Space Stuff and Launch Info

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
Sign up Log in
1,679 replies · 204K views
Physics news on Phys.org
hutchphd said:
Happy Thanksgiving. For the TRUE space nerd

Another successful launch ... with "true" Rocket Science ...
Happy Thanksgiving.
 
JWST had a mishap in the integration with Ariane 5. Four days delay to check that vibrations didn't exceed specifications, now the launch is planned for December 22.
 
mfb said:
JWST had a mishap in the integration with Ariane 5. Four days delay to check that vibrations didn't exceed specifications, now the launch is planned for December 22.
Looks like the checkup results came back good.
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: DennisN, mfb and Borg
I realized it is less than a month to launch, which feels quite weird since I've been waiting for many years now for the JWST.

I'm extremely excited that it hopefully will be operational soon.

But I'm also unusually nervous about the launch.
I would become very disappointed if something bad happens!

Like I said to my friends: if an unmanned Mars mission failed, I would be sad, but rather quickly get over it. :). But if the JWST mission fails, I would be devastated.

I'll be biting my nails when the launch happens. :)
 
Last edited:
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: pinball1970
DennisN said:
I realized it is less than a month to launch, which feels quite weird since I've been waiting for many years now for the JWST.

I'm extremely excited that it hopefully will be operational soon.

But I'm also unusually nervous about the launch.
I would become very disappointed if something bad happens!

Like I said to my friends: if an unmanned Mars mission failed, I would be sad, but rather quickly get over it. :). But if the JWST mission fails, I would be devastated.

I'll be biting my nails when the launch happens. :)
I fear your nails will have a half year of suffering.
The launch is the least risky part of the JWST deployment, the real challenge is the eventual deployment of the sunshade, the secondary mirror and the primary mirror segments. NASA has a poor record in this work, thinking back to the Galileo high gain antenna, even recently was not able to get two LUCY solar panels to deploy fully. The JWST needs to unfold multiple mirror segments, position a super precise secondary mirror and deploy a big sun shade. It is a 3D assemblage and I don't think there is much experience in that process.
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: DennisN and pinball1970
etudiant said:
I don't think there is much experience in that process.
I reckon that could be down to the accountants. A test run with dummy equipment in a low orbit would still cost around $2k per kg (is that the best estimate these days?). If that worked perfectly then it would probably be described as a waste of money.
 
Astronomer advent calendar

webb.png
23 hours until the launch of IXPE (Imaging X-ray Polarimetry Explorer), Dec 9 at 6:00 UTC. SpaceX will have a live webcast. At 325 kg to low Earth orbit it's an extremely light payload to launch on a Falcon 9 (~16-22 tonnes to low Earth orbit), but that way it can be launched into an equatorial orbit directly. After launch the second stage will coast until it reaches the equator, and then do a ~3 km/s inclination change.

Half an hour until the launch of Soyuz MS-20, two tourists and one professional astronaut flying to the ISS for 12 days. It will be the first dedicated tourism flight to the ISS, previous tourists were individual seats when there was an opportunity. On board: Yusaku Maezawa, who also booked the dearMoon mission around the Moon with SpaceX for 2023, and Yozo Hirano, documenting the flight.
Axiom 1 will follow the same approach in February, three tourists and one professional astronaut visiting the ISS.
 
Last edited:
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: pinball1970 and DennisN
JWST not before December 24

Starliner now aims at May 2022 for its second uncrewed test flight. It was already on the launch pad in August, hours away from a planned launch. This is a repetition of the failed flight in December 2019. Two and a half years (or more with future delays) to fix the issues and try again. In the time between these test flights Dragon has flown 5 crews and 2 more are planned.
 
mfb said:
JWST not before December 24

Starliner now aims at May 2022 for its second uncrewed test flight. It was already on the launch pad in August, hours away from a planned launch. This is a repetition of the failed flight in December 2019. Two and a half years (or more with future delays) to fix the issues and try again. In the time between these test flights Dragon has flown 5 crews and 2 more are planned.
Could it be down to poorer Engineering or to more stingy accountants?
 
From what I see it's largely a management issue. Once you replace the engineers-became-managers with career managers they'll hire even more career managers who have no understanding of the thing they manage. They do understand costs, and cutting expenses is a great way to spend even more money later, fixing the problems it introduced. You also can't keep the best engineers that way, of course - they go to SpaceX, Rocket Lab and so on.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/feat...-from-737-max-woes-to-challenge-amazon-spacex

https://www.mondaq.com/aviation/959...but-and-the-role-of-governance-in-spaceflight
According to the Board Expertise analysis, using CGLytics Governance Data and Analytics tools in the software platform, the Company almost completely lacks Technology expertise on its Board. Only recently elected director, Steven M. MollenKopf (elected April 27, 2020), has the professional and industry experience to qualify as a technology expert.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeings-other-big-problem-fixing-its-space-program-11610773201
 
Reply
  • Like
  • Love
Likes   Reactions: sophiecentaur and Tom.G
mfb said:
From what I see it's largely a management issue. Once you replace the engineers-became-managers with career managers they'll hire even more career managers who have no understanding of the thing they manage. They do understand costs, and cutting expenses is a great way to spend even more money later, fixing the problems it introduced. You also can't keep the best engineers that way, of course - they go to SpaceX, Rocket Lab and so on.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/feat...-from-737-max-woes-to-challenge-amazon-spacex

https://www.mondaq.com/aviation/959...but-and-the-role-of-governance-in-spaceflighthttps://www.wsj.com/articles/boeings-other-big-problem-fixing-its-space-program-11610773201
The faint hope is that this debacle may cost Boeing so much money that they recognize that a course change is essential.
Sadly the more likely outcome is that the huge loss (they have received over 80% of the contract money, but still have to perform, now on their own dime) will push the board to slash investment in this space.
 
While watching the pre-launch program on NASA this morning, there was an interview with a spokesperson from the Tide company talking about the cleaning products that they're designing for NASA in order to efficiently clean clothing during a long trip to Mars with minimal water usage. I never thought about that before. :wideeyed:
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: hutchphd
JWST launch countdown
2 days, 15.5 hours until the launch of the most ambitious space telescope ever built.

It passed the launch readiness review. The next major event will be the transport to the launch site tomorrow.
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: DennisN, dlgoff, berkeman and 1 other person
Ariane 5 with JWST has rolled to the launch pad.

The weather forecast looks good. 22 hours 40 minutes left.

----

In spaceflight, 2021 will be remembered as the year where commercial space tourism started. Sure, the Russians flew a few people to the ISS before when there was an open seat, but this year we got dedicated commercial missions.
  • Virgin Galactic/SpaceShipTwo made a suborbital tourism flight May 22
  • Blue Origin/New Shepard made a suborbital tourism flight July 20
  • SpaceX/Dragon made an orbital tourism flight September 15-18
  • Russia/Soyuz launched an actress and a movie director to the ISS October 5-17
  • Russia/Soyuz made a dedicated tourism flight to the ISS December 8-20
From nothing to five, using four different spacecraft , within one year.

----

SpaceX has set a new company record with three launches within three days - one per launch pad. Out of 31 flights this year only two had a new booster, everything else was reusing existing boosters. The most recent flight also achieved the 100th successful booster recovery.
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: OmCheeto, DennisN and Borg
mfb said:
If you have $100/month disposable income, you probably pay less tax than the average taxpayer. Your contribution would be even smaller.

All these projects are cheap per person and day. There are many of them, of course.
Divide the highest ITER cost estimates by 2 billion (population of participating countries) and you get $10 per person, or ~0.1 cent per day over 25 years. For the option to have a very clean energy source in the future? Build two of them!

The US and many European countries spend about 3% of the federal/country budget on research. We could double science funding if everyone would be fine with paying 3% higher taxes. In the US that would be about $1.2 per person and day on average, in Germany it would be something similar but estimating the number is complicated.
I'd happily pay that. Okay, I am biased, because my income is from this budget item...
This post has aged very well. With ref to Webb and Luvoir. I don't want to dilute the Webb thread but I thought this was a great comment.
 
An off-topic discussion has been placed in Moderation. Please keep the discussion on-topic for this thread. Thanks.
 
Update -- the off-topic (for this thread) discussion about funding for space exploration has been deleted and the members notified. If you want to discuss that topic, please start a new thread in GD. Thanks.
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: dlgoff, Tom.G, hutchphd and 1 other person
1967 had 139 orbital launches, out of these 120 were successful. Both numbers were records for over 50 years.
2021 had 146 orbital launches, out of these 135 were successful.

Today's rockets tend to be larger on average (even though 1967 had the maiden flight of the Saturn V), and most of the flights are done by more reliable rockets. The failures are largely coming from start-ups trying to reach orbit the first time (8 of the 10 failures last year).
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Borg
Video of Blue Origin NS-19 from the passenger perspective - the suborbital tourism flight in December.

8:50 capsule is closed
17:50 takeoff
20:20 they unbuckle and float around in the cabin
22:50 back to the seats
~26:10 parachute deployment
27:40 touchdown
35:30 unbuckling

Here is the outside view

----

After the first successful launch in November last year Astra is now trying to rapidly increase the launch rate: One rocket is being prepared in Florida for a launch in the next few days and another one in Alaska for a February 20 launch. After that they have at least one launch planned for March, April and May each.

Rocket Lab and SpaceX had almost a full year between their first successful flights and the next launch.
 
Last edited:
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Stavros Kiri, Oldman too and berkeman
sophiecentaur said:
Much less of a fuss to re-enter from sub-orbital compared with re-entry from orbit. Less potential energy to get rid of and no kinetic energy.
Although for a higher suborbital flight the g forces associated with a ballistic re-entry can be very high. The flight profile of manned launches is adjusted to mitigate these possible high g reintries if abort is necessary part way to orbit. The unsuccessful Soyuz 7K-T No.39 launch to the Salyut space station produce more than 20g for the cosmonauts during their return.

/
 
Reply
  • Wow
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: anorlunda, sophiecentaur, Borg and 1 other person
My understanding of the issue is the trade- off between vertical and horizontal speed and the increasing air density closer to the surface. One does not want to hit the dense atmosphere too soon coming down.
Shephard had 11 gees max on reentry after a peak speed of 8200 mph. Glenn had 6 gees reentry (8 gees on the way up) after orbital re-entry
I know that the crew dragon follows a more shallow climb to orbit than is maximal for this reason, but I don't find a quantitative treatment and I haven't worked it out myself.
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Klystron and sophiecentaur
hutchphd said:
My understanding of the issue is the trade- off between vertical and horizontal speed and the increasing air density closer to the surface. One does not want to hit the dense atmosphere too soon coming down.
Shephard had 11 gees max on reentry after a peak speed of 8200 mph. Glenn had 6 gees reentry (8 gees on the way up) after orbital re-entry
I know that the crew dragon follows a more shallow climb to orbit than is maximal for this reason, but I don't find a quantitative treatment and I haven't worked it out myself.
That's pretty reasonable but g is not the only factor because what you have written doesn't consider how dissipation of the total orbital kinetic energy can be dealt with. It seems that either the craft has to get hot or rocket braking has to be used for orbital re-entry. All that is in addition to your idea that the entry trajectory has also to be tailored to mitigate against g forces.

I remember suggesting that a shuttle could just glide gently down to the surface, at a suitable angle, without any fireworks and glowing heat shields. (PF a few years ago). I was put right on the grounds that a slow re-entry would still need to heat up the craft and that doing it slowly would give a lower skin temperature at the expense of cooking the crew because the heat would have time to get into them. As the cost of lifting a payload decreases, there is more chance of carrying enough fuel to avoid the heating problem.
 
mfb said:
8:50 capsule is closed
17:50 takeoff
20:20 they unbuckle and float around in the cabin
22:50 back to the seats
~26:10 parachute deployment
27:40 touchdown
35:30 unbuckling
Sigh, I'm dense sometimes, and I can't keep the different competing space tourism companies straight. I read those times as military time (Army brat and Medic here), and thought, "Wow, what a boring 9 hour wait just sitting there before takeoff. At least they had a couple hours of weightlessness...".

Then I saw the last three not-so-military times at the end of the timeline, and realized my mistake... o0)
 
Reply
  • Haha
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Stavros Kiri, Klystron and hutchphd
sophiecentaur said:
but g is not the only factor because what you have written doesn't consider how dissipation of the total orbital kinetic energy can be dealt with. It seems that either the craft has to get hot or rocket braking has to be used for orbital re-entry.
Absolutely the energy either gets radiated, ablated or shock-convected for passive re-entry. The other factor is the aerodynamic lift available to all spacecraft since Mercury (and Vostok) because the center of mass is off the center line. I think the Apollo did a dipsy-doodle coming home make the re-entry aiming requirements less stringent and the period of high radiative loss more effective. Sounds a lot like rocket science to me.
I fear it will stand as the pinnacle of human achievement for some centuries to come...hope not
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sophiecentaur