free counter

Years after shuttle, NASA rediscovers the perils of liquid hydrogen

Saturday Leak System

“Each and every time we saw a leak, it pretty quickly exceeded our flammability limits.”

NASA's Space Launch System rocket at LC-39B on September 1st, 2022.

Enlarge / NASA’s Space Launch System rocket at LC-39B on September 1st, 2022.

KENNEDY SPACE CENTER, Fla.America’s space agency on Saturday sought to launch a rocket largely cobbled together from the area shuttle, which itself was designed and built a lot more than four decades ago.

Because the space shuttle often was delayed because of technical problems, it therefore comes as scant surprise that the debut launch of NASA’s Space Launch System rocket scrubbed a couple of hours before its launch window opened. The showstopper was an 8-inch diameter line carrying liquid hydrogen in to the rocket. It sprung a persistent leak at the inlet, referred to as a quick-disconnect, leading up to speed the automobile.

Valiantly, the launch team at Kennedy Space Center tried three differing times to staunch the leak, all to no avail. Finally at 11: 17 am ET, hours behind on the timeline to fuel the rocket, launch director Charlie Blackwell-Thompson called a halt.

What comes next depends upon what engineers and technicians find on Monday if they inspect the automobile at the launch pad. If the launch team decides it could replace the quick-disconnect hardware at the pad, it might be an option to execute a partial fueling test to look for the integrity of the fix. This might allow NASA to help keep the automobile on the pad prior to the next launch. Alternatively, the engineers may decide the repairs are best performed in the Vehicle Assembly Building, and roll the rocket back inside.

Because of the orbital dynamics of the Artemis I mission to fly an uncrewed Orion spacecraft to the Moon, NASA will next have a chance to launch from September 19 to October 4. However, making that window would necessitate fixing the rocket at the pad, and obtaining a waiver from the united states Space Force, which operates the launch range across the Florida coast.

At issue may be the flight termination system, that is powered independently of the rocket, with batteries rated for 25 days. NASA would have to extend that battery rating to about 40 days. The area agency is likely to have those discussions with range officials soon.

If the rocket is rolled back again to the automobile Assembly Building, which may be necessary service the flight termination system or perform a lot more than cursory just work at the launch pad, NASA has another Artemis I launch opportunity fromOctober 17 to October 31.

A little, tiny element

The area shuttle was an exceptionally complex vehicle, mingling the usage of solid-rocket boosterswhich are something comparable to very, very powerful firecrackersalong with exquisitely built main engines powered by the combustion of liquid hydrogen propellant and liquid oxygen to serve being an oxidizer.

Over its lifetime, because of this complexity, the shuttle normally scrubbed nearly once every launch attempt. Some shuttle flights scrubbed as much as five times before finally lifting off. For launch controllers, it hardly ever really got a lot simpler to manage the area shuttle’s complex fueling process, and hydrogen was frequently a culprit.

Hydrogen may be the most abundant aspect in the universe, nonetheless it can be the lightest. It requires 600 sextillion hydrogen atoms to attain the mass of an individual gram. Since it is indeed tiny, hydrogen can squeeze through the tiniest of gaps. This is simply not so great an issue at ambient temperatures and pressures, but at super-chilled temperatures and high pressures, hydrogen easily oozes out of any available opening.

To help keep a rocket’s fuel tanks topped off, propellant lines leading from ground-based systems must remain mounted on the booster before very moment of launch. In the ultimate second, the “quick-disconnects” by the end of the lines break from the rocket. The issue is that, to become fail-safes in disconnecting from the rocket, this equipment can’t be bolted together tightly enough to entirely preclude the passing of hydrogen atomsit is incredibly difficult to seal these connections under ruthless, and low temperatures.

NASA, therefore, includes a tolerance for handful of hydrogen leakage. Anything above a 4 percent concentration of hydrogen in the purge area close to the quick disconnect, however, is known as a flammability hazard. “Wewere seeing more than that by several times that,” said Mike Sarafin, NASA’s Artemis I Mission Manager, said of Saturday’s hydrogen leak. “It had been pretty clear we werent likely to have the ability to work our way through it. Each time we saw a leak, it pretty quickly exceeded our flammability limits.”

Twice, launch controllers stopped the flow of hydrogen in to the vehicle, hoping that the quick-disconnect would warm a bit. They hoped that, if they restarted slowly flowing cryogenic hydrogen up to speed the rocket, the quick-disconnect would look for a tighter match the booster. It didn’t. Another time they tried applying a substantial level of pressure to re-seat the quick disconnect.

NASA officials remain assessing the reason for the leak, however they believe it could have been because of an errant valve being opened. This occurred through the procedure for chilling down the rocket ahead of loading liquid hydrogen. Amid a sequence around twelve commands being delivered to the rocket, a command was delivered to an incorrect valve to open. This is rectified within three or four 4 seconds, Sarafin said. However, during this time period, the hydrogen line that could create a problematic quick-disconnect was briefly over-pressurized.

Deferring to professionals

Why does NASA use liquid hydrogen as a fuel because of its rockets, if it’s so difficult to utilize, and you can find simpler to handle alternatives such as for example methane or kerosene? One reason is that hydrogen is an extremely efficient fuel, and therefore it offers better “fuel consumption” when found in rocket engines. However, the true answer is that Congress mandated that NASA continue steadily to use space shuttle main engines within the SLS rocket program.

In 2010, when Congress wrote the authorization bill for NASA that resulted in creation of the area Launch System, it directed the agency to “utilize existing contracts, investments, workforce, industrial base, and capabilities from the area Shuttle and Orion and Ares 1 projects, including … existing USA propulsion systems, including liquid fuel engines, external tank or tank related capability, and solid rocket motor engines.”

Throughout a news conference on Saturday, Ars asked NASA Administrator Bill Nelson whether it had been the proper decision for NASA to keep dealing with hydrogen following the agency’s experience with the area shuttle. In 2010, Nelson was a US Senator from Florida, and ringleader of the area authorization bill alongside US Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, of Texas.”We deferred to professionals,” Nelson said.

By this Nelson meant that the Senate worked alongside some officials at NASA, and within industry, to create the SLS rocket. These industry officials, who continue steadily to win lucrative contracts from NASA for his or her focus on shuttle-related hardware, were only too pleased to support the brand new rocket design.

On the list of idea’s opponents was Lori Garver, who served as NASA’s deputy administrator at that time. She said your choice to utilize space shuttle components for the agency’s next generation rocket appeared like an awful idea, given the challenges of dealing with hydrogen demonstrated on the previous three decades.

“They took finicky, expensive programs that couldn’t fly frequently, stacked them together differently, and said now, suddenly, it will likely be cheap and easy,” she told Ars in August. “Yeah, we’ve flown them before, but they’ve shown to be problematic and challenging. That is among the items that boggled my mind. Think about it was likely to change? I attribute it to the type of group think, the contractors and the self-licking ice cream cone.”

Now, NASA faces the task of managing this finicky hardware through more inspections and tests after so many already. The rocket’s core stage, manufactured by Boeing, was shipped from its factory in Louisiana a lot more than two . 5 years back. It underwent nearly per year of testing in Mississippi before coming to Kennedy Space Center in April 2021. Since that time, NASA and its own contractors have already been assembling the entire rocket and testing it on the launch pad.

Effectively, Saturday’s “launch” attempt was the sixth time NASA has tried to totally fuel the initial and second stages of the rocket, and get deep in to the countdown. Up to now, it have not succeeded with these fueling tests, referred to as wet dress rehearsals. On Saturday, the core stage’s massive liquid hydrogen tank, with a capacity greater than 500,000 gallons, was only 11 percent full once the scrub was called.

Possibly the seventh time is a charm.

Read More

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Back to top button

Adblock Detected

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker