not yet tied them into the pipeline that feeds NASA. So the downtime is to make that switch, from old to new vaporizers.

The issues on the Artemis side are a stuck helium feed check valve, which prevented loading of propellant into the ICPS, and will be replaced. And a small hydrogen leak in the platform mast umbilical plate purge can for the core stage. Both would be safety issues during propellant loading, so NASA decided to repair before next attempt.

Those repairs are probably a week or two at most. So they will try to complete some other launch preparation tasks during this rollback, while waiting for the LiquidAire GN2 upgrade. They have already completed most of the test objectives for WDR, but will repeat them until they complete the process end-to-end.

Great, thanks for the info.

In the NASA Artemis media conference today, they said the helium check valve had been replaced, and the malfunction was found to be rubber debris caught in the valve. They are analyzing the debris to determine its source, as the root cause.

The hydrogen leak is believed to be due to thermal contraction/expansion of the connector flange bolts, which loosened them sufficiently to allow a small leak. The correction will be to re-torque the bolts after each usage cycle. That will be extended to all similar flanges on the umbilicals.

The LiquideAire work is expected to be complete on May 9, followed by 2 days of stress testing to be sure the GN2 flow will be adequate for WDR and launch. Artemis will roll back out to the pad in the second half of May, for WDR in early June, then return to the VAB for closeout and launch in late July or early August.

There will be a media conference tomorrow at 12 noon ET, to discuss the work completed on Artemis, the nitrogen gas supply, and the rollout to the pad. This will be to complete the wet dress rehearsal, after which the vehicle will be rolled back to the VAB for final flight preparation and arming of the range safety system (flight termination). The certification of that system is the limiting factor in how long Artemis can remain in launch configuration on the pad.

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa ... on-mission

NASA will announce the winning vendors for the commercial EVA spacesuit competition, in a media conference on Wednesday June 1 at 2 pm ET. These are needed for the Artemis missions and to replace the aging suits at ISS.

They can't come too soon, as there now has been a second suit with a coolant water leak, and the number of working suits is dwindling. Also the remaining suits are not always the right size for the astronauts.

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa ... acewalking

Avatar2go wrote:

NASA will announce the winning vendors for the commercial EVA spacesuit competition, in a media conference on Wednesday June 1 at 2 pm ET. These are needed for the Artemis missions and to replace the aging suits at ISS.

They can't come too soon, as there now has been a second suit with a coolant water leak, and the number of working suits is dwindling. Also the remaining suits are not always the right size for the astronauts.

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa ... acewalking

Your post led me to some interesting reading. I realize there have been updates but it’s almost hard to believe how long it’s been since there’s been any real change in the suits. Specifically the Russian suits. It really does seem like the Russians decided in the early to mid 70s that their space technology was as perfect as it’ll ever be.

I do think the commercialization of space has created better opportunity for diversification in equipment. Say NASA picks one suit, it doesn’t mean SpaceX won’t continue to develop their own. Would be a nice add on, buy a flight for 4 and get an EVA

FGITD wrote:

Your post led me to some interesting reading. I realize there have been updates but it’s almost hard to believe how long it’s been since there’s been any real change in the suits. Specifically the Russian suits. It really does seem like the Russians decided in the early to mid 70s that their space technology was as perfect as it’ll ever be.

I do think the commercialization of space has created better opportunity for diversification in equipment. Say NASA picks one suit, it doesn’t mean SpaceX won’t continue to develop their own. Would be a nice add on, buy a flight for 4 and get an EVA

Agreed that commercial design ideas should be valuable in producing new suits. The SpaceX EVA suit is more of a Gemini-style tethered suit for brief spacewalks from Crew Dragon. The NASA planned EVA suit is more of a personal reusable spacecraft, complete with avionics, custom tools and internal redundancy, able to operate independently for 8 hours or more.

The OIG report of NASA suit development is a project roadmap nightmare. It has changed paths so many times, with changes in programs and administrations, has been underfunded, and become extremely ambitious in its goals of trying to meet every program need. It's one of the casualties of the decision to accelerate the moon landing to 2024. The suit was never going to make that deadline.

https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-21-025.pdf

From Artemis media conference today: Rollout scheduled for June 6. WDR scheduled for June 19 for first cryogenic fluid flow. Launch window sometime late in August (launch period 25), to avoid conflict with other missions and allow margin. The July window was too close to WDR for them to be confident about margin

1. Core stage umbilical hydrogen fittings torqued, can mitigate further on pad if needed
2. ICPS check valve replaced, umbilical boots modified, sensors added.
3. Orion launch preparation continues, cargo added.
4. Orion, ICPS launch plates installed, vehicle transport instrumentation removed.
5. Nitrogen delivery system tested at full flow rates for more than 34 hours.
6. Cubesat batteries recharged.

Significant work was retired from final preparation task list. Launch date hardware & soft goods limits extend into the late fall at minimum. Rubber seal on quick disconnect to ICPS dislodged to block the helium check valve. ICPS umbilical boot was modified to prevent air infiltration by suction into umbilical area, which generated a false hydrogen alert, and additional monitoring is now in place. Vehicle looks good for WDR.

Thanks for the update.

Avatar2go wrote:

6. Cubesat batteries recharged.

That got me chuckling... I had forgotten there actually was a payload waiting inside the thing.

NASA Spacesuit media conference today: the first down-select was to Axiom and Collins to develop their suit concepts to NASA specs, for demonstration mission to the ISS and the lunar surface. The lunar demonstration will be Artemis 3, which will be wholly dependent on the new suits. Details are to follow in the selection statement to be issued in late June. No visuals or information released today.

The previous xEMU, xEVA work conducted by NASA will be made available to the vendors in the form of a NASA library, form which they are free to draw any part of their designs. The total value of the contract is expected to be $3.5B, which covers development, testing & demonstration missions, and eventual procurement of suit services en-masse. The suits will remain the property of the venders and can be made available to the commercial market.

NASA has decided to preserve the one-suit concept for both ISS and lunar EVA's. This makes the suit essentially a small spacecraft, with 8 to12 hour endurance. The vendors have said they are pursuing modular designs that can be adjusted to the need at hand. Both waist entry and back entry will be available, and the size range will be adjustable from 5% percentile for women, to 95% percentile for men. All suits also will be compatible with a common spacecraft storage and recharge interface, on board the lander and ISS.

Like the xEMU program, those goals seem extremely ambitious, so it will be interesting to follow their progress.

Avatar2go wrote:

NASA has decided to preserve the one-suit concept for both ISS and lunar EVA's. This makes the suit essentially a small spacecraft, with 8 to12 hour endurance. The vendors have said they are pursuing modular designs that can be adjusted to the need at hand. Both waist entry and back entry will be available, and the size range will be adjustable from 5% percentile for women, to 95% percentile for men. All suits also will be compatible with a common spacecraft storage and recharge interface, on board the lander and ISS.

Like the xEMU program, those goals seem extremely ambitious, so it will be interesting to follow their progress.

Wouldn't it make more sense to have two types of suits, one for ISS spacewalks and one for lunar activities? Seems to me (knowing very little about space suits) that those are two very different design requirements.

TangoandCash wrote:

Wouldn't it make more sense to have two types of suits, one for ISS spacewalks and one for lunar activities? Seems to me (knowing very little about space suits) that those are two very different design requirements.

Many people are of that same opinion. I suspect NASA is concerned about funding and cost of maintaining two sets of suits. But it also may be that meeting both requirements with one suit will also be quite expensive, as it was for the xEMU and xEVA programs. I guess we'll see where it goes. There was no suit detail released today, but Collins has a video from last year.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUTlPLklgg8

Artemis has rolled out to pad 39B for another attempt at wet dress rehearsal, which should take place in about a week.

Artemis wet dress rehearsal is now tentatively scheduled for June 19th. Tentative launch date is now in the late August launch window. That gives them a week to roll back, a month to prepare the vehicle for launch, and 2 weeks to roll back out for launch, with some margin built in.

The limiting factor continues to be the flight termination system, which once armed, has a certified life of 21 days.

New NASA OIG report out on the ML-2 mobile launcher. The contractor Bechtel, in the last two years has increased the estimation for cost and schedule by a factor of 2.5. Now nearly $1B and 3 years behind schedule. A NASA risk analysis gave only a 4% chance that Bechtel would meet this revied estimate. Independent estimate is $1.5B and 4 years late.

Reasons given in the report are Bechtel's underestimation of complexity, COVID, reluctance to accept NASA & Defense Contract Management Agency guidance, persistent and large overweight issues in the platform, lack of adequate risk assessment and project management tools, and retention of staff.

Will be a difficult road ahead to decide on the best course of action and get this platform built. Options are cancellation, split the order between design and build, switch build to fixed-cost, or imposing NASA management accountability & improvements within Bechtel

https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-22-012.pdf

NASA has announced Artemis WDR to begin Saturday June 18th, with tanking scheduled for Monday June 20th. Media conference to be held on June 15th at 11am ET.

Avatar2go wrote:

[...]Will be a difficult road ahead to decide on the best course of action and get this platform built. Options are cancellation, split the order between design and build, switch build to fixed-cost, or imposing NASA management accountability & improvements within Bechtel [...]

I know, cancel the contract due to non-performance and reissue it to SpaceX and have them build one for "Only...


OK, OK, probably more like 1 billion but still you get the idea.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

OK, OK, probably more like 1 billion but still you get the idea.

Tugg

This instance is really hard to defend. Bechtel is not working against difficult or unprecedented technical problems, they already have the functional ML-1 as a template. But apparently are lacking in core project management competencies. Plus massively underbidding the project from the start. You might think that was underhanded, but it matches other estimating errors made along the way.

NASA media conference today, Artemis is ready for the WDR to begin on Saturday, with tanking beginning 7 am ET Monday. Loading procedures have been tweaked to reduce pressure fluctuations during loading, for both LOX and LH2, based on prior two attempts.

NASA will provide WDR live coverage & commentary this time, in response to media requests. Launch window is still in latter half of August.

Artemis WDR tanking coverage begins 7 am ET Monday (tomorrow), proceeding through to the launch countdown and practice holds and resets, later in the afternoon. Here is a timeline of events for WDR.

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/file ... ummary.pdf]



This chart uses 24 hour periods beginning from call to stations, not calendar days. So the tanking decision marker corresponds to around 7 am ET Monday. Call to stations was on Saturday around 5 pm ET.

Live coverage and commentary on NASA TV:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=21X5lGlDO ... e=emb_logo

Artemis WDR is continuing into the evening. Tanking is complete and was successful with a few minor hiccups. However another small hydrogen leak occurred in the mast umbilical, this time on the vehicle side. NASA tried to thermal cycle the plate to reseat, then pressure cycle to reseat, but neither worked.

At present they are planning to continue with the terminal count, but with the engine bleed valve closed, to isolate the leak. To do this, they have to mask software protections that would not allow the RS-25 engines to fire with the bleed valve closed. But since this is not a hot-fire test, the closed valve will not matter.

If this strategy is successful, they will complete all the WDR test objectives tonight. Terminal count is now in progress. They will not do the 75 minute hold and reset that was planned at T-33 seconds, but will do a single countdown to T-9 seconds. This is to relieve the teams that have been working since 6 am.

Update: they expected a possible vehicle cutout at T-33 seconds, due to the software masking they had done, and it went to T-29 seconds before a flag was raised by the on-board ALS. So they consider that a successful test and are done for the day. Will review data and decided next steps, but very likely this will be it for WDR.

Have we heard what caused the cutout at T minus :29?

zanl188 wrote:

Have we heard what caused the cutout at T minus :29?

From the NASA media conference today, the terminal count transfers control from the ground systems to the vehicle flight systems, at T-33 seconds. One of the initial checks performed by the vehicle flight systems is that the engines are properly conditioned to start (in the start box). With the engine bleed valve closed to isolate the hydrogen leak, they knew that the engine controllers would report the engines were not conditioned, which would terminate the count. They just didn't know which one or exactly when it would occur, but the first engine raised the flag at T-29. Some of the engineers thought the engines might be chilled enough that they would make it to T-9, but didn't happen.

They accomplished almost all of the WDR objectives, so will review the data to see what else they might need to do. The risks associated with the items they didn't reach are small, and mostly have to do with whether they can hit the required launch window, which at most is two hours for Artemis 1 (and frequently less). One of the hardware checks they didn't reach was starting of the booster APUs. The boosters have flown before on shuttle missions, so they have some confidence in them. Also they had tested the full engine start sequence in the Green Run hot fire test.

They have teams evaluating the hydrogen leak and determining the feasibility of repairing on the pad. They have access to it so just depends on what's best for the rocket. This leak would not be possible until they reached the core stage replenish, so wasn't found in previous WDR runs.

NASA has announced that they will not run another Artemis WDR, but will instead complete some missing test steps for the SRB start sequence over the next few days, before rolling back to the VAB for final preparation for launch. They are still on target for the late August launch window.

From the NASA Artemis media teleconference today, they will run a few tests this weekend and then return to the VAB on July 1st. While at the VAB they will repair the hydrogen leak and do the final preparations for launch. This will take 6 to 8 weeks. The FTS system is certified for 20 days and that permits 3 launch attempts after returning to the pad.

During the WDR & Green Run terminal counts, they accomplished all but 13 of the 128 test points. Mostly they involve the dead-facing of the umbilical (cut the ground side power prior to de-mating). All will be verified prior to launch. The new tests will include a booster HPU firing, as well as characterizing the hydrogen leak while on the pad & able to flow LH2. All the Teflon seals will be replaced in the VAB.

They also had a timing issue in the control software for electric heaters that prevent temperature stratification in the LOX vertical feedline. Also an issue with the activation of the internal Orion cameras. Those have been resolved.

Launch is still on track for late August timeframe.

NASA has completed all the pad testing for Artemis 1, and rolled it back into the VAB for pre-launch preparation. Launch still scheduled for the late August, early September time frame. August 29th may be the likely choice, followed by scrub dates of September 2nd and September 5th.

NASA released a pretty interesting hype video for SLS. Very excited for this mission, not that the other launches aren’t thrilling, just this one is going to be on a different level

https://youtu.be/s3gt0mGwke8

NASA media conference for Artemis tomorrow at 11 am ET. Expected to update status and announce the target launch date for Artemis 1. Still expected to be late August, early September.

They found a problem with a quick disconnect collet that was loose, on the umbilical assembly. They are working on that this week. It required entry into the engine section.

From Artemis media conference today: as expected, target launch dates are August 29, backups on September 2nd and 6th. Rollout on August 18th.

In VAB:

-- Hydrogen leaks repaired, seals replaced.
-- Collet found loose on umbilical, entered engine section and tightened bolts.
-- Batteries replaced with flight versions
-- Flight Termination installation and testing
-- Orion cameras, Helga, Zohar, Moonikin installed

Artemis 1 Flight Objectives:

-- Heat shield test for lunar reentry (skip reentry)
-- Flight mode systems demonstration and testing
-- Radiation shielding & management
-- Recovery of Orion at splashdown
-- Certification of navigation & communication
-- Collection of imagery
-- Deployment of 10 cubesats
-- 42 day mission, lunar flyby and DRO
-- 2 burns for TLI (outbound)
-- 2 burns for TEI (inbound)

Avatar2go wrote:

From Artemis media conference today: as expected, target launch dates are August 29, backups on September 2nd and 6th. Rollout on August 18th.

In VAB:

-- Hydrogen leaks repaired, seals replaced.
-- Collet found loose on umbilical, entered engine section and tightened bolts.
-- Batteries replaced with flight versions
-- Flight Termination installation and testing
-- Orion cameras, Helga, Zohar, Moonikin installed

Artemis 1 Flight Objectives:

-- Heat shield test for lunar reentry (skip reentry)
-- Flight mode systems demonstration and testing
-- Radiation shielding & management
-- Recovery of Orion at splashdown
-- Certification of navigation & communication
-- Collection of imagery
-- Deployment of 10 cubesats
-- 42 day mission, lunar flyby and DRO
-- 2 burns for TLI (outbound)
-- 2 burns for TEI (inbound)

Thx for keeping us informed!!

I have a silly question...but with last year's SpaceX Dragon missions being (a-hem ) fouled by a malfunctioning space toilet, would an Artemis mission be in jeopardy if the new waste management system onboard could not be fixed? Apollo utilized a much more primitive method to deal with this, so is Artemis equipped for such a back-up situation?

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/10/science/spacex-toilet-diapers.html

aumaverick wrote:

I have a silly question...but with last year's SpaceX Dragon missions being (a-hem ) fouled by a malfunctioning space toilet, would an Artemis mission be in jeopardy if the new waste management system onboard could not be fixed? Apollo utilized a much more primitive method to deal with this, so is Artemis equipped for such a back-up situation?

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/10/science/spacex-toilet-diapers.html

They have a full range of solutions on board, just like the ISS. They have the toilet, diapers, multiple urination devices (men and women). There is a small privacy area where astronauts can deal with personal needs. Obviously diet plays a large part, so the food is designed to minimize waste problems.

The worst case would be if the Orion crew capsule loses pressurization or atmospheric control, they can survive in their suits for 5 days to return to Earth. But that obviously would not be pretty. That's actually the largest medical risk they face. They would likely go to a liquid diet for that period.

The thing about NASA is that for any given function, there are backups to the backups. So the astronauts are pretty well prepared to deal with problems. The Orion training is much more extensive than commercial crew, where they can abort to earth at any time.

When Gateway comes online, that will provide another emergency option, as it also has all those services. It's interesting that the Orion life support system is designed to handle Gateway if needed, and similarly Gateway can handle a docked Orion. So they have full redundancy if docked. They only need to share consumables, and Gateway will have extra stores of that on board.

Avatar2go wrote:

aumaverick wrote:

I have a silly question...but with last year's SpaceX Dragon missions being (a-hem ) fouled by a malfunctioning space toilet, would an Artemis mission be in jeopardy if the new waste management system onboard could not be fixed? Apollo utilized a much more primitive method to deal with this, so is Artemis equipped for such a back-up situation?

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/10/science/spacex-toilet-diapers.html

They have a full range of solutions on board, just like the ISS. They have the toilet, diapers, multiple urination devices (men and women). There is a small privacy area where astronauts can deal with personal needs. Obviously diet plays a large part, so the food is designed to minimize waste problems.

The worst case would be if the Orion crew capsule loses pressurization or atmospheric control, they can survive in their suits for 5 days to return to Earth. But that obviously would not be pretty. That's actually the largest medical risk they face. They would likely go to a liquid diet for that period.

The thing about NASA is that for any given function, there are backups to the backups. So the astronauts are pretty well prepared to deal with problems. The Orion training is much more extensive than commercial crew, where they can abort to earth at any time.

When Gateway comes online, that will provide another emergency option, as it also has all those services. It's interesting that the Orion life support system is designed to handle Gateway if needed, and similarly Gateway can handle a docked Orion. So they have full redundancy if docked. They only need to share consumables, and Gateway will have extra stores of that on board.

Much appreciated for the response!

NASA has just announced an EPOC agreement with Deep Space Transport, a joint venture of Boeing and Northrup Grumman, to deliver Artemis launch vehicles for Artemis 5 through 9. There is also an option for 5 more vehicles from Artemis 10 through 14. And a further option for up to 10 vehicles to support non-Orion missions, to supplement Artemis 5 through 14.

The vehicles for Artemis 1 through 4 are already on separate contracts with the two vendors.

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa ... s-contract

Will Artemis 4 still be using the Block 1B SLS?

bajs11 wrote:

Will Artemis 4 still be using the Block 1B SLS?

Artemis 4 will always be Block 1B. There is some discussion of filling a launch gap between Artemis 3 and 4 with Artemis 3.5, which would be a 4th Block 1 mission.

It basically comes down to budget & funding. Congress could provide funding for an earlier Artemis 4 launch, or they could provide funding for Artemis 3.5, or they could do nothing and just wait. That decision depends on potential delays that may occur in HLS, the moon suits, in Gateway, or in the ML-2 mobile tower (Artemis 3.5 could use ML-1).

It's becoming clear that SLS/Orion are no longer the long tent poles for Artemis, that role is shifting to other elements of the program. The main thing is that all these elements need stability, so the ever-present fear at NASA is that a new administration will change things up again.

A good summary of NASA planning and where SLS sits within it;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQWy27ucskw

The new CHIPS+ act has passed the Senate and will go to the House. It contains language that requires NASA to create a "Moon to Mars" plan, such that all Artemis lunar missions must demonstrate some technology that could be extended to a future Mars program. Artemis is now viewed as the progenitor of an early Mars program, in addition to lunar development. That appears to be a compromise between the Moon and Mars advocates.

Also the $10B provision for a NASA-owned second HLS is removed. Instead, NASA will be able to solicit additional commercial landers via SLD. Since SpaceX would be ineligible for the NASA HLS contract, it was widely viewed as a handout to Blue Origin. Blue will still be able to compete for SLD, along with other vendors.

The act also formally recognizes and funds Artemis as a Moon/Mars program, and directs NASA to create a single program office to manage all activities.

https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/late ... provision/