Space Stuff and Launch Info

[berkeman]

Wow, nice. Thanks. BTW, why does the Soyuz vehicle need to deploy solar panels for such a short rendezvous trip?

 

[Oldman too]

Wow, nice. Thanks. BTW, why does the Soyuz vehicle need to deploy solar panels for such a short rendezvous trip?

Hi, I'll be a bit fishing up citations on that question, it's not a mainstream search parameter so wish me luck.
There are at least two reasons that I'm aware of. First reason is the ISS will tap into the power produced by the Soyuz panels to supplement battery charging etc. while its docked. The 2nd reason is that they occasionally use the Soyuz for boosting the ISS orbit as needed and it's probably considered "good poker" to keep the craft ready to go in case of emergencies. They will also reenter the spacecraft if a "debris situation" threatens the ISS, the spacecraft having much better shielding than ISS.

There are likely other reasons that I haven't heard but the answers I've given were mentioned to me by a fellow who works at ISS mission control in Houston.
Cheers, Scott

 

[sophiecentaur]

A fascinating docking video. It is amazing that they seemed to spend so much time fooling around with bits of cord and straps to secure the hatch open. The sort of procedure that happens all the time on a sailing boat to tidy up spars, lines and sails. They did seem to be making a bit of a meal about doing that stuff; no waves, wind or rain to distract them and I'm sure they will have practiced a lot. The problem of where is 'down'. is something you frequently get below decks in a choppy sea.
It's good to see that knots and string still have a part to play up there.

 

[Oldman too]

NASA feed:


Thats pretty interesting

Interesting indeed, the color scheme seems to be somewhat controversial.
https://futurism.com/the-byte/russian-cosmonauts-iss-ukraine

 

[mfb]

NASA to Discuss Artemis Strategy for Astronaut Moon Landers
Wednesday 3:30 pm EDT, that's in 11.5 hours.

The panel of four doesn't include anyone from SpaceX, the company chosen to fly the first of these missions. Maybe they'll focus on the long-term strategy and discuss how to proceed after the first landing.

 

[mfb]

NASA Provides Update to Astronaut Moon Lander Plans Under Artemis
NASA uses a (previously unknown?) option in the existing contract to buy another crewed Moon landing from SpaceX. The second crew mission should be ready for "sustainable missions" (can't be that sustainable with a $4 billion per launch SLS...). NASA had already mentioned that the proposal for the first mission won't need major changes to achieve this.

In parallel they are trying to find a second lander to have more competition and redundancy in the future.

 

[Oldman too]

SN 20 test up and coming.
https://www.universetoday.com/15517...ady-for-an-orbital-flight-in-may/#more-155174

First Starship orbital flight will be with Raptor 2 engines, as they are much more capable & reliable. 230 ton or ~500k lb thrust at sea level.

We’ll have 39 flightworthy engines built by next month, then another month to integrate, so hopefully May for orbital flight test.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 21, 2022

 

[mfb]

SN20 has Raptor 1 engines, it might see additional tests but it won't fly. SN24 and booster 7 are now likely candidates for the orbital flight. Booster 7 has been moved to the launch site.

 

[mfb]

Amazon bought 83 rocket launches for its Kuiper constellation. Probably at least $10 billion, the largest commercial launch deal ever.

18 Ariane 6 launches
12 to 27 New Glenn launches
38 Vulcan launches

Amazon previously bought 9 Atlas V launches.

No Falcon, no Starship - these would be cheaper and have more launch capacity, but apparently Amazon doesn't want to rely on a direct competitor.

----

Busy times at Kennedy Space Center: The wet dress rehearsal for Artemis 1 got delayed, which then delayed Axiom-1 (now April 8). Any additional delay will likely also shift Crew-4 (April 19), as both missions use the same launch pad and Axiom-1 needs to leave the ISS to free the docking port for Crew-4.
That's three crew-rated capsules in preparation for launch at the same time, two of them will fly crew.

Edit: Artemis 1 WDR delayed more, no time estimate this time. We might see some shuffling.

Edit2: WDR now after Axiom-1

 

[anorlunda]

Army Corps of Engineers closes SpaceX Starbase permit application citing lack of information​

SpaceX can re-open the application simply by providing the information requested
https://www.theverge.com/2022/4/6/2...rship-army-corps-engineers-permit-application
IMO, Elon Musk and governments will never be friends. Some people suggested that SpaceX should go offshore. That may be wise.

 

[mfb]

They requested more information, SpaceX told them they didn't have that information yet, so the Army Corps halted the application until that information is available. Nothing surprising.

----

2 hours 15 minutes until the launch of Axiom-1 with its crew of four, the first fully private mission to the ISS. They have a large range of experiments planned, mainly in the medical sector. Launch coverage

 

[sandy stone]

They requested more information, SpaceX told them they didn't have that information yet, so the Army Corps halted the application until that information is available. Nothing surprising.

----

2 hours 15 minutes until the launch of Axiom-1 with its crew of four, the first fully private mission to the ISS. They have a large range of experiments planned, mainly in the medical sector. Launch coverage

I hate it when concern for the common good gets in the way of rich guys doing whatever they want.

 

[anorlunda]

There's a new 2 hour film released "Return To Space" about SpaceX and NASA astronauts. I saw it last night on Netflix.

I get the impression that Elon Musk is uncomfortable with his NASA partnership, and NASA is uncomfortable with SpaceX. But of course, he doesn't say that directly in the film.

 

[Arjan82]

2 hours 15 minutes until the launch of Axiom-1 with its crew of four, the first fully private mission to the ISS. They have a large range of experiments planned, mainly in the medical sector. Launch coverage

Just wondering: do they also recapture the second stage? Or is that left to burn in the atmosphere?

 

[sophiecentaur]

Just wondering: do they also recapture the second stage? Or is that left to burn in the atmosphere?

The first stage recovery seems an obvious thing to go for - a very expensive component of the flight, with vast energy capability and also, I would guess, some very complex control features. I wonder how much, in comparison, the second stage costs and if it justifies extra facilitates / payload to bring it back safely (it's almost orbital).

 

[mfb]

They looked into second stage recovery, but it would have needed too much redesign and reduced the payload too much. The second stage has been estimated to cost ~10 million, the largest part of the overall marginal launch cost to SpaceX. Boosters should be around 25-30 million, but they can be used 10+ times so the cost per launch is much lower. Fairings are ~6 million (both sides together), they are reused as well.

Starship will be fully reusable.Axiom-1 should dock with the ISS within half an hour. Livestream

 

[sophiecentaur]

They looked into second stage recovery, but it would have needed too much redesign and reduced the payload too much. The second stage has been estimated to cost ~10 million, the largest part of the overall marginal launch cost to SpaceX. Boosters should be around 25-30 million, but they can be used 10+ times so the cost per launch is much lower. Fairings are ~6 million (both sides together), they are reused as well.

Starship will be fully reusable.Axiom-1 should dock with the ISS within half an hour. Livestream

I am such a lazy hound dog* that my main space info comes from you and a few other PF experts. Between you, the wheat is separated from the chaff of space news and I keep up to date with the important stuff.
Thanks, all.

*That's a phrase that my headmaster used for me in 1962. He was not wrong as I've lived by my wits ever since! Most of my input is by diffusion.

 

[mfb]

Axiom-1 reached the ISS.

A reuse milestone: NASA's science mission lead said he prefers reused Falcon 9 boosters over new ones.

And two more coming up:

• A reused Falcon 9 booster will launch two military satellites on Friday. The US military was the last customer requiring new boosters.
• RocketLab wants to catch their first stage in the next mission, planned for April 19. If successful it will be the third orbital rocket to recover parts of the launch system after the Space Shuttle and Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy. I'm not including Buran here as the recoverable part didn't really contribute to the launch.[/size] The mission is called "There And Back Again", when Twitter pointed out that "Catch Me If You Can" would be better RocketLab's CEO Peter Beck replied "you have just named the very next recovery mission after this one"

.

----

NASA is still struggling with the Wet Dress Rehearsal. They have a valve problem that they can't fix on the launch pad, so they decided to do the WDR without fully fueling the upper stage. They'll simply skip the test that failed. The valve will be exchanged later, and so far it doesn't look like they want to repeat that test. NASA keeps repeating how it's a highly reliable system and low risk - but then how did it fail?

Starship is developed with the idea "test early, fail, improve the failing parts, test again". If a component fails they'll replace it and try again a few days later. If a vehicle blows up the next one will be on the launch pad a month later. Some explosions are expected.

NASA wanted to do the exact opposite with SLS. Develop everything for years to have extremely high redundancy, safety margins and so on, so everything will work on the first try. They were so certain that it will work that they considered skipping the Green Run for a while - the test that ended early because of an engine problem and had to be repeated (with extra delays from a valve problem). Now there is another valve problem.
The solid rocket boosters were originally certified to last one year after stacking. That was extended to one and a half years and now two years. It's unclear how much of that extension came from actual certainty that they are still good, and how much from necessity because the program faced delays. Even if Artemis 1 launches successfully in the next months it doesn't look like a very safe rocket. The default response to failing tests was a change of the tests, not a fix of the underlying problem. Combined with the endless delays and absurd costs I think it's save to say that this model doesn't work well.

---

Edit: There was also the Pythom rocket test which had people run away from the dust/exhaust cloud.

 

[Oldman too]

Once again we're coming up on the Planetary Decadal Mission Concept Studies for the 2023-2032 period. Here's a link to some of the more interesting concepts being considered, I'm pleased to see a couple of them involve Ceres exploration.
https://iopscience.iop.org/journal/2632-3338/page/Planetary_Decadal_Mission_Concept_Studies

 

[TeethWhitener]

NASA keeps repeating how it's a highly reliable system and low risk - but then how did it fail?

They were so certain that it will work that they considered skipping the Green Run for a while - the test that ended early because of an engine problem and had to be repeated (with extra delays from a valve problem). Now there is another valve problem.

So basically it’s a repeat of the Challenger mismanagement?

 

[Oldman too]

So basically it’s a repeat of the Challenger mismanagement?

Maybe they are just developing bigger and better fault trees?

 

[nsaspook]

Edit: There was also the Pythom rocket test which had people run away from the dust/exhaust cloud.

OMG, I hope nobody gets killed before that rocket launches.

"Classic liquid rocket bipropellant composed of furfuryl alcohol and fuming nitric acid"

https://www3.epa.gov/region1/airquality/nox.html

Nitrogen Oxides are a family of poisonous, highly reactive gases. These gases form when fuel is burned at high temperatures. NOx pollution is emitted by automobiles, trucks and various non-road vehicles (e.g., construction equipment, boats, etc.) as well as industrial sources such as power plants, industrial boilers, cement kilns, and turbines. NOx often appears as a brownish gas.

 

[Oldman too]

OMG, I hope nobody gets killed before that rocket launches.
View attachment 299925
"Classic liquid rocket bipropellant composed of furfuryl alcohol and fuming nitric acid"

https://www3.epa.gov/region1/airquality/nox.html

Absolutely amazing! The ARS article says it all but let me quote from it, this is one of the co-founders speaking... "You have to work hard, but you do not have to be very smart," Tina Sjögren added.

 

[mfb]

Another gem from their update:

During our expeditions, we lost many friends to the elements, [...]
We didn't survive all our expeditions by luck only, but by rigorous risk preparedness.

Classic survivorship bias.

So basically it’s a repeat of the Challenger mismanagement?

It increasingly looks like it.
The third WDR attempt was also aborted, this time because of a hydrogen leak in the ground support infrastructure.
The WDR was meant as final check that everything is still working, not as part of R&D. If you find a new issue in every test then your rocket isn't ready to fly.

 

[anorlunda]

The WDR was meant as final check that everything is still working, not as part of R&D. If you find a new issue in every test then your rocket isn't ready to fly.

Well said. A wizard at probability and statistics could take each problem not discovered until on the launch pad and turn that into an estimate of how flawed the R&D process was.

I fear that the cynical view is valid. The first priority of NASA's manned space program is jobs, money and politics. A successful flight terminates some spending, rather than perpetuating it. The amazing part is that NASA's unmanned programs are so totally different. Thank goodness for that.

 

[Klystron]

...I fear that the cynical view is valid. The first priority of NASA's manned space program is jobs, money and politics. A successful flight terminates some spending, rather than perpetuating it. The amazing part is that NASA's unmanned programs are so totally different. ...

Very well said. Perhaps the laws and regulations anent using human research subjects causes more bloat compared to unmanned missions. Having worked at both types of mission facilities, the amount of spending associated with human flight crews compared with machines dwarfed the latter. Even offices and buildings appeared more elegant, compensation scales more extreme, and the politics more pervasive.

 

[Oldman too]

How did I miss this. https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/s...n-flagship-crew-capsule-executive-2022-03-28/

"March 28 (Reuters) - SpaceX has ended production of new Crew Dragon astronaut capsules, a company executive told Reuters, as Elon Musk's space transportation company heaps resources on its next-generation spaceship program."

 

[anorlunda]

SpaceX has ended production of new Crew Dragon astronaut capsules

Don't worry, they will have 4 of them. They can make more if needed.

 

[Oldman too]

Don't worry, they will have 4 of them. They can make more if needed.

I noticed that, also that they will continue making spare parts. I did also find the launch cycle statement very interesting, wondered for some time how launch cycles compared to aircraft cycles, not that the forces and stress are comparable but it did cross my mind.

"There's lifetime cycle issues, where once you start using it the third, fourth, fifth time, you start finding different things," said retired NASA astronaut and former SpaceX executive Garrett Reisman, who now consults for the company on human spaceflight matters.

 

[Klystron]

I noticed that, also that they will continue making spare parts. I did also find the launch cycle statement very interesting, wondered for some time how launch cycles compared to aircraft cycles, not that the forces and stress are comparable but it did cross my mind.

"There's lifetime cycle issues, where once you start using it the third, fourth, fifth time, you start finding different things," said retired NASA astronaut and former SpaceX executive Garrett Reisman, who now consults for the company on human spaceflight matters.

I recently read, perhaps here on PF, words to the effect that astronauts prefer to ride the second launch on the premise that the rocket worked successfully once and is still relatively new.

 

[Oldman too]

I recently read, perhaps here on PF, words to the effect that astronauts prefer to ride the second launch on the premise that the rocket worked successfully once and is still relatively new.

I like that statistical approach to not becoming a statistic.

 

[mfb]

I recently read, perhaps here on PF, words to the effect that astronauts prefer to ride the second launch on the premise that the rocket worked successfully once and is still relatively new.

I quoted a leading NASA person saying that for boosters in post #968.

Keeping a permanent crew of four on the ISS needs two Dragon capsules, assuming the rest of the ISS crew uses Soyuz or Starliner that's all they need. The other two capsules combined can make ~5 shorter flights per year.

SLS will now roll back to the assembly building for repairs
Looks like they'll do a full WDR before launch now. That makes a launch in June less likely, but it means they'll have tested everything before flying.

Edit: They'll roll it back, fix it, roll it to the launch pad, do a WDR, and then plan to roll it back to the Vehicle Assembly Building for inspections, before finally rolling it back to the launch pad for a launch. Assuming that plan doesn't change it won't fly in June. Maybe July, likely later. If they have to restack the boosters we are looking at late 2022 the earliest.

 

[Oldman too]

More on the Planetary Decadal Mission Concept Studies.
Item #1: It appears NASA's priority may be Uranus... No pun intended.
https://www.science.org/content/art...top-planetary-target-influential-report-finds

Item #2: The Whitepapers are out!
https://baas.aas.org/vol-53-issue-4
Note: While the whitepapers are indexed here for completeness, we strongly recommend that you use the NASA Astrophysics Data System to explore them, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/searc...6OAnQR2oaAjw)&sort=date asc, bibcode asc&p_=0

 

[mfb]

Axiom-1 landed safely after several delays due to bad weather. Buy 10 days, get 17, I'm sure the astronauts didn't mind. Axiom-2 (2023) is planned to last 16 days.

Now Crew-4 can fly to the ISS. The launch is planned for Wednesday 07:52 UTC or 24 hours after this post, livestream will be e.g. here. There are only two docking ports for Dragon and Crew-3 is still there waiting for Crew-4 to arrive.

We have a whole delay chain in Florida. The repeated WDR attempts of Artemis 1 delayed the Axiom-1 launch, which delayed the return. Weather then delayed it further. That delays Crew-4, which delays the return of Crew-3, which might delay the second uncrewed flight test of Starliner. That could then delay the next WDR attempt of Artemis 1 after its hardware is repaired. A two month chain of delays could end with the same rocket that started it.

Eric Berger says Artemis not before August. That will need an extension of the extension of the booster lifetime.

Rocket Lab wants to fly and recover its booster no earlier than Thursday.

More on the Planetary Decadal Mission Concept Studies.

I hope we get the Enceladus orbiter+lander as that's certainly an interesting place, but the Uranus moons might turn out to be as interesting as the icy moons of Jupiter and Saturn.

Payload to space in the first quarter of 2022
SpaceX 116 tonnes
Roscosmos 19 tonnes
China 14 tonnes
Everyone else together 21 tonnes

Most of the SpaceX mass is Starlink which has recently gotten two airlines as customer, the small JSX and the larger Hawaiian airlines. Both want to provide free high-speed internet on their airplanes starting in late 2022 to early 2023. As Hawaiian airlines largely flies over the ocean they will rely on satellites connecting to each other with laser links.

 

[Oldman too]

There are only two docking ports for Dragon and Crew-3 is still there waiting for Crew-4 to arrive.

Houston, we have a bottleneck! seriously though, I hadn't expected docking to be so tightly scheduled. Hope the weather cooperates better for crew-3. The Artemis fiasco doesn't surprise me in the least. Maybe Space-X can give NASA some pointers on being competitive, something big government seems to struggle with.

Rocket Lab wants to fly and recover its booster no earlier than Thursday.

Any idea if Rocket Lab is scheduling a live stream? I'd sure like to watch that launch/ recovery, should be very interesting. It would be a nice bonus for them to keep that booster out of the seawater also.

I hope we get the Enceladus orbiter+lander as that's certainly an interesting place

I 'm hoping for the same, although any of those targets would be extremely cool. It just occurred to me that if they launch on SLS, I'll probably not live long enough to see any of it realized... at least we have JWST.

 

[mfb]

Rocket Lab will certainly live-stream the launch, but I don't know how much we'll see for the recovery (live and later). The helicopter and the rocket will be pretty far downrange, so the internet connection might be bad, and who knows what camera angles we can get.

Edit: They'll try to have a live feed but it might drop out in between

The Uranus mission will use Falcon Heavy, it's likely the Enceladus mission will do the same. The flight rate of SLS is so low that all launches are needed for Artemis, Starship is still in development, and besides these two Falcon Heavy will stay the heaviest-lift vehicle for a while.

T-1h for Crew-4, crew is in the capsule, propellant load will follow soon.

 

[Oldman too]

This is unexpected, and too cool.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/na...pots-gear-that-helped-perseverance-rover-land

 

[mfb]

After the weather delayed the launch for several days Rocket Lab is aiming at a launch May 2, 22:35 UTC, that's in 7 hours, or in the two hours after that time. First attempt to recover a large rocket booster with a helicopter.

Livestream will appear here

Other updates might appear on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rocketlab/

Edit: Launch time shifted a bit, now in 8 minutes!

Edit: Capture! Video from the helicopter wasn't great but there was a booster in view in between.

Another edit: Partial success. The behavior of the booster hooked up to the helicopter was different than expected, the pilot decided to lower the booster into the ocean. With contact to salt water it's likely this booster won't fly again, but we'll see.

Press release

 

[mfb]

Curiosity found the entrance to the secret Martian base! Zoom into find the Martian looking at Curiosity.

Larger image here, the image above can be found to the upper left of the center. There is another similar but smaller feature a bit more to the left. It seems to be a rock that tends to break with very clean surfaces.

Edit: Some discussion by geologist

 

[mfb]

Event Horizon Telescope update just started.

They have a picture of Sgr A*, the central black hole of our galaxy. Well, a picture of its accretion disk of course, can't see the black hole itself.

 

[TeethWhitener]

Event Horizon Telescope update just started.

They have a picture of Sgr A*, the central black hole of our galaxy. Well, a picture of its accretion disk of course, can't see the black hole itself.

View attachment 301381

This made my morning. Got on PF to see if you’d posted about it yet—was not disappointed :)

 

[Oldman too]

An interesting video clip that gives some perspective:

 

[mfb]

Boeing's second orbital flight test (uncrewed) is scheduled to take off 22:54:47 UTC today, that's 8 hours after this post. If successful it will dock with the ISS about 24 hours after launch and undock and land a week later. It's a repetition of the orbital flight test of December 2019 which didn't manage to reach the ISS. A crewed flight is planned for later this year.
NASA coverage will be here

Edit: Successful launch, successful first burn in orbit.

Rocket Lab and NASA are preparing the CAPSTONE mission (May 31), which will test the environment in a new Moon orbit ("near-rectilinear halo orbit") - the Gateway will use the same orbit for the Artemis program. It will be Rocket Lab's first mission beyond low Earth orbit.

 

[CAugustine]

CNBC - The space industry is on its way to reach $1 trillion in revenue by 2040, Citi says​

The space industry should reach $1 trillion in annual revenue by 2040, with launch costs dropping 95%, Citigroup analysts said in an extensive report published this month. A further decline in the cost of accessing space would create more opportunities for technological expansion and innovation, unlocking more services from orbit such as satellite broadband and manufacturing, the bank added.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/21/spa...ay-to-1-trillion-in-revenue-by-2040-citi.html

Found the full Citi report if anyone is interested - https://www.citivelocity.com/citigps/space/

 

[mfb]

We’re one week from the FAA’s latest deadline to complete the environmental review process for SpaceX’s launch site in South Texas. This time my expectation is that there will not be another extension. Likely decision: a mitigated FONSI. This means …
SpaceX is likely to get approval to move ahead with experimental launches of Starship, however they will have to make some accommodations for environmental impacts. This is what I am hearing, but you should not consider it official information.

Eric Berger on Twitter
That report was originally planned for December last year and then it was delayed by one month every month.

Gwynne Shotwell (SpaceX COO) predicted a Starship launch for June or July. Her timelines are typically more realistic than Musk's.

SpaceX has experimented with a Starlink deployment system. The first flight won't go to an orbit where operational satellites could be deployed but we might see a first test deploying some dummy payload (which will re-enter after less than one orbit).

 

[mfb]

FAA approval of Starship was ... delayed again. But this time the announced delay is only two weeks, a major milestone over the previous one-month delays.

FAA has made all 17784 received comments public (after redacting personal details and some profanity)

- A very large majority is positive
- Volume 16 is filled with NASA documentation how they handle the environmental impact of launches in Florida and similar documents.
- Volumes 21-25, 9-10, most of 20 and probably some more are just the same email arriving from over 1000 different email addresses. Surprising how many people have exactly the same opinion!
- Some comments are weird. SpaceX is compared to Nero (with a picture of Nero burning Rome!) in volume 1, page 1238.
- An email sent October 31, 2021 8:43 PM asks to "approve the launch this month" (volume 7, page 20)
- One person explicitly asked to not publish his name, but wrote his full name just one sentence earlier for no reason. No page number here.

 

[Oldman too]

- Volumes 21-25, 9-10, most of 20 and probably some more are just the same email arriving from over 1000 different email addresses. Surprising how many people have exactly the same opinion!

I hope the form letter spam found its way into the correct folder.

 

[anorlunda]

I hope the form letter spam found its way into the correct folder.

The APA (Administrative Procedure Act) requires agencies to allow public comments in certain circumstances. I've never heard if the ACA specifies how the comments will be treated.

Is it legal to treat all of them as spam? Probably not. Is it required to treat all comments with equal weight? Probably not. So what is allowable and required? I don't know.

 

[mfb]

Once you take one of them into account you took all of them into account. The 1000 emails all claiming to be concerned about the Piping Plover, the Red Knot and the Northern Aplomado Falcon in particular are obvious copies of a template made by someone.

 

[mfb]

Launch failure of Astra's Rocket 3, the second stage shut down a minute too early and the rocket was spinning out of control, it's not yet clear what caused what.

Not counting initial test flights and one rocket lost on the ground, they now have 2 successful launches out of 7, not exactly a stellar track record.

----

FAA wanted to finish the environmental assessment for Starship by June 13, so we should soon get either a final report or another delay.