Hydrogen is stuff from hell when it comes to engineering challenges. Not as bad as some of the "Things I Won't Work With" chemicals [0], but still. I am almost convinced that whatever direction the future carbonless energy production takes, hydrogen won't be a significant part of it.<p>[0] <a href="https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/things-i-won-t-work-dioxygen-difluoride" rel="nofollow">https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/things-i-won-t-wor...</a>
Not that two failed launch attempts are all that big a deal in the grand scheme, but they just add more evidence to the already weighty pile that says that SLS is a bad rocket and a dead-end path.
I'm afraid this might actually keep fueling moon-landing denial conspiracy theories:
"Look how hard it is to get to the moon in 2022! How can we have possibly done it in 1969?"
I confess I hope this programme is quietly shelved. From everything I've read it is at best refining decades old tech, not really pushing to whole new areas. This launch is literally re-using Shuttle engines. And I can't seem to find a good, non-hand-wavey explanation as to <i>why</i> we should be going to the Moon at all. I'd personally trade this whole thing for an autonomous rover on Venus that lasts a month.
I read somewhere (and can’t seem to find the link) that the rollback to the VAB is because there is a small battery powering the abort system that has an approximate 3 week lifespan. And this past sat was near the end of that timeframe.
I think HN is at least somewhat qualified to speak to the talent side of the issue.<p>Is this a matter of NASA failing to attract and retain the best engineers because of non-competitive TC? In this case, <i>where</i> are the 10x rocket engineers who would have prevented these problems?<p>Is this a matter of lost institutional knowledge, where it's been so long these kinds of rockets were launched that the people who knew everything about them died or retired?<p>Or is this just a matter of a problem being hard to solve, even with the best engineers and the institutional knowledge that comes with decades of experience?
A very good article here: <a href="https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/09/years-after-shuttle-nasa-rediscovers-the-perils-of-liquid-hydrogen/" rel="nofollow">https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/09/years-after-shuttle-...</a>
Sadly emblematic for the US; tens of billions spent with no visible outcome<p>No different than our approach to infrastructure, education, Healthcare, broadband....plenty of money, no results