It does, because replacing the battery requires the rocket to be back in the VAB. That is exactly why they have repeatedly asked for the extension. It's one of the perils of designing with the assumption that you'll never have to maintain it, because it'll be either at the bottom of the ocean or in a museum somewhere. Like the Starliner valves.
I wish I could buy you a beverage of your choice and hear the other 90%...Definitely not NASA (or space wings). My brain would quickly receive an icepick as a result of their conservatism and glacial pace.
But yes, I've been designing/building/testing/managing/acquiring commercial satellites for 20+ years. Participation here is a bit tough since I can only say like 10% of the things I want to say.
Somewhat in context to the above convo, back when I used to do real work I've banged my head more than I care to admit on the range safety compliance matrix. This is the set of safety items that everyone must comply to (launchers, satellites, contractors, etc.), and if that doesn't actually look like a matrix to you, well spotted. Also, if you can't find any concise instructions on how to actually engineer your way through the compliance evaluation process, you're still batting 1000. As it turns out our very efficient range safety analysis process has each user translate the articles within that document into a DIY excel file (or at least, that's what I've always seen) and then add some columns in which they confirm compliance and/or justify deviation from the very obvious intent of each article.
Of course, somehow, magically, a range safety officer that's been reviewing these for decades [in dark corners of old buildings] goes through each item and will grill you on your compliances and deviation justifications and will actually nail it all. Many many months later (and I can imagine for something like SLS, years later), approval to operate is granted.
Wow. Some of what the agency is doing seems rather bizarre.
At least they can service the FTS batteries.
We all know that there is not a “race” between SLS and Starship to see how launches first. They are completely independent programs that are each subject to their own unique set of variables and constraints.
And perhaps that is not the only thing that will require service, according to this article in Wired:
Also, there are scheduling conflicts in October that could potentially interfere with the next launch attempt:
Both projects are run by humans who are fully aware their existential competitor is neck-and-neck for who launches first.
.. but Starship has the leverage to fail multiple times as long as they keep making progress. Musk has said repeatedly, the first launch could end very well up in a kaboom, but hoping not on the launch pad.
The big difference is this SLS/Orion test flight is the precursor to a crewed mission. SH/Starship isn't close to being human rated. If necessary SpaceX would be allowed several RUDs before there'd be any genuine concern. In his own brilliant way, Elon would even celebrate such events....chalking them up to the price paid for rapid rocket iteration.
Even if Artemis 1 fails for some reason, and Starship’s first orbital test were too succeed (with Starship remaining intact enough to do a soft ocean landing) that won’t kill the SLS program any time soon. It will take years. Artemis 2 would go ahead (without crew).
Interesting how a single successful SLS/Orion flight will result in a human rating by NASA. That seems like pretty minimal real-world testing of the full system.
