Space Launch System Likely Missing June Launch Window

by

the Space Launch System is rolling back from the launch pad to find and fix and hydrogen leak and other issues. NASA had been trying to prep for a June 6 to 16 window and the next window opens June 29 and runs through July 12.

NASA will make fixes and return for full-scale tanking test and practice countdown before attempting a launch.

SOURCES- space News

63 thoughts on “Space Launch System Likely Missing June Launch Window”

  1. Technically, they are concerned with sound pollution. But you are right, it's mostly a pretext so other interests (not necessarily the FAA or even the EPA) can schackle Starship progress long enough that contractors can come up with a plan Q or R.

  2. I think the FAA delays is because NASA wants to launch first, since you cannot justify the cost over runs of SLS over the cost of starship.

  4. If you think that is bad, just think of all the "progress on the final frontier" that has been slowed on this very site's comment sections by people who HAVE NOT EVEN READ "The High Frontier" and yet have all sorts of negative comments. Of course, understanding O'Neill pretty much makes one libertarian, realizing "there's no countries" there in created environments, O'Neill Settlements. Thus, O'Neill is as terrifying to neurotic power addicts as Janov. Almost. And that is just this one site!

  7. If #3 (using Starship to make a SPS farm) is economical then I would expect SpaceX to do it once Starlink is up and running.

  8. "Speaking of sat internet, how long before Amazon Prime includes free internet?"

    Never because their launch plans rely on two PPT rockets that have never flown and one rocket that can't compete.

    "Launch to LEO is a commodity."

    Totally agree and LEO access is dominated by SpaceX.

  9. It's politics. SpaceX has no union, is putting legacy crony industry out of business, and moved to Texas from Hippiefornia. To make things even worse, they are ridiculously successful, along the lines of 1960s NASA, and the skunkworks, back in the day.
    The Biden administration hates SX with a passion.

  10. Looks like this thing will never get off the ground, and the FAA is hamstringing SpaceX for reasons other than environmental protection. So much for progress on the final frontier.

    Shouldn't FAA regulation stop with airplanes, and helicopters? Do rockets fly? They don't need air like things that actually fly. The atmosphere actually degrades their performance, except for atmospheric braking.

  12. Seriously, why is metal junk so bad? It's not toxic, it's mostly iron of which nature is absolutely full of. And due to the inert nature of stainless steel, the atoms will leach into nature over decades. This would leak to really small concentrations. Is the chrome in stainless steel that you are afraid off?

    I seriously do not understand what all the fuss is about.

  14. Would that help?
    My understanding is that some (most?, all?) of the senators who won't let funding for SLS be dropped because that funding goes to their states are Republicans.

  16. Yes… But would it actually be sufficient to get it cancelled and free SpaceX from it's shackles? You never know if they would just say.. "Ehep, that means we have to put Starship in limbo for another couple of years. What is are we going to say this time? Protecting seals in the bay? Putti'n it on my to do list"

  17. It was originally developed as part of the Strategic Defense Initiative, when that was shut down it was transferred to NASA, who really didn't want it. (They preferred Lockheed's VentureStar.) So it was kind of underfunded and low priority there, as well as NASA prematurely forcing a switch to very expensive bespoke parts, (The original program was using as much off the shelf gear as possible.) which resulted in less development for the money spent. It was still going pretty good until an accident on landing caused a cracked shell and a fire that burnt up a lot of expensive gear. At which point NASA finally had an excuse to kill it.

    When the program was canceled, the engineers working on it wound up working for private space companies like Blue Origin. So it's not like we lost what they'd developed.

  19. wasn't Werner von Braun not hindered to bring 'his' rocket into orbit, just so much that US was second in space.
    Sputnik was the fall-out of these visionary lobby-ist

  20. history will show that China will be first walking on Mars…. just because some lobby-ist were able to delay the BFR for +1year.

  21. because dropping the 1st stage junk outside your frontiers is non-visible thus not an issue and 1 dead bird in your garden is a heavy emotion burden for the entire nation

  23. This whole "environmental review" excuse for delaying the Starship is so pathetic. If you compare the environmental impact of a dozen orbital launches with just plain car traffic it must be negligible.

    Any leaked gas will disperse harmlessly, so we are really talking about the possibility of metal junk dropping into the nature reserve. Stainless steel junk.

    Or the Starship could sink to the ocean floor, i.e. some thousand tone of stainless steel, but no hydrocarbons. Big deal.

  24. Hm.. I wonder… Will it help to put lot's of republican senators in the senate during the midterm elections? Or is the only "lever" having the right president in office?

  26. What is interesting is that NASA culture or management style has changed. It does not and did not manufacture its own vehicles. Aerospace companies did. American aerospace companies have consolidated down to a precious few. No matter who says they built a spaceship or rocket its the American tax payer who pays for it.
    I believe Boeing is a major contractor for SLS and their probably is a great deal of politicking in that program.
    I remember seeing NASA go from Mercury to Apollo in 8 years. I also remember the politics involved in cancelling several programs, such as the DCX and the X33.

  27. Exactly. His <sarc> was directed at my "if Musk were to start promising to help the Earth . . .", which shifts away from rocket engines to O'Neill v Mars, but more specifically to Mars lifeboat v O'Neill New World. Room for all! Life!

    So, #1 is to fund Mars, but clearly helps Earth too. #2 is where the rubber meets the road now, whether Musk will use Moon for Mars practice or will be supporting lunar orbit growth, the best way to Mars as well as all sorts of O'Neill micr0g goodies! #3 only if someone buys the launches. Musk is against Space Solar, as it eliminates most storage needs, by bringing in Earth to Earth power beaming. Perhaps. I love Musk rockets! Forget Mars!

  28. They are intentionally spreading out the sources, much as NASA does. New Glenn and Vulcan do use BE-4s. Vulcan small rocket farmed out to ULA, so to speak. Too much trouble. ESA launches also bought. Launch to LEO is a commodity. O'Neill Space is the customer here. Speaking of sat internet, how long before Amazon Prime includes free internet?

  29. BO is Blue Origin, Bezos' Space company headquartered in the O'Neill Building, Gerard K. O'Neill wrote "The High Frontier".

  31. Job #1 of the "Mars Rocket" is to set up satellite internet for Earth.
    Job #2 of the "Mars Rocket" is to support moon landings because Uncle Sugar is paying.
    Job #3 of the "Mars Rocket" will probably be Solar Power Satellites if it is economical.
    Job #4 will be to ferry cargo to Mars using end of life rockets from Jobs 1-3.

  32. The awkward moment when you can't figure out if you are rooting for a successful rocket launch or RUD.

  34. I mean you realize that BO admits that "jump straight to methane" was the wrong move, right?

    Their satellite internet plans can't even rely on their own rocket.

  37. A race requires two or more entries competing against each other. There is no race here. SLS has yet to show up at the racetrack.

  38. Agreed, the Biden admin has been really shameless about this. Even worse is that if SLS fails on launch, Starship will likely stay grounded until Biden is out of office.

  39. You're thinking of the Army Corps of Engineers. The FAA is in full, "So many people told us to stop delaying you that we need more time to respond." mode.

  40. We are talking Mars rockets, Musk's mutiplanetary goal, which he thinks is the only way to get a lifeboat, which is false. Not even the best anywhere close. That may help Earth feel good for the Mars people as Earth dies, but that is not "help" as Bezos and O'Neill have it. Save the planet AND get into many, many lifeboats, not just one more planet. Have you read O'Neill?

  42. Not sure you have to bribe FAA to enforce EPA stuff, whatever the details are. As I understand it, Musk did not apply for the right permit, expecting to get forgiveness later, from the other socialist. Neither are liked, Musk or Bezos, merely for union stands. Now, if Musk were to start promising to help the Earth instead of escaping to Mars, as Bezos does when you hear anything at all, that could help. But, it would draw the wrath of territorial power addicts. Also, I'm talking about crew launches with the engines, not big rocket cargo. Musk had better win that!

  44. Yes, on the booster. Perhaps I should have said "Artemis" rather than SLS. Still a target rich environment for advances, even if the plan is flawed from way back. Space suits?

  45. NASA doesn't have the engineers they had back from the 50's to the late 60's. Good ole engineering with paper, slide rules and BRAINS. Heck, with all of the government red tape involved today, it probably takes a week, to make the decision on what color paper to use, for office memos. Bloated government!

  46. If it beats Starship it will only be because of the bureaucracy kneecapping SpaceX. In the tortoise vs the hare story Bezos likes so much the tortoise didn't win on account of bribing somebody to put a bullet through the hare's knees.

  47. Well, yeah, some good pieces. Like those super-expensive H2/LOX reusable engines they're treating as disposable. Expensive, but they're great engines, and might actually be cost-effective if you didn't deliberately throw them away after one use!

  48. This is the "NASA keeps people employed" version of space research. NASA will just keep rolling this back and forth until the SLS is canceled by the overwhelming fact that a private company (*cough* SpaceX) can do it faster, better, and with less expense.

    At least SpaceX will show their superior solution when the FAA stops blocking for NASA and other politically connected businesses.

  49. "BO methane engine" the BE-4 is more conservative but comparable to the Raptor v2, seems to me. At any rate, Bezos skipped the kerosene Falcon/Merlin rocket engine as he did not need the money. The gas engines burn cleaner and are needed for the quick reuse. The main concern is crew rating, which the BE-4 will likely demonstrate before Raptor. I do like cargo Raptor ASAP!

  50. By now, but we don't even need big to get started long ago, even going to Mars for "boots down". Assemble stuff in Space and go from there. The big rocket that does the whole trip is NOT worth waiting for.

  51. Maybe they should roll it off the pad and right on into the Atlantic ocean. $L$ will float farther than it will ever fly.

  52. "Which will carry crew first, New Armstrong or Starship?"

    Why not include Falcon on the list? I mean it is already launching crew.

  57. It’s likely that the new Starship launch pad at 39a will be up before SLS is rolled back to 39b. The comparison is going to be pretty hard to avoid.

  58. Agree, since the big Mars rockets were first proposed. Build it from pieces in Space. Refuel from the Moon. *Launch* to Mars from cislunar, if you are going there. However, I do think the rest of the SLS has some good pieces, and the boosters built should be used to get info on basic rocket questions.

  59. Indeed. It looks like BO methane engine will be the first to launch as a crew rated engine, almost certainly the first with actual crew. Combine that with BO's good plan, O'Neill, and the race you mention does look to be for second place. Once the engines are working, the delays seem to shorten. Which will carry crew first, New Armstrong or Starship? That is an actual race.

  61. In the 80s, it was clear that multiple launches, a rig of some sort to assemble things in LEO, if even that is needed, is all that is needed to go to the Moon. Or Mars. One big rocket is not the way to go. Once many many launches are needed, then the big rocket will pay. But not this one.

  62. is it really needed to take 2-3 weeks (well earned?) rest between two simple tests?
    We would be still with the bro's-wrights-design when planes development was done this way

Comments are closed.