Author: Inara Pey

Remarkable footage surfaced this week demonstrating what can happen when the static fire test (also referred to as a “hot fire test”) of a rocket booster’s engines goes awry.

Chinese private aerospace manufacturer Space Pioneer is developing a 2-stage, semi-reusable medium-lift launch vehicle bearing remarkable similarity to SpaceX’s Falcon 9 in form, flight systems and capabilities. Called Tiānlóng 3 (“Heavenly Dragon 3”), the first payload-carrying launch of the vehicle is scheduled for later in 2024, and ahead of that, the company has been carrying out a series of tests to ensure the vehicles is ready for flight, some of which I’ve covered in these pages.

On June 30th, at a test facility just outside the city of Gongyi, Henan province, the company was carrying out a static fire test of the core stage of the booster when the test stand apparently suffered some form of structural failure, releasing the rocket into an uncontrolled flight. Lifting off, the vehicle climbed into the air for several seconds before the on-board flight systems apparently shut down the motors. Tipping over as an angle, the vehicle then dropped back towards the ground, falling into a valley some 1.5 km from the test facility and exploding 50 second after breaking free of the test stand.

There were no reported causalities or fatalities in the wake of the explosion, but it was close enough to Gongyi to not only be filmed by residents, but also cause some degree of panic among people outside at the time, with video recordings on mobile telephones revealing people running as the rocket plummeted back towards the ground. Given the location of the test facility is so close to the city, the accident reflects the risks involved in siting such facilities close to population centres. With the growth of private sector space activities, local authorities have actively encouraged companies to operate within their districts with sizeable financial incentives in exchange for high-tech jobs and training for locals.

Static fire tests are routinely used by launch providers – the most famous probably being SpaceX – and can go wrong on the ground; SpaceX has suffered a number of Raptor 2 engine explosions during tests at its McGregor, Texas test facility. They have also loss Felcon 9 vehicles in static fire tests – the last being in 2020, and the most high-profile being in 2016, which also resulted in the loss of its Amos-6 satellite payload. However, this is perhaps the first static fire test to involve the lift-off of the rocket, all caught on camera by the public.

Space Pioneer itself is the leader in China’s expanding space sector, having already successfully flown its Tiānlóng 2 rocket. It’s new carrier has been selected by the Chinese government as a primary launch carrier for a mega constellation of communications / Internet satellites intended to rival Starlink. The first launch of the Tiānlóng 3 is expected to take place in September 2024 utilising new, purpose-built facilities located alongside the Chinese government’s Wenchang Spaceport.

Ariane 6 Maiden Flight Ready to Go

After four years of delays and issues, Europe’s Ariane 6 rocket is due to lift-off on its maiden flight at 18:00 UTC on July 9th. If successful, it will mark an end of Europe’s galling dependence on other launch providers – notably SpaceX – in order to get its payloads into space since the retirement of its former workhorse launcher, Ariane 5 in 2023 and the on-going issues with its smaller Vega-C launcher since 2022.

Billed as Europe’s most powerful rocket to date, Ariane 6 has its critics on account of it being an expendable launch system rather than including any form of reusability. However, it is an impressively capable vehicle: it can lift up to 1.65 tonnes to LEO, 11.5 to geostationary transfer orbit (GTO) and 8.6 tonnes to lunar transfer orbit (LTO), with polar / Sun-synchronous orbits (SSO) and geostationary orbit (GEO) also possible.

Comprising a 2-stage core supported by up to four strap-on boosters, Ariane 6 is designed to have a lower operational / launch cost per vehicle compared to Ariane 5, but its development costs have been somewhat higher dues to the need for it to have new launch facilities – Ariane 5 having been able to use the same facilities as early versions of the Ariane family. A major element of Ariane 6’s flexibility of use is the Vinci motor used with the rocket’s upper stage. This is a multi-use engine, capable of multi restarts, offering considerable flexibility in delivering payloads to orbit.

Whilst initially a payload launcher, Ariane 6 has the potential to become Europe’s first operational crew-capable launch vehicle. As I’ve previously reported, in 2022, vehicle developer ArianeGroup announcing they would be pursuing development of the Smart Upper Stage for Innovative Exploration (SUSIE), a reusable upper stage for the 64 (or later) variant of Ariane 6 (the “4” indicating the version of the rocket using 4 strap-on boosters.  SUSIE is a reusable multi-role upper stage capable of autonomous cargo operations or carrying five astronauts to low Earth orbit.

For its maiden flight, Ariane 6 will be performing a rideshare launch carrying multiple payloads. This will be followed by a second launch at the end of the year carrying French military payload. After that, a total of eight launches are currently scheduled for 2025. As will all Ariane launches, the vehicle will operate out of the Guiana Space Centre (Europe’s Spaceport), northwest of Kourou in French Guiana.

Resurs P1 Follow-up

In my previous Space Sunday I covered the disintegration of the decommissioned 6.5 tonne Russian Resurs P1 Earth resources satellite in its near-polar low-Earth orbit (LEO) on June 26th. It event triggered a shelter in place alert on the ISS against the risk of the growing debris cloud intersecting the space station in its orbit. While that threat did not materialise, the risk to satellites, spacecraft and space stations occupying LEO orbits will remain for several more weeks or months until the debris orbit decays.

Since the incident, LeoLabs, the New Zealand organisation specialising in orbital debris, has continued to track the remnants of Resurs P1 and gather additional data. In a preliminary report on their findings, they confirm the debris cloud is consistent with a “low intensity explosion”. This confirms the satellite was not destroyed by a high-energy impact such as would be caused in something like an anti-satellite (A-SAT) missile test.

This further confirms findings from the US Space Command immediately following the event that Resurs P1 was not the target of an unannounced A-SAT test of the kind Russia carried out in 2021 (and which also put the ISS at potential risk). Instead, it points to the idea – as I noted previously – that the satellite’s destruction was the result of some form of vehicle failure – although exactly what remains subject to speculation. One explanation is the vehicle was not properly decommissioned and volatiles on board exploded; however, images of the satellite taken by HEO, an Australian company that uses commercial satellites to image other space objects prior to the loss of Resurs P1, have shown its solar arrays were never fully deployed; as such, these may have caused some form of structural failure with the satellite, triggering its disintegration.

LeoLabs also indicated that in the time since the break-up, the debris cloud has growing to 250 trackable pieces in a cloud extending up to 500 km altitude and as low as 420 km.

Artemis: NASA Review confirms SpaceX Unlikely to be Ready Before 2028/29

In Space Sunday: landing humans on the Moon and an ISS taxi, I noted how SpaceX, despite have won (bullied their way into?) the original contract to supply NASA with a vehicle intended to land crews on the Moon for at latest one mission in the Artemis programme – the so-called Human Landing System (HLS), in NASA parlance – would almost certainly mission the 2026 target date for that mission.

This has long been suspected / hinted at – but the fact NASA kept the report, produced in December 2023, out of the public eye for six months is not encouraging. In fact, the only reason the report is known about is thanks to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) referencing it in their latest (June 2024) update on Artemis.

The report in question comes from NASA’s end-of-2023 Key Decision Point (KDP) review, one of a number of critical reviews NASA undertakes with its missions. The KDP is a means to assess whether or not a mission is on course to meet its intended targets.

In this case, the December KDP rated SpaceX as only have a 70% chance of being in a position to meet another critical milestone, the Lunar Orbit Checkout review, by February 2028 – between 18 and 24 months after the date by which it must be completed in order for Artemis 3 to meet its target launch date of September 2026.

Nor does the negative nature of the KDP end there: the February 2028 date for the Lunar Orbit Checkout review must be met if Artemis 3 is to launch at all in 2028. In other words, NASA’s own review believes that SpaceX has a 1-in-three chance of not being ready to launch their HLS on an actual lunar mission until early 2029.

In addition, the GAO report additionally casts double on whether SpaceX can meet its targets with its fixed-price contract, noting that such are the challenges the company has yet to overcome, costs are likely going to rise beyond the agreed US $2.89 billion for  SpaceX HLS development.

The December 2023 KDP goes some way to further explaining why Jim Free, the man at NASA charged with overseeing the Artemis programme, is talking more and more openly about SpaceX – which has been additionally contracted to allow its HLS vehicle to be used in the Artemis 4 crewed lunar landing (at an additional US $1.15 billion to the company) – being completely bypassed in terms of the first crewed landing, and NASA potentially bringing forward the Artemis 5 mission using the HLS system being developed by a partnership led by Blue Origin, and which appears to be far ahead of SpaceX in terms of vehicle and systems development despite starting work on their revised lander some two years after SpaceX.

Of course, some may point to Blue Origin “delaying” SpaceX in their HLS development by seeking to overturn NASA’s decision to contract with SpaceX in 2020. However, whilst that objection (also mounted by the other potential HLS contract contender, Dynetics) did delay SpaceX’s ability to start on its contract – it only did so only for 95 days. Since then, SpaceX has precious little to show by way of even a mock-up of their lander, in contrast with Blue Origin who are already engaged with NASA on their vehicle’s interior design and layout.

Obviously, the Blue Origin partnership has its own challenges to overcome; as such, whether NASA would take the step of replacing Artemis 3 with Artemis 5 is open to question. However, were they to do so, it could potentially call into question the need to utilise SpaceX at all, given the overall impracticality of its lander without a properly-prepared landing zone on the Moon.

Gateway Station Animation

As well as the SpaceX HLS, Artemis involves a number of elements which have been increasingly been seen as questionable in their relevance to developing a human presence on the Moon.

One of these is the Lunar Gateway station, called simply “Gateway”, and intended to occupy a polar near-rectilinear halo orbit (NRHO) around the Moon ranging from 1,500 km over the lunar North Pole to 43,000 km over the South Pole, with an orbital period of around 7 days. NASA claim such an extended orbit will provide ease-of-access to the lunar Polar Regions, minimise disruption in Earth-Moon communications and provide experience in human space operations beyond the Earth / Moon system.

While it is important to minimise interruptions to Earth-Moon communications (such as caused by spacecraft passing around the far side of the Moon), whether an entire space station is required to do this rather than a couple of far cheaper communications satellites, is an entirely valid question. As is whether any of the stated objectives for Gateway will actually be achieved or justify the expense involved in developing and constructing it (due to be almost US $1 billion a year from 2025 onwards). Hence why Gateway has a long line of critics – including the likes of “Buzz” Aldrin, and former NASA Administrator Michael Griffin.

NASA’s Idea For A Space Station In Lunar Orbit Takes Humanity Nowhere. Orbiting the Moon represents barely incremental progress; the only scientific “advantages” to being in lunar orbit as opposed to low Earth orbit are twofold: 1. You’re outside of the Van Allen belts. 2. You’re closer to the lunar surface”, reducing the time delay … Gateway is a great way to spend a great deal of money, advancing science and humanity in no appreciable way.

– Astrophysicist Ethan Siegel, writing for Forbes, 2019

Even so, NASA remains committed to Gateway, specifying by the 2030s it will be around ¼ the size of the ISS and comprise multiple modules, including docking facilities for crewed lunar lander vehicles and the Orion vehicle. On July 2nd, the agency released a video animation of how Gateway is planned to look when complete. At just under 2 minutes in length, it reveals Gateway as an engineering marvel – but cannot overcome questions about the station’s value.