The long-awaiting NASA Expedition 72 / SpaceX Crew 9 mission launched for the International Space Station (ISS) on the 28th September, 2024, with some media still quite wrongly calling the launch a “rescue” mission.
The mission continues to be dubbed as such most likely because it is an attention-getting headline, after the recent farrago with the Crew flight Test (CFT) mission involving Boeing’s CST-100 Starliner. While the latter made a safe uncrewed return to Earth – albeit it with some additional thrusters issues and an unexpected software reboot – on September 9th (See: Space Sunday: Starliner home; New Glenn update), the vehicle’s crew of Barry “Butch” Wilmore and Sunita “Suni” Williams remained aboard the space station, allowing the media to continue to play the “astronauts stranded in space!” tune.
Leaving aside the sensationalism of reporting, the Expedition 72 / Crew 9 mission is still something of a landmark mission for SpaceX, being the first time a crewed launch has ever taken place from Space launch Complex 40 at Canaveral Space Force Station, adjoining the Kennedy Space Centre. Referred to as SLC-40 (or “slick-40”) in US Air Force parlance when it was used by the military, from 1965 through 2007 been the launch point for payload missions using the Titan launch vehicle family.
In 2007 SpaceX leased the facility, and it has since become the highest-volume launch facility for the company’s Falcon 9 vehicles, hosting over 200 launches (the majority of these being non-direct revenue generating Starlink launches). Since 2023, SpaceX has been upgrading SLC-40 for launches of the Dragon capsule system, with the emphasis on cargo launches to the ISS, but also crewed launches once the necessary access, support and emergency escape systems, etc., had been integrated into the launch facility.
Crew 9 had originally been due to launch from Kennedy Space Centre’s Launch Complex 39A (LC-39A), until now the only facility available to SpaceX for launching crewed missions, and also the Falcon Heavy launch system. However, as the launch date for Crew 9 continued to be pushed back from mid-August through September, it risked conflicting with the launch of NASA’s Europa Clipper mission using Falcon Heavy, and which has to take place in October. So, to avoid scheduling issues, NASA and SpaceX agreed to move the Crew 9 launch over to SLC-40.
Crew 9, carrying NASA astronaut Nick Hague and cosmonaut Aleksandr Gorbunov lifted-off at 17:17 on September 28th, the launch having been delayed from this target date by Hurricane Helene. The flight proceeded smoothly, with the first stage of the rocket making a safe boost-back and landing some 8 minutes after launch, and the upper stage correctly delivering the Crew Dragon capsule Freedom to its initial orbit and the start of a 28-hour “chase” to rendezvous with the ISS, that latter being due at approximately 21:30 UTC on Sunday, September 29th.
However, whilst all has proceeded smoothly with the Crew Dragon vehicle, an anomaly with the Falcon 9’s upper stage de-orbit burn meant it splashed down outside of its designated target area in the Pacific Ocean, prompting SpaceX to suspend Falcon 9 launches until the reason for the deviation to be investigating, per Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) requirements.
As to why Crew 9 is not a “rescue mission”, the explanation is simple: the mission is a part of NASA’s schedule of ISS crew rotations and not any specifically result of the issues pertaining to Boeing’s Starliner or the fact that Williams and Wilmore being “stranded in space”. In fact, the two astronauts have always had the means to return to Earth, either using the Starliner vehicle or the SpaceX Crew 8 Dragon vehicle.
The former was demonstrated in June 2024, when Wilmore and Williams and the rest of the ISS crew were ordered into their respective vehicles in readiness for a possible emergency Earth return due to the risk of the ISS being hit by debris from the break-up of a Russian satellite in an orbit which intersected that of the space station (see: Space Sunday: of samples and sheltering).
The latter was shown following the return of the Crew 8 mission aboard Crew Dragon Endeavour, when the additional seated rigged within the vehicle’s pressurised cargo area for use by Williams and Wilmore, had a return to Earth been required prior to the arrival of the Crew 9 mission.
Which is not to say either option was either optimal or entirely safe; ergo, the need for an abundance of caution on NASA’s part, coupled with the need to disrupt crew rotations to the ISS as little as possible, the decision to fly Crew 9 with only 2 on board and thus “reserve” the remaining two seats for Wilmore and Williams made the most sense, both ensuring they had an assured flight home, and could complete the planned Expedition 72 crew rotation on ISS in place for astronauts Stephanie Wilson and Zena Cardman.
SpaceX and FAA
In the meantime, SpaceX has entered into an aggressive head-to-head with the Federal Aviation Authority over both launches of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy earlier in the year and overall SpaceX’s Starship operations out of Texas.
In short, the FAA is seeking to impose fines on SpaceX to the tune of US $633,009 due to SpaceX having failed to comply with the requirements of licenses issued for the launches of both Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, which the FAA states violated the launch licenses it granted for the them on the basis of changes SpaceX made to the launch operations. The changes, relating to a new control centre and propellant farm, were subject to license modifications for the respective launches, but the FAA state SpaceX submitted the requests for modifications too late for them to be properly processed.
In response to this, SpaceX claims it sought to have the licenses modified for the launches in question, but the FAA is at fault for failing to process the modifications in time for the launches to proceed as scheduled, and that as SpaceX judged the changes to not be safety issues, decided to go ahead with them nevertheless.
The Starship issues are equally complicated, with the FAA stating the license for to carry out any further Starship launches is being held-up on two main counts.
The first is that SpaceX is in violation of Texas state and federal requirements relating to the water deluge system used during Starship / Super Heavy launches out of Boca Chica. SpaceX dispute this – although they are also fighting US $148,378 in fines levied by the US Environmental Impact Agency for violations in the use of said system. The second is that SpaceX has failed to carry out required sonic boom analysis relating to its plans to return the Super Heavy booster to the launch facility for “capture” during the next Starship flight. Both of these are viewed by the FAA as “safety” issues SpaceX must address prior to any license being granted.
For its part, SpaceX and its CEO have aggressively hit back at the FAA, claiming the agency’s senior management is “lying”, and that FAA Administrator Mike Whitaker should be fired by Congress. In particular, with the SpaceX CEO stating the FAA is targeting SpaceX over “petty issues” relating to safety whilst “neglecting real safety issues at Boeing”. Whilst uncalled for, these comments came at a time when FAA Administrator Mike Whittaker was testifying to the House Transportation Committee in relation to Boeing’s ongoing aviation issues; as a result, Rep Kevin Kiley (R-Calif.) used the aviation-related hearing to accuse the FAA of “undue scrutiny” where SpaceX is concerned, and questioning whether the FAA treat SpaceX “equally” with Boeing.
In reply, Whittaker agreed that companies should be held to the same standards of safety – and pointed out that in this respect, Boeing has both a safety management system (SMS) programme in place and (however unwillingly) operates a whistleblower programme as a part of their SMS. By contrast, and despite 20+ years of operations, SpaceX has consistently failed to implement either.
The comments around Boeing have also prompted some SpaceX fans to question why the FAA is so quick to “ground” SpaceX but has not done the same with Boeing’s Starliner. The answer to this is simple: the FAA has jurisdiction over all commercial launches from US soil, but is not responsible for licensing or overseeing US government launches or the spacecraft craft carried on these missions. As Starliner’s issues were purely spacecraft related, decisions relating to the vehicle’s safety fall under the remit of NASA, not the FAA.
How Many Natural Moons does Earth Have?
The above should be a simple question to answer – “one”. However, between now and November 27th, 2024 one could argue the answer should be “two”, thanks to the arrival of a tiny asteroid called 2024 PT5.
Measuring roughly 10 or 11 metres across, the asteroid is technically referred to as a near-Earth object (NEO) – an asteroid in an elliptical orbit close to the Sun and on a path that frequently cross Earth’s as we move around the Sun. Officially “discovered” (observed for the first time) on August 7th, 2024, it passes around the Sun just over once a terrestrial year, but at a low relative velocity when compared to Earth’s.
Thus, at 19:54 UTC on September 29th, it will pass just outside of Earth’s Hill Sphere at a velocity low enough for it to temporarily pass into a short-order orbit around Earth. However, because the asteroid will be just beyond the Hill Sphere at the time of “capture”, it will resume its passage around the Sun on November 25th, 2024, after 57 days passing around Earth and the Moon, not quite completing a full orbit. Sadly, during the encounter, it will be too small to observe with anything but the largest of optical telescopes.
This is actually not the first time our planet has – at least briefly – has had a “mini-Moon” – and such events might actually be relatively frequent; the last recorded event like this was in 2020, and that as more and more attention is focused on NEOs, it is possible that more and more might be found to make similar temporary orbits around Earth. One of the more interesting questions around 2024 PT5 is whether it started life as an asteroid or whether it might have originated on the Moon and was blasted out into space as part of a significant impact at some point in the Moon’s history. After this little loop, orbital calculations show that the next time it comes close enough to enter a temporary orbit in this manner will be in 2055.
And where did the Moon Come From?
For the last 40 years, the going theory for the origin of the Moon has been that it was formed from material resulting from a very large collision between Earth and another large body some 60 million years after the solar system formed.
The theory was a consensus decision reached by planetary scientists at a 1984 conference called to discuss findings from studies of the rocks returned by the Apollo mission and held in Hawai’i. The basis for the consensus was that chemical and isotopic analysis of the returned material showed that it was similar to the rock and soil on Earth: calcium-rich and basaltic in nature and was of a near-identical age to similar rocks found on Earth.
However, according to planetary scientists from Penn State Behrend College, this might not be the whole story: there is a possibility the Moon might actually have actually formed elsewhere and was captured during a close encounter between the young Earth and a terrestrial binary.
In this theory, there were two objects in a binary orbit and orbiting the Sun in an orbit very similar to Earth, and most likely formed at around the same time (thus meaning their composition would be similar). Over time as the respective obits of the binary system and Earth came into proximity to one another, Earth’s gravity separated the binary, snagging one of the objects, which became our Moon.
As evidence of this, the researchers point to the Moon being more in line with the Sun than with Earth’s equator, suggesting it originated in solar orbit. They also note that such situations are not uncommon in the solar system – Neptune’s moon Triton, for example, is most likely a captured Kuiper Belt object. In addition, the team’s modelling show that a binary-exchange object of the Moon’s size and mass interacting with the Earth’s gravity would likely start in an elongated elliptical orbit as it is initially captured by the Earth, which overtime would become increasingly circularised to a point where it became tidally locked with Earth: always keeping the same face towards the planet. After this, tidal evolution would be reversed, causing the object to slowly start to move away from Earth once more.
Much of this matches the behaviour of the Moon, which is now roughly 382,400 kilometres from Earth and moving away at the rate of 3 centimetres a year. This might not sound like a lot, but it is far enough for the Moon to be entering what will, in the centuries ahead, become an increasing tug of war between Earth and the Sun for control of the Moon – one which the Sun will eventually win.
Even so, and as the researchers note, their work is not conclusive whilst raising new questions:
No one knows how the moon was formed. For the last four decades, we have had one possibility for how it got there. Now, we have two. This opens a treasure trove of new questions and opportunities for further study.
Professor Darren Williams, Penn State Behrend College
China Unveils Lunar Spacesuits
China has unveiled the new generation of its space suit intended for use in their upcoming lunar exploration programme.
The suit appears to be a further Feitian space suit developed for extravehicular activities aboard the Chinese space station; however it remains unnamed, with the China Manned Space Agency (CMSA) launching a competition to name the new suit.
Unveiled at the third Spacesuit Technology Forum hosted by the China Astronaut Research and Training Centre, with the press release highlighting the red strips on the suits, stating they are inspired by the famous “flying apsaras” of Dunhuang art (upper arms), and rocket launch flames (legs). It is said to be equipped with a multifunctional integrated control panel that is easy to operate, cameras for recording close-up and long-distance scenes and made from protective materials that can effectively shield astronauts from the lunar thermal environment and lunar dust.
Alongside the presentation of the new suit, CMSA released a video promoting the new suit and featuring taikonauts Zhai Zhigang and Wang Yaping. Zhai made history in the Shenzhou-7 mission as China’s first person to conduct a spacewalk; he also flew Shenzhou-13 with Wang, who became China’s first female taikonaut to complete a tour of duty aboard the Tiangong space station. Their use as models for the new suit has spurred speculation that they might be part of China’s first crewed lunar landing – although given the first landing will be before 2030, this is purely an assumption.
Inara Pey: Living in a Modemworld 