Why NASA’s Artemis Has Fuel-Leak Problems That SpaceX Doesn’t | WSJ

NASA’s Artemis I launch has been delayed twice because of problems with their main fuel: liquid hydrogen. It’s not a new one for the space agency. As NASA described it, “hydrogen is difficult to work with.”
Meanwhile, SpaceX has switched to methane for their Mars-bound Starship spacecraft.
WSJ explains why NASA still uses the leak-prone fuel.
Read more about the Artemis launch scrubs on The Wall Street Journal: www.wsj.com/articles/nasa-str...
More from the Wall Street Journal:
Visit WSJ.com: www.wsj.com
Visit the WSJ Video Center: wsj.com/video
On Facebook: / videos
On Twitter: / wsj
On Snapchat: on.wsj.com/2ratjSM
#Artemis #NASA #WSJ

[@matjazmeza]

"When there is a leak, hydrogen finds it. When there isn't a leak, hydrogen finds it."

[@richkelley5112]

You stated that so simply. Bravo, Sir

[@warrenwhite9085]

NASA took insanely fragile, finicky, expensive components (SRBs, Hydrogen tanks/engines, GSE) of the most unaffordable, dangerous & unreliable space vehicle in history (STS) that had failed miserably for 30 years to carry out NASA’s ‘cheap, safe & reliable’ shuttle promises, stacked them together differently & promised Congress/taxpayers ‘now things are going to be cheap & easy’.

[@OneEyedRascal]

So fix the leaks is what your saying?

[@acvizuals]

lol

[@acvizuals]

@@OneEyedRascal impossible is what he’s saying

[@derekvanditmars9136]

What seems like an Engineering problem, is really a problem with non-technical people making Engineering decisions.

[@Momofukudoodoowindu]

This. So much this. Say what you will about Musk but he was smart enough to set up Tesla and SpaceX around the engineers making the technical decisions, not the business folks.

[@polarpenguin3]

It's actually an issue with having to come up with a program that's almost impossible for politicians to kill because God knows politicians hate NASA for some reason

[@norinokia2307]

@@Momofukudoodoowindu That's what many people don't get. They think he's just that rich ceo profiting without contributing anything. That's not true. You may hate billionaires and Elon's character/his behavior on twitter, but he most certainly made many wise decisions that led his companies through incredible developments and successes. I respect him for that even tho I have vastly different opinions on certain topics than him.

[@kavorka8855]

@@Momofukudoodoowindu BS! This is the false argument in favour of the charlatan Elon Musk, who didn't found Tesla, didn't even have a long term plan for the company. He pushed out the real founders in foul play, he did the same with the founders of PayPal and now with Twitter.

[@matthiasknutzen6061]

What do you mean?

[@victorkasatkin9784]

The scale at 1:52 going to -500F should have stopped at around -459.67F = 0K.

[@santiagocorrea5679]

Agreed!! My inner nerd jumped when seeing the scale.

[@albeit1]

I guess you missed that act of Congress that lowered absolute zero to a nice round number.

[@SoulmateParis]

Farenheit should be scrubbed !!

[@adomadam]

It's a balloon 🤣

[@Mr21December2012]

How about just using Kelvin? 😇

[@thewiirocks]

There's a lot of things to be critical about when it comes to the Artemis program. Prosecuting engineering decisions at the 11th hour shouldn't be one of them. This stuff is hard and it has to go through it's paces. I would love to see Artemis fly once now that they've built it. At 4 billion dollars per flight, I just don't ever expect it to fly again.

[@lohengrin5082]

It was reckless negligence that cause the Challenger program to blowup and kill the lives of all aboard. I am ok with engineers being precautious here, even if the mission is unmanned.

[@ADAMSMASHRR]

I always wonder about the reason it was put together --- to preserve Shuttle supply chain jobs... that's fine... but... that entire supply chain has only produced one vehicle so far... so they're all just sitting around twiddling their thumbs? I'm willing to bet those jobs are all gone anyway.

[@cookiesofspace6321]

@@ADAMSMASHRR nah Artemis 2 parts are starting to be assembled and shipped to Kennedy, just waiting on the launch. And parts for Artemis 3 are getting ready now.

[@gusfring96]

@@lohengrin5082 but this expendable rocket is under development for 11 years, is overdue and at 4 billion dollars per flight it is unforgivable. This isn't being precautious, it's being incompetent. The whole system and engineering are rotten to their core. I expect even more delays.

[@roberthesser6402]

@@gusfring96 The SLS is basically a Jobs program. The reason it’s so expensive and so inefficient, and taking so long, is because all of the parts of the rocket are developed in different key congressional districts all over the country. In that regard it’s basically Unkillable because no congressman would want to kill it; it brought in money for their district. It ALSO means that the Artemis program is paradoxically designed to kill it off after starship gets off the pad. Artemis three is going to use a starship as the human lending system. The SLS doesn’t have its own lander. So if Artemis three works, and they actually land on the moon and then come back home using a starship, there will literally not be any reason to continue developing SLS rockets. Starship is vastly cheaper by orders of magnitude, easier to mass produce, is more powerful, and can carry a heavier payload, and is more modular. It’s also fully reusable. So any SLS launch after Artemis III is pure corporate and congressional greed.

[@johntheux9238]

Propellant is 75% oxygen thought so the difference in specific energy is not as big as what's displayed in the video. And that's energy per unit of mass, methane has actually more energy per unit of volume which is better for a first stage because you don't want to move around a booster twice the size even if it's lighter.

[@user-erick007]

Yeah . 75 % of the Propellant is LIQUID OXYGEN for SpaceX Starship.

[@cenakaze]

**If** it's lighter in any significant amount, as hydrolox rocket stages would need 2 separated tanks and external insulations. The tanks would also be bigger, creating more air drag. In the end the drawbacks may negate the advantages gained by using hydrogen.

[@markmaki4460]

CH4 + 2O2 > CO2 + 2H20 mw CH4 = 14; mw O2 = 16 So ratio in the equation is closer to 70:30 O2:CH4. Maybe there is a little extra O2 in order to ensure that CH4 burning is complete.

[@johntheux9238]

@@cenakaze Yes, and unless they use carbon fiber which is an incredibly stiff material thinner tanks are subject to buckling so hydrogen tanks have more stiffeners which adds weight.

[@BakuganBrawler211]

I’m sure they would’ve used methalox if there were engines available for the first stage and also there weren’t so many cost overruns forcing the use of stockpiled RS25’s. I’m amazed they didn’t use the RS68 engines since they’re not reusing the engines especially with D4H being retired there will be capacity for it.

[@DJ_Force]

For the record, hydrogen has the most energy per WEIGHT, not VOLUME. However, weight is what matters most in rockets.

[@KingLutherQ]

More likely to leak and explode too. This is like the debate between using carbon fiber vs stainless steel for the Starship.

[@DJ_Force]

@@KingLutherQ Everything is a trade-off.

[@MICKEYISLOWD]

You try to decrease size and you need stronger tanks so thicker walls or you need larger tanks which means more weight either way. They go hand in hand and the optimal config has already been worked out by School kids.

[@Michael_Scott_Howard]

Weight is a force....you really mean mass..

[@DJ_Force]

@@Michael_Scott_Howard Fair enough, though they are interchangeable at the surface of the Earth where launch takes place.

[@chinitout]

This is why hydrogen cars will be a challenge too. The size of the atom says it all.

[@triple466]

Bob lazar knows how check him out the government made it illegal to make hydrogen cars they made the materials illegal but it’s already doable

[@iamwisdomsky]

it's also the fact that hydrogen is hard to store and the hazard it brings. EVs powered by lithium ion will only combust if something bad happens, meanwhile hydrogen stored in tanks will literally act like a bomb.

[@MrNote-lz7lh]

@@iamwisdomsky So it'd act like cars do in action flicks. And blow up if shot up or crashed.

[@MattCasters]

Plus fueling stalls because of frozen valves and tubes. Plus the gas is corrosive. Plus it's an expensive fuel. Plus.....

[@iamwisdomsky]

​@@MrNote-lz7lh it's more than that. what I mean is blow up as in one that creates a very big shockwave like a grenade, mortar, rpg, etc.

[@brunoethier896]

The glaring omission here is that Hydrogen's density is so much lower than that of Methane, that the rocket ends up being much larger and heavier, which negates all the gains from using a "better" fuel, so it ends up being worse on the costs and reusability sides of the equation.

[@15Redstones]

Hydrogen is really great for high velocity deep space missions, on a lightweight vacuum optimized upper stage. It doesn't really make sense on the surface - LEO route, especially since reusable boosters make SSTO completely unnecessary.

[@brianholloway6205]

SLS isn’t reusable

[@BChandl13]

Hydrogen has nearly 3x the energy density of Methane also SLS is not reusable in any way..... so....Congrats, you played yourself.

[@15Redstones]

@@BChandl13 hydrogen has 465 s practical isp, methane has 380. That's about 1.5 times the usable energy density.

[@CyFr]

They inference the difference in files when they say Methane is larger than Hydrogen

[@kerbodynamicx472]

Pros of hydrogen: High energy density High efficiency Clean combustion Cons of hydrogen: Storage requires 30 kelvin Leaks through everything Makes fuel tank brittle Low density, requires huge tanks

[@protorhinocerator142]

Other cons: Kaboom.

[@zhchbob]

Hydrogen is clean but that hydrogen rocket needs two solid boosters to lift off. Those solid boosters are environmental nightmare.

[@GntlTch]

Even more cons: There is only a 6°C "window" between hydrogen's boiling point (-253°C, 20K) and its freezing point (-259°C, 14K). Also, since oxygen freezes at -219°C (52K) it requires extreme measures and complexity (and cost and weight), to prevent the liquid hydrogen from freezing the liquid oxygen!

[@thesciguy4823]

@@protorhinocerator142 All fuels have the con of "kaboom" ... Just watch SpaceX's rockets explode on the launchpad.

[@kerbodynamicx472]

@@thesciguy4823 yep, every SpaceX Starship launch is a joy to watch. It can either be a miracle (landing in one piece) or a spectacle (kaboom), and both for SN10

[@DogeMultiverse]

Nasa: hydrogen is good because we have decades of experience. Hydrogen: hehe *leaks*

[@warrenwhite9085]

NASA took insanely fragile, finicky, expensive components (SRBs, Hydrogen tanks/engines, GSE) of the most unaffordable, dangerous & unreliable space vehicle in history (STS), stacked them together differently & promised Congress/taxpayers ‘now things are going to be cheap & easy’.

[@protorhinocerator142]

Space Shuttle Challenger. That was 36 years ago. We still have leaks.

[@warrenwhite9085]

@@protorhinocerator142 NASA’s shuttle orbited 65,000 lbs for $1.6 billion, $25,000/lb. SpaceX’s Falcon 9 orbits 36,800 lbs for $62 million, $1,600/lb. SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy orbits 140,000 lbs for $97 million, $683/lb. NASA’s SLS orbits 154,000 lbs for $4 billion, $26,000/lb. SpaceX Starship orbits 220,000 lbs for $2 million(fuel), $22/lb. NASA’s shuttle was the most expensive, dangerous, unreliable space vehicle in history.. Government is irresponsible/uncaring greed, waste, incompetence, monopoly & corruption, & NASA is government.

[@protorhinocerator142]

@@warrenwhite9085 Of course it is. That's because the SLS isn't a rocket program. It's a jobs program. If anything ever blasts off at all, it will be incidental to the real reason for the SLS.

[@GntlTch]

"Decades of experience" but still haven't learned!

[@kb9gkc]

When filling Artemis a regulator was improperly adjusted and hydrogen was filled above the rated pressure for the fittings. The fitting were damaged and then continued to leak even after the fill pressure was lowered. Human Error was the cause.

[@warrenwhite9085]

NASA took insanely fragile, finicky, expensive components (SRBs, Hydrogen tanks/engines, GSE) of the most unaffordable, dangerous & unreliable space vehicle in history (STS) that had failed miserably for 30 years to carry out NASA’s ‘cheap, safe & reliable’ shuttle promises, stacked them together differently & promised Congress/taxpayers ‘now things are going to be cheap & easy’.

[@dannyarcher6370]

Whatever the reason, it's funny.

[@kb9gkc]

@@warrenwhite9085 The Government can do anything the Free Market can do only it will cost twice as much and work half as well.

[@warrenwhite9085]

@@kb9gkc Not double, 10 times more at least. Nasa’s SLS costs $4-10 billion per launch… took 16+ years & $60+ billion to develop, orbits 154,000 lbs, $26,000+/lb. SpaceX Starship costs $10 million per launch, 3 years to develop

[@kb9gkc]

@@warrenwhite9085 I stand corrected! I'm just glad they are celebrating diversity, rocket launches not so much!

[@victorvalar4656]

Please add metric system units alongside the imperial ones

[@AndrewScott83815]

I get this video is made for the average viewer. but understand how we are using engine architecture from the shuttle and it was a stuck valve that caused the first scrub. not the molecular size of hydrogen. These engines were built 25 years ago at best.

[@nickbisson8243]

3 outta the 4 engines already flew on previous space shuttle missions and were designed to be torn apart and rebuilt. Redesigning a whole new engine would have sunk this program right from the get-go in Congress. Unfortunately politics plays a major role in holding our space program back decades from where it should be by now.

[@tvre0]

@@nickbisson8243 plus they are the best hydrolox engines every designed imo, and have all been upgraded as well

[@nullifiedrisks]

@@tvre0 Yep! RS-25s are the second most powerful hydrolox engines ever designed, behind the engines used on the Delta IV / Heavy... but those ones on SLS would not only look cursed, it'd violate Congressional guidelines for SLS (unfortunately).

[@neonbunnies9596]

It's important to remember this is the largest headline job NASA's done for a while, meaning it had to grab political support, which mainly means producing jobs. And this was essentially the primary goal of the Artemis program: make sure NASA produces enough jobs that the politicians support them. This is basically a jobs program that produces rockets

[@carlb837]

Amazing work, Wall Street Joural. That's journalism at it's best.

[@turtleking9999]

This makes it seem like NASA doesn't consider it a failure. It MUST be at least a testing failure. Scrubbed launches cost millions.

[@jonathan102]

You make it sounds like using Liquid Methane wouldn't have issues. This is part of the teething issues with a new vehicle, just like any other new design. It's not as black and white as people think.

[@ShawFujikawa]

From what I understand, this wasn't even a failure of testing... because it _wasn't_ tested to begin with. It was wheeled out of storage and assumed/hoped the valves in question would function correctly on the day, which they sadly did not.

[@x808drifter]

@@ShawFujikawa Exactly. It's not like this is new tech. SLS just showing how far NASA has gotten behind the ball.

[@bensweet2011]

It’s all part of the process. New technology (even new technology based on existing designs) always has technical issues to work out. SpaceX has issues leading to holds and scrubs all the time with their starship testing. Scrubs are a very common part of rocket launches and are factored into the operational budget. This just happens to be highly publicized.

[@turtleking9999]

@Charles That's true. Kind of a super minor criticism to say they should've caught it earlier when they at least caught it in time.

[@robertodeleon-gonzalez9844]

The second and third stages of the Saturn V used liquid hydrogen and LOX. Apparently, they had much more time to correct leaks and other problems.

[@marquizzo]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't methane a very powerful greenhouse gas? Wouldn't releasing tons of it on each launch be very bad for global warming?

[@ybra]

It's not methane anymore after burning it. It turns to CO2 and water.

[@melissapagonis5940]

@ybra Both CO2 and H2O are also greenhouse gases, and CO2 persists in the atmosphere for much a much longer time than methane does.

[@HendayAllStar]

It would release CO2 but the number of launches is really pretty small when you consider millions of cars and hundreds of thousands of fossil fuel burning electrical generators are running everyday

[@MrWolfstar8]

@@melissapagonis5940 CO2 is plant food and is responsible for pretty much all life on earth continuing. I hope it continues to persists for a very long time.

[@kirinyardberry1324]

Rocket launches are not common enough to make a noticeable impact. Cars will pollute more in a minute than any rocket launch will.

[@holodoctor1]

Interesting, thank you for the great explanation!

[@maikoah]

this video is **REALLY** well done and educational to the casual space fan + the enthusiast!

[@CrazedGamer117]

Definitely above average, plus isn't biased against private space too.

[@loopje]

So well done that the thermometer drawing went down to -500 °F (past absolute zero) lol

[@maikoah]

@@loopje haha, darn imperial

[@Jono4174]

Liquid hydrogen has a proper symbol and it is not LH2. H 2(l). Hydrogen is not the smallest atom, Helium is.

[@camplays487]

1 Because hydrogen…. 2 spaceX isn’t moving away from it, they just don’t use it because it’s notoriously difficult

[@JigilJigil]

If SpaceX Starship reaches orbit before SLS, it would be pretty bad for NASA credibility with their overpriced rocket.

[@commie563]

SpaceX will never do it at least for the next 5 years.

[@NScherdin]

@@commie563 Maybe not a manned orbital mission, but it will most likely have launched dozens of times if not significantly more in the next 5 years. Its what will make Starlink V2 sats practical which increases the capability of Starlink drastically which means significantly more profits.

[@GG-yr5ix]

@@commie563 more like 5 weeks, and since they are both unmanned missions it does count. SLS is over 3 years behind schedule.

[@peterfireflylund]

It was forced upon NASA by Congress.

[@avnishkalyankar5247]

@@commie563 you gotta check on the super heavy updates. They gonna fly way past NASA.

[@Clark-Mills]

Leaks even on the LAST shuttle flight suggest that H² might just be too hard - even after using it for years.

[@lanzer22]

Which means it's perfect. How do we provide for thousands of jobs if the fuel just works? :)

[@Clark-Mills]

@@lanzer22 Sadly, I know exactly what you mean. But Elon's smashing up the old world model - and not too soon either. I just hope he influences the next generation to continue on the efficiency path.

[@tvre0]

@@Clark-Mills hydrolox is insanely efficient if you can get it to work. Just keep fix problem after problem, you will eventually solve them all, and maybe in the future that will happen. It’s not impossible to solve hydrolox fuel leakage.

[@Clark-Mills]

@@tvre0 How many years? Over 50 so far. Seriously, fusion might have a net-positive before they manage to figure out hydrogen. :) The poor taxpayer is sponsoring this political sideshow, but I suppose it makes SpaceX look really good.

[@tvre0]

@@Clark-Mills if only the money went to the economy instead...oh wait

[@ryok8090]

I’ve never seen Fahrenheit scale used for temperatures so low

[@DarkGT]

Some 10 years ago: "We will do a human mission on Mars by 2025." Nowadays: "Best we can do is multiple failed launches for a future Moon mission."

[@Scanner9631]

I've spent a good part of my life watching U.S. Presidents on being elected scrapping their predecessors grandiose space plans. They then on leaving office announce their own grandiose space plans that are due to be cancelled quickly by their successors. It has been a very disappointing pattern.

[@dg-hughes]

They should use Flex Seal it's like a handyman in a can!

[@abhinavbhati5159]

It's very strange to hear that the world's biggest military spenders ($800 billion) tries to barley fit a great human society's upliftment mission into national budget while spending hundreds of billions to make devastating weapons. It's not just USA but all countries are spending this way just to prepare for a fight with each other, not for the cooperation of each other into technological and social development

[@meejinhuang]

Space X is ahead of the game where NASA is a slow govt agency. It maybe too late for NASA to switch to methane, but that's what they need to do.

[@peterfireflylund]

It wasn’t NASA’s idea. It was forced upon them by Congress. The idea was to send tax money to big companies in important states via NASA. NASA is required by law to use those stupid hydrogen engines “to save time and money”.

[@15Redstones]

SLS can't just switch its fuel without basically designing an entirely new rocket. And if they need something other than SLS they're best off just buying SpaceX rockets.

[@lantrick]

@@15Redstones SpaceX doesn't have a completed ship that CAN get to the moon.

[@15Redstones]

@@lantrick Falcon Heavy can send most Gateway parts without Orion, and Starship HLS is already the only lander under serious development.

[@triple466]

@@lantrick neither does nasa and nasa killed astronauts. Spacex hasn’t

[@CarFreeSegnitz]

30 years of experience with Shuttle parts and hydrogen!? One of the big selling points of SLS using Shuttle parts was to also reuse the experience. Did NASA misplace all their notes on how to deal with hydrogen?

[@protorhinocerator142]

We stopped using the Shuttle for about a decade. Companies went out of business. People who designed the thing retired or died. You can't track the configuration of 12 billion parts. You can pretend to with schematics, but you lose the "why" by looking only at a part number.

[@hellothere1656]

Maybe NASA should've just jointly developed a new launch vehicle with space x based on the falcon heavy, with the solid rocket boosters attached to it to provide a similar level of payload capacity as SLS.

[@steveaustin2686]

@@hellothere1656 SpaceX doesn't use SRBs. Former NASA Administrator Bridenstine said that NASA was looking at putting Orion, the ESM, and the ICPS on Falcon Heavy, but aerodynamics were a concern. Since nothing came out of that, evidently it wouldn't work. It would only work for the first 3 launches anyway, as the 8.4m EUS is used for the SLS 1B and it won't fit on a Falcon Heavy at all.

[@chriskerwin3904]

Hydrogen is just a bad fuel choice for a booster/ large sustainer stage. They would have been better off with a new booster stage powered by RP-1, Methane or Propane. They could have built a large, medium pressure gas generator engine for a relatively small sum of money and turned that stage reusable the same way Falcon 9 evolved. Instead we have this piece of junk sustainer architecture that can never be easily re-usable because of how a high a velocity that core tank gets accelerated to.

[@johnmiller8884]

Nope they have their notes and they all basically say "We spent 30 years launching the shuttle and a scrub or two per launch was acceptable on a system that launches 2-3 times per year."

[@temper44]

Lets emphasize here that a scrub isn't a negative. Neither is two scrubs or five scrubs. When you launch a rocket worth $2bn or when you launch humans, you scrub until you're ready. The Soviet space program, which was very advanced for its time, had problems with their testing and restarting engines so they launched anyway and lost some of their biggest rockets that way.

[@zhchbob]

so, the big question is Why we need a $2bn new SLS while a more reliable $0.1bn FH rocket is available? By adding a third stage on top or by orbit fueling, the FH can easily reach the moon with large payloads.

[@steveaustin2686]

@@zhchbob Per former NASA Administrator Bridenstine, the Orion, ESM, and ICPS can be lifted by a fully expended Falcon Heavy, but the aerodynamics of such a tall stack on FH were a concern. They were going to test it out in simulations and wind tunnels, but since nothing apparently came from that, it evidently won't work. To send up Orion/ESM on one launch and the ICPS on another, you would need design changes for them to dock in space, instead of being connected in the VAB. That takes time and money. In any case, Artemis IV uses the 8.4m EUS instead of the 5m ICPS, so the Falcon Heavy is a no go with the much larger EUS. The problem is not reaching the Moon, but returning crew from the Moon.

[@camilocalderon2091]

Very well explained!!

[@prof_hu]

Surprisingly good quality reporting. I wasn't expecting it. My only criticism is showing a shuttle launch as a peak hydrogen launcher, while that relied on the same solid rocket motor boosters, NOT propelled by hydrogen to get off the ground. Just as SLS/Artemis does. This should have been pointed out, in contrast to Starship/New Glenn, which will both have a fully methane powered booster stage.

[@aaronwestley3239]

Considering that this is The Wall Street journal, I was actually astounded at the quality of the reporting.

[@steveaustin2686]

To be nit-picky, the BE4 engine used on the New Glenn and Vulcan Centaur, uses liquified natural gas (LNG), which is roughly 65% methane and the rest is other hydrocarbons. Both New Glenn and Vulcan Centaur will use LH2 on the upper stage.

[@MrSlim1959]

Boosters alone did not get the shuttle off the ground,it needed those 3 main engines too which were powerd by liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen.

[@prof_hu]

@@MrSlim1959 Well, that just false. The Shuttle system had a total mass of 2,000 tons while the boosters provided 3,000 tons of thrust, so TWR without main engines was 1.5, easily lifting off without main engines (only producing around 600 tons of thrust.) The main engines and the external tank however provided most of the ISP and Delta-V, so they were required for getting to orbit for sure, without them the flight would go only up to suborbital velocities.

[@mikeschmitty4438]

The system was developed by some vendor that has a longevity contract and since government has zero accountability for its choices, they continue to band-aid the worst solution. Accountability is the only way that government will work in favor fo the people and not corporations

[@joe92]

Lazy, tired trope.

[@protorhinocerator142]

That's a nice thought but how do you propose we make everyone in government accountable?

[@hid4]

@@protorhinocerator142 coup d'etat

[@mikeschmitty4438]

@@protorhinocerator142 an insurrection! 🤭 imagine if the brainwashing was all focused on the purpose to hang and quarter all politicians that have buried themselves in the pockets of evil corps, what a day dream!

[@protorhinocerator142]

@@hid4 French Revolution, huh? Many of the people who started that revolution ended up on the chopping block themselves because they weren't crazy enough. The problem with an insatiable mob is that it's insatiable. Eventually it turns on you as well.

[@thomasrichardson8327]

This is incorrect, SpaceX is moving to Methane FROM RP-1, NOT hydrogen. They never used hydrogen

[@avnishkalyankar5247]

Trueeee

[@sproctor1958]

The original design for what has become Starship was based on H²/LOX.

[@HelipOfficial]

youre not entirely wrong, but Raptor was originally designed to use Hydrogen

[@FamilyManToo]

Nice coverage WSJ!!

[@ADAMSMASHRR]

Great information in this video!

[@erb34]

Is the point of SLS to keep engineers employed? In terms of the mission objective, the antiquated tech and obscene cost how can it be justified. Outsource more of the mission to SpaceX and put more money into the science done.

[@STho205]

It could also be as a Congressional alternate to private companies that make glowing promises, work on side projects and are then years late in delivery of the original mission promise. However it is a jobs program, but there's a 80% chance your job is a BS box ticker job that is also there because of a jobs program private or state.

[@tvre0]

SpaceX doesn’t want to go to the moon. They did the contract for funding starship. It’s a terrible idea, but they will do it anyways

[@zagreus5773]

Starship will never go to the moon, it will be lucky to even ever reach LEO.

[@jacobwhogivesadamn1893]

The star ship booster is expected to hold "800 t (1,800,000 lb) of liquid methane" according to Wikipedia and the sls core only holds 313,703.75lb of lh2. LH2 is only .58 pounds per gallon compared to 3.54 pounds per gallon. So yes more energy dense per pound or kg but not for volume. Bigger tank for more fuel which means more rocket, so extra mass and more drag. So on top of the other hydrogen caused issues. it just doesnt seem worth it.

[@tvre0]

I’m glad you are so smart to point this out. You should go work at nasa, bet they haven’t heard of it yet. I bet you’re correct over rocket engineers.

[@jacobwhogivesadamn1893]

@@tvre0 lol

[@pilattebe]

Mistakes: 1. SpaceX is not "moving away" from hydrogen since it is using Kerosene in current rockets 2. Yes, methane can be produced on Mars, but Hydrogen too, so it is not a factor.

[@McClarinJ]

Nice to see from WSJ.

[@stevefink6000]

NASA's SLS has a lot more problems than just fuel leaks.

[@rattanameas1181]

Billions of tax dollar, to buy second hand parts. Anyone else see what I'm saying?

[@tvre0]

@@rattanameas1181 billions of tax payer money. We are all just burning it, literally. It’s the rocket fuel. Not like it’s going to the economy or anything

[@hrvojemarjanovic9188]

True, incredible waste of tax money for ancient, cold-war technology.

[@howdyeveryone7940]

NASA is nostalgic theater with a blank check. Makes millions on every move even in scrubs. SpaceX is an actual company so precision,efficiency and cost is priority.

[@vyros.3234]

Idiotic comment

[@tvre0]

So efficient that they wouldn’t go to the moon before going to mars, for efficiency of course.

[@cedriceveleigh]

@Wall Street Journal Can you provide temperature values in celsius units? Imperial units really don't make sense.

[@SickSkilz]

This is helpful. It still feels uncertain as to whether this is an acceptable decision. The optics of multiple aborts aborts along with space access continued success are pretty obvious

[@joe92]

SpaceX is going to have plenty of aborts with Starship. They just won't be covered by the media.

[@protorhinocerator142]

I'm certain. SLS is a bad idea. It's super expensive and even if it does what it says, it's still the wrong choice.

[@Danny-qh4su]

I'm glad SpaceX is around to do these things 10x cheapear, 10x faster, and with 10x more fun. Also no tax dollars wasted

[@MICKEYISLOWD]

They haven't done anything 10 times cheaper or better. Where did you get your info from?

[@BrianMalfant]

@@MICKEYISLOWD Also a ton of tax dollars have been dumped into SpaceX, around $3 billion so far, and they have drastically underperformed on every target they have set from cost to capability. SpaceX has also essentially only accomplished what NASA and the Soviet Union had by the 1950s, and that's with modern technology and NASA's help.

[@Danny-qh4su]

@@MICKEYISLOWD Falcon 9 heavy cost per launch 10x cheaper than anything NASA ever sent to orbit

[@warwagon]

@@BrianMalfant Did Nasa and the Soviet Union have self-landing boosters in the 1950s and I missed it?

[@BrianMalfant]

@@warwagon Self landing boosters are a publicity stunt. Almost no money is saved on them and once again their life is much shorter than promised. SpaceX over promising and under delivering. And, yes, send landing boosters were proposed and prototyped early in the space program, but found not to be of enough benefit to justify the complexity.

[@daveandmarthaorvis]

All rockets have scrubs. The problem with Artemis is that none of it re-usable.

[@daemenoth]

And billions way too expensive and made too slow.

[@loopje]

Why should it be reusable? It’s not appropriate for what we’re trying to accomplish

[@RasakBlood]

@@loopje Because without reusability costs wont go down and so any moon plans will forever be short term pr moments and not actual progress. If it cant be founded long term its meaningless.

[@loopje]

@@RasakBlood there are like 5 missions lol. Do you know how hard and expensive developing reusability is? There are no economies of scale. All this without even mentioning that development started way before reusable rockets were a thing… reusability isn’t some afterthought you can just slap on no problem

[@zagreus5773]

Ahh, another Elon worshiper that thinks reusability is the Holy Grail, but knows nothing else about space flight.

[@samc9516]

1:40 It bothers me a bit when clearly very smart people say that "the hydrogen atom is literally the smallest atom in the whole cosmos" when helium, despite being more massive, is a smaller atom than hydrogen due to the increased nuclear charge. 0:57 Also it's a little misleading to say "when [LH2] is mixed with liquid oxygen...." and then show both the thrust and the bright visuals of the solid rocket boosters which are doing most of the work at launch. For those who don't know any different and are coming here to learn, they could get the wrong idea.

[@zapfanzapfan]

Does Ariane 5, New Shepard, HII etc that also uses hydrogen have leaks? I don't remember hearing about it.

[@zachansen8293]

very balanced video, thank you.

[@vice.nor.virtue]

How many times do I have to write this : For content related to biology, chemistry, climate we need temperature in both Celsius _and_ Farenheit and for content related to space exploration/ observation and physics we need temperature displayed in Celsius, Fareheit AND Kelvin. Man it's so annoying watching VICE and WSJ get something so obvious wrong.

[@OroFlows]

Awesome explanation and accompanying animations ✅

[@rattanameas1181]

The size of that orange tank probably 10x to the Falcon 9. I wonder how far if Falcon Heavy fuel tanks are that big.

[@stevenattaway]

Leaks and Scrubs are always possible, period, Even for SpaceX.

[@Toefoo100]

well spacex scrubs for weather reasons not for technical reasons that should have been solved a decade ago

[@Thebreakdownshow1]

In summary, one is Government and one is a capitalistic endeavour that is where the difference is.

[@Fireclaws10]

Nasa uses private companies for plenty of innovations, it's a mix of public and private technology

[@GrapeFlavoredAntifreeze]

Yup, the private sector will always be the true innovators, money makes the world go round

[@Fireclaws10]

@@GrapeFlavoredAntifreeze disagree

[@GrapeFlavoredAntifreeze]

@@Fireclaws10 You can disagree all you want but the evidence doesn’t support your disagreement

[@texaswunderkind]

SpaceX is a capitalistic endeavor that would have been bankrupt eons ago without fat government contracts.

[@IncrediblyStupidName]

1:45 Wall Street Journal: -500°F Absolute Zero: Am I a joke to you?

[@factsforlife0O0]

What seems more like a issue is to many sensors if one says no go which almost always happens it aborts

[@loopje]

A lot of rocket scientists in the comment section here tell NASA how things should be done 😂😂😂

[@ADAMJWAITE]

Anyone who actually works on mechanical things can show you how engineers aren't nearly as smart as they think they are.

[@howardlandman6121]

They show -500F at 1m45s ... but absolute zero is −459.67 °F. 😛 WSJ, if you need a science proofreader, I'm available.

[@Rudenbehr]

maybe the atoms are experiencing negative movement

[@briancain7544]

I think they just wanted an even number for their graph, it's not like they said anything goes below -459

[@Ruhrpottpatriot]

Good they didn't hire you. You can't even distinguish a label and a datum.

[@alexsiemers7898]

@@briancain7544 still seems like a silly thing to do, they could’ve just put absolute zero in parentheses next to the true value

[@TheRealChese]

@@alexsiemers7898 Yea and that would also demonstrate how insanely close -423F is to absolute zero and the difficulty to keep the liquid hydrogen tank at that temperature. Showing -500F is misleading in many ways.

[@CrazedGamer117]

A fantastic video.

[@jbrew9224]

Overall, very useful video. One section has some incorrect basic science starting at 1:46 the scale shows the lowest temperature as -500 F. Absolute zero is -459 F (-273C) LH2 is at -423 F or 36 F above absolute zero. In contract Liquid methane is at -296 F or 163 F above absolute zero. Would suggest changing the lowest number on the graphic to -459 F.

[@nanocoolinc]

KZbin comment section preparing to let hundreds of NASA scientists know why their one year of Kerbal space program and wikihow experience qualifies them to diagnose and fix Artemis:

[@steveaustin2686]

LoL

[@NnetTucnak]

Why using °F? We are talking about physic, so use proper °C. Thank you

[@ramoncastillo532]

Don’t they use kelvin and other more scientific units rather than old dusty °C

[@NnetTucnak]

@@ramoncastillo532 Yes Kelvin is best for science.

[@CT-pi2gl]

Misleading. The first scrub was due to a bad sensor. The small leak was there, but would not have stopped the launch

[@1ntwndrboy198]

Why couldn't I use ammonia which is hydrogen and nitrogen that way they would not have to deal with the high pressure issue until the separation which would be a small area

[@patrickfavier4310]

For Hydrogen the energy per kg is a lot.. but energy per volume is about the worst out there. For rockets this means larger tanks, and thus larger mass eating out of the advantage of the extra energy per kg.

[@mangoldm]

TL;DW: A micromanaging congress.

[@mr.ackermann807]

Im curious as to what happens when you put a small amought of hydrogen into a raptor engine like adding nitrooxide in a car engine or something like that. Would it increase thrust or do more harm than good?

[@ethanlculver]

NASA with its whole Artemis program is a giant mess. Sad to watch but please just let others lead the way into space exploration now

[@JojoEarth]

isnt methane bad for the environment? Or is liquid methane something completely different

[@jbc17c]

Methane is significantly worse than CO2 for climate change, but when it burns it is turned back into CO2 and water.

[@ericfleet9602]

Yup, you are right that it is bad. However, based on my reading, the vast majority of the methane is used up, so a very small percentage is actually released into the atmosphere.

[@alexsiemers7898]

@@ericfleet9602 and since it’s being used on rockets here, the actual carbon footprint of burning it is next to nothing compared to other industries

[@cenakaze]

methane leak is bad, burning methane however is basically the cleanest hydrocarbon fuel you can get.

[@balroth]

@@alexsiemers7898 Shouldn't we compare it to, say other propellants instead of other industries?

[@outerrealm]

Before I watch this let me guess. Hydrogen is just these teeny tiny atoms with one proton and one electron, two of which form one molecule H2. Methane is a great big carbon atom with 6 protons, 6 neutrons, and 6 electrons, attached to 4 hydrogen atoms CH4. Tiny hydrogen molecules therefore more easily leak through stuff because of their size. (Edit. Yup, watched it)

[@antn8387]

quad RS-25 Engines are LEGENDARY.

[@timvansurksum]

If you include the mass of the oxidising agent then the energy density of methane is actually pretty comparable

[@ryer8477]

"Leaks will be fixed for future SLS Artemis launches" -What future launches? There will only be 2 o 3 SLS launches before Starship takes over. Overpriced and non innovative.

[@lantrick]

What do you think "future" means? lol

[@triple466]

It will launch once and that’s it it makes it or blows up

[@steveaustin2686]

Eh, likely it will be more than that before Starship is mature enough to directly replace SLS/Orion. In a recent FCC filing (Aug 2022), SpaceX noted that they are making smaller v2 Starlink sats to launch on Falcon 9.

[@brianjohnson6053]

Nasa has kinda been a big letdown over the last 20 years. More concerned with other endeavors than what what their supposed to be doing

[@clevergirl4457]

that's not true at all; what about the countless interplanetary missions; the mars rovers? The missions to the Sun, Pluto, Jupiter and Saturn? And operating the ISS for the past 22 years? and opening up to more commercial and private involvement in space like with SpaceX? I don't know what you mean by "what they're supposed to be doing" but what they're doing is great. The Artemis program is well underway but setbacks and delays are all part of the process.

[@STho205]

So what is NASA supposed to be doing Brian? You seem to have some idea of their proper purpose and mission, and anything that doesn't meet that or does other work is bad. So we need your definition...then we'll be able to compare that to the definition President Eisenhower gave it when 1930s NACA was converted to NASA in the 1950s.

[@richardnordstrom9377]

Rocket engineers should be making fuel decisions. Not politicians.

[@protorhinocerator142]

You're fired and will never work at NASA again.

[@RasakBlood]

Not how goverment works when the politicians say if the rocket engineers get a budget or not.

[@Back_Fire2468]

SN10 had a Ch4 leek (or at least it seams vary likely that's what happened) but that was after a ruff landing. The other thing is Artemis I has to work on the first try, Star Ship will have hundreds of flights before taking humans to space

[@nullifiedrisks]

Artemis has the advantage of an actually functioning launch abort system. Starship doesn't, because the second stage is merged with the crew quarters/capsule.

[@Back_Fire2468]

@@nullifiedrisks I think Starship will have 2 very short abort modes. One when the tower is clear, and an abort to Orbit mode

[@robertdanos805]

We went to the moon many times they even played golf, and road a buggy on the moon no problem. Getting this Artemis off the launching pad big problem LOL

[@lantrick]

The Apollo program was full of scrubs and delays... lol.

[@duran9664]

Yah right. 😒 Blame the poor tiny molecules.

[@neabfi3212]

Great video!

[@nobody-wk6ej]

The fact that NASA thinks non-reusable spacecraft is cute in 2022 is a joke.

[@mukamuka0]

Hydrogen may be hard to work with however in the case of deep space. There'll be a mission that only rocket with hydrogen engine can fulfill. I knew it's crazy hard but NASA has 30 years to develop this and they still can't get it right...

[@lantrick]

I'll head straight to the comment section to see what the real experts have to say 😂😂

[@DefaultName-hs6gd]

If you were an expert you wouldn’t be here, watching this #projection

[@aljiee]

That "A scrub" sound fits perfect to be a meme sound

[@kadesutton4590]

These people should read comments and follow up calls text new fuels and whole other types of systems to get to space

[@alphaapple1375]

#WallStreetJournal, for the sake of international convenience, switch to the metric system! All countries around the world use the metric system in every field of occupation. I am from the United States, but I use the metric system for this reason. When you are exploring the fields of space science and travel, astronomy, meteorology, and climatology, use the metric system as it is feasible, since it is based on the decimal number: 10. It is better for you to measure in metric units consisting the temperatures in Celsius and Kelvin, length in kilometers and meters, mass in metric tons and kilograms, and volume in cubic meters and liters.

[@wanderer3586]

I am in the US, and I use metric as much as possible. Only if I know that the person I am communicating with will not be able to comprehend a kilometer or a liter, I use imperial.

[@GG-yr5ix]

Kelvin is only appropriate thermal measurement in space, but Meters are just as arbitrary as feet or qubits when it comes to that. Metric system is great for cooking/baking, but for space exploration its too underpowered.

[@waywardgeologist2520]

Except it’s for an American audience and the rocket is paid for by US taxpayers, so just do your conversions. It’s not that hard.

[@wanderer3586]

@@waywardgeologist2520The backward types in the American audience should be able to convert. It is not that hard. Imperial system is not mandated in the Constitution.

[@annoyingbstard9407]

Binary is more logical and more widely used but hey….

[@Greener01]

lol SpaceX is powered by farts.

[@mukamuka0]

Literally right! 😂

[@Fbgpete]

Is there anyway that different materials could be used on the rocket itself to be able to withstand the cooler temps without leaks?

[@DarkGT]

Maybe not without increase of the cost.

[@iamwisdomsky]

@@DarkGT it's not about the cost. but physical limitations like weight and etc. for example, there could be a material that can handle cooler temps without becoming brittle, but then it would not be as strong as the one they're using right now. or it could handle freezing temperatures but couldn't handle very hot temperatures (low melting point). or is very heavy. or is not as hard/strong as the one they're using right now and so on... there is always a trade off between material properties.

[@DarkGT]

@@iamwisdomsky Yes of course, but also consider the finite resources and money. For years there is a talk for lightweight materials made of 98% air, surely not well tested and suitable for the task, but existing.

[@iamwisdomsky]

@@DarkGT cost is really out of question. why? there's very small room for failures. if there's a material that's better for the job, they already have done that. heck all the cancelled launches costs they did would have covered the cost for that. why do you think they will sacrifice safety and reliability to save cost? haven't you seen the JSWT yet? and the cost of that program? they literally didn't care of the cost and focused on making that satellite as robust as possible. They've tested it as much as possible even at the cost of so much money. Also compared to JSWT, Artemis will literally carry PEOPLE on board so safety is much priority. Saving money at the cost of lives will only create a backlash if they do that.

[@synthicalmix]

It’s launched successfully now!

[@pnned_bynomadcapitalist...9204]

My life has totally changed since I started an investment of $6,000 and now earning over $22,200 every 14 days.

[@pnned_bygermaninvenice...5196]

How please? Am a newbie in crypto investment, please can you guide me through on how you made it.

[@changkim4998]

After watching so many KZbin tutorial videos about trading I was still making losses until Mrs Margaret started managing my investments now I make $10,567 weekly. God bless Mrs Grace John she’s been a blessing to my family.

[@chrisholt7514]

You are right 😊, I just bought a house after I invested $5,000 and I am now making $15,000 every 7days. It’s been a life changing experience

[@mauricelancelot2743]

[@deborahaugustine1575]

Wow I’m shocked you mentioned and recommended Mrs Grace John trading services, I thought people don’t know her . She’s really awesome.

[@leticialachica6871]

Very good breakdown

[@jalex4184]

Is LH2 and LOX new notation.....i'm accustomed to H2(l) and O2(l)...just asking..maybe i'm old school🙂.

[@steveaustin2686]

It is what I have seen for a LONG time with rocket propellants.

[@nkj3985]

Why not use mixure of Hydrogen and Methane with optimized proportion?

[@basicstuff7288]

This all happens when Politicians decide how Engineers should build rockets.

[@happyvinay4044]

I like how NASA uses metric standards but video is made using Freedom units

[@Gauge1LiveSteam]

Why is this so hard? The Saturn program used LH2 very successfully.

[@Toefoo100]

it used it on a much smaller scale, using it only for the 2nd and 3rd stage engines. Had hydrogen been used on the first stage the whole rocket would have been at least 3 times larger

[@Gauge1LiveSteam]

@@Toefoo100 You mean to tell me that after 50 years since Saturn ended we still can't solve these problems? Ain't buying it.

[@Toefoo100]

@@Gauge1LiveSteam yeah dude NASA is just faking incompetence. Even on the shuttle's last flight there was problems with LH2. There hasn't been some new magic material invented in the last 50 years to help. LH2 is just garbage and the saturn magically didn't have problems with it

[@Gauge1LiveSteam]

In fairness, the Saturn V leaked too. They solved that by fuelling it and launching immediately. But still, why is this rocket so difficult?

[@lloyd.8272]

So why didn’t they check all this before the launch pad?

[@steveaustin2686]

The did, but as the video mentions, hydrogen is difficult to work with in the quantities that SLS is using. Most upper stages use LH2, but only a few dozen tons at a time instead of the roughly 1,700 tons that SLS uses.

[@corazthesupremepotentate7325]

Well at least the space launch system exists. So yes an existing rocket has more leaks than a non existing one.

[@rorrt]

There was a good thing I heard when the first launch was scrubbed, on the NASA livestream. To paraphrase "rocket science is easy; the really hard part is rocket engineering".

[@michaelbill521]

You forgot to mention that each SLS Launch is 100 to 200 times more expensive than a Starship Launch.

[@MrVenturadog]

Starship has not gone anywhere yet, time will only tell which one will be cheaper.

[@steveaustin2686]

Getting SLS/Orion to the Moon is $4.1B and getting the unmanned Lunar Starship to the Moon is $1.47B to NASA based on the $2.94B HLS Option A contract. So hardly 3 times as much and nowhere near 100 or 200 times as much.

[@xostler]

“Let’s save money by using a material that takes 100x time man hours to maintain and parts that weren’t designed for this use.”-US Congress