NASA Artemis Space Launch System Will Roll Back to Assembly

NASA will roll the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket back to the VAB (Vehicle Assembly Building) before the next launch attempt to reset the system’s batteries. The flight termination system is required on all rockets to protect public safety.

Engineers could not overcome a hydrogen leak in a quick disconnect, an interface between the liquid hydrogen fuel feed line and the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket, mission managers met and decided they will forego additional launch attempts in early September.

Over the next several days, teams will establish access to the area of the leak at Launch Pad 39B, and in parallel conduct a schedule assessment to provide additional data that will inform a decision on whether to perform work to replace a seal either at the pad, where it can be tested under cryogenic conditions, or inside the Vehicle Assembly Building.

Here are the launch windows through to the end of 2022.

August 23 – September 6 [NBF: Already missed]

12 launch opportunities
No launch availability on August 30, 31, and Sept. 1

September 19 – October 4 [NBF note: Very, very unlikely]

14 launch opportunities
No launch availability on Sept. 29 and Sept. 30

October 17 – October 31 [NBF: Maybe, but probably not]

11 launch opportunities

No launch availability on October 24, 25, 26, and 28

November 12 – November 27 (preliminary)

12 launch opportunities
No launch availability on November 20, 21, and 26

December 9 – December 23 (preliminary)

11 launch opportunities
No launch availability on December 10, 14, 18, and 23

23 thoughts on “NASA Artemis Space Launch System Will Roll Back to Assembly”

  1. It can’t be done anymore! Because there are too many women in leading structures! They choose men only for bed! They don’t know men in technology and science! Because women’s physiology is very different!Clean up the women and everything will be fine! Women do not believe that zero defects exist!Clean up the women and everything will be fine! Women do not believe that zero defects exist!

    • Wrong website dude. You want to be on the site with big boobed cartoon girls and people dressed up as cartoon dogs.

  2. I’d rather see NASA take their time than launch a rocket that might end up in flames over an issue that is known. That’s how we lost two space shuttles and their crews. But with SpaceX possibility of beating NASA of the ground with their Starship, it makes you wonder if building rockets might be better off left to private industry ?
    However, I will say that I have always seen the value of America’s space program and I do think we should continue exploring space on commercial rockets. I’d rather see my money go there than to buying weapons support a war to cover up for the dealings of certain people in Ukraine.

  3. With all my deep respect for the high and deep technical work.
    We all created something to complicated to ‘work all the time’.
    Despite the all money spend, I wouldn’t use if myself. It has become Russian roulette.

    $ and still counting.
    I can’t help to be convinced that with the same amount we could have been forth and back to the moon in 2020 already. (twice)

    • No $40 billion or likely more. This is nothing but an extension of the cancelled Constellation, Ares I and Ares V. They have nothing much to show for all this. They are using shuttle engines and solid rocket boosters. All this money spent to build tanks, a crew cabin and some software to control the rocket. It’s financial rape. People should be convicted for fraud.

    • They at least had “sparklers” for burn-off…Musk didn’t. Chopsticks crushed scaffolding…that’s Mickey Mouse crap.

      Best to have fueling problems on the ground. This happens to Starship tankers, what then.

      I have a homework assignment for you:
      AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY’s August 10, 2009 issue…page 29

      -and page 24 of the November 7, 2011 issue.

      • When your scaffolding doesn’t cost 2 million dollars, you can afford screwups that come with a normal work pace.

        I was talking to a blue origin engineer across the river from the KSC and he couldn’t wrap his head around that fact.

        SpaceX are mass producing reusable engines that costs less than than it is to simulate on an expensive rack of servers for months/years, the same goes for much of what they are making.

    • Good afternoon Kennedy this is Forbes Kern Hays speaking. I am the son of your former employee Forbes Stirker Hays. Listen when your team gets Artamis 1 back to the assembly and fixes the leak. We need you to check, recheck, and check again every inch of this rocket from top to bottom. Every inch now…. leave nothing unnoticed we want to make sure that there will be nothing else causeing Artamis to scrub again. Unless it’s the weather. This means checking everything from every bolt, screw, sensor, computer chip, o-ring, flange, engine, pipe and what ever else that may need to be looked over. We have got to really knuckle down people and get this right. No more mistakes because we really can’t afford it. We don’t care if you all need to destack the rocket to check everything and then restack it peice by peice. And wake up 11,000 people with N.A.S.A and get them down there to Kennedy to help you! Lets get it done people. NOW!!!

  4. Honestly I don’t get the feeling that rolling this rocket back and forth from VAB to pad will improve its reliability.

    • Why did NASA not put three Apollo boosters on this thing. Those worked every time back when all this moon travel was cool when I was 12 years old.

  5. Nothing says trustworthy like Hydrogen fuel leaks. I really hope nobody is near the pad when they light this candle.

    Apart from the improved density of liquid methane maybe methane being less leak prone then liquid hydrogen is another plus.

    • Using hydrogen instead of methane is a classic case of optimizing for the wrong thing. Maxing ISP as opposed to finding the easiest fuel to get to orbit.

        • Well, it has to do with the fact that they wanted to reuse the RS-25s, and it will be tough to reuse them with methane.

          Well, it *seemed* like a good idea at the time.

  6. The SLS should be renamed the billion dollar baby. Each launch costs one billion. The SLS so far has cost 17 billion to build (5 billion over projected cost.). If we can wheel it over to the Kennedy Space Center, the country can save a lot of money and time waiting for scrubbed launches.

  7. Can it be wheeled over to a museum like the Spruce Goose? Probably safer for everyone. The technology is as ancient as the space shuttle.

    • If would be helpful if you would explain the experience and expertise that led to your conclusion. Read this and maybe it will help you better understand what you are referring to. At least look it over so you have something to base your diatribe on.

Comments are closed.