This is a
live view of the Artemis II rocket and spacecraft inside the Vehicle
Assembly Building at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida.
Today, we'll discuss the outcome of this week's
flight readiness review for Artemis II.
Welcome, and thank you for joining us today.
I'm Rachel Kraft with NASA communications.
And we're joined today by several NASA managers who are going to share details
about the outcome of the flight readiness review and answer your questions.
They are.
Doctor Lori Glaze, acting associate administrator
for NASA's Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate.
John Honeycutt,
chair of the Artemis II mission management team.
Shawn Quinn, Exploration ground systems program manager.
And Norm Knight, director of flight operations.
So we'll have some opening remarks from our panelists today.
Then we'll get into question and answers from both you here in the room, as well
as on the phone.
A reminder to those who have joined us by phone.
You can join the question queue by pressing star one.
And with that, we'll start with Lori. Great.
Thank you so much, Rachel.
It's great to be here again with you all.
And thank you so much, for the turnout.
Thank you for being here
and for the tremendous interest, sustained interest even in Artemis two.
As Rachel
said, we just completed about a couple hours ago.
We completed two days of discussions as part of our Artemis
two flight readiness review.
The flight readiness review is our final
big assessment of our readiness for launch.
Where we are going to when we launch, fly for astronauts
around the moon and bring them home safely.
An incredible amount of work,
has gone into preparing for this test flight, by thousands of people across
our integrated team at the conclusion of the flight readiness review. We.
I'm sorry.
I'll just say,
during the flight readiness review, we had extremely thorough discussions.
Very open. Transparent.
We talked a lot about our risk posture and how we're mitigating those risks.
We reviewed, the challenges that we've had
and how we've addressed them, and we talked about the work that remains,
what's left to do, and how we're going to get through all of that.
We were fortunate, to have our crew join
us virtually for the review from Houston
Reid Wiseman, Victor Glover, Christina Cook, and Jeremy Hansen.
Having them join us in this
review really reinforced the importance of having open, honest discussions
about our path forward and about the risks that we're asking them to take.
At the conclusion of the FRR.
All the teams polled go to launch and fly Artemis
to around the moon, pending completion of some of the work.
Before we roll out to the launch pad.
Just a reminder to everybody.
We talk about it every time we we talk about this flight.
It's a test flight.
And it is not without risk.
But our team and our hardware are ready.
We are planning to roll out to the pad,
back out to the pad, targeting next week.
A week from today on the 19th.
We are on track for that.
Everything's going pretty well.
Maybe even a little ahead of that, but, but we're we're shooting for the 19th.
And then once we get back out to the pad, we'll configure for launch,
pending
completion of the work in the VAB and at the pad.
We are on track for a launch
as early as April 1st,
and we are working toward that date.
I will say the
the launch time on the April 1st is at 6:24 p.m..
I also wanted to note, I'm sure many of you have seen our little calendar
with the green dot, green squares on it
that shows the available dates for launches in April.
We have also just continued to refine our analyzes
of launch availability and are adding April 2nd.
To to our calendar of potential launch opportunities.
And that early April launch period.
The launch on
the second would be at 7:22 p.m.
within those, six days between the first and the sixth.
We can't always turn around every day, for an attempt.
We would anticipate on the order of about four opportunities within
that six day period.
Again, while I am comfortable and the agency
is comfortable with targeting April 1st as our first opportunity.
Just keep in mind we still have work to go.
There are still things that need to be done within the VAB and out at the pad.
And as always, we'll always be guided by what the hardware is telling us
and we will launch when we're ready.
I want to close just by saying how proud I am of this amazing team,
that is working tirelessly to prepare to launch
and fly our astronauts around the moon and bring them home safely.
That I'll hand it over to John.
Okay. Thank you. Laura.
Hello again.
It's good to be back with you all today.
And, it's even better for us to be ready in the rocket,
to get ready to roll out again and launch this in launches mission.
You know, probably over the last,
seven days, pretty much on more than off.
We spent a lot of time with
the senior executives and the leadership
throughout the enterprise talking about, my risk postures.
Lori alluded to.
But moreover,
you know, looking at it through the lens of an eye
for an agency, IFR is really more like,
it's talent telling the real story.
And it's about how you communicated risk.
So, Lori said, hey,
we need to spend a few days doing just that and kind of wire
brushing the team so that we don't put ourselves in a posture.
What I always kind of talk to folks about sometimes, don't bring me a kit
and make me have to put it together myself.
You know, I wanted to be Chris Bong.
Go on to this agency for more,
and making sure that we had the kit put together so that folks
could understand that we were doing our best job at communicating the risk
associated with this mission.
You know, over
and over again, we ask ourself, is a rocket ready to fly?
Is a spacecraft ready to fly?
Is the integrated team ready?
You know, so,
another piece that
kind of drives into that is,
I'm a I'm, it's been talking to us for several months,
about failure of imagination.
I think we use that term a lot in human spaceflight.
Right.
And so we want to be sure
that we're thinking about everything that can possibly go wrong.
And have we, assessed and adjudicated
all the risk to put us in the best posture to be,
successful?
I was I, like Lori, was very pleased
with the outcome of the flight readiness review.
It asked for dissenting opinions at the end.
We spent a little bit of quiet time giving people plenty of time
to come to the table and share any, dissenting concerns.
And there were none.
We we took some actions that they're for today.
Some of those actions are. Do you.
To be completed prior to rollout, which I don't think it's a big deal.
We'll just, just we got to get done.
And then there's some that will come to the L minus two when,
the enterprise hands over the mission
management to the MMT.
And we it's like
I said, we got a path to close all the open actions.
Either prior to rollout or prior to launch.
I spent a lot of time
over the last, probably seven months,
putting teams together to go look at risk across all the individual elements
of the enterprise and, and how they stack up.
And then and then once I got that data put together by the teams,
put together another team to go assist all those integrated risk
and how they interact with each other.
From a top down perspective and a bottoms up perspective had been,
I was really pleased to report, you know, that,
we didn't find any new integrated
risk interactions throughout that process.
So just in closing, I'll say that, you know,
this is the first flight, like I've always said, of humans in over 50 years.
And to the moon.
And that's certainly exciting.
And I've always cautioned the team,
and we won't do it, and we're not going to celebrate,
the small victory that we had on getting through, therefore,
which was quite a big deal.
But it's just a step along the way
that we're not going to celebrate till we get read.
And Victor and Christina and Jeremy safely home.
Thank you. I'll turn it over to Sean. Right.
Thank you very much, John.
Well, first of all, it's good to see everyone here today.
It's really incredible that we've set a new launch date
to send our astronauts back to the moon for the first time for 50 years.
Exactly two weeks ago, we had to roll back
from the pad after a very successful wet dress rehearsal.
And, you know, it was, it was frustrating
to have the issue that we had, but, you know, as you know, we had a problem,
loading, helium on the upper stage.
We got the vehicle back to the VAB, and, we removed the suspect part.
It was what we call quick disconnect the helium, quick disconnect.
And, we took it to our labs.
We, X-rayed it, and we found a seal blocking
the flow of the helium through the QD.
And so, at that point,
you know, we set apart a path to figure out the root cause.
And so we set up some non flight units down at our launch equipment test facility
and proceeded to, duplicate the conditions that we experienced,
when we were trying to load helium on board the upper stage.
And we were able to replicate the problem.
Since that time, our, combined engineering teams across the,
our ground systems and, SLS teams, came up with the design fix.
That design fix was implemented on a test article, and,
we have successfully tested it, and we have qualified it, for use
on Artemis two, and the modified QD is already on the upper stage.
So, we're very proud of the team and the work that they did to,
and quickly understand the root cause and come up with the corrective action
and get us back in a posture to roll back out.
We've also, replaced the, flight termination system,
batteries on the ISPs on the core stage and the boosters.
And, we are in the process now of, testing,
the flight termination system in the VAB.
So far, the VAB processing has gone very well.
And, you know, as Laurie, mentioned, we're targeting, March
19th, the roll date.
And should we meet that roll, which we have fairly high confidence we are.
It'll be the fastest turnaround in the Artemis program.
Since we started, you know, 22 days from the time we rolled off
the off the pads, getting back out to the pad.
During that time, we've also, charged Orion's launch abort systems, batteries.
We performed another closeout crew demo,
in the VAB and, you know, closeout crew, in getting them trained
and making sure we hit our timelines, it's very important for our launch countdown.
And, we got it done in a little under about two minutes,
two hours and 40 minutes.
And so we're meeting our closeout crew timeline.
And that was very good training.
We also replaced the, liquid
oxygen seals on the tail surface mass umbilical.
And so we thought why we had the time, given the experience we had with the,
LH to, the hydrogen seals would be a good idea to change those.
So we did that. That's all completed.
And, now we've committed to
roll, again, on the 19th,
we'll get the vehicle back out of the pad, go through the pad, prep, set up our air
system, raise the engine service platform, you know, raise
the extensible columns, do all that work, and put a good, launch posture.
I will tell you that, over a year ago, we set out to launch.
No, no, later than than April 2026.
At challenge, just to get the vehicle to the pad by February.
We held schedule for an entire year.
That's quite an accomplishment.
For, all the programs that are supporting Artemis.
However, you know, we had the problem with the helium disconnect,
and we listened to the hardware and said, we're not ready.
Brought it back to fix it,
and we're going to get back out there for that launch attempt on on, April 1st.
I will tell you that, this processing flow,
has gone very well in terms of our timelines.
And, you know, we spent half the time in the Multi Payload
Processing Facility to service, Orion, as we did for, for the Artemis one flow.
And we cut the time into the launch abort systems facility, by a third.
So we're learning, you know, we're all very excited,
to implement the new, vision for Artemis that our administrator has announced
to increase our launch cadence.
And I think Artemis two is putting out us a good path.
So it's good to be here. And with that, I'll turn it over to Norm.
All right.
Well, thank you, Sean, and really thank you to everyone
for your continued interest in this historic mission.
You know, the flight readiness review over these past two days was,
excellent and really heavily focused on crew risk and mission success.
As you've heard, we remain on track for an April launch opportunity.
Our teams in Mission Control Houston are fully prepared to support this mission.
They've been training side by side with the astronauts.
Read Victor, Christina, Jeremy through countless
simulations and really working through every scenario.
The team is ready to support both the astronauts
and the spacecraft systems through the journey around the moon to
when they're reunited with their families after splashdown.
I talked with Reid this morning, and the crew is an excellent shape
and ready to fly.
They've complete confidence in the ground.
Team supporting them.
They have built strong relationships with our flight controllers
and the integrated teams over the course of their training flow.
For an April 1st launch,
the crew will begin prelaunch quarantine at about L -14 days, which is March 18th,
and will then travel here to the Kennedy Space Center in L minus
five days, which is March 27th.
This is an exciting time for our entire flight operations team
to fly humans around the moon for the first time in over 50 years.
Send them further than any humans since Apollo 13,
and continue paving the road of human exploration to the moon and beyond.
As always, our astronauts and their safety remain our top priority.
With that, I'll hand it back to Rachel.
All right. Thank you.
All right.
We'll start taking some questions.
We will start here in the room.
If you're here in the room, please wait for the mic to come around.
We'll also take some questions by phone.
If you've joined us by phone.
Please remember to star to press Star one to get into the question queue.
And with that, let's start over here. Marcia Dunn,
or should an Associated Press.
I'd like to hear a little bit more about how you fix this. Helium.
What caused the cell to block the flow of helium?
And how do you redesign for that?
And Laura, you mentioned April 2nd.
Is that a new is that now a new date? Yes.
And does that give us six tries at the beginning of.
So you didn't remove one? No. Perfect.
Thank you. Got it.
Yeah.
So, without trying to get overly complicated.
So the, the quick, the quick disconnect between the, upper stage and the ground.
The ground umbilical.
There are seals in there to hold that helium, you know, in the,
the pressure line.
And, one of the seals occasionally would get forced out of its location that it's
supposed to be, and block the flow through the quick disconnect itself.
We actually ended up removing that seal and reinforcing another seal.
That would be less susceptible to that phenomenon.
And so, you know, we had this buildup of high pressure gas
after we invented the, the helium bottles at high pressure
gas force that that what we call this body seal out.
And we redesigned the channel around another seal
that also holds the pressure, a secondary seal reinforce that.
And we've tested it multiple times.
We took that cut through some brutal test to make sure it was going to work.
And we feel pretty confident about it for, Artemis to.
Yeah.
And then if I can provide just an explicit answer to Marcia
because I was shaking my head in the room and just want to make sure
everybody gets the answer, but that, yes, we have added, the 2nd of April.
That is a new date. Previously had been excluded.
We've done additional work, and now we've done the enough analyzes
to believe that that is a viable date. So it's been added.
And it is an add.
We haven't taken any other dates away.
We have six potential dates.
Hey, Bill Harwood.
Hi. Bill Harwood, CBS news.
Since virtually all of you mentioned the risk analysis for this mission,
you know, the OIG last week put a report out that put the risk of,
of lunar operations at one inch 40 and the risk
of a lunar mission from start to finish at 1 in 40 or 1 in 30.
I'm sorry.
Is there a probabilistic risk assessment for Artemis two?
What are the numbers?
Since you're talking about
assessing the risks, you've got to have some way to do that.
So is there a number to put on this flight in terms of what you consider
acceptable risk. Take that one down.
Yeah.
So Bill it's we've
we've grappled with this overall number for a while.
What I can what I would say is we understand
the risk associated with the individual components,
the subsystems and then the overall systems.
You know, I think I talked to Dan, the Artemis
one relative to, you know, new rockets.
It's about a it's a 1 in 2 chance to make it.
Right.
So I think we're looking at this kind of qualitatively like,
you know, I've done some the I've done a lot of thinking
in a lot of reading about okay.
What does that mean for us for Artemis two.
And, you know, there's a lot of variables there.
Right?
And it really depends on how quickly you get back into flying.
Right.
And so you know, one of the variables is we've we've got such a gap
between Artemis one and autonomous two.
And you don't have that cadence kind of like
we had in shuttle, you know, where we fly sometimes 4 or 5 times a year, right?
So Laura and I have talked about this a lot, you know, and so the,
you know, the numbers would tell you just kind of qualitatively that,
you know, it's it's probably a 1 in 50
would be a good number if you were really getting after and,
and had a good cadence on, on a second or third time.
But with this, with this gap that we got,
you know, it's probably, it's, it's probably, it's probably not,
you know, one in 1 in 50, it's probably and it's probably not one and two,
but it's probably like I'm quoting Lori on this.
It's, you know, and I believe it to it's probably,
it's probably closer to one and two
that, you know and it's
I don't know.
Well that basically that basically means
we're probably not one in 1 in 50 on,
on on the mission going exactly like we want to,
but we're probably not wanting to, like we were on the first flight.
And that's that's what I would tell you.
I mean,
I think we're being really careful not to really blame,
probabilistic numbers on the table
for this mission, just given the small amount of data
to just say anything you don't agree with there you want.
I had
I guess the one thing I would add is you asked specifically
about the probabilistic risk assessment.
We do those we have that are numbers.
I think sometimes we get tricked into believing that those numbers are
somehow, really telling us something critically important.
I think they're valuable.
I think we can do things
in a relative sense to measure, what's more risky or less risky?
But I agree with John,
that in this sense, I think as we're thinking this through, thinking about it
as it's not the first flight, but we're also not in a regular cadence.
So we definitely have significantly more risk
than a mission, flight system that's flying all the time.
But I'm with him.
I wouldn't actually put a number on it.
You know, I, you know, I can I can break it down
in terms of the mission phases, right.
You know, and I can tell you
when we get the most dynamic activities going on, like during ascent
and then when we're doing those burns, doing the perigee raise, and then we're
doing the,
the tail light
burn, those are those are going to be the times
that we're introducing the most risk into the into the whole mission.
There's there's a lot of times where we're steady state
and we're going to be feeling pretty good about what's going on in the mission.
But at the end of the day, we want to accomplish
as many goals as we that we've laid out for ourselves in the mission.
But the main thing that I want to do is I want to hit that damn entry interface
right down the middle and make sure that I'm bringing the crew home
safely.
Okay.
Let's go.
Second row Will Robinson.
Smith.
Height.
Excuse me, will Robinson Smith with Spaceflight now.
Thanks for taking the time to talk with us. Maybe just to
clarify this, just to
make sure that at least I'm fully understanding what you're saying.
So the one and two is that essentially to say
that there's a coin flip in the mission going fully successfully as architected?
And then just secondarily, a quick follow up,
we saw the VAB be evacuated earlier today and there was some talk of a loud bang.
Can you clarify what exactly happened? Thanks.
Can you get that in just a minute?
So I don't I don't want you walking out of here and saying that.
I said, this mission is a one and two, right?
I'm just I'm saying if you look at the data over time,
over the lifespan of just building new rockets, right,
the data would show you that one out of two is successful.
You're only successful 50% of the time.
I think we're in
I think we're in a much better position than that.
And the only way
that I can put us in a better place than the 1 in 2
is do what we've done right, uncover all the risk,
and make sure we've done everything to buy down risk,
give us options to work through challenges that we've got.
And and so and then at the,
at the end of the day, it's, it's going to be what it's going to be.
No, I'm not being flippant about that because these teams of
the individuals are ready to go fly.
We have spent a lot of time working through our processes
on the ground and for In-Space and for launch,
for landing and recovery of teams are well practiced.
There's probably not many scenarios
that if things go fairly nominal, that we don't understand.
Norm and I talk about it a lot where,
you know, we know we're going to get a curveball thrown at us.
And so then we just where we get away
our options and assess the risk that point in time.
And then we'll we'll keep moving on.
Okay.
He'd get he he'd get your bangs door in there.
Well, let's see.
So first of all, we don't know exactly the cause of the loud noise.
We had an what we call an access control monitor here.
It didn't know what it was, did the right thing, pulled the fire alarm.
We rolled the fire engines, the fire department into the VAB.
They did their normal,
methodical checkouts that they do when whenever a fire alarm is pulled.
And we declared the building fire safe shortly after that.
And, you know, I, we don't know
exactly where the bang came from, but we went ahead and shut the,
the VAB down, evacuated the personnel and did the safety checks.
We could not find any,
you know, any any sign at all of the fire?
The person also reported an odor.
We think it may have come from a floor drain and, declared again, declared
a facility fire safe and brought our crews back in to continue working.
You know, I could speculate
on what it was, and I just don't want to do that right now.
Okay?
Yeah.
All right. We'll
take several questions from the phone and then come back here in the room.
First up, we have Jonathan Saari with Fox.
Thank you so much for taking the time.
This is for whoever wants to take a forward look.
Future Artemis missions.
Artemis four and beyond the human landing system.
The OIG report raises concerns over the elevator.
In the Starship HLS, being the only way for astronauts
to move between the surface and the crew compartment.
What options for a backup is NASA exploring?
I'm not sure if you're asking about a backup to the elevator
or a backup to the starship.
I mean, certainly we do have, two options in our human
landing system program, to to provide landers to the surface.
We've got both the starship from space, and we have the,
anticipated
Mach two eventually for, from Blue Origin,
for the other lander that we have on contract.
Both of them will have to demonstrate, not only the successful landing
and ability to an uncrewed landing and, asset from the surface of the moon
before we commit to putting our crew on there.
But they're going to have to demonstrate,
that they are qualified for human flight.
And that is going to require, the safety and the backup systems
and the redundancies that are going to be required to keep the crew safe.
Okay.
Next question we have on the phone is from Jackie Waddles
with CNN.
Hi there.
Thanks for taking my question.
As for John Hunnicutt, I just I think it might help us,
better understand these risk assessments.
Can you just clarify again what exactly you mean by the one and two?
I, again, is that the risk of this mission not going exactly to plan?
And I know, you know, from covering demo two and also going back to shuttle,
we're used to having numbers for odds of loss of mission and loss of crew.
Do you have any calculations
for those specific parameters, that you can share with us?
Some clarity on that would be great.
And then if you don't mind quickly for for Lori, you mentioned
that the crew was present at the flight readiness review.
Could you give us some insight into what they may
have brought up during the flight readiness review?
Any questions and concerns they may have raised? Thank you so much.
On the Jeep.
Yeah, you can go first. I'll go first.
Yeah.
It was wonderful to to have them, they were virtual.
They were online, but all four, were together, gathered together, online.
And they did kick us off with our for our yesterday
morning, by by saying a few words to us.
And they did convey some of the things that they think about
and the things that they worry about as the crew members,
the kinds of risks that were of most concern to them
and the things that basically they were going to be listening for.
As we went through the FRC,
you know, they included things that I'm sure won't surprise most of you,
things like, you know, the, the heat shield, but not so much
the performance of the heat shield.
I think we've all agreed that we've got a good heat shield.
The question was, are we going to be able to hit that entry interface,
and get the get them, get them back on, on Earth safely.
And so they were listening to make sure that we have that really nailed down.
And we were going to be able to hit
that entry interface, understanding, communications challenges,
and making sure that they'll be able to maintain, communication with Earth.
And that's one of the things they were looking at, those risks, the,
the environmental control and life support systems,
you know, power systems, things like that, the things that that could cause,
could cause some challenges to them while they're in flight.
So we really appreciated them sharing their thoughts with us.
I will also share, I think one of the things that they mentioned
was, you know, we spent the last, 25 years in low Earth orbit,
and they wanted us to make sure that we all recognized as the board members
that this mission is different.
We are going well beyond low-Earth orbit.
We're going out to the moon, and we can't always rely on our experience
in low Earth orbit when we're taking this, this kind of a mission
guide.
Let me make another run at this.
I've had a little bit of time to think
again.
All right, so on the one and two, all I'm saying is,
when you don't have a, when you don't have a lot of data to pick from
and you want to go generate a, a probabilistic number.
The way I got to one and two
is you just go look at look at the rockets that flew the first their first mission.
Right. How many of them were successful.
It's one and it's about one and two.
Right. And so and so people
I don't want people to take that as being,
That we should be scared to go fly
because we're not scared to go fly.
We do a, an outstanding job
of understanding the risks by down the risk, mitigating the risk.
And putting together controls to manage the risk.
But I think you get in, I think you get in trouble.
And we had a little bit of conversation
on this today at the for not not specifically about
kind of indirectly about talking about generating probabilistic numbers.
Right.
And so,
you can you can use a probabilistic assessment
in a way that that might scare you unless you go
look at, for instance, take for example, losing foam.
Right.
And so
you can say, okay, there's
X and Y a chance that I'm going to lose foam off the rocket.
Okay. But then something else has got to happen.
It's got to be it's got to be there in the right place.
And then you got to work to the machine.
What? It's in that area.
Based on the analysis we can do. What's going to hit?
What if it does hit that?
What can it do?
And so, you know, when you work through all that
from a technical standpoint, point you you can put yourself in a better place
rather than, than just solely relying on a probabilistic number.
And Bill, I totally get what you're saying because we used to in shuttle,
we used to have a, one in, in, number
for loss of mission and one in, in number for loss of crew and,
you know, I think those numbers,
I don't go back to this one.
I started probably around
this year, 36 after challenger.
But, you know, those numbers were always a one and n not Norm.
You might remember how they were.
The range was about, you know, a 1 in 131 and 140.
And it improved over time. Right.
And if and it's driven by the stuff that you do to make
the launch vehicle or the rocket better and put you better safe
in a better position to mitigate the challenges that you got.
So, you know, it's just.
I just I feel like we're
we're kind of going we're being a little bit dangerous.
And, and it's interesting that I didn't get this question asking me about it
too much. When we on Artemis one. Right.
But and I understand why.
Right.
We get people on the rocket this time to have people go, oh.
Pardon my French, but, you know, it's just like,
how can that be? Right?
Well, it's just it's it's looking at that, looking at the data.
So it's
we can we can probably pursue
I know we have pursued,
loss of mission, loss of crew type number assessments,
but I'm not sure we understand what they mean in reality.
And I'll give you an example. Right.
You know what the biggest risk we got right now in the enterprise?
Micrometeorite debris.
That's it.
Right now, in my mind.
Is that real?
It's real.
Right.
But when it when if the last two
bad events occurred
going uphill
in that
highly energetic event,
that's when it that's when it that's when it occurred.
Right.
So, you know, we can fool ourselves sometimes into thinking
really is it is that the biggest risk to the mission IMO
everybody
that's
okay.
So I'll make some good reading over the next few days.
Okay.
We'll take another from the phone from Josh, dinner with Space.com.
Hi. Thanks so much for doing this.
You've talked in the past about the stress roll out can have on SLS,
and I didn't hear a mention of another wet dress rehearsal.
What would be the justification for skipping another wet dress?
And will you have any way to assess that helium qty back at the pad?
So I'll take the first part of that.
As far as the, the wet dress, and we've had a lot of discussion
about this, every time, we tank, tank the vehicle,
it takes a little bit of the life out of those tanks.
And so we want to we certainly want to test
to always make sure that everything's working.
But, you know, we've now, done a couple of wet dress rehearsals, we've
exercised the team, we've exercised the hardware,
and, and I'll just tell you from my perspective,
when we tank the vehicle, the very next time,
I would like it to be on a day that we could actually launch.
I would like to do it on launch day.
And if we successfully are able to successfully fully tank the vehicle,
I want to be able to pull go to launch.
So so that's where we are at this point.
And you know, we don't want to give up any of the days in our April launch
window, on for a wet dress rehearsal.
And as far as,
testing the QED at the pad, well, we've already tested
the new chassis in the VAB as part of our pre-launch checkouts.
We do pressurize the helium bottles, and we exercise
the helium system on the upper stage.
So we've already verified that the new QD is,
is working in the VAB already.
We'll take one more question from the phone,
and then we'll come back here in the room.
Next up we have, Katrina miller
from The New York Times.
Hi. Thanks so much.
I was curious for anyone who wants to answer,
can you go into a little bit of the specifics on what work needs to be
completed, prior to the rollout
and then prior to the launch to be ready to launch April 1st?
Thank you.
I've got it.
I think I can I can talk about a little bit about,
the things that I'm looking forward
to seeing over the next, weeks to come.
One of the things that that we got to get worked out is
we've we found a little bit of,
interest to get some interesting data on
some of the,
thrust vector control
actuators that are in fabrication up at Moog
right now for Artemis three.
So we got to go figure out kind of what that means to this mission.
I don't I don't think it's
I don't think it's a big deal, but it's just doing the analytical work,
to close it out and make sure that the little bit of issue
they're seeing up and on, on the actual shrouded in mystery,
doesn't indict the Artemis
two actuator ideas, which are shuttle heritage.
Right. So we had two sets actuated.
We used one on our in which one we're using the second,
the second, group on Artemis three.
And then all the subsequent ones are going to, are going to be new.
Our inertial navigation and control assembly
on Artemis two.
ULA ran into a little bit of a problem and
and they solved it by doing a, a good burn
in with the Anca.
On one of the channels,
they they were experiencing some some issue.
I'm not I'm not sure I can communicate what the issue was, was basically
they recommended we do a good burn in on the Indian Jones teams.
We've already we've already started that.
And so we got a good plan to get that closed out.
And then Sean Sean can share more on this one.
But he's been working.
Y'all have heard about comm problems that we've had off and on through
throughout our wet dress rehearsals and, and his team's off work,
and they've done an outstanding job by down risk relative to that.
So those are kind of the three big ones on on my radar.
He can talk to you about his
kind of standard work, but I don't view the standard work as a big deal.
He talked about his schedule. So where do you show?
Yeah.
So really, the, like I said earlier, the working VAB is going very well.
We're actually slightly ahead of schedule.
What's remaining really
is the, what we call the flight termination system and checkouts.
And we'll do those over
the next several days, and then we will do what we call close up the volumes.
We will remove excess platforms from the Livesay area and from the, core stage.
And the, left and right hand solid rocket boosters
and, get the doors locked up and ready to roll.
So there's not a whole lot of, work left in the VAB.
Fortunately, you know, the, Yeah, that's pretty much it.
So we're close.
Okay, we'll come back
here in the room, we'll go on this side and let's start here with the black shirt.
Thank you.
From a close unit.
Two quick questions.
First one for the panel.
The OAG report says that NASA is tracking,
like, a risk with one of the cryogenic technologies.
So SpaceX is using for the HLS, but it doesn't mention which one.
Can you elaborate?
Which technology is NASA tracking?
Which is not going to be mature enough for other mystery
in this case will be Artemis for and then maybe for Lori.
What would be the status of the gateway given the new architecture is the gateway?
Is the lunar base the new gateway?
Let me take those separately.
In your first question, I'm going to say we'll have to get back to you.
I'm, I would have to go back and read the details of what's
in the OIG report to understand what exactly they're.
And I don't want to speculate on on that particular, question.
On the second question, the the new direction
that the administrator, put forward a couple of weeks ago,
that is very focused on the transportation systems in the near term.
It's focused on standardizing our transportation to and from the moon.
We there's nothing in there that says anything about what?
What is, anticipated for any other parts of our program?
We continue to execute on the other parts of our program.
Okay.
Let's go here to Ken.
All right.
Ken Kramer, SpaceX up close.
Thanks for doing all this.
A lot of good information.
Norm, you haven't had a question I could ask you all question.
Let me let me ask you about the, the ISPs I'd like to know.
Can you describe in detail the burns that it has to make?
And if there's an issue, how long can they stay
in orbit for?
Before they can go to the moon?
Or do they have to abort the moon?
Thanks.
Okay. Well, thanks for your question.
The first.
So they get into orbit, they, SLS does this job,
gets, gets Orion and the ICP into orbit.
So the first big burn that they're going to do is an apogee raise burn.
And that is one that, puts our apogee way out there
about 3000km, give or take.
That's what I CPS provides.
After that, I will separate and they'll do approx.
I call it a prox demo, proximity demo.
And and so they'll actually do some inspections of it
and do the handling qualities of Orion around it.
So that's its major burn, to get to get Orion
where it needs to get in that first, we call it a geo orbit.
So and then your second question, I think, was, you know what?
How long can the crew stay up there?
Okay.
The firm doesn't work. Well, what are your options?
Well, if that burn doesn't work, then you have aborts back to Earth.
And so you would separate from it and come back.
Obviously, the first thing we would do is try to get into a safe orbit
as best we could.
And once you're in a safe orbit, we would assess probably in a low Earth orbit,
because that gives you a matter of hours to get the crew back home.
Once you commit to the high, Earth orbit,
it's, it's about a day to get back home.
So obviously, there's a lot of risk trades that you do.
There are a lot of different scenarios that play out associated with that.
But what the team does that they look at the failure, the impact,
and then the workaround
and the risk trades relative to always keeping crew safety paramount.
Vehicle safety.
Next and all those factor in to the decision
making, that we as a collective team would go do.
Okay.
We'll go, back again to the phone for several more questions.
Next is Loren Grush with Bloomberg.
Thank you so much for taking my question.
I'm wondering if there has been any extra scrutiny lately
on the solid rocket boosters.
I understand they're probably very different designs,
but just for peace of mind, you know, two Vulcan flights now
have suffered issues with their Northrop Grumman built boosters.
And then there was also an issue with the NASA booster test last year.
I understand they might be disconnected, but wondering if that has prompted
any closer look at the designs, or if you feel confident
the ones you have are ready to go.
Thanks so much.
Yeah, so that first part happened under my watch
when I was the son of this program manager.
Yes. And that
in the on the ground, his failure was it's a totally different design.
And the Northrop Grumman team and the NASA booster team,
did the due diligence to
clear clear the clear that work.
And there was no,
no nothing there to indict the booster.
We're flying today.
And the same thing for the
for the booster that was on the Vulcan.
We went through the same activity and cleared it both.
So it didn't indicted. And there's been,
I know
we talked about it at at some point in time along the way,
especially right after the one on the Vulcan had its issue and,
the team team close that action out
and it did not come up,
in Lori's IFR or the agency IFR.
Our next question is from
Denise Chow with NBC.
Hi. Thanks very much.
I was wondering if you guys have any details on launch opportunities
beyond April in case those are needed.
So my answer to that is
we are focused on April.
I've said in the past that, you know, yes, there are opportunities in other months,
but right now we are solely focused on April.
We'll take another question from the phone.
This is from Paul Brinkman with Aerospace America.
Yes. Thanks for taking my question.
I'm just trying to, to go back to the hydrogen and helium issues.
There were problems with weeks in Artemis one.
We did hear that there were fixes
made to kind of make sure that that wouldn't be a problem again.
Then there were similar problems with Artemis two.
I'm just wondering, does NASA feel like it has a really firm grasp on why
these leaks occur on the launch pad now, and what is being done
to make sure that Artemis three doesn't start off with the same problem?
Yeah.
So I feel like right now we're in a better place than we have
been since we started this endeavor in,
the team's got an extensive fall tree.
And I think they're looking in the right areas.
There's quite a bit of evidence that that says that those,
Teflon seals
that are used in that area, if they're assembled
for some length of time and they're or they're,
Or there's any
a little bit of a, of,
a flaw in, or they don't fit exactly right.
In other words, you know, you need to cherry pick the seal,
but the I think the key thing that they're, they're starting to hone
in on is in talking,
talking back with the supplier
and then doing the investigative work themselves.
Is, you know, we we assemble that interface,
that interface in, in the VAB, and it's, it's, it's
they're assembled like that for quite some time before we roll out.
Right.
And so I think there's some good evidence that's
leaning towards that material can flow and set.
And it,
it looks to me like
based on the limited data that we've got
and the experience we got from head from our one,
that we're going to be in a good posture
when we roll out.
This next time.
And that's I think it's, you know, as Lori allude to, we don't
we don't, we don't feel like we need another wet dress.
And this is one of those opportunities where I think we need to be.
I think we're being,
we're using good technical judgment and
and being bold, making bold decisions about what we do.
Obviously,
we don't want it to leak, but,
I'm highly confident in the technical team's ability, and
and they're saying basically the same words that I'm parroting.
Back to you.
Our next question is from
Micah Madan Berg with the Wall Street Journal.
Hey. Good afternoon.
I wanted to take one more shot at the probabilistic risk assessment discussion.
In 2022, I think it was Mike Sarafin did talk about
a 1 in 125 potential loss,
scenario for the Orion vehicle on Artemis one.
I just even with the caveats about Artemis
to the differences and the small amount of data
that that John talked about, can you at least provide a comparable for,
that number, the one, the one to,
you know, n number for, Orion for items?
Two things like, I'll just say we've addressed the risk question several times.
I think if we have more follow up to do,
we can follow up with reporters separately.
We have plenty more questions to get to.
So we're going to go ahead and do that.
We do want to take one more question on the phone from Marsha
Smith with Space Policy Online.
Thanks so much.
My question actually was about Orion as well.
We've been spending all this time talking about specialists and ISPs
and the tests on those systems.
Could you just give us an update on when the last time
the Orion service module systems had been tested,
and does the Orion service module only fire once?
It only has to work once in order to get them around the moon and back home.
Could you just walk us through that part of the flight?
Yeah.
I don't know the last time that we've run any test on the
service module.
But I know Norm's here, and he can talk about
relative to how they utilize the
the propulsion system on, on on the service module,
which I think is important relative to this conversation.
Yeah. Service module. We depend on a lot.
Obviously, a lot of the, critical burns are done.
TLI is, is done with the service module, three domes, engines.
We have, series of, jets on there as well.
So, it's critical to the mission,
and we use it until the very last day when we, jettison it and Orion comes home.
Another one from the fron.
We have Ryan Keaton with NASA.
Spaceflight.com.
Thanks very much for your time.
I just want to make sure I understand this correctly.
You said you're not going to be doing another wet dress rehearsal.
I'm just wondering
if you're going to be doing any tanking at all, like a partial tanking test
or an integrity test, or are you absolutely set
that the first time you're going to tank this rocket from now
on is going to be for a launch attempt, and there are no other scenarios?
Thank you.
Appreciate the question.
Yeah, we've done a lot of talking about this and and what kind of testing might,
might be beneficial.
And at this point, we've demonstrated that
the seals that we have are the best seals we've ever seen, on the SLS.
And not that this should and so in our opinion, there's,
there's not a lot more to be gained from that.
So we are as I and as I indicated previously,
the next time we tank the the vehicle will be when we're attempting to launch.
Our next question is from Nicole Mortara
from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
Hi. Laurie, this is for you.
I know, I know that you mentioned that you're focused on April, with,
launch attempt, but is is there any way we get an update, like just for May?
Because for media, it's very difficult to,
get any hotel rooms or anything like that booked.
So is there any way we'll have an updated calendar?
I understand, I understand,
and I hear you, as I said, right now, we are very focused on April.
If it starts to look like that, could be a challenge.
We'll reconsider.
But at this point, we're very focused on April.
All right.
We'll come back into the room here in the blue.
Zachary.
Spectrum news.
I wanted to ask either Sean or, John, this question.
You guys, last time we had the flight readiness review,
we were talking about repetition.
Repetition of your cruise.
If there was a reason that the VAB had to come back into use and the rocket
had to go back, you wanted your cruise to continue to practice.
Can you go a little bit in on how the past couple of weeks
have been for both of your cruise to get ready to this point?
Well, I will tell you that,
we've had a lot of work to do, coming back from the VAB.
So our crews have been very busy with, reopening
the vehicle volumes to do the flight termination systems work.
I mentioned earlier today
that we had the time to do another closeout crew demo in the baby.
We took advantage of that opportunity, to make sure that we were able to execute
to our timelines and keep our closeout crew, sharp and ready to go on launch day.
And, you know, if we had a more extended, time in the VAB,
we probably would have done some more launch team training simulations.
We really didn't have the time to do that,
and we don't really think we needed to do that, given the short,
VAB turnaround time that we, we had this time that we expect to have.
You know, maybe once to mention some of the other things.
Yeah.
Well, talking about the flight control team and the readiness, obviously
we've used the time to, to do,
a few more sims, a few more practice sessions.
We've done, I think, over this whole, journey for Artemis
two, about 126 days worth of, simulations, both standalone
with the crew, with the flight control team, with the integrated,
engineering teams, as well with the mission management teams.
And so we've not only focused on specific training, but fully,
full integrated training.
So we're still taking advantage of that.
Since, February, we continue to hone the teams.
The teams are working very well together.
And at the end of the day, I'm fully confident that if we have
any problems, it's integrated team that's going to pull us through.
That means the crew
and the ground teams working together as one in support of the mission.
So we use this time wisely.
And, you know, we hope it all goes nominal.
But if it doesn't, you got the best teams on
and off the planet to take care of any problems.
And we have time for one final question.
We'll take that from the phone.
That will be, Christopher MC with the Hudson Star Observer.
Thank you very much.
I believe this would be for Mr. Honeycutt.
I understand the procedure with the timeline,
and there's not going to be a tanking test due to the life of the booster.
Would there be any consideration,
with the kind of stress of the roll out back to the pad and maybe,
changing out those two seals, before the first launch attempt?
Or is that just not going to be part of the procedure?
That's not going to be part of the procedure.
All right.
And with that, I will go ahead and conclude today.
Thank you very much to our participants for participating today.
You can stay tuned for further updates on NASA.gov.
And we're going to go ahead and pop up
this specific URL where you can find that information about our progress.
NASA.gov slash Artemis.
Thank you all for joining us today.