Space Stuff and Launch Info

[mfb]

http://spaceflight101.com/nasa-to-study-adding-crew-to-debut-flight-of-sls-and-orion/
"This information was confirmed on Wednesday in a memo from Acting NASA Administrator Robert Lightfoot sent out to NASA workforce and comes as the result of a request by the NASA transition team under the new Trump administration.

Wait, what? The idea of a launch 2018 is unrealistic already, and they will have to rush if they want to make that. It will be a completely new rocket with a new capsule - and now they want to launch that with a crew? First launches can go wrong. If they go wrong unmanned, they will learn from the mistakes and launch another rocket a year later. If the maiden flight goes wrong and people die, I can't see how the project would recover from that. To make it worse: Where is the point? Sending astronauts to LEO will be done cheaper by the commercial crew program. Manned SLS/Orion missions have some small niche applications like going to Moon orbit or to L1/L2 with humans. But that will certainly not happen in 2018. Making a manned flight in 2018 would have no interesting result: You cannot test the full potential of going elsewhere, and you cannot do interesting science either.

You can shift the maiden flight to 2021, of course. But that is just the current schedule without the earlier unmanned test, which doesn't make sense either.

 

[1oldman2]

I guess this is related to Trump's idea of humans back on Moon in 2020 - no sense of reality.

Yup, your seeing pure politics at work here.
For the proposed "study" to recommend a manned first launch... I just can't imagine the convoluted thinking that it would worthy of the schedule benefits, (I don't see any real overall benefit other than buying some time while the program figures out where it stands over the next four years). Considering the recent recommendations regarding Fueling concerns on upcoming manned F-9 missions and NASA's experiences with Apollo 1 and a couple of Shuttle misadventures, they may "study" the hell out of something but they aren't likely to "bet max" on the maiden flight.

Von Braun, while developing the Sat-V wanted to test launch by adding one ballasted stage at a time to the stack for fault analyses if something went boom, (not a bad plan at all) NASA decided to test all at once,(citing schedule). Even with the timeline and all, it was over two years between first launch and first manned flight.

I just (pardon the pun) hope "Orion" doesn't become another "constellation".

 

[1oldman2]

Well it looks like we may as well get used to the idea of 53 day orbits, (that's okay, I have more patience than I have time). I'm looking forward to the Peer reviewed releases coming up, any bets on the Metallic Hydrogen theory?.
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-s-juno-mission-to-remain-in-current-orbit-at-jupiter
"NASA’s Juno mission to Jupiter, which has been in orbit around the gas giant since July 4, 2016, will remain in its current 53-day orbit for the remainder of the mission. This will allow Juno to accomplish its science goals, while avoiding the risk of a previously-planned engine firing that would have reduced the spacecraft ’s orbital period to 14 days.

The Juno science team continues to analyze returns from previous flybys. Revelations include that Jupiter's magnetic fields and aurora are bigger and more powerful than originally thought and that the belts and zones that give the gas giant’s cloud top its distinctive look extend deep into the planet’s interior. Peer-reviewed papers with more in-depth science results from Juno’s first three flybys are expected to be published within the next few months. In addition, the mission's JunoCam - the first interplanetary outreach camera - is now being guided with assistance from the public. People can participate by voting on which features on Jupiter should be imaged during each flyby."

Here is a P-4 shot of the south pole from about 100,000 km's

Then there's this, pretty cool.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/an-ice-worldwith-an-ocean
"On Feb. 17, 2005, NASA’s Cassini spacecraft was making the first-ever close pass over Saturn’s moon Enceladus as it worked through its detailed survey of the planet’s icy satellites. Exciting, to be sure, just for the thrill of exploration. But then Cassini’s magnetometer instrument noticed something odd."

As of 11:50 on 02/17, "SpaceX chief executive Elon Musk says engineers are investigating a "very small" leak in the Falcon 9 rocket's upper stage."
"If ok, will launch tomorrow," he tweeted."

http://spaceflightnow.com/2017/02/1...-spacexs-10th-space-station-resupply-mission/
"The illustrated timeline below outlines the launch sequence for the Falcon 9 flight with the Dragon spacecraft . It does not include times for the experimental descent and landing attempt of the first stage booster at Landing Zone 1, a former Atlas missile launch facility about 9 miles (15 kilometers) south of pad 39A."

This could be interesting.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-38937141
"There is optimism that observations to be conducted during 5-14 April could finally deliver the long-sought prize."

http://eventhorizontelescope.org/index.html
"This new 1.3 mm VLBI detection confirms that short-wavelength VLBI of Sgr A* can and will be used to directly probe the event horizon of this black hole candidate: in short, Sgr A* is the right object, VLBI is the right technique, and this decade is the right time."

 

[Jonathan Scott]

Glad to see that the first SpaceX launch from pad 39A went well. Dragon is in orbit and Falcon first stage successfully landed back on land. View of landing from the camera on the first stage was amazing!

 

[1oldman2]

Here's one side of the "crewed first mission" argument for Orion.
http://spacenews.com/expert-panel-supports-study-to-accelerate-first-crewed-sls-mission/
"Former astronaut Tom Stafford compared the proposal to the first flight of the space shuttle, which also carried a crew, a decision he said he was involved with while an astronaut in the early 1970s. He noted that many of the elements of the SLS, including its engines and solid rocket boosters, previously flown on the shuttle or other vehicles and thus are fairly well known."

An excellent article on the orbit decision.
http://spaceflight101.com/juno-to-remain-in-elongated-capture-orbit/

http://www.icrar.org/planet_bernard/
http://www.astrowatch.net/2017/02/minor-planet-named-bernard.html
"A minor planet in the Solar System will officially be known as Bernardbowen after Australian citizen science project theSkyNet won a competition to name the celestial body. The minor planet was named by the International Centre for Radio Astronomy Research (ICRAR) in honour of their founding chairman Dr Bernard Bowen.

Bernardbowen was one of 17 minor planets to be christened today. Other newly named minor planets include Kagura, after a traditional Shinto theatrical dance, and Mehdia, which is equivalent to the Arabic word for gift."
http://www.minorplanetcenter.net/iau/ECS/MPCArchive/2017/MPC_20170212.pdf

 

[nikkkom]

I think the proposal for manned 1st flight is a desperate attempt to forestall SpaceX making SLS obsolete.

 

[mfb]

Former astronaut Tom Stafford compared the proposal to the first flight of the space shuttle, which also carried a crew

It carried a crew because it needed one to land the Shuttle.

There is nothing wrong with making a study, as long as it is open for both results. Or all three, if we consider a faster second manned launch as separate option.

I think the proposal for manned 1st flight is a desperate attempt to forestall SpaceX making SLS obsolete.

According to the article, they expect the launch "2019 or 2020", which means 2020 or maybe later. Even if the commercial crew programs have some more delays they are probably faster. SLS will have a larger payload, it can do missions no existing rocket can do.

 

[1oldman2]

I don't believe competition between SLS and F-Heavy will be much of an issue, either one has niche abilities that the other doesn't share.
A couple of years old but this is a fair comparison of the two systems.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2737/1

A useful info-graphic on SLS, note the time difference on a Europa mission.
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NAC-July2014-Hill-Creech-Final.pdf

More Mars business coming up.
http://h2m.exploremars.org/

This is one cool Rocket, can't wait to see how "It's a test" performs.
http://spaceflight101.com/rocket-labs-electron-enters-first-launch-campaign/
"Electron’s first mission has been aptly named "It’s a Test" by the Rocket Lab workforce. "We put it out to our team to name the vehicle," said Beck. "We wanted to acknowledge the intensive research and development Electron has undergone and that continues with these test flights."

Rutherford is the first electric-pump fed engine to reach the launch pad, also the first Kerosene/Liquid Oxygen engine to use 3D printing for all primary components. Two brushless DC motors, each the size of a soda can, drive the engine’s turbomachinery, spinning at up to 40,000RPM. Thirteen batteries installed on the rocket’s first stage deliver over 1 Megawatt of power during just over two and a half minutes of first stage operation, relying on advanced Li-Polymer battery technology."

Another perfectly good mass UFO sighting ruined.
http://spaceflight101.com/falcon-9-deorbit-burn-seen-over-iran-kuwait/

http://spacenews.com/nasa-authorization-bill-calls-for-orion-iss-study/
"WASHINGTON - A NASA authorization bill passed by the Senate Feb. 17 would require NASA to reexamine the feasibility of using the Orion spacecraft to transport crews to and from the International Space Station.

Flying Orion to ISS would involve a number of challenges, including adapting it to an unspecified alternative launch vehicle. The first uncrewed Orion test flight, Exploration Flight Test 1 in 2014, launched on a Delta 4 Heavy, but there are no plans to human-rate that vehicle. Orion is currently not designed to carry a crew until its second launch on the SLS, no earlier than 2021, although NASA announced last week it is studying putting a crew on the first SLS launch, scheduled for late 2018. That mission would likely to slip to 2019 or 2020 if NASA does decide to fly that mission with astronauts on board."

 

[nikkkom]

SLS will have a larger payload, it can do missions no existing rocket can do.

No one has a mission even in planning stages which requires SLS capabilities. Thus: moot right now.

At the glacial speed NASA designs large missions, by the time such mission would be approved and start bending metal, SpaceX is likely to have a much bigger rocket.

 

[mfb]

NASA press conference tomorrow, probably some exoplanet atmosphere(s).

No one has a mission even in planning stages which requires SLS capabilities.

The Europa multiple-flyby mission would need much longer to reach Jupiter with other rockets.
The asteroid redirect mission would be problematic without SLS.
Mars return would be possible with SLS, but challenging to impossible with single rocket launches of other rockets.
A manned mission to fix/upgrade JWST (if necessary) would be possible with SLS but not with existing or near-future rockets.

SpaceX is likely to have a much bigger rocket.

Only if the ITS works out, or if they start a completely new project. Falcon Heavy will be limited to ~50 tons to LEO.
ITS is a daring concept. If it works as they imagine, it will start a new era of spaceflight. But systems rarely work as well as they are first envisioned. It could get more expensive, less reliable, ... as imagined.

 

[rootone]

Another perfectly good mass UFO sighting ruined. "

Well it was unidentified until somebody identified it.
can never be sure with them extraterrestrials.

 

[1oldman2]

The Europa multiple-flyby mission would need much longer to reach Jupiter with other rockets.

That mission just entered Design Phase, I see its scheduled for launch on the Block 1B, SLS.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/nasas-europa-flyby-mission-moves-into-design-phase
"On Feb. 15, NASA's Europa multiple-flyby mission successfully completed its Key Decision Point-B review. This NASA decision permits the mission to move forward into its preliminary design phase, known as "Phase B," beginning on Feb. 27."

 

[nikkkom]

The Europa multiple-flyby mission would need much longer to reach Jupiter with other rockets.
The asteroid redirect mission would be problematic without SLS.
Mars return would be possible with SLS, but challenging to impossible with single rocket launches of other rockets.

None of these are even in planning at the moment. Moot.

A manned mission to fix/upgrade JWST (if necessary) would be possible with SLS

It would be pointless. Just build another JWST and launch it.

ITS is a daring concept. If it works as they imagine, it will start a new era of spaceflight. But systems rarely work as well as they are first envisioned. It could get more expensive, less reliable, ... as imagined.

In private business, if you fail at a huge project, you go bankrupt. That's the reason why private business-driven economy is better that government-driven one: bad ideas are "punished", they are not perpetuated for many decades.

Indeed, SpaceX can fail if they embark on a project which turns out to be a bad idea. It's not a bug, it's a feature.

In comparison, NASA got used to initiating failing projects and surviving them.

 

[rootone]

For the time being though, only the Russian launch system is considered to be more or less safe
as a vehicle for transporting humans to LEO.
It is OK-ish, but I sure most Russians would like to see something more inspiring.

 

[mfb]

None of these are even in planning at the moment. Moot.

We must have different a understanding of "planning". NASA is actively developing the Europa mission, and there are plans for the asteroid mission as well.

It would be pointless. Just build another JWST and launch it.

It got way too expensive for that. Sure, a second one is cheaper than the first one, but not that much cheaper.

Indeed, SpaceX can fail if they embark on a project which turns out to be a bad idea. It's not a bug, it's a feature.

Some things turn out to be good ideas - but only much later. Without governments funding fundamental research without immediate profit, we wouldn't have the applications that come later.

 

[nikkkom]

Without governments funding fundamental research without immediate profit

What SpaceX is doing is not fundamental research. It's "ordinary" (hehe) engineering in a well-known area.

They just do it better than others in their field.

 

[nikkkom]

We must have different a understanding of "planning". NASA is actively developing the Europa mission, and there are plans for the asteroid mission as well.

Yes, regarding Europa mission, I missed that it recently was approved and is now being worked on. Current launch projection NET 2022.

Unless SpaceX massively fails in its rocket program, Falcon Heavy should be able to send some 12 ton spacecraft to Jupiter. Europa Flyby Mission people will need to invent a reason why they can't use it.

 

[mfb]

What SpaceX is doing is not fundamental research. It's "ordinary" (hehe) engineering in a well-known area.

I think sending a Dragon to Mars is beyond what most companies would do. If the knowledge gained from that mission will make profit at all, it is significantly more than 10 years into the future.

Unless SpaceX massively fails in its rocket program, Falcon Heavy should be able to send some 12 ton spacecraft to Jupiter. Europa Flyby Mission people will need to invent a reason why they can't use it.

It will still take longer than with SLS, or the spacecraft has to be lighter. The difference is smaller than the difference to existing rockets, but we are comparing two future rocket systems here, and SLS wins in terms of launch capability. If you ask "what missions cannot be done without rocket X", the answer is "there are no such missions" for nearly all existing rockets. That doesn't mean nearly all existing rockets are useless. They can be better for some missions and worse for others.

 

[nikkkom]

It will still take longer than with SLS, or the spacecraft has to be lighter.

I have hard time imagining what exactly they can put into the spacecraft to even approach "12 tons to Jupiter" limit of FH. Cassini/Huygens was 5.7 tons fully fueled.

 

[mfb]

FH payload to Mars is 13.5 tons. Jupiter would need at least 2 km/s delta_v more. 12 tons would need at least one fly-by in the inner solar system, probably more, a direct mission has to be much lighter.

More mass makes everything easier. You need less R&D for mass savings, you can add more instruments, a larger antenna, more fuel for a longer mission, more redundancy in various components, ...
Cassini/Huygens had a mass of 5.7 tons because they didn't have a rocket to make it heavier. It launched with the most powerful rocket available at that time.

 

[1oldman2]

More "who would have guessed?"
http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/2885.htm
"The formation of sedimentary dunes requires the presence of grains and of winds that are strong enough to transport them along the ground. However, comets do not have a dense, permanent atmosphere as on Earth. Nonetheless, the OSIRIS camera on board the Rosetta spacecraft showed the presence of dune-like forms approximately ten meters apart on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. They are found on the lobes of the comet as well as on the neck that connects them. Comparison of two images of the same spot taken 16 months apart provides evidence that the dunes moved and are therefore active."

http://spacenews.com/safety-panel-raises-concerns-about-crew-on-first-sls-launch/
WASHINGTON - A NASA independent safety committee wants NASA to provide a "compelling rationale" for putting astronauts on the first flight of the Space Launch System, a proposal NASA is currently studying.

 

[mfb]

http://www.spacex.com/news/2017/02/27/spacex-send-privately-crewed-dragon- spacecraft -beyond-moon-next-year - for a manned trip around the Moon. No landing, and probably no orbit either - just a free-return trajectory (similar to what Apollo 13 did). Currently announced for "late 2018", so probably in 2019 or maybe 2020.

Unexpected, but a great example of "why not?". SpaceX is developing the crewed version of Dragon anyway, they want to launch NASA astronauts to the ISS with Falcon 9 and Dragon in 2018. They want to launch FH this summer. Put a Dragon on a FH and you can go to Moon.

If the mission works out, the two undisclosed passengers will be the first people to leave low Earth orbit since 1972 (Apollo 17) and will become number 25 and 26 to fly to the Moon. Depending on their precise orbit they might set a record for the largest distance from Earth, and they will certainly set the quite obscure record "largest distance to the second nearest other human" as Apollo missions to Moon always had a crew of three.

For SpaceX, it is a nice new source of funding, but it is also a massive PR boost.Will we see more of those missions? I can imagine that. The price for the mission is not public, but it is probably somewhere at 200-400 millions (all numbers in USD). There are 1800 billionaires worldwide who could book such a mission without too much trouble. The Dragon capsule has 7 seats, so if you are fine with a crowded capsule for about 5 days, costs per seat are "just" 30 to 60 millions. It is estimated that 200,000 people have a net worth 30 millions or more, I didn't find numbers in between that and the billionaires. If just 0.1% of those who can afford a trip want to go to Moon, SpaceX will have a busy schedule.

 

[1oldman2]

Wow, interesting reading, I hadn't come across that news. Thanks for the link.

Unexpected, but a great example of "why not?".

This is what makes SpaceX so interesting, the bureaucracy has been for the most part replaced with something far more productive. I hope to be alive twenty years from now to see how far they go. (I think people will be surprised)

For SpaceX, it is a nice new source of funding, but it is also a massive PR boost.

I couldn't agree more, priceless PR.

Here is another take on SpaceX's plans.
http://spaceflight101.com/spacex-announces-lunar-dragon-missions/

Cool "Stuff"
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=6758

 

[1oldman2]

This is guaranteed to be interesting.
https://livestream.com/viewnow/Vision2050

 

[mfb]

This is guaranteed to be interesting.
https://livestream.com/viewnow/Vision2050

Any idea when it is?

 

[1oldman2]

Any idea when it is?

It seems to be ongoing over the last several days, not sure when the next segment begins but the playback option let's you catch up on what has been missed in the mean time.

http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/news/nr/stars-ripped-apart-black-holes-1.684679
"Astronomers based at the University of Sheffield have found evidence that stars are ripped apart by supermassive black holes 100 times more often than previously thought."

 

[1oldman2]

The XMM-Newton and NuStar are certainly paying off lately.
http://www.caltech.edu/news/temperature-swings-black-hole-winds-measured-first-time-54263
"Supermassive black holes can be voracious, devouring gas, dust, and other material pulled in by their gravity. These feeding frenzies can get messy: the disks of matter surrounding black holes can fling out ultrafast streams of hot gas, or "winds," that blast through their host galaxies. These winds, according to new measurements of a nearby supermassive black hole obtained with NASA's Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array (NuSTAR) telescope, can heat up and cool down in the span of just a few hours."

NASA has released a ton of software, here's a PDF catalogue if anyone is interested.
https://software.nasa.gov/

 

[mfb]

Pictures of micrometeorite damage - open surfaces have a hard time in space. Hubble has been in space since 1990, but the solar panels are from the first service mission December 1993, 23 years ago. Vanguard 1, the oldest object still in orbit (and the first with solar panels), has been in space for 58 years - imagine how those panels looks now.

 

[1oldman2]

http://spaceflight101.com/akatsuki-venus-orbiter-loses-infrared-vision-after-electrical-fault/
"Japan’s Akatsuki spacecraft in orbit around Venus has suspended operating two of its five scientific cameras after the craft’s electronics units showed considerable degradation in December, just one year after the mission’s arrival at Venus following an extended odyssey through the solar system."

http://www.astrowatch.net/2017/03/an-extraordinary-celestial-spiral-with.html
"An international team of astronomers, led by Hyosun Kim in Academia Sinica Institute of Astronomy and Astrophysics (ASIAA, Taiwan), has found a way of deriving the orbital shape of binary stars that have orbital periods too long to be directly measured. This was possible thanks to an observation toward the old star LL Pegasi (also known as AFGL 3068) using the state-of-the-art telescope, the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA). This work appears in the journal Nature Astronomy this week, and is selected as the cover story of the March issue."

 

[1oldman2]

Here's a highlight of the NASA meeting, cool concept.
http://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/V2050/pdf/8250.pdf