Space Stuff and Launch Info

[mfb]

The race is on, who can delay their launch more?

New Glenn is now scheduled for January 12, 6:00 UTC (latest delay due to landing zone weather)
Starship is now scheduled for January 13, 22:00 UTC (unknown reason)

There is also Blue Ghost (flying on Falcon 9) scheduled for January 15 6:00 UTC, a lunar lander by Firefly.


Edit: New Glenn shifted to January 13, Starship shifted to January 15.

 

[mfb]

New Glenn launch coverage - currently in a hold at T-20 minutes to chill the engines. It might actually launch this time.
Edit: Now counting down from T-30 minutes again.
Edit2: Down to -7 minutes, for the first time the go/no-go poll at -10 minutes was crossed.
Edit3: Liftoff!

Starship shifted to January 16, in 16 hours. I think this is the closest they have been to a launch, too.

 

[mfb]

The upper stage reached orbit. The mission will go on for a few more hours, but the primary goal has been reached.

The booster was lost, we don't know yet why or when - telemetry stopped during atmospheric reentry, but that's not necessarily where the booster stopped working.

Edit: Next flight is planned in spring.

 

[Astronuc]

AP News - Jeff Bezos’ New Glenn rocket reaches orbit on first test flight
https://apnews.com/article/blue-origin-new-glenn-rocket-jeff-bezos-2466fb0e114a09d88a46f71a1e647d50

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) — Blue Origin launched its massive new rocket on its first test flight Thursday, sending up a prototype satellite to orbit thousands of miles above Earth.

Named after the first American to orbit Earth, the New Glenn rocket blasted off from Florida, soaring from the same pad used to launch NASA’s Mariner and Pioneer spacecraft a half-century ago.

Years in the making with heavy funding by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, the 320-foot (98-meter) rocket carried an an experimental platform designed to host satellites or release them into their proper orbits.

All seven main engines fired at liftoff as the rocket blazed through the predawn sky to the delight of spectators lining nearby beaches. Bezos took part in the action from Mission Control and Blue Origin employees erupted in cheers once the craft successfully reached orbit 13 minutes later, a feat that drew praise from SpaceX’s Elon Musk.

New Glenn was supposed to fly before dawn Monday, but ice buildup in critical plumbing caused a delay. The rocket is built to haul spacecraft and eventually astronauts to orbit and also the moon.

Ice on cryogenic systems is still a problem.

For this test, the satellite was meant to remain inside the second stage while circling Earth. Plans called for the second stage to be placed in a safe condition to stay in a high, out-of-the-way orbit in accordance with NASA’s practices for minimizing space junk.

Returning space debris, e.g., decommissioned satellites are a continuing concern.

 

[Flyboy]

Starship launched. Booster made a successful catch, but Starship lost contact after possible fire. No official word yet.

 

[mfb]

Starship launched. Booster catch (second time this succeeded), but the ship lost its engines one by one and then telemetry was lost. Looks like the ship is gone. This was the first version 2 ship.

 

[mfb]

Debris from the ship reentering the atmosphere (link):



Similar view

Capturing an explosion of some sort

 

[QuarkyMeson]

Well that's pretty if nothing else.

 

[berkeman]

Debris from the ship reentering the atmosphere

"Honey, I sure am glad we came down to the Turks and Caicos for our winter vacation"

"Yeah, it's so much warmer and relaxing here on the beach."

"Oh look, they have fireworks too! Oooo!"

"Um, they're coming this way..."

"Get under the beach umbrella!!!"

 

[mfb]

Its trajectory avoids inhabited land. The debris is ~100 km up, so even with a relatively steep angle it's still far away.

View from a cruise ship

It caused some chaos for aircraft who planned to fly through the area after the launch. You don't want to do that when it's not clear if all debris has hit the ocean yet.

 

[berkeman]

Its trajectory avoids inhabited land.

"Hey Skipper, are those fireworks?"

"I don't know, Gilligan, but we better get under the beach umbrella!!"

 

[Astronuc]

Its trajectory avoids inhabited land. The debris is ~100 km up, so even with a relatively steep angle it's still far away.

View from a cruise ship

It caused some chaos for aircraft who planned to fly through the area after the launch. You don't want to do that when it's not clear if all debris has hit the ocean yet.

Reuters reports - SpaceX's Starship explodes in flight test, forcing airlines to divert
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/spacex-launches-seventh-starship-mock-224420332.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -A SpaceX Starship rocket broke up in space minutes after launching from Texas on Thursday, forcing airline flights over the Gulf of Mexico to alter course to avoid falling debris and setting back Elon Musk's flagship rocket program.

SpaceX mission control lost contact with the newly upgraded Starship, carrying its first test payload of mock satellites but no crew, eight minutes after liftoff from its South Texas rocket facilities at 5:38 p.m. EST (2238 GMT).

Video shot by Reuters showed orange balls of light streaking across the sky over the Haitian capital of Port-au-Prince, leaving trails of smoke behind.

 

[renormalize]

"Hey Skipper, are those fireworks?"

"I don't know, Gilligan, but we better get under the beach umbrella!!"

"I don't know, Gilligan, but we all better get under the beach umbrella!!"

 

[Flyboy]

I'm curious to hear what went wrong in the engine bay to cause the fire and progressive failure on Starship.

 

[mfb]

Tweet:

Preliminary indication is that we had an oxygen/fuel leak in the cavity above the ship engine firewall that was large enough to build pressure in excess of the vent capacity.

Apart from obviously double-checking for leaks, we will add fire suppression to that volume and probably increase vent area. Nothing so far suggests pushing next launch past next month.

I don't think they can finish the accident investigation and get it approved by the FAA that fast, but if it was a simple manufacturing defect then it's easy to fix.

 

[QuarkyMeson]

Tweet:

I don't think they can finish the accident investigation and get it approved by the FAA that fast, but if it was a simple manufacturing defect then it's easy to fix.

When does Nasa decide to pull the plug on SpaceX's HLS? They have to be getting nervous about their ability to meet contract requirements.

 

[Flyboy]

When does Nasa decide to pull the plug on SpaceX's HLS? They have to be getting nervous about their ability to meet contract requirements.

I suspect that they’re going to pull the plug on SLS before HLS. I’m not saying that as a SpaceX fanboy or anything, it’s a purely objective assessment of the situation. We’re years from needing HLS at this point, given the paltry launch cadence of SLS/Orion. I wouldn’t be surprised if the incoming administration just kicks the can down the road on deciding what to do with HLS and focuses on seeing if there’s any way to salvage the SLS program first.

 

[QuarkyMeson]

I suspect that they’re going to pull the plug on SLS before HLS. I’m not saying that as a SpaceX fanboy or anything, it’s a purely objective assessment of the situation. We’re years from needing HLS at this point, given the paltry launch cadence of SLS/Orion. I wouldn’t be surprised if the incoming administration just kicks the can down the road on deciding what to do with HLS and focuses on seeing if there’s any way to salvage the SLS program first.

I doubt it, the SLS program is a gravy train for a bunch of a state senators. For moon missions the SLS isn't technically required anyway, you could use the most reliable rocket ever, an Atlas V, with some modifications. You could also just use a delta 4 heavy. Orbital refueling depots would open a whole bunch of other doors. None of this works though because need to keep the SLS as a jobs program.

The SLS program itself is mostly funding SpaceX's starship. I just can't be the only person looking at the number of launches required, the in orbit refueling, the dead weight and all the other issues in light of the failure of every launch so far and not think it's crazy to keep spending tax payer money on this.

 

[mfb]

When does Nasa decide to pull the plug on SpaceX's HLS? They have to be getting nervous about their ability to meet contract requirements.

Why? It's going to be delayed. Name something that isn't.

Atlas V couldn't even launch Orion to Earth orbit. Delta IV Heavy is retired.

The SLS program itself is mostly funding SpaceX's starship.

??? They are different rockets. Not a single cent of the SLS program is going to SpaceX.

I just can't be the only person looking at the number of launches required, the in orbit refueling, the dead weight and all the other issues in light of the failure of every launch so far and not think it's crazy to keep spending tax payer money on this.

That's the fun of a reusable rocket: You can fly it often. Falcon 9, even though it's only partially reusable, has flown 10 times this year already. What's the big deal of 10 flights if you have that launch cadence, or even just half of it?

What do you mean by "failure of every launch so far"? Flights 4 and 5 were fully successful in every aspect. Flight 6 was a full success except for the booster catch, which was aborted due to a technical issue with the launch tower. Flight 7 had another booster catch.

 

[Astronuc]

Tweet: Preliminary indication is that we had an oxygen/fuel leak in the cavity above the ship engine firewall that was large enough to build pressure in excess of the vent capacity.

I don't think they can finish the accident investigation and get it approved by the FAA that fast, but if it was a simple manufacturing defect then it's easy to fix.

That's an interesting comment on oxygen/fuel leak, which are separate systems until combined in the combustion chamber.

Could it be an internal flaw that eventually propagated under tensile stress, or perhaps fatigue?

Were the part(s) that failed re-used?

Design flaw? Did they over-estimate the performance life?

Wrong material for the service application?

I'm certainly curious about the findings of the investigation.

 

[Flyboy]

No parts on Starship have been reused yet. Every vehicle has been destroyed, scrapped, or scuttled after a flight.

Design elements have been carried over from V1 to V2, but I suspect that they’re not the issue. They’ve proven decently robust.

Superheavy reused Raptor 314 on the last flight.

 

[QuarkyMeson]

Why? It's going to be delayed. Name something that isn't.

The other things that are delayed are seen as jobs programs.

Atlas V couldn't even launch Orion to Earth orbit. Delta IV Heavy is retired.???

It just retired last year; pulling it back out should still be cheaper. I could be very wrong, but I thought Atlas V had more than enough payload capacity to put a dry Orion into LEO, where it could be supplied, manned, and then sent on its way via a TLI with an additional launch. This, of course, would be easier with a Delta IV Heavy, since you could put it into LEO wet. The newer, heaviest Vulcan should be able to do this too.

They are different rockets. Not a single cent of the SLS program is going to SpaceX.

You're right, I misspoke. When I was saying SLS I was really talking about the Artemis program in general, in which the HLS (starship) recieves funding.

That's the fun of a reusable rocket: You can fly it often. Falcon 9, even though it's only partially reusable, has flown 10 times this year already. What's the big deal of 10 flights if you have that launch cadence, or even just half of it?

I don't know if reusability is always a good thing. The shuttle was also nearly completely reusable, with the only disposable part supposedly being the external fuel tank. The boosters (or parts thereof) were also reused, just without the theatrics of landing under power.

I don't know how much reusability factors into the cost of a Falcon 9 because I can't see company financial statements. The number of Falcon 9 launches doesn't seem super relevant since SpaceX's biggest customer is SpaceX. No other company I'm aware of needs to launch that much material into space. I'm not sure how much reusability factors into this cadence versus if it was completely disposable.

What do you mean by "failure of every launch so far"? Flights 4 and 5 were fully successful in every aspect. Flight 6 was a full success except for the booster catch, which was aborted due to a technical issue with the launch tower. Flight 7 had another booster catch.

I guess it depends on how you quantify success.

Flight 4: The Starship exploded during splashdown, and it also experienced partial heat shield failure during re-entry. The same issue occurred, to a lesser degree, during Flight 5. In Flight 6, the Starship had similar heating problems in the same fin area. After splashdown, it was on fire, but at least it didn't explode.

They've all had issues with re-entering the atmosphere due to heating. If you watch the video from the 6th launch again, you can see that the stainless steel shows tempering coloration in places where it shouldn't.

Not to mention, they've never reached orbital velocity (on purpose I assume, I don't know), and they haven't transported any cargo into space. (This is more confusing, why wouldn't you at least have a dummy load)

 

[Flyboy]

Delta IV cannot be returned to service. There are no engines for the first stage, and there is no longer tooling to make the tanks. Same for Atlas V. ULA has fully committed to Vulcan production at this point and it’s not viable to restart production on their older boosters.

Starship not being fully reusable yet is not a issue, imo. They’re pushing well into uncharted territory now, and they’re learning a lot. They’re also running a very hardware rich development cycle, so much so that lessons learned on flight 6 are probably not going to fly until maybe flight 11 or 12. Everything between those flights is either complete and awaiting a launch, or too far along in fabrication to make major changes to the design.

 

[mfb]

The other things that are delayed are seen as jobs programs.

Who thinks the space suits are a jobs program?

Delta IV Heavy is retired and there is no realistic way to bring it back. The factories used to make its components have been building Vulcan or other stuff for a while now. The Vandenberg launch pad is now with SpaceX for future Falcon launches, the Cape Canaveral launch pad might go to SpaceX for Starship launches.

Atlas V can launch up to 19 tonnes to LEO under ideal conditions. Orion with European Service Module is 26.5 tonnes and the launch escape system adds another 7 tonnes early on.
Besides the lack of payload capability, all remaining Atlas V are already assigned to other missions.

Vulcan can't do it either, by the way, only 26 tonnes to LEO. Delta IV Heavy at ~29 tonnes would have been very marginal.

I don't know if reusability is always a good thing.

Sure, but we know it works well for Falcon. Starship is designed with all the lessons learned from Falcon - it won't do worse in that aspect.

The number of Falcon 9 launches doesn't seem super relevant since SpaceX's biggest customer is SpaceX.

Why would the payload matter? Falcon shows how reuse allows a high launch cadence at much lower cost.

Flight 4: The Starship exploded during splashdown

Expected and irrelevant. The ship isn't supposed to land in the water, ever. The mission ends at zero velocity and the altitude where it would rest on the launch tower.
We don't call an Atlas V launch a failure when the booster blows up on reentry either - all its boosters blow up, they are not designed to land.

The heat shield was damaged, sure, that's something SpaceX is still working on. But it already works well enough for the ship to survive reentry and land. It's not rapidly reusable in this form, but it's likely reusable with refurbishment once it's caught by the tower.

Not to mention, they've never reached orbital velocity (on purpose I assume, I don't know)

Yes, on purpose. They fly missions so close to orbital velocity that it would be trivial to reach a proper orbit, but reentry is part of the test program so the ship deliberately cuts off the engines a few seconds earlier.

and they haven't transported any cargo into space. (This is more confusing, why wouldn't you at least have a dummy load)

Because it's not reaching a proper orbit. Flight 7 had some Starlink simulators that would have been deployed into the same almost-orbital trajectory to test the deployment system.

 

[QuarkyMeson]

That all sounds reasonable then.

 

[mfb]

We get another batch of Moon missions, with up to 6 landings this year.

Blue Ghost Mission 1 by Firefly Aerospace and Hakuto-R Mission 2 by ispace were launched January 15. Hakuto-R mission 1 crashed in 2023.

Blue Ghost has entered a Moon orbit, a landing is planned for March 2. Firefly is very active on YouTube, e.g. with this in-flight update or the orbit insertion update.

Hakuto-R has made a flyby. It goes to the Moon on a slower lower-energy trajectory and will only enter a Moon orbit in April or May. No landing date has been announced yet. It's the smallest lander.

IM-2 is scheduled to launch February 27. It's the second mission of Intuitive Machines after their first lander landed in a tilted orientation and was only half functional. It goes to the Moon on a direct trajectory, likely landing in March. On board is the μNova "hopper" which can move around with short bursts of its rockets. IM-3 is planned for October this year.

Blue Origin wants to launch a Blue Moon prototype soon, potentially as early as March. With a launch mass of 20 tonnes it's an order of magnitude larger than the other "large" landers.

Astrobotic Technology plans to launch its Griffin lander later this year.

 

[mfb]

Starship flight 8 is planned for Friday. Live coverage will probably appear on this site, even though it hasn't been created yet (just following the URL pattern of the previous flights):
https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-flight-8

The plan will be the same as for flight 7. Launch to an almost-orbital trajectory, catch the booster. Test the deployment of Starlink mass simulators, ignite Raptor in flight for a simulated reentry burn, then reenter and land (splash down) in the Indian Ocean. If successful, flight 9 might attempt a ship capture at the launch site.

Edit: Some new views of flight 7

 

[.Scott]

The cause of the January RUD is described as fuel and oxygen leaks in an enclosed but vented region above the engines. A fire ensued - cutting telemetry and resulting in the flight termination system explosively ending the mission.

Their solution includes better ventilation in that region. This suggests to me that the "leaks" are part of the design. The problem isn't that they leaked but that they leaked too much. This doesn't surprised me. We are talking about cryogenic plumbing that's under a lot of vibration and stress. The plumbing likely needs to have some give - even at the expense of leaks.

Although the spacecraft detonated within the pre-planned debris area, I am surprised that SpaceX has not addressed the littering issue. I would have expected them to put some small "per pound" bounty on any debris that is readily indefinable as theirs.

 

[.Scott]

I just don’t see the point in continuing to claim that they’re “not stranded” with an emphasis on the quotes.

Sure, they're stranded. But they are test pilots - and that's what they signed up for and are paid for.
And I strongly suspect they had a major say in whether they wanted to use Starliner for the return home.
Besides, given a choice between being stranded 9 months on a tropical island or the ISS, I would definitely pick the ISS.

 

[Flyboy]

Sure, they're stranded. But they are test pilots - and that's what they signed up for and are paid for.
And I strongly suspect they had a major say in whether they wanted to use Starliner for the return home.
Besides, given a choice between being stranded 9 months on a tropical island or the ISS, I would definitely pick the ISS.

They are not stranded and haven’t been for months. There are two seats on the Dragon currently docked at the station dedicated specifically to them and that has been the case since Crew-9 launched nearly six months ago.