Space Stuff and Launch Info

[bob012345]

It is interesting that there are now two completely different sub-orbital spaceflight experiences available to the public. Both are based on approaches to space taken over fifty years ago with some modern upgrades. I don't know if the public realizes that some of the X-15 flights actually reached space and thus those pilots were really the first American astronauts. Also, Neil Armstrong was an X-15 pilot.

 

[NTL2009]

Does anyone know how much hydrogen the Blue Origin flight required? I haven't found any references to the tank sizes, consumption, or anything other than a lot of attention to it not using a carbon fuel. But of course, most hydrogen is produced from hydrocarbons. I've found some numbers for the conversion factors, but I still haven't found the amount of hydrogen consumed.

Mods - if this should be it's own topic, I'll delete and move it.

 

[mfb]

BE-3 has a maximal thrust of 490 kN and a burn time of 140 s, and while I don't find the I_sp it should be somewhere in the 350-450 range as it ascends through the atmosphere. With the worst case assumption it would consume 490 kN * 140s / (3500 m/s) = 20 t of fuel, out of that ~2 tonnes of hydrogen. In practice the engine might throttle down as the rocket gets lighter, and its I_sp gets better, so it might only need 1.5 tonnes or so.

 

[SashaM]

For example, space company SpaceX has set itself the goal of colonizing Mars for the continued existence of mankind. Associated not only with Elon's dream, but also with the small reserves of the Earth. Perhaps our children will be able to see the Earth from Mars in a couple of ten years.

 

[NTL2009]

BE-3 has a maximal thrust of 490 kN and a burn time of 140 s, and while I don't find the I_sp it should be somewhere in the 350-450 range as it ascends through the atmosphere. With the worst case assumption it would consume 490 kN * 140s / (3500 m/s) = 20 t of fuel, out of that ~2 tonnes of hydrogen. In practice the engine might throttle down as the rocket gets lighter, and its I_sp gets better, so it might only need 1.5 tonnes or so.

Thanks. This being a physics forum, I was thinking someone might estimate the amount by calculating mass, time, and required thrust. I was surpised I couldn't just find a number, given all the space geeks out there. I'll do some calcs later using your estimate.

 

[Stavros Kiri]

From spaceweather.com (July 23 2021 edition):

" SOMETHING NEW FOR THE ISS: On July 21st, the Russian Space Agency launched a huge new science module for the International Space Station (ISS). Named "Nauka" (Russian for "Science"), the 45,000 lb laboratory was supposed to leave Earth in 2007, but technical problems delayed its launch. Less than 14 years later, Szabolcs Nagy photographed the winged module flying over London en route to the ISS:

"It was an amazing experience seeing Nauka only a few hours after launch," says Nagy. "I recorded the video through through my 10-inch Dobsonian telescope. The Proton-M rocket's 3rd stage was visible, too."


Nauka, which is expected to dock with the ISS on July 29th, will become the largest Russian component of the station--more than 42 feet long with a maximum diameter of 14 feet. Thats large enough for spacious research facilities, a spare bed for astronauts, a new toilet, and gear for recycling water from urine. The module is also carrying a new two-handed robotic arm for the Russian segment of the ISS. "

 

[bob012345]

The Russians probably needed more space on the ISS to recover from their vodka parties.

 

[Stavros Kiri]

The Russians probably needed more space on the ISS to recover from their vodka parties.

... as long as it comes back with recycling as water ... ...

 

[Stavros Kiri]

Also, for the history record:
"The Zvezda Service Module was the first fully Russian contribution to the International Space Station and served as the early cornerstone for the first human habitation of the station."
(From Google, about "Zvezda Module" ...)
[Cf. : ]
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/elements/zvezda-service-module.html

(Zvezda is a Russian company ...)Also, talking about ISS, it maintains an orbit with an average altitude of 400 kilometres (250 mi) by means of reboost manoeuvres using the engines of the Zvezda Service Module or visiting spacecraft ...

 

[mfb]

(Zvezda is a Russian company ...)

There might be company with that name, but it means "star".
At 20 tonnes it's about as heavy as Nauka.

5.5 days until Boeing launches its second uncrewed Starliner mission. There should be some sort of live coverage by NASA.

 

[mfb]

Docking Nauka came with some issues - which also delayed Starliner.

Electron had a successful return to flight launch after the failure in May.

Plumbing for Super Heavy (29 engines) is wild:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1420819718701780995
SpaceX is still aiming at a full stack (Starship on top of Super Heavy) in early August. No clear launch date yet.

 

[berkeman]

Docking Nauka came with some issues - which also delayed Starliner.

Now it looks like a few issues have pushed out the Starliner launch until Wednesday...

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/02/tech/boeing-nasa-starliner-flight-test-scn/index.html

 

[Dullard]

Starliner scrubbed for Wed - new date TBD.

 

[etudiant]

Apparently concern that heavy rains have caused stray responses from some of the service module electronics.
Some valve positions are not getting reported correctly.
Very disappointing as it could delay things considerably if the fix takes more than a few days because of schedule conflicts.

 

[berkeman]

Rain?!

 

[mfb]

Starliner Team Will Take Additional Time To Prepare For Launch

Boeing is working to understand the source of the unexpected valve position indications in the propulsion system. The issues were first detected during checkouts after electrical storms passed over Kennedy Space Center on Monday.
[...]
Teams will power down the spacecraft this evening, and roll the rocket and spacecraft back to the Vertical Integration Facility on Wednesday for further inspection and testing to inform the next steps.

We can expect at least a few days delay.

August 10 a Cygnus resupply mission will launch to the ISS, August 29 a Cargo Dragon mission is planned.
Both Cargo Dragon and Starliner go to the Harmony forward docking port so they can't happen at the same time. Crew Dragon tends to dock there, too, but the current Crew Dragon was moved to the Harmony zenith port. Cygnus might be able to use a docking port at the Unity module? If not the schedule gets difficult.

 

[Dullard]

The rain was delivered via a fairly impressive thunderstorm. This booster/payload was sitting at the pad - a retest (after a storm with lightning strikes within 'x' distance) is standard - that retest is apparently where they noted the issue. I would not be shocked if the issue was ultimately 'procedural' - they probably haven't run that particular test end-end before. It should all be 'safe' back indoors by this evening.

 

[Benjies]

Plumbing for Super Heavy (29 engines) is wild

I've been skeptical of the success of many of SpaceX's tests but honestly this static fire has got me staring wide-eyed. I know Russia did some rockets with extreme engine count, but this will be a feat if they get a proper static fire with 29 off the bat. I wonder what the pressure flux might look like in the plumbing pictured in that tweet if they have imperfect ignition (which I have to assume will happen).

Thin margins is something Elon spoke about in his recent tour of their production spot for the booster. If they successfully fire 29 engines, I will stare aghast, but if it explodes I will honestly immediately start crying laughing... I am awful.

 

[mfb]

Falcon Heavy launches with 27 engines, so they have experience with many engines.

Booster4 has been moved to the launch site, nice pictures with all the engines:

Ship 20 has received its engines (3 sea-level engines, three larger vacuum engines)



The combination of the two will be used for a first orbital flight. This likely needs a finished environmental review, which is expected to take at least another month. Time to test stacking, time for static fires and so on.

Meanwhile: The GAO has confirmed the NASA decision to fund only SpaceX for a first crewed Moon landing. Blue Origin is still salty and produced another weird infographic. Featuring made-up numbers, not to scale images, cherry-picked quotes, and blatant lies.

 

[Benjies]

Falcon Heavy launches with 27 engines, so they have experience with many engines.

That's a good point, and I hadn't considered their prior knowledge of propellant feed systems to a multitude of engines from F9 or Heavy.

Either way, the Raptor has different ignition characteristics. For starters, the Raptor uses spark ignition as opposed to a fluid for ignition, and apparently actually used a mixture of both in past designs (perhaps still to this day, couldn't find recent enough sources). The Merlin has a single PB to light, whereas the Raptor has two, though gas-gas ignition will be nice in the MCC. The ignition sequence is unique, and previous SN-X tests encountered some issues with re-ignition during some of the test flights, and though re-ignition does not necessarily translate directly to the ignition characteristics of the Raptor on a launch pad, these failures were relatively recent and should bring cause for possible concern.

I'm just speculating and playing cynic, here, to be clear. Hindsight is always 20/20 when components fail. Let's just see what happens :)

 

[mfb]

Starship/Super Heavy have been stacked and separated again. Still at least a month until it flies, but it's making rapid progress (on the hardware side at least, not clear how far the approval process is).

 

[hutchphd]

Rain?!

The rain was delivered via a fairly impressive thunderstorm. This booster/payload was sitting at the pad - a retest (after a storm with lightning strikes within 'x' distance) is standard - that retest is apparently where they noted the issue. I would not be shocked if the issue was ultimately 'procedural' - they probably haven't run that particular test end-end before. It should all be 'safe' back indoors by this evening.

How many times can Boeing fall on its face. OMG

Can you say "screw the pooch"?? We should remember the immortal words of Pete Conrad (flying on a more robust Boeing product in Apollo 12 ) "we could have used more all-weather training"

 

[mfb]

Boeing says 13 valves failed to open, they have managed to get 7 of them operational again. It's still unclear why they failed, but the large number suggests some more general problem.

https://starlinerupdates.com/boeing...lutions-in-the-vertical-integration-facility/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/08/09/boeing-starliner-launch-delay-valves/

The CRS-23 launch date is approaching... either they launch Starliner in the next two weeks (presumably without a finished investigation of the valve issue), or NASA/SpaceX need to delay CRS-23, or it's unlikely Starliner will launch before late October/November.

 

[Stavros Kiri]

Aside launching etc., this is worth mentioning:
(from spaceweather.com)
"RARE NAKED-EYE NOVA: Taking astronomers by surprise, white dwarf star RS Oph exploded two days ago, producing a rare naked-eye nova. The dwarf star is cannibalizing a nearby red giant, using the star's outer layers as fuel for the blast. You can see it in the southern sky after sunset. FULL STORY."

[3 days now - exploded (seen) Aug. 08 ...]

See also: https://www.spaceweather.com/archive.php?view=1&day=09&month=08&year=2021

 

[mfb]

The US Government Accountability Office (GAO) released its report why it supported NASA's decision to go ahead with one company for initial lunar landings.
Direct link (PDF, 76 pages).

It has much more information that was previously redacted.

It has some real gems in it.

SpaceX’s concept of operations contemplated sixteen total launches, consisting of: 1 launch of its [DELETED]; 14 launches of its Tanker Starships to supply fuel to [DELETED]; and 1 launch of its HLS Lander Starship, which would be [DELETED] and then travel to the Moon.

What could [DELETED] possibly be? Well, it's obvious. It has already become a meme synonym to "depot":
One, two
DELETED = DEpot for Low Earth Transport and Earth Departure.

This is likely politically motivated. A certain influential senator really hates the idea of fuel depots because they would make his pet project (SLS) unnecessary.

In order to enable a rocket to lift off from a launch pad, the action or thrust of the rocket must be
greater than the mass of the rocket it is lifting. See “Rocket Principles,” NASA, available
at https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/rocket/TRCRocket/ rocket_principles.html

GAO teaching Dynetics elementary rocketry. Their proposal was too heavy to fly, NASA counted that as "significant weakness" and Dynetics objected.

We also know the full prices now:
$2,941,394,557 SpaceX
$5,995,463,651 Blue Origin/National Team
$9,082,209,433 Dynetics
Unfortunately the proposed payments for 2021 were redacted, but all three individually exceeded the total money NASA had available before SpaceX adjusted the milestones to keep the 2021 payments below NASA's budget.

We learn which requirement NASA waived for SpaceX on page 8. The original requirements were a flight readiness review (FRR) for "every HLS element". That would have meant a FRR for every refueling flight of SpaceX (it needs multiple of them), which looks excessive as they are just repetitions of the same flight profile. SpaceX wants to launch fueling missions 12 days apart, so they would do these reviews essentially non-stop. NASA waived that requirement (FRR between flights only if something unexpected happens), Blue Origin and Dynetics claimed it would give them a competitive disadvantage, GAO dismissed that. Blue Origin doesn't have equivalent launches and the impact on Dynetics' operations would be minimal - not enough to become a competitive proposal.

One of Blue Origin's "outside technical consultants" in the protest turned out to work for Blue Origin, and another worked on other competitive projects (page 16).

the protesters allege that a single award to SpaceX will result in a de facto sole-source award for NASA’s Option B requirements and, perhaps, NASA’s subsequent HLS requirements [...] such arguments are a legally deficient mix of (i) patently untimely challenges to the terms of the HLS BAA and Option A BAA, and (ii) premature challenges to future procurement actions.

• If Blue Origin and Dynetics think the past competition had illegal rules they should have complained earlier instead of submitting a bid
• You can't file a protest speculating that future competition rules might be illegal

A previous complaint by Blue Origin (when they lost to ULA and SpaceX), using essentially the same arguments, was dismissed for the same reasons. GAO used Blue Origin's own protest as precedent to rule against Blue Origin again (pages 22-26).

There are many "NASA said they wanted to do X" -> "actually, NASA said something else repeatedly, here are literal quotes" in the report.
"it violates the rules of a FAR 15 procurement" -> "irrelevant, it was not a FAR 15 procurement" is a very common theme, too.Part III (starting page 32) discusses individual claims concerning the different proposals. It's pretty damning. Some examples:

Orion uses a 3-IMU architecture while the HLS will use a [DELETED] architecture. Id. To address potential dilemma situations arising with [DELETED], Blue Origin proposed to utilize [DELETED] to [DELETED]. Id. at 24167. Blue Origin’s proposal represented that “[t]hese [DELETED] . . . will be developed and fly on Orion before being leveraged for HLS.”

IMU=inertial measurement unit, telling the spacecraft where it is and in which direction it points. With three of them you can easily identify a faulty unit and use the result of the other two. Presumably Blue Origin wants to use only two (a single one wouldn't have a chance), and utilize "[DELETED] to [DELETED]", whatever that is. Blue Origin also provided conflicting claims whether this has been tested or not, how it will be tested in flight, and generally didn't provide a clear plan for development. NASA called it a weakness. Blue Origin complained.

NASA provided example landing spots together with the general expectation that it wants to land in a place that doesn't have the Sun high in the sky. Blue Origin's landing system relies on the Sun, and Blue Origin found that the example landing scenarios would be "challenging" to "infeasible". NASA called it a weakness (surprise!). Blue Origin claims it didn't know about the light requirements.

Stated simply, we find nothing unreasonable in the agency concluding that SpaceX’s recognition of the risk and proposal of specific mitigation to remedy the risk warranted a lesser risk rating than Blue Origin’s proposal, which failed to address the issue other than to note that Blue Origin would attempt to address the issue at a later date

Apparently people at Dynetics overlooked the requirement to put everything into the submitted proposal. As a result tons of technical details are missing - Dynetics assumed NASA would include previous studies on its own (despite writing explicitly that they won't do that). That's coming from a company requesting $9 billion in funding!

We don't get access to the proposals but they are apparently the length of multiple books. With the level of detail varying a lot between proposals:

SpaceX’s ISPA [Integrated Systems Performance Analysis] included a several hundred page “Propulsion System and
Performance Analysis”
[..]
the propulsion analysis incorporated as a subsection a nearly 50-page “Propellant Heat Rates” analysis addressing boil-off

On this record, we cannot conclude that NASA erred in finding that SpaceX’s detailed proposal focus on boil-off warranted the same assessed risk as Dynetics’s brief, conclusory and “to be determined” discussion in its proposal

 

[etudiant]

Boeing says 13 valves failed to open, they have managed to get 7 of them operational again. It's still unclear why they failed, but the large number suggests some more general problem.

https://starlinerupdates.com/boeing...lutions-in-the-vertical-integration-facility/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/08/09/boeing-starliner-launch-delay-valves/

The CRS-23 launch date is approaching... either they launch Starliner in the next two weeks (presumably without a finished investigation of the valve issue), or NASA/SpaceX need to delay CRS-23, or it's unlikely Starliner will launch before late October/November.

Actually quite stunningly bad.
The valves are a keystone for reliable engine and environmental systems.
If a dozen of them don't work when checked and even back in the shop half stay obstinate, the system is garbage.
I think Boeing is done for on this project.

 

[mfb]

WSJ/Reuters update
No official announcement yet, but it looks like Boeing will need to disconnect Starliner from the Atlas rocket. That would remove the chance to fly before CRS-23. Add all the other constraints and we probably look at November or later for a repetition of the uncrewed test flight. By then SpaceX will have flown five crews to orbit: Demo-2, Crew-1, Crew-2 (in orbit), Inspiration4 (mid September) and Crew-3 (31 October).

Edit: Here is the press release. Starliner will return to the factory. Lucy will get priority now. We can't expect a launch before November, and if it's a more systematic valve issue they might need months to redesign and recertify them.Edit2:
Blue Origin keeps producing a stream of absurd infographics (e.g. this one), lies, nonsense claims, and the situation seems to deteriorate quickly. I don't see the business strategy of alienating everyone else, including potential customers (NASA) and partners (National Team members).

 

[mfb]

Astra's third attempt to reach orbit failed. One engine out of five stopped immediately after takeoff. As a result the rocket launched sideways, flew through an open spot in the nearby fence, did some landscaping in the surrounding grass, and then finally flew upwards as the rocket started to become lighter. With one engine missing gravity losses were too high to reach orbit and the flight was terminated before the end of the first stage burn.
It's impressive that the rocket avoided exploding at the launch site.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2021/08/astra-third-orbital-attempt-lv0006/

Launch video is centrally in the article, takeoff happens at 1:33:37.

Launch only, seen from the other side.

Comparison of 1:33:22 and 1:37:00 in the long video:

 

[dlgoff]

I found this YouTube video:

 

[berkeman]

Astra's third attempt to reach orbit failed.

No, no, no. They successfully tested the new "Horizontal Takeoff" feature of the rocket.

 

[hutchphd]

Scott Manley showed a back view from Twitter and the rest.

 

[mfb]

There are interesting new reports about the Virgin Galactic flight in July. It was outside the assigned flight corridor for 1 minute and 41 seconds. It managed to land at the planned landing site and no one got hurt. That's what everyone agrees on, and the deviation from the reserved airspace is the reason the FAA is investigating at the moment.

The New Yorker reports the deviation came from a shallower than planned ascent, including a point where the pilots should have cut off the engines to avoid flying too far - but did not. Cutting the engines at that time would have meant company founder Richard Branson wouldn't have reached 80 km. Virgin Galactic blames wind and doesn't elaborate otherwise.

Ars Technica has an article as well, including a statement by Virgin Galactic.

---

Two weeks until the first tourist mission flies to orbit. Here is the crew inside their cupola, which will be the largest window to fly to space:

 

[berkeman]

The New Yorker reports the deviation came from a shallower than planned ascent, including a point where the pilots should have cut off the engines to avoid flying too far - but did not. Cutting the engines at that time would have meant company founder Richard Branson wouldn't have reached 80 km. Virgin Galactic blames wind and doesn't elaborate otherwise.

Is there a cockpit voice recorder in that craft? Can the FAA request to review the audio? It might be interesting to hear the private conversation between the pilots as they made the decision not to cut the engines...

 

[mfb]

I expect that there is a recording and I expect FAA to have requested it, but I don't know if VG has to provide that. As far as I understand the legal situation is more similar to "I invited my friend to a flight in my Cessna" than the big commercial airlines.

FAA grounded VG until further notice
FAA is primarily interested in the safety of others - the passengers on the VG flight are in that vehicle on their own risk.

----

Firefly Alpha's maiden flight failed, the first stage exploded two and a half minutes after launch. Launch video:

Higher resolution video of the rocket turning in weird ways before the explosion:

It looks like the second stage was actually flying away from the explosion - but the first stage stopped way too low and too slow to reach orbit:

 

[nsaspook]

The rocket was terminated, Space Force officials said...

https://www.vandenberg.spaceforce.m.../2763829/firefly-alpha-terminated-mid-flight/

VANDENBERG SPACE FORCE BASE, Calif. --
Space Launch Delta 30 terminated the Firefly Aerospace Inc., Alpha rocket over the Pacific Ocean at 7:01 p.m. Pacific Time after a successful lift off at 6:59 p.m. Pacific Time from Space Launch Complex-2 at Vandenberg SFB Sept. 2.

https://www.ksby.com/news/local-new...cket-explosion-discovered-along-central-coast