NASA – Artemis I – Liquid Hydrogen Leak Detected Once Again
blogs.nasa.gov
blogs.nasa.gov
Hydrogen scares the bejeebus out of me. Did a high altitude balloon launch that was meant to be a hydrogen balloon. When attempting to purchase the tank of gas, the sales person went out of his way to educate/convince on the hazards. In the end, switched out everything needed to use helium instead. I knew nothing about it, but hydrogen tanks have connectors that are uniquely sized so that you can’t accidentally connect to a tank of hydrogen when you were expecting something else. I was convinced when he explained that the hydrogen fire has no color and is only noticeable when something else starts to burn. “You don’t want the first sign there’s a fire to be your arm burning”
Perhaps the salesperson was paid on commission, and helium would result in a much more profitable sale for them.
The amount of gas produced in a high school chemistry lab compared to a full tank is just silly. To compare a high school lab environment with safety equipment and assuming a trained teacher to a couple of knuckleheads with no safety training or equipment doing a balloon launch in a very drought striken part of the state is so not even close to the same.
But thanks for trying to make it seem so much less dangerous than what it is
Well yeah, but inert gas doesn’t really help you accelerate massive objects to orbital velocity. It is good for taking up space in the tanks as you burn the propellant though.
Edit: nevermind, should probably understand the context of the discussion before joining it.
I dunno, some inert gases can be dangerous. You don't want to inhale an inert gas that's heavier than air.
Because non-flammable, inert gases aren't that useful for pushing things into space. The window of discussion here (in the broader sense, obv) is inherently explosive.
Yes, there's an important safety aspect here but NASA aren't taking advice from HN threads.
I happen to agree with GP. While hydrogen provides certain challenges, the human race has to embrace it. It's possibly the only workaround for a near-time methane shortage, especially as it can be generated locally (and cheaply) via PV. A much cheaper "battery" than Li-based batteries, and possibly a fuel for CCGT power stations to run from (blended and not).
it was tale of how me personally had a near experience using hydrogen, but was convinced that might just be a bad idea. the fact that a NASA rocket is experiencing an issue with hydrogen is what prompted me to share the story. everyone else seeems to think i'm launching rockets with hydrogen as a fuel source.
Compare on just the scale of a few milligrams: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/_RKdWYqgu3Y
Source: https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/fired-up-engine...
With basic safety precautions (ventilation and making sure there are no ignition sources in the vicinity) I'd be happy to let my kids play with a tank full of hydrogen.
The dangers of hydrogen are basically "oops I breathed so much hydrogen that I got no oxygen for several minutes" or "oops I accidentally ignited it", both of which are easily avoided by basic safety precautions. In the context of filling a high altitude balloon that started this thread, asphyxiation is easily avoided by doing it outside, and ignition sources can be eliminated with a little care.
This kind of fear-mongering--"could explode just because you looked at it funny" etc.--is irresponsible.
I used to work at a company that had a hydrogen workshop. There were UV detectors all over the place to detect hydrogen flames. It was always fun berating the occasional poor sap who fired up the arc welder without making the area hydrogen-safe and pausing the detectors in the area. This inevitably resulted in evacuation of the building and the arrival of a special firefighting unit equipped to deal with hydrogen fires, all at great cost to the company.
Hydrogen fueling 1 spaceship (at a restricted access, highly maintained area) at a specific time regularly presents problems, but Toyota (and others) bet on gas stations operated by consumers across the world maintaining a hydrogen refueling economy for cars.
Gas stations regularly can't maintain windshield squeegees, paper towels, or trash cans, but they were going to replace seals and keep them clean regularly.
But I was curious and I found this proposal: https://h2tools.org/sites/default/files/App2_Consolidated_Sa...
Tbh, it didn’t fill me with as much confidence as I’d have liked. But I suspect it’s moot: the future is clearly battery-electric with renewable-based generation. Hydrogen missed the window of opportunity, if there ever was one.
from an electric standpoint, a truck knocked over a charging station and it hasn't been repaired in 2 months at my neighborhood Park. (Though, I feel positive it has had the breaker turned off)
When the Lockheed team stored hundreds of gallons of liquid hydrogen at the Skunk Works a visiting scientist warned them "My God … you're going to blow up Burbank." Later, they were reminded of this prophecy when a fire broke out and nearly caused a massive explosion that could have demolished the top-secret facility, the neighbouring airport and Burbank itself.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220316-the-epic-attempt...
In most of the US, we have not adopted lpg for vehicles, and grill tanks are now exchanged (because it is easier than having a technician on site?). In the 90s there were some lng vehicle refill at home for pilot programs.
This is fueling tons of cryogenic propellant using systems which haven't been used many times end to end.
Hydrogen in cars is compressed gas, and operations happen at a much higher frequency. A lot easier to work out the kinks before going for the real deal (rocket launch vs consumer car refueling).
No comment on hydrogen as a car fuel overall, but compressed hydrogen and liquid hydrogen have completely different in handling requirements.
unless, of course, "private companies" is your shortcut for "SpaceX".
which other launcher of the same class are being designed, build and launched at the moment by the way?
Relativity and Rocket Lab are working with NASA
https://www.relativityspace.com/press-release/2022/jan27/nas...
https://www.rocketlabusa.com/updates/rocket-lab-moon-mission...
https://everydayastronaut.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Sup...
Or focus on novel rocket science. There is so much opportunity in novel propulsion systems, from nuclear propulsion to ion drives. Most of this is only useful in deep space, a region the private sector has no interest in.
My perception (unfortunately) is that NASA’s budget is its highest, but their public contribution and visibility are near its lowest. From the casual observer, NASA looks like two decades of mismanagement and a lot of whining about funding without doing anything to justify what they are getting.
Apollo 18, Apollo 19, Apollo 20, and the orbit repair of Skylab have entered the chat.
Rocket tech lags because it competes with the private market, which the people with money don't like.
This is exactly backwards.
Rocket tech lags because NASA, via congress, has been captured by the private market to ensure that existing big players continue to get contracts. SLS is a boondoggle in large part because Congress required that it use half-century-old rocket tech. Not because of concerns about competing with the private market, but to ensure that the major players that got contracted to build the shuttle rockets half a century ago continue to get contracts.
This lagging rocket tech created by Congressional capture (and a similar situation in Europe) created the private rocket market, not the other way around as you suggest.
I assume you're not adjusting for inflation? That seems more than a bit misleading.
But early scrubbed launches won't matter Artemis program ends up in successfully achieving its objectives. As long as it doesn't explode in its first launch, delays are fine!
I'm from the generation that had to endlessly watch "go at throttle up" over and over and over and over and over and over again in high school and it's still traumatizing. It was the original 9/11 in some ways for the media. Why they did that to kids and general population is beyond me.
I'm absolutely shocked, shocked I tell you, that the media would endlessly foist sensationalist hit pieces and shock factors one after another! Shocked!
There was still investigative journalism and things like that going on, the idea of "clickbait" couldn't even exist, there were only three major networks.
Desert Storm (1991?) was after Challenger (1986?).
Edit: here's a documentary about how JFK changed TV news: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0450362/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
Why don't we just stop Artemis program?
What's the point?
This page illustrates that it is very successful at the true goal: https://www.nasa.gov/content/artemis-partners
As a result, the only option for NASA to compete with China is to take back the role of leader with public money and public R&D with public and state funded universities
It was a mistake to seek help from Musk, Bezoz and that Virgin dude who wants to create space tourism
Let’s ask a different question. SpaceX, Blue Origin, etc areis not currently going to the moon. Would SpaceX be having this much trouble if it went to the moon? What would a SpaceX moon launch look like?
https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-list-government-su...
Blue Origin worked on a "Blue Moon" lander and later teamed up with LockMart, Northrop-Grumman, and Draper on the ILV lander proposal.
Final note, in real dollars these programs of NASAs are a blip on the federal budget. All the hand wringing bothers me since it’s not proportional to the scale.
SpaceX is betting on in-orbit refueling for getting Starship anywhere but low Earth orbit. They have yet to demonstrate that capability, even between two Dragon capsules. So the Starship is not a guaranteed vehicle for any missions NASA wants to run.
I don’t want nasa to be wasteful per se, but choosing to focus on heavy lift and the gateway and base infrastructure seems like a wise focus of engineering talent and money. If they were planning thousands of launches of SLS then fine.
I do agree that it makes SpaceX look better, especially in terms of Falcon 9. But their fate is so closely tied to Starship now that if it runs into serious problems and/or has to go back to the drawing board, the company's very viability could be threatened and it would be yet another big blow to the national image. Our hopes are riding on a lot of untested stuff right now, and the hype magnifies every failure along the way.
That's a prejudiced view.
As somebody from one of those countries, I'm curious to know why you felt that way.
Rest assured that average citizens in India don't give a damn about whether or not America launches a rocket.
Nobody here has any doubt that the US is fully capable of handling this mission.
It's a good thing that they caught the flaw early and aborted the mission before anything catastrophic happened. They can now look into things, make corrections, and try again.
(And besides, thoughts about "what will others think" should be the least concern of anybody actually involved with this project. It's an indication of small minds.)
Finding am error before lift off is not a bad thing.
Yea, you're right. NASA has never done anything like that, at all.
And I don’t understand the point more broadly. Because the US did some unpopular things, it doesn’t matter if it also looks impotent trying and failing to launch a big rocket? I don’t see how that follows at all. It seems to me that the opposite perspective is just as plausible: the American space program is one of the most important things the US does to build and maintain its global credibility, so it really matters if it fails on a global stage.
But besides that, NASA is not the US, American are not their country. Why would some bad luck with a launch reflect onto people who have nothing to do with it?
We all know that the US is very successful in terms of launches shit into space. It's gonna take a bit more than this to change that record.