SPACE - random thread about space stuff

[jztemple2]

Debuted at Musk's briefing last night

[Kraken]

I wonder which deep space rocket will launch first: Starship/Super Heavy or Artemis 1. I further wonder if this environmental review is the gubmint's way of making sure NASA flies first. SpaceX is ready to go.

[jztemple2]

I wonder which deep space rocket will launch first: Starship/Super Heavy or Artemis 1. I further wonder if this environmental review is the gubmint's way of making sure NASA flies first. SpaceX is ready to go.

Well, conspiracy theories aside , there's quite a difference between the first flight of the Starship/Super Heavy, which will do one orbit and then land/crash back at Boca Chica, and Artemis 1 which will spend 6-7 weeks going out the moon and doing orbits there. And "ready to go" is relative, I don't believe SpaceX has even done a full up fueling test of the stack.

Also this Texas launch site environmental impact study, as I understand it, is taking so long because of the nearby populated areas. The FAA has already cleared the Starship/Super Heavy to launch from the Kennedy Space Center.

Seriously though, I really doubt there is any kind of conspiracy. I doubt John Q. Public really is going to be influenced by who launches first.

[raydude]

I wonder which deep space rocket will launch first: Starship/Super Heavy or Artemis 1. I further wonder if this environmental review is the gubmint's way of making sure NASA flies first. SpaceX is ready to go.

Well, conspiracy theories aside , there's quite a difference between the first flight of the Starship/Super Heavy, which will do one orbit and then land/crash back at Boca Chica, and Artemis 1 which will spend 6-7 weeks going out the moon and doing orbits there. And "ready to go" is relative, I don't believe SpaceX has even done a full up fueling test of the stack.

Also this Texas launch site environmental impact study, as I understand it, is taking so long because of the nearby populated areas. The FAA has already cleared the Starship/Super Heavy to launch from the Kennedy Space Center.

Seriously though, I really doubt there is any kind of conspiracy. I doubt John Q. Public really is going to be influenced by who launches first.

I agree, no conspiracy really. At the end of the day, it's all about which rocket is the best space taxi for a given payload. And that choice is done on a case-by-case basis. Nobody in the business of awarding contracts really cares which space taxi launches first.

[Kraken]

I wonder which deep space rocket will launch first: Starship/Super Heavy or Artemis 1. I further wonder if this environmental review is the gubmint's way of making sure NASA flies first. SpaceX is ready to go.

Well, conspiracy theories aside , there's quite a difference between the first flight of the Starship/Super Heavy, which will do one orbit and then land/crash back at Boca Chica, and Artemis 1 which will spend 6-7 weeks going out the moon and doing orbits there. And "ready to go" is relative, I don't believe SpaceX has even done a full up fueling test of the stack.

Also this Texas launch site environmental impact study, as I understand it, is taking so long because of the nearby populated areas. The FAA has already cleared the Starship/Super Heavy to launch from the Kennedy Space Center.

Seriously though, I really doubt there is any kind of conspiracy. I doubt John Q. Public really is going to be influenced by who launches first.

I agree, no conspiracy really. At the end of the day, it's all about which rocket is the best space taxi for a given payload. And that choice is done on a case-by-case basis. Nobody in the business of awarding contracts really cares which space taxi launches first.

I meant that to be tongue-in-cheek but see that it didn't come off that way.

[jztemple2]

I meant that to be tongue-in-cheek but see that it didn't come off that way.

Probably tomorrow when we read the posts again we'll go "oh, now I get it!"

[Kraken]

I meant that to be tongue-in-cheek but see that it didn't come off that way.

Probably tomorrow when we read the posts again we'll go "oh, now I get it!"

If only I'd added a . We're going to see two moon rocket launches this year, and they're both going to be awesome. Even if SpaceX achieves another fast-fail, watching that stack climb for the first of many times will be amazing.

[Daehawk]

[Isgrimnur]

Oops

A Falcon 9 second stage has been tumbling uncontrollably in space since 2015, but experts say its seven-year journey is coming to an end, as the 4-ton rocket part is expected to hit the Moon in a matter of weeks.

Oops

A Falcon 9 rocket is not going to, in fact, strike the Moon next month. Instead, it's probably a Chinese rocket.
...
It was an engineer at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Jon Giorgini, who realized this object was not in fact the upper stage of a Falcon 9 rocket. He wrote to Gray on Saturday morning explaining that the DSCOVR spacecraft's trajectory did not go particularly close to the Moon, and that it would therefore be a little strange if the second stage strayed close enough to strike it. This prompted Gray to dig back into his data, and identify other potential candidates.

He soon found one—the Chinese Chang'e 5-T1 mission launched in October 2014 on a Long March 3C rocket. This lunar mission sent a small spacecraft to the Moon as a precursor test for an eventual lunar sample return mission. The launch time and lunar trajectory are almost an exact match for the orbit of the object that will hit the Moon in March.

"In a sense, this remains 'circumstantial' evidence," Gray wrote. "But I would regard it as fairly convincing evidence. So I am persuaded that the object about to hit the moon on 2022 Mar 4 at 12:25 UTC is actually the Chang'e 5-T1 rocket stage."

[raydude]

I meant that to be tongue-in-cheek but see that it didn't come off that way.

Probably tomorrow when we read the posts again we'll go "oh, now I get it!"

If only I'd added a . We're going to see two moon rocket launches this year, and they're both going to be awesome. Even if SpaceX achieves another fast-fail, watching that stack climb for the first of many times will be amazing.

Sorry, it just hit a little close to home as I'm on two projects where we've had to look hard at launch vehicles and it's all driven by costs and availability of the launch vehicle. No conspiracies there. Now, regarding aliens...

[jztemple2]

New video of primarily SpaceX activities at the Kennedy Space Center, with a bit about Blue Origin there as well. At about 3:06 they show some holes or other modification to the Liquid Hydrogen tank at Launch Complex 39 Pad A. That was my hydrogen tank . Spent many an hour around, under and sometimes on the top of that tank. I even watched the launch of a Titan rocket from the next pad south from the top of the tank back in the late seventies... not exactly kosher of course

[Zaxxon]

[Hrothgar]

Also this Texas launch site environmental impact study, as I understand it, is taking so long because of the nearby populated areas. The FAA has already cleared the Starship/Super Heavy to launch from the Kennedy Space Center.

I was under the impression that significantly more people live along the Florida space coast than the combined Brownsville/Boca Chica area.

[jztemple2]

Also this Texas launch site environmental impact study, as I understand it, is taking so long because of the nearby populated areas. The FAA has already cleared the Starship/Super Heavy to launch from the Kennedy Space Center.

I was under the impression that significantly more people live along the Florida space coast than the combined Brownsville/Boca Chica area.

It has to do with the nearness of civilian populations to the launch site. Port Isabel is about six miles north-northwest of the launch site. There are several thousand people there. And South Padre Island with its own population and lots of visitors is that same distance directly north. And Mexico is only a mile south. The launch trajectory from Boca Chica is about directly east, so that would be only about ninety degrees angle from South Padre Island.


The nearest large population to the Launch Complex 39A at the Kennedy Space Center is about twelve miles. Additionally launch trajectories would be in almost the opposite direction from populated areas.

[Hrothgar]

I'm all for caution, but six miles is greater than the ground range for a 10 MT nuclear warhead. Even a catastrophic launch explosion on something as big as Starliner shouldn't be anywhere near that.

[Max Peck]

I would guess that there is more that goes into an environment assessment than just the lethal radius of an explosion on the pad.

[Hrothgar]

Yes, I was just using an extreme example to make a point. I guess I'm the only one around here who does that.

[jztemple2]

I would guess that there is more that goes into an environment assessment than just the lethal radius of an explosion on the pad.

The FAA assessment addresses issues such as launch accidents. If you have a Booster+Starliner stack ascending from the pad, then something goes wrong and the stack starts going off course, their version of Range Safety would detonate charges to* destruct the vehicle. Pieces of the stack would then follow ballistic trajectories towards impact on land or water. Calculations would have to be made to assess how quickly the stack could go off course towards a populated or sensitive area and how quickly the range safety destruction command could be issued and implemented. Then a whole series of calculations would have to be made to determine the probabilities that a piece of the stack could actually hit one of those populated or sensitive areas.

Really, I'd be almost surprised if the FAA would even consider clearing a full up Booster+Startship stack to launch from Boca Chica.

* UPDATE: I made an assumption regarding those explosive charges. Some internet searching would seem to indicate that SpaceX might be using some sort of rapid depressurization system instead.

[jztemple2]

Turns out I was right, it is explosive charges on the booster.


I found this article published back in March of 2021.

The FTS consists of two white boxes that house small explosive devices outside the propellant tanks, which upon command would detonate and trigger the breakup of the vehicle in the event of any deviations from the planned flight path. The point of installation in the timeline of the previous test campaigns of Starships SN8 and SN9 have both shown a consistent pattern of when the FTS gets installed, relative to the test flight occuring.


Starship SN10’s flight termination system seen on Starship with the rising moon.

For cryogenic proof tests and static fires, the square brackets where the bombs go can be seen to be empty. When those tests are completed, the white boxes appear in those spaces. Careful observers of Starship testing now rightfully take their installation as a clear indication that a flight is imminent, such as is the case with SN10 now.

The FTS is meant to reduce but will not completely eliminate the risk of any wayward debris in the event of a deviation. Obviously the small explosive devices will not completely vaporize the vehicle, and the winds of the launch day will determine which way debris falls.

It is interesting to note that small secondary explosions have been heard after the hard landings of SN8 and SN9; it is thought that these are the FTS devices detonating in the heat of the inferno.

As I understand it, SpaceX uses an Autonomous Flight Termination System, meaning there is no ground control Range Safety element. The vehicle decides, using it's own internal brain, if the flight is going badly and the vehicle needs to be destructed. This of course adds another issue to be considered by the FAA regarding the reliability and parameters of that onboard decision.

[Max Peck]

Based on how Musk's other autonomous systems work, everything should be fine as long as the AFTS doesn't detect a stop sign.

[jztemple2]

Based on how Musk's other autonomous systems work, everything should be fine as long as the AFTS doesn't detect a stop sign.

Actually from further reading it seems that the Autonomous Flight Termination System was something developed jointly by DARPA, NASA and the Air Force for use by all unmanned launches. I don't know if they also use it on the manned Dragon launches.

[jztemple2]

Making spaceflight history: John Glenn orbited Earth 60 years ago today

The United States' human spaceflight program got a much-needed shot in the arm 60 years ago today.

On Feb. 20, 1962, NASA astronaut John Glenn launched from Florida's Cape Canaveral inside a tiny capsule named Friendship 7. The Mercury spacecraft circled Earth three times, ultimately splashing down near the Turks and Caicos Islands four hours and 55 minutes after liftoff.

It was the United States' first-ever crewed orbital spaceflight — a milestone that the nation's Cold War rival, the Soviet Union, had notched 10 months earlier, with the landmark mission of Yuri Gagarin.

[Daehawk]

[jztemple2]

Well, that spoiled it. I always assumed they went at night

[jztemple2]

[Zaxxon]

Webb mirrors now shine in one spot. Getting there!

[Max Peck]

Russia places extraordinary demands on OneWeb prior to satellite launch

Russia has taken the extraordinary step of placing multiple demands on OneWeb and its government ownership prior to a planned launch of satellites Friday aboard a Soyuz rocket.

The mission, to loft 34 broadband communications satellites into orbit, was to be the 14th launch of OneWeb satellites. The company presently has 428 satellites in orbit, out of a planned total of 648 for its initial constellation. OneWeb had hoped to begin commercial service around the world later this year.

The vast majority of those satellites have launched on Russian Soyuz rockets, one of the few boosters in the world with spare lift capacity for a megaconstellation at this time. Another six Soyuz launches were scheduled for later this year to complete the OneWeb constellation.

But those plans were thrown into question by Russia's invasion of Ukraine last week. OneWeb, which is jointly owned by the United Kingdom government and an Indian multinational company, has not offered any public comments since the invasion.

However, as Western companies have broken off ties with Russian interests, some UK members of parliament have said it would be inappropriate for OneWeb to continue launching on Russian rockets. On Tuesday, the UK government issued a statement, saying in part, “It is right for questions to be raised about future space cooperation with Russia following the illegal invasion of Ukraine." The government was continuing to consider its next steps.

All the while, Russia's main space corporation, Roscosmos, had been preparing the Soyuz rocket for launch, even rolling it out to the launch pad this week with the 34 satellites bundled into the payload fairing at its tip. But on Wednesday the chief of Russia's space program, Dmitry Rogozin, issued two demands before acceding to the launch. One, he said, OneWeb must guarantee that its satellites will not be used for military purposes. And two, the UK government must give up its ownership of OneWeb.

[Max Peck]

I'm sure that everyone is shocked and surprised by this unexpected news.

Finally, we know production costs for SLS and Orion, and they’re wild

NASA Inspector General Paul Martin serves as an independent watchdog for the space agency's myriad activities. For nearly the entirety of his time as inspector general, since his appointment in 2009, Martin has tracked NASA's development of the Space Launch System rocket and Orion spacecraft.

Although his office has issued a dozen reports or so on various aspects of these programs, he has never succinctly stated his thoughts about the programs—until Tuesday.

Appearing before a House Science Committee hearing on NASA's Artemis program, Martin revealed the operational costs of the big rocket and spacecraft for the first time. Moreover, he took aim at NASA and particularly its large aerospace contractors for their "very poor" performance in developing these vehicles.

Martin said that the operational costs alone for a single Artemis launch—for just the rocket, Orion spacecraft, and ground systems—will total $4.1 billion. This is, he said, "a price tag that strikes us as unsustainable." With this comment, Martin essentially threw down his gauntlet and said NASA cannot have a meaningful exploration program based around SLS and Orion at this cost.

[jztemple2]

Russia places extraordinary demands on OneWeb prior to satellite launch

Just as a bit of content, many/some/all of the OneWeb satellites are built in our county, in a facility about ten miles from me.

[jztemple2]

A video that is part of the weekly NASAspaceflight.com update on SpaceX and New Glenn activities

[Unagi]

Well, it's a whole new world now...
Russia Shares CGI Video of Dismantled ISS as Tensions Rise Amid Ukraine Conflict


This is just so sad... The idea that they are producing CGI videos like this right now is just so weird, and - well, un-astronaut-like.

I guess it's just their stupid TV studio making the images, etc... but their whole attitude is so hard to accept.

[Daehawk]

NASA opens sample taken from the Moon 50 years on

NASA knew "science and technology would evolve and allow scientists to study the material in new ways to address new questions in the future," Lori Glaze, director of the Planetary Science Division at NASA Headquarters, said in a statement.

Dubbed 73001, the sample in question was collected by astronauts Eugene Cernan and Harrison Schmitt in December 1972, during the Apollo 17 mission—the last of the program.

[jztemple2]

A more technical article, but very interesting: Methalox race likely to be won in 2022, but winner not yet clear

Right now, several methane-fueled rockets are in a race to orbit. With Starship from SpaceX, Vulcan from United Launch Alliance (ULA), and Neutron from Rocket Lab, all of the most active US launch providers are committed to using methalox-methane and oxygen.

Upcoming launchers such as New Glenn from Blue Origin and the Terran family from Relativity Space are also on the way toward flight, while the Chinese ZhuQue-2 rocket from Landspace may even be a favorite to fly before any of the American vehicles.

The answer to why methane-fueled rockets have not flown before is a matter of chemistry and engineering complexity. But as new designs prioritize reusability as well as in-site resource utilization (ISRU) for missions to Mars, the combination of methane and oxygen has become the standard for next-generation launch vehicles.

[jztemple2]

SpaceX was founded twenty years ago today. A couple of articles: 8 ways that SpaceX has transformed spaceflight and The 20 most memorable SpaceX missions from its 1st 20 years in photos.

[Isgrimnur]

Spoiler:

[stessier]

Should have shared this earlier:

James Webb Telescope timeline.

https://planet4589.org/space/misc/webb/time.html

Focusing is looking good!

NASA releases first image from an in-focus Webb telescope

Today, NASA announced that it has successfully completed two further steps to align the mirrors of the Webb telescope. The resulting performance indicates that Webb will meet or exceed its design goals. "So far, we're finding that the performance is as good [as] or better than our most optimistic projections," said Lee Feinberg, the Webb optical telescope element manager.

The announcement was accompanied by a spectacular image that showed a sharp focus on the target star and included many in-focus galaxies in the backdrop.

[Zaxxon]

Sweeeeeet.

[jztemple2]

Latest update from Florida:

[Daehawk]

Concrete is important.

[Jaymann]

I watched a depressing video where they originally predicted the Kepler telescope would find up to 50 earthlike planets. They ended up with 2 maybes.