Space Sunday: ESA’s Hera and catching a rocket in mid-air

Seconds from capture: Super Heavy Booster 12 descends between the “chopsticks” of the Mechazilla lifting system of the tower from which it and Ship 30 launched less than 8 minutes previously, as the arms close around it in readiness for a safe capture during the fifth integrated flight test of SpaceX’s starship / super heavy launch system. Story below. Credit: SpaceX via the NSF.com livestream.

Hera: Return to Didymos

On November 24th, 2021, NASA launched the Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) mission, a vehicle aimed at testing a method of planetary defence against near-Earth objects (NEOs) that pose a real risk of impact, by smashing an object into them and using kinetic energy  to deflect them from their existing trajectory.

To achieve this, the spacecraft was both a science probe and impact device, and it was launched to rendezvous with the binary asteroid 65803 Didymos (Greek for “twin”), comprising a primary asteroid approximately 780 metres across, and a smaller companion called Dimorphos (Greek: “two forms”). These sit within a heliocentric orbit which periodically cross that of Earth whilst also reaching out beyond Mars , which occupy a heliocentric orbit that periodically crosses that of Earth. On reaching the pair, DART smashed into Dimorphos, successfully altering its orbit around Didymos.

A SpaceX Falcon 9 lifts-off from Cape Canaveral Space force station’s SLC-41 on Monday, October 7th, 2024, carrying the European Space Agency’s Hera asteroid mission to the binary asteroids Didymos and Dimorphos. Credit: ESA/SpaceX

I covered the launch of the mission in Space Sunday: a DART plus JWST and TRAPPIST-1 updates, and the aftermath of the impact two years ago in Space Sunday: collisions, gamma bursts and rockets. Since then there has been much reported on what has happened to Dimorphos in the wake of the impact, but scientists have been awaiting a planned follow-up mission to the Didymos pairing which could survey the outcome up close. And that mission is now underway, courtesy of the European Space Agency (ESA).

Launched at 14:52:11 UTC on Monday, October 7th from Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida atop a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket, ESA’s Hera mission made it away from Earth just ahead of the arrival of Hurricane Milton. Lift-off marked the start of a two-year journey for the 1.1 tonne solar-powered spacecraft – also called Hera, after the mythological Greek goddess, rather than the name being an acronym –, as it heads first for Mars, which it will pass in March 2025 at a distance of between 5,000 and 8,000km. Taking the opportunity to test its science instruments in studying the tiny outermost Martian moon, Deimos as it does so, Hera will use the Martian gravity well to swing itself onto a trajectory so it can rendezvous with Didymos in December 2026.

Hera spacecraft design. The locations of the different payload elements are indicated (AFC = Asteroid Framing Cameras; TIRI = Thermal InfraRed Imager; PALT = Planetary ALTimeter; SMC = Small Monitoring Cameras. Credit: Michael, Kuppers, et al, ESA

The cube-shaped vehicle will have a primary mission of six months orbiting the Didymos pair, split into 5 phases:

  • Initial characterisation (6 weeks): determine the global shape and mass/gravity together with the thermal and dynamical properties of both asteroids.
  • Payload deployment (4 weeks): release two small cubesats, Juventas and Milani. The former will attempt to land on Didymos to conduct direct surface and sub-surface science, the latter will gather spectral data on the two asteroids and the surrounding dust cloud resulting from the DART impact.
  • Detailed characterisation (6 weeks): metre-scale mapping of the asteroids and determination of thermal, spectral, and interior properties.
  • Dimorphos observations (6 weeks): High-resolution investigations of a large fraction of the surface area of Dimorphos, including the DART impact crater.
  • Experimental (6 weeks): study the morphological, spectral, and thermal properties of Dimorphos.

Overall, the mission is designed to accuracy access the overall success of the DART mission if deflecting Dimorphos in its orbit around Didymos (and thus the effectiveness of using kinetic impact to deflect NEOs threatening Earth with an impact) and to characterise both asteroids to help us better understand the composition, etc., of typical NEOs, so that the data obtained might help further refine plans for potential future asteroid redirect missions.

Hera, with the crescent Earth to one side, seen from the SpaceX Falcon 9 upper stage following vehicle separation and prior to solar array deployment. October 7th, 2024. Credit: SpaceX/ESA

One of the major elements of the mission has been the development of sophisticated guidance and mapping software which will allow Hera, using a series of compact sensor systems, to autonomously construct a map of the Didymos system and the space around it. It will then use this map to determine for itself the safest orbital trajectories around the asteroids to avoid impacts with any remaining rock and dust debris remaining in orbit around both bodies from the DART impact, and of a sufficient size to damage it in a collision.

Following launch, Hera successfully separated from the upper stage of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle and called ESA’s mission control to confirm it was operating correctly and ready to start crucial operations such as deploying its solar panels. In November 2024, the vehicle will perform a “mid-flight” adjustment to better align its trajectory to Mars.

Starship Flight 5

October 13th saw the launch of the fifth Starship / Super Heavy combination from the SpaceX facilities at Boca Chica – and the first attempt to bring a booster back to the launch pad and catch it using the “chopsticks” of the Mechazilla mechanism on the launch tower.

A lot of people – myself included – severely doubt(ed) the ability of both the long-term viability of the idea of catching boosters and launch vehicles out of the air, or whether this flight could prove the concept. Credit falls where due, and for this flight we were proven wrong.

A drones-eye via of the starship / super heavy launch facility, Boca Chica, Texas as IFT-5 propellant loading is underway. Note the clouds of liquid oxygen forming as a result of venting from the propellant feeds and vehicle tank vents. Credit: SpaceX livestream

The launch came at 13:25 UTC, with the ignition of the 33 Raptor 2 motors lifting the roughly 5,000 tonne mass of the combined Ship 30 and Booster 12 into the morning skies above south Texas. All 33 motors had a good clean burn, and the stack quickly gained altitude. At 2m 40s after launch, and approximately 50km altitude, the majority of the engines on the booster shut down and the six motors on Ship 30 ignited in the “hot staging” burn ahead of separation. Following separation, the booster immediately commenced a manoeuvre to steer away from the starship, in readiness to commence a flight back towards the launch pad.

This started the critical phase of Booster 12’s flight. Initially it continued to gain height ballistically, reaching an altitude of approximately 100 km whilst performing a “boost back” engine burn to slow its ascent and then start a fall back towards the launch site. The manoeuvre was completed with a level of accuracy such that SpaceX confirmed they would proceed with the “return to base” and attempted booster capture. Had the boost-back been off, the capture phase would have been abandoned and the booster allow to make a controlled splashdown in the Gulf of Mexico.

Boost back: with the hot staging ring a bright dot at the bottom of the image, Booster 12 fall back towards Earth heading towards the launch site. Credit: SpaceX livestream

There followed a series of visible pulses from the booster as it purged excess vapour from this primary propellant tanks while the three central motors gimballed to direct their thrust and steer it away from the jettisoned hot staging ring falling below it. Canting over to being close to horizontal, the booster descended to some 10 km altitude, racing back towards the launch facilities with a speed of 2,860 km/h, before the inner ring of 10 motors fired committing it to an initial braking manoeuvre.

At this point, and abort and splashdown was still possible, but the guidance system on the launch tower was working perfectly, allowing the booster to home into it. At 5km and still travelling at over 1750 km/h the 13 motors that have been firing all shut down, the booster gradually righting itself and decelerating through 1200 km/h before all thirteen re-fired in a final deceleration move before the inner ring of ten engines shut down and the three centre engines took over at at 1 km altitude to steer the booster in for capture.

With propellant vapours also burning form the mid-point vents, Booster 12 approaches the launch tower in readiness for capture. Credit: SpaceX livestream

The final part of the descent witnessed flames rising along two sides of the booster. The first, and larger of the two appeared to originate at the Quick Disconnect ports at the bottom of the booster (the connectors for loading propellants into the booster). The second appears part-way up the booster, possibly at vent ports for the main propellant tanks. This may have been ignited by flames from the lower fire reaching around the vehicle and setting vapours from the vents alight. Neither fire affected the vehicle’s performance as it slowed rapidly and descend precisely between the Mechazilla “chopsticks”, although it did actually come quite close to striking the tower in the process.

At precisely the same time, the “chopsticks” started to close on either side of the booster such that once it was vertical, the arms were close enough for it to gently lower itself onto them using four hard points around its hull (called “pins”, and specifically designed to allow the “chopsticks” take the booster’s unladen weight when raising / lowering it), which came to rest precisely on “shock absorbers” running along the length of the arms, designed to dissipate the weight of the booster as it dropped onto them. At this point, the Raptor engines shut down, and because of the fire, the onboard fire suppression system appeared to activate.

Even so, the fire rocket continued for several minutes, giving rise to fears of a possible post-capture explosion, but vent valves at the top of the booster were opened, allowing any remaining propellant vapours in the header tanks (smaller propellant tanks used for the final decent and capture) to be released away from the vehicle, greatly reducing the rick of explosion, and the vehicle remained intact on the launch tower.

In all, a remarkable achievement for a first attempt. Kudos to SpaceX.

However, the booster’s successful capture just under 8 minutes after launch wasn’t the end of the flight. As Booster was making its return, Ship 30 continued on its way to orbit, reaching a peak altitude of some 211 km as it cruised half-way around the world.

As it passed across Africa, the vehicle started a slow decent back into the atmosphere, passing over the tip of southern Madagascar as it gently dropped from 119 km to 115km. At around 100m altitude, it started to show the first indications of plasma built-up due the frictions created as it pushed the air molecules around it against their neighbours in the increasing atmospheric density, signs which quickly grew in intensity.

Plasma flow around the side of the starship as it passes through the re-entry interface and enters into the period of maximum dynamic stress during descent. Thanks to Starlink, transmissions from the vehicle were largely uninterrupted during the re-entry phase. Credit: SpaceX livestream

At around 75 km altitude, the vehicle entered the period of peak heating – the roughly 10 minute period when the plasma generated around the vehicle reaches its highest temperatures. It was during the period during IFT-4 in June 24, that the starship started to suffer significant burn-through issues and structure loss with one it its aft aerodynamic flaps, and which continued through its decent, destroying pretty much all of the flap in the process. Not of this was evident at this point with Ship 30.

As re-entry progressed, propellant from the header tanks in the vehicle started to be pumped through the three motors that would be used during the final phase of the flight in a “chill down” process to get them down to the desired temperature for full ignition.

At 47 km altitude, and slightly lower than the previous flight, one of the aft flaps on Ship 30 (top left) shows evidence of burn-through along the hinge mechanism. Whilst showing there is is still an issue with the hinges, this time the burn-through did not result in the partial loss of the entire flap. Credit: SpaceX livestream

It was after the period of peak re-entry heating, as the vehicle entered the period of maximum  dynamic stress on its structure that the first hints of plasma burn-through began to make their presence visible on one of the two aft flaps (at roughly 48 km altitude), although there was no visible sign of large pieces of the flaps disintegrating, as had been the case in June.  Transmissions did break up at this point, resuming as the vehicle entered aerodynamic fee-fall (the “bellyflop”), which showed all four flaps functioning despite the burn-through damage to one.

With less than a kilometre to fall, the three Raptors ignited, and the vehicle tipped upright, and 1 hour 5 minutes after launch, it splashed-down at night, precisely on target in the Indian Ocean. There was around a 20-second period where the vehicle appeared to settle in the water prior to it exploding, the event caught via a remote camera on a buoy positioned a short distance from the target splashdown zone.

20 seconds after splashing down in the Indian Ocean and precisely on target, Ship 30 exploded, the moment caught by a remote camera mounted on a buoy anchored close the the landing zone. Even so, IFT-5 can be counted as nothing short of a successful flight. Credit: SpaceX livestream

The cause of the explosion has yet to be determined – but given that Starship isn’t actually designed to land on water, and the mix of super-heated engine elements and cold sea water isn’t a particularly good one, the explosion shouldn’t be surprising, and doesn’t negate the overall success of the flight.

There is still much more to do in testing this system – such as demonstrating these kinds of “return to base” flights and captures can be achieved consistently. There is also much that is questionable about the starship  / super heavy launch system as a whole, particularly in terms of crewed missions to Mars and even in supporting NASA’s Project Artemis lunar aspirations. However, none of this negates what is a remarkable first time achievement for SpaceX with IFT-5.

And here’s another view of the Booster 12 capture – from a camera mounted on the launch tower:

 Europa Clipper  Update

Previewed in my previous Space Sunday update (see: Space Sunday: Europa Clipper, Vulcan Centaur and Voyager 2), Europa Clipper, NASA’s mission to study the Jovian moon Europa, which had been due to lift-off on Thursday, October 10th, suffered a launch postponement courtesy of Hurricane Milton. The launch is now targeted for 16:06 UTC on Monday, October 14th for launch from Launch Complex 39A at Kennedy Space Centre, Florida.

Space Sunday: Europa Clipper, Vulcan Centaur and Voyager 2

Vulcan Centaur rises from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida, October 4th, 2024 during Certification Flight 2. Story below. Credit: John Kraus, via X, and captured at 5,000ft in a Cessna light aircraft

Update: October 6th: Two hours after this article was published, NASA announced launch operations for the Europa Clipper mission are standing down, and the launch postponed due to Hurricane Milton. A new target launch data will be announced once the hurricane has cleared the Florida Space Coast and any damage to facilities at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station’s SLC-41 launch pad assessed.

If all goes according to plan, October 10th should see the launch of the second of NASA’s Large Strategic Science Missions of the 21st century (formerly called Flagship missions, and the first having been the James Webb Space Telescope): Europa Clipper.

The launch will see a SpaceX Falcon Heavy carry a NASA space probe bearing the same name as the mission on the first leg of a 5.5 year journey to Jupiter to study the Galilean moon of Europa. In order to achieve this goal, the spacecraft will be directed towards Mars, which it will reach in February 2025. Using the Martian gravity as a brake, the spacecraft will fall back toward the Sun and encounter Earth again in December 2026, using our planet’s gravity to fling it out on a trajectory to reach Jupiter in April 2030.

On arrival at Jupiter, the vehicle will enter an initial orbit that will then be refined, allowing it to make some 44 fly-bys of Europa varying between just 25 km above the surface and 2,700 km. The reason fly-bys will be made rather than the craft entering orbit around Europa directly is large due to radiation. Europa lies well within Jupiter’s extreme and intense radiation belts, an environment so harsh that it would fry the spacecraft’s electronics and electrical component – notably the huge solar arrays which generate its power – in just a few months after its arrival.

An artist’s rendering of the Europa Mission Spacecraft. With the deployed solar arrays measuring 22 metres in total span, the 6-tonne probe is the largest robotic interplanetary mission NASA will have flown to date. Credit: NASA/JPL

In addition, the spacecraft is carrying a significant science payload which can gather data much faster than the communications system can transmit it to Earth; were it to be placed in orbit around Europa, the opportunities to transmit the data its has would be subject to a a range of limitations (such a when Jupiter is between the probe and Earth), risking data loss due to existing data being overwritten before it could be transmitted.

By taking up an orbit around Jupiter and simply swinging by Europa, the space craft may lose opportunities for gathering data, but it increases the time available for the successful transmission of the data it does collect safely. Rather than having mere minutes or hours in which to send information, the probe will have between 7 and 10 days at a time. Further, by orbiting Jupiter rather than Europa, the spacecraft “dips” in and out of the harshest radiation, rather than being subjected to it all the time,  thus preserving its electronics for much longer, and allowing it a primary science mission of an initial 3.5 years.

Generating model of Europa Clipper’s transit from launch to Jupiter. Credit: Phoenix777, via Wikipedia

To assist it whilst orbiting Jupiter, Europa Clipper will use 24 thrusters connected to a hypergolic propulsion system with 2.7 tonnes of propellants. Up to 60% of this mass will be used during the initial orbital insertion phase around Jupiter in April 2030, with the rest used in stabilising the spacecraft and orienting it during Europa fly-bys and communication periods with Earth to maximise data gathering and transmission.

The suite of nine instruments on the vehicle will be used to study Europa’s interior and ocean, geology, chemistry, and habitability. The science payload accounts for some 82 kg of the vehicle’s mass and includes a pair of imaging cameras operating in visible light wavelengths, and both a thermal imaging system and a near-infrared imaging system which will search for the likes of dynamic activity on the icy-covered surface of Europa (e.g. vents venting water and sub-surface material into space) and the distribution of organic material across the moon’s surface.

The vehicle also carries an instrument called REASON – the Radar for Europa Assessment and Sounding: Ocean to Near-surface (NASA still reign supreme in the acronym stakes!) – an ice-penetrating radar designed to characterise the 10-30 km (estimated) thick ice crust of the moon, seeking information on its composition and any indications of water pockets within it, any exosphere existing just above it as a result of venting, and – hopefully – reveal something of the nature of the upper limits of the liquid water ocean sitting under the lowest extent of the ice, between it and Europa’s rocky mantle.

Artist’s impression of Europa’s interior. The REASON instrument on NASA’s Europa Clipper will attempt to characterise the moon’s icy crust, including any water pockets in it, down to a depth of some 30km, possibly reaching the upper reaches of any liquid water ocean which might exist under the ice. Credit: Kelvinsong, via Wikipedia

Whilst it has launched some 18 months after ESA’s JuICE (Jupiter Icy Moons Explorer – see: Space Sunday: a bit of JUICE, a flight test & celebrating 50) mission, Europa Clipper will arrive in Jupiter orbit more than a year ahead of it by virtue of being launched atop a more powerful launch vehicle. In doing so, it will take over from the Juno mission as NASA’s lone research spacecraft orbiting Jupiter (the Juno mission is expected to come to an end in September 2025, the vehicle having exhausted the vast majority of its propellants, leaving only sufficient for it to make a controlled entry into Jupiter’s upper atmosphere and burn-up).

During its fly-bys of Jupiter, the Juno spacecraft has also been able to study the Galilean moons as well, and while the mission’s overall science goals have been very different to those of the Europa Clipper and JuICE missions, they are nevertheless somewhat foundational, helping both NASA and ESA better understand the environment in preparation for JuICE and Europa Clipper. Once both craft are in orbit around Jupiter, the respective science teams will work closely together, JuICE being tasked with studying Europa as well as the other two potentially water-bearing moons of Jupiter, Ganymede and Callisto.

Animation showing Europa Clipper’s arrival at Jupiter and subsequent orbits of the planet in order to fly-by Europa (coloured blue; with Callisto, the outermost of the Galilean moon in yellow, Io, the innermost in red and Jupiter in green). Credit: Phoenix777, via Wikipedia

In all, should the October 10th launch opportunity be missed (e.g. due to weather), the Europa Clipper launch window will remain open for a further 20 days.

Vulcan Triumphs despite SRB Anomaly

United Launch Alliance (ULA) completed the second launch of its new Vulcan Centaur rocket on Friday, October 4th, and despite a significant issue with one of its Northrop Grumman GEM-63XL solid rocket boosters (SRBs), the vehicle went on to ace the flight.

Vulcan Centaur is a ULA’s replacement for both the veritable Atlas and Delta families of launchers, and like them it is currently fully expendable. I covered its successful maiden flight for the vehicle, sending the ill-fated private lunar lander Peregrine One by in January 2024 (see: Space Sunday: lunar losses and delays; strings and rings). Following that flight, ULA had hoped to launch Vulcan again in April 2024, carrying aloft Tenacity the first of the Dream Chaser cargo space planes being developed by Sierra Space; however, delays with Tenacity’s final preparations now means this launch has been pushed back until at least March 2025. Instead, ULA decided to go ahead with flight designed to certify it for DoD launches, using a payload mass simulator in place of an actual payload.

Launch came at 11:25 UTC on October 4th, the vehicle lifting-off from Launch Complex 41 (SLC-41) at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in after around a 30-minute delay. After clearing the tower, it became obvious that the right-side GEM-63XL booster was suffering an anomaly: the exhaust plume was broader than it should have been and it appeared that ignited propellants might have been escaping the SRB just above the engine bell.  Then, roughly 37 seconds into the launch as the vehicle was about to commence its roll programme to pitch itself out over the Atlantic, and just before passing through clouds, the base of the right-side SRB disintegrated.

21 seconds from the pad, and the off-nominal burn of the right-side GEM-63XL SRB (indicated by large red arrow) can be seen in the form of an exhaust plume angling away from the lower side of the SRB (thin red arrow), opposed to the booster’s desired direction of thrust (short black arrow). Credit: I. Pey, using screen capture from ULA launch livestream. October 4th, 2024

On emerging from the cloud, cameras revealed the damaged SRB now had a very “off-nominal” exhaust plume, with pieces falling away as the launch vehicle continued its ascent. And here is where the overall robustness of the GEM-63XL came into play and the superb flight avionics and capabilities of the Vulcan Centaur were demonstrated. Rather than simply unzipping and exploding, taking out the entire rocket, as might reasonably be expected with the rocket was entering and passing through “max Q”, the period when it faces the maximum dynamic stresses imposed on its structure during ascent, the GEM-63XL held together and continued to provide at least some semblance of thrust all the way up to the engine cut-off point.

Meanwhile, the Vulcan Centaur sense the asymmetric thrust pushing it off of its flight trajectory and commenced compensating for it by gimballing the two Blue Origin BE-4 engines of the first stage and adjusting their thrust. At the same time, the vehicle started looking downrange and recalculating flight parameters in order to achieve a successful orbital insertion for its upper stage and payload. This entirely automated response also included calculating the likely drop-zone for the two SRBs following separation as a result of the off-nominal performance of the right side SRB.

Launch plus 44 seconds, the extreme exhaust plume from the right-side SRB now clearly visible, some 5 seconds after the base of the SRB apparently disintegrated. Credit: screen capture via ULA launch livestream, October 4th, 2024

This actually resulted in the rocket “holding on” to the two SRBs for 20 seconds beyond their expected release time. In doing so, this pretty much ensured both SRBs had sufficient upward momentum to complete their ballistic trajectory and then fall back to the Atlantic Ocean without exceeding any downrange parameters. Similarly, the rocket performed a recalculation of the required burn time on its main engines, and for the same reason.

Thus, the two BE-2 motors ran for an additional 6-7 seconds beyond their designated cut-off time. This was enough to ensure the Centaur upper stage received the kick it needed and the first stage to also remain within the parameters of its specified descent trajectory into its targeted (and shipping-free) splashdown area. Once separated, the Centaur stage was able to light its motor and go on to deliver its mass simulator almost exactly in the centre of the “bull’s-eye” of its intended orbital track.

A graphic released by Tony Bruno, ULA CEO following the launch of Vulcan Centaur on its second certification flight, showing that despite the issues with the GEM-63XL SRB, the rocket was able to successfully deliver its simulated payload mass onto its track for a heliocentric orbit pretty much perfectly. Credit: Tony Bruno, via X.com

And that is a remarkable success, all things considered. Sadly it did not stop some SpaceX cultists proclaiming FAA “bias” against SpaceX because a) Vulcan has not been “grounded” following the “failure” and b) the FAA signalled no requirement for a Mishap investigation on the grounds that, despite the SRB issue, the vehicle performed precisely as called for within its flight plan, and at no time exceeded the limits of it launch license.

Obviously, the GM-63XL failure needs to be thoroughly investigated by Northrop Grumman (potentially with FAA oversight) and the causes understood together with any significant issues – if found – rectified.  However, this in itself require a “grounding” of Vulcan Centaur nor does it illustrate any kind of “bias” towards SpaceX on the part of the FAA. Why? Firstly, because the conflict between SpaceX and the FAA relate pretty much to the later exceeding the limitations imposed in the launch licenses issued to it by the latter. That’s not the case with the Vulcan Centaur flight.

More to the point, Vulcan Centaur’s launch cadence is fairly relaxed; the next launch will not occur until mid-November, for example. Ergo, there is more than enough time for the SRB issue to be investigated and a decision taken as to whether there is any kind of fault endemic to the GEM-63XL which precludes further Vulcan Centaur launches until such time as the problem has been rectified, and without the need for the FAA weigh-in on the matter pre-emptively.

Voyager 2 Loses Further Science Instrument

The two Voyager mission spacecraft have been hurling themselves away from Earth since their launches in 1977. In doing so, they are the first human-made craft to reach interstellar space, and are truly voyaging into the unknown. But even though both are powered by three radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs) – essentially “nuclear batteries” generating electricity through the decay of plutonium 238 – their ability to produce the electricity they need to operate is constantly declining.

At launch the three RTGs on each of the Voyager vehicles generated some 470 watts of electrical power on a continuous basis. However, by 2011, that had been reduced to just 268 watts per vehicle. To combat the loss of electricity production NASA has, since 1998, been gradually turning off systems and instruments that are no longer essential to either vehicle’s mission.

Diagram showing a Voyager spacecraft and its major elements, including the RTG boom and, opposite it so the bulk of the spacecraft bus helps shield it, the main scientific instrument arm. Credit: NASA/JPL

For example, in 1998, NASA turned off the imaging system on the two spacecraft because the amount of light reaching them was insufficient for them to be able to produce meaningful images. Over time, this policy has continued to the point were, at the start of October 2024, of the 11 instruments aboard each of the vehicles, Voyager 1 had just four operating and Voyager 2 had just five, all dedicated to examining the interstellar space through which both vehicles are travelling.

However, on October 2nd, 2024, NASA announced that a further instrument on Voyager 2, the Plasma Spectrometer, has now been turned off, again to meet the dwindling amount of energy the RTGs are producing. This means that both craft are now operating the same four instruments each, allowing for solid comparative science to be carried out as they continue to move out into interstellar space. These instrument comprise a magnetometer gathering data on the interplanetary magnetic field; a low energy charged particle instrument for measuring the distributions of ions and electrons in the interstellar medium; a cosmic ray system that determines the origin of interstellar cosmic rays; and a plasma wave detector.

Unfortunately, overall power issues mean that the rate at which instruments must be turned off is likely to accelerate over the next few years, and that by 2030 it is likely the last science instrument on both Voyagers will be turned off, although there may be sufficient power for the communications systems to continue to transmit system reports beyond that, if NASA opt to allow them. But even if this is the case, by 2036, the signals from the two spacecraft will be so weak, they will not be heard by facilities on Earth.

A 2013 diagram showing Voyager 2’s relative position as it entered interstellar space. In another 300 years, it should reach the Oort cloud, crossing in in roughly 30,000 years. Providing it suffers no mishap or deviation in its trajectory, it should pass within 1.7 light-years of Ross 248 some 40,000 years from now. The numbers along the line refer to astronomical units (AU); 1 AU being the average distance between the Earth and the Sun. Credit: NASA/JPL

But the loss of communications, when it eventually comes, will not be the end of the voyage for either of the spacecraft: in 300 years they should reach the “inner edge” of the theorised Oort cloud. It will take each of them some 30,000 years to cross it and arrive at the cosmographic boundary of the solar system. Ten thousand years after that, Voyager 2 will pass “just” 1.7 light-years away from the first star relatively close to its trajectory since departing the Sun: Ross 248. At roughly the same time, Voyager 1 will pass within 1.6 light-years of the star Gliese 445.

If you want to keep abreast of the Voyager mission status then check the official “where are they now” page for the mission.

Space Sunday: of launches and Earth’s Moon(s)

A Falcon 9 rocket carrying Crew Dragon Freedom and the two members of the Crew 9 / Expedition 72 mission to the ISS lifts-off from SLC-40, Canaveral Space Force Centre, September 282th, 2024. Credit: SpaceX

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.

The Titan IVB/Centaur (Model 401) carrying the NASA/ESA Cassini/Huygens mission, on the pad at Launch Complex 40 within the (then) Cape Canaveral Air Station, October 13th, 1997, shortly before the mission’s launch Credit: NASA

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.

A shot from a camera on the upper stage of the Falcon 9 used to launch the Crew 9 mission, showing the Crew Dragon Freedom moving away following vehicle separation on reaching orbit. Credit: SpaceX via NASA TV

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.

One of the temporary seats the ISS crew rigged within Crew Dragon Endeavour for use by Williams and Wilmore, had it been necessary for any evacuation of the ISS. Credit: NASA / Michael Barratt

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.

Addressing the House Transportation Committee, FAA Administrator Mike Whitaker noted that the best way for SpaceX to “speed up” the launch licensing process would be to properly comply with the regulations. Credit: House Transportation Committee webcast

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.

Professor Darren Williams, Penn State Behrend College, one of the co-authors of a new paper suggesting on the origins Earth’s Moon. Credit: Penn State Behrend / Penn State

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.

An artist’s renderings of China’s new lunar spacesuit. Credit: CMSA

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.

Space Sunday: exoplanets and atmospheres

An artist’s impression of one of the TRAPPIST-1 planets in the star’s habitable zone. Credit: unknown

Scientists have once again been turning their attention to the TRAPPIST-1 planetary system – this time to try to find evidence of technosignatures – artificial radio transmissions if you will – emanating from the system.

TRAPPIST-1 is a red dwarf star some 40 light years from Earth which had been previously known by the less exotic designation 2MASS J23062928-0502285. The name change came about in 2017, after extensive observations led by the Transiting Planets and Planetesimals Small Telescope (TRAPPIST) system revealed the star had no fewer than seven roughly Earth-sized planets orbiting it (see: Space update special: the 7-exoplanet system). The discoveries marked the star as a prime contender for the study of exoplanet systems, not only because of its proximity to our own Sun or the number of planets orbiting the star, but also because three of the seven planets lay within the star’s “Goldilocks zone” – the region where everything is kind-of “just right” for liquid water to exist and – perhaps – life to potentially take hold.

However, there have always been caveats around any idea of any of the planets harbouring liquid water, much less life, the most obvious being whether or not they have an atmosphere. One problem is that red dwarf stars tend to be rather violent little fellows in comparison to their size, prone to extreme solar events which could, over time, simply rip away the atmospheres of any planets orbiting. Another, more intrinsic problem is that a new study suggests that it might be harder to confirm whether or not the TRAPPIST-1 planets have any atmospheres because the means by which scientists have generally used to try and identified whether or not tidally locked exoplanets might have atmospheres could well be flawed – of which more in a moment.

True-colour illustration of the Sun (left) next to TRAPPIST-1 (right), both to scale relative to one another. TRAPPIST-1 is darker, redder, and smaller than the Sun, being slightly larger than Jupiter. Via: Wikipedia

The issue of TRAPPIST-1 ripping away an atmospheres its planets may have had is a mixed one: on the one side, all of the planets orbit their parent star very closely, with orbits completed in periods measure from just 2.4 terrestrial days to 18.9 terrestrial days; this puts them well inside the “zone of violence” for any stellar outbursts from the star. On the other, TRAPPIST-1 is old: estimates put it at around 7.6 billion years old, or more that 1.5 times the age of our Sun, and it might be a much as 10 billion years old. This age means that as red stars go, it is actually quite staid, and may have passed through it more violent phase of life sufficiently long ago for the atmosphere of the more distant planets orbiting it, including those in the habitable zone where life may be able to arise, to have survived and stabilised.

One of the most interesting aspects of the TRAPPIST-1 system is that, even though they are tidally locked, two of the planets within the star’s habitable zone TRAPPIST-1e and TRAPPIST-1f – could actually have relatively benign surface temperatures on their surfaces directly under the light of their star, with TRAPPIST-1e having temperatures reasonable close to mean daytime surface temperatures here on Earth and TRAPPIST-1f matching average daytime temperatures on Mars. Thus, if they do have dense enough atmospheres, both could potentially have liquid water oceans constantly warmed by their sun, and the regions in which those oceans exist could experience relatively temperate weather and climate conditions.

An illustration of the TRAPPIST-1 system scaled to match the inner solar system. Three of the TRAPPIST-1 planets – e, f, and g, sit within the tiny star’s habitable zone, where liquid water might exist on them. Credit: NASA

Since the discovery of the seven planets, there have been numerous studies into their potential to harbour atmospheres and much speculation about whether or not they might harbour life. However, the idea that any life on them might have reached a point of technological sophistication such that we might be able to detect it is – if we’re being honest – so remote as to be unlikely simply because of the many “ifs” surrounding it. However, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to find out; for one thing, there is the intriguing fact that if any civilisation has arisen to a level  of technology similar to ours on any of the planets,  the relative proximity of the entire system means that it might have made the jump between them and achieved something of a multi-planet status.

Again, the chances of this being the case are really remote – but if it has happened, then there would likely be communications passing back and further the planets. Assuming that such communications are made via artificially modulated radio frequencies, we might be able to detect them from Earth. At least, this has been the thinking of a team of radio astronomers, and they’ve been putting the idea to the test using a natural phenomenon called planet-planet occultation (PPO). A PPO is when one planet comes between two others – in this case one of the TRAPPIST-1 planets and Earth.

The theory is that if the two alien words are communicating one to the other, then during a PPO, any radio signals from the planet furthest from Earth (planet “b” in the illustration below) direct at the occulting planet (planet “c”), would “spill over” their destination and eventually pass Earth, allowing us to detect them. Note this doe not mean picking up the communications themselves for any form of “translation” (not that that would be possible), but rather detecting evidence of artificially modulated radio frequencies that might indicate intelligent intent behind them.

An example of planet-planet occultation (PPO): as planets “b” and “c” pass around their star, “c” will periodically occult (pas in front of) “b” relative to Earth. When this happens, it might be possible it detect radio signals passing from “b” to “c” (if they exist. Credit: Tusay, et al

To this end, a team of radio astronomers the latter’s Allen Telescope Array (ATA), originally set-up by the SETI Institute and the University of California, Berkeley, to listen to the TRAPPIST-1 system and gathered some 28 hours of data across several potential PPO events involving different planets in the TRAPPIST-1 system. In doing so, they collected some 11,000 candidate signals coming from the general proximity of the TRAPPIST-1 system. These event were then further filtered down using computer modelling to some 2,000 potential signals that could be directly associated with 7 PPO events. These 2,000 signals were then analysed to determine if any were statistically unusual enough to suggest they might be of artificial origin – that is, potential radio transmission.

Sadly, the answer to this was “no”, which might sound like a lot of work for no result; but just imagine if the reverse had been true; further, now the concept of using PPO events in this manner has been tested, it lends itself for potential use with other multi-planet systems orbiting relatively nearby stars.

The Problem of Atmospheres

Now, to circle back to the question of atmospheres on tidally locked planets. As noted above, such planets always have one side permanently facing their parent star and the other always pointing away into space, as the rotation of the planet is precisely in sync with its orbital motion around the parent star. This means that – again as already noted – if there is any atmosphere on such a planet, it might result in some extremes of weather, particularly along the terminator between the two sides of the planet.

However, if the atmosphere is dense enough, then conditions on the planet might not only be capable of supporting liquid water, they might also result in stable atmospheric conditions, with less extreme shifts in climate between the two sides of the planet, and while the weather would still be strange, it would not necessarily be particularly violent; thus, such planets might be far more hospitable to life than might have once been thought. And herein lays a problem.

To explain: exoplanet atmospheres are next to impossible to directly observed from Earth or even from the likes of the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). Instead, astronomers attempt to observe the spectra of an exoplanet, as this reveals the chemical composition of any atmosphere that might be surrounding it. But tidally-locked planets tend to be orbiting so close to their parent star that trying to obtain any atmospheric spectra is hard due to the interference of the star itself. Instead, a different technique is used.

Computer-generated rendering of how the tidally locked world TRAPPIST-1f might look when viewed from its star, assume it has an atmosphere that might support liquid water on its surface. Credit: NASA

As a tidally locked planet passes between Earth and its parent star it presents its dark side directly to us, allowing astronomers by dint of knowing the nature of the star itself, to calculate the temperature of the planet’s dark side. Then, as it moves around to the far side of the star relative to Earth, we get to measure its “light” side. Again, as the nature of the star and its light / temperature are “known”, it is possible to extrapolate out the likely temperature of the “light” side of the planet. With this done, the two temperatures can be compared, and if they are massively different, then – according to the thinking to date – viola! The planet has no atmosphere; but if the difference between the two is not drastically different, than it’s likely the planet has a nice, dense atmosphere.

Except a new study currently awaiting peer review points out a slight wrinkle in this approach. In it, researchers show that yes, while a dense atmosphere on a tidally-locked exoplanet would moderate the planet’s global temperatures and thus remove extremes, it could also result in the formation of upper atmosphere clouds across much of the dark side of the planet. Such clouds would have two outcomes: on the one hand, they would help retain heat within the atmosphere under them, keeping it much warmer than would otherwise be the case and making the entire planet potentially far more hospitable to life. On the other, they would “reflect” the coldness of the upper atmosphere such that when we attempt to measure the temperature of the planet’s dark side, we are actually measuring the temperature of the cold upper layers of the clouds, not the temperature of the atmosphere below them. This would result in the dark side temperatures appearing to be far lower than is actually the case, leading to the incorrect conclusion that the planet lack any atmosphere when this is not the case.

How clouds could make a planet appear airless. Credit: Powell, et al, Nightside Clouds on Tidally-locked Terrestrial Planets Mimic Atmosphere-Free Scenarios

What’s the impact of this? Well, allowing for the study to pass peer review – and the author’s note that more work in the area is required, it could mean that we have dismissed numerous smaller, solid exoplanets as being unsuitable for life because “they have no atmosphere” when in fact they could in fact do so. Thus, there might be more potentially life-supporting planets than previously considered.

Space Sunday: Polaris Dawn

A zoomed-in shot from the Earth-controlled camera within the nose cone hatch, showing Sarah Gillis as she climbs up onto the “skaywalker” platform inside the nose area of Crew Dragon Resilience to start her EVA. Credit: SpaceX via NBC News

After delays related to a ground-side helium leak at the launch pad followed by a prediction of several days of poor weather in the region where the mission would splashdown at its conclusion, thus potentially hampering recovery operations if not put the crew and vehicle at outright risk, the Polaris Dawn private venture mission lifted-off from Kennedy Space Centre, Florida on September 10th, 2024.

The Falcon 9 rocket carrying Crew Dragon Resilience and its crew of four private citizens lead by billionaire Jared Isaacman,  departed Launch Complex 39-A at 09:23 UTC at the start of an extreme 5-day mission in an extended elliptical orbit around the Earth with a number of potentially high-stakes goals, including the very first spacewalk by non-career astronauts.

The first part of the mission called for the capsule to be placed in an orbit of around 200km perigee and an apogee of 1,200 km. This required the first stage of the Falcon 9 booster to operate in expendable mode, running for some 12 minutes prior to separation, after which it fell back into the Atlantic Ocean. On arrival in their initial orbit, the crew commenced an extended period of pre-breathing an oxygen-rich atmospheric mix designed to remove nitrogen from their blood, organs and muscles.

The Polaris Dawn crew (l to r): Anna Menon, Scott Poteet (vehicle pilot), Jared Isaacman (Commander) and Sarah Gillis (EVA-2), pictured in 2021. Credit: SpaceX

Such pre-breathing (very similar in nature to that undertaken by divers going down to significant depths in the oceans) is a requirement of all EVA work, as space suits operate at very low pressures (e.g. roughly 5 psi compared to the average sea-level atmospheric pressure of 14.8 psi). If the nitrogen is not flushed from the body, it can bubble and cause decompression sickness, causing serious injury –and potentially death – to the sufferer as the pressure is raised back to normal levels.

Normally, such pre-breathing would be carried out only be the astronauts making the EVA, and they would use an airlock in which to do so, spending several hours undergoing the process. However, Crew Dragon does not have any form of airlock, so the entire vehicle must be depressurised, hence the entire crew going on the oxygen rich mix. As this happened, work also started on very slowly reducing the overall cabin pressure from 14.5 psi to 8.6 psi, a process that continued over the first three days of the mission leading up to the actual EVA.

A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket carrying the Polaris Dawn mission lifts off from Kennedy Space Centre in Florida at 09:23 UTC (05:23 EDT) on September 10, 2024. Credit: Polaris Programme / John Kraus

After some eight orbits around the Earth, the Dragon’s motors fired, elevating its apogee to around 1,400 km above sea level. This marked the furthest anyone has been from Earth since Apollo 17 in 1972, whilst also breaking the highest altitude record for a crewed mission orbiting Earth, originally set by Gemini 11 in 1966.

Both the 1200 and 1400km limits of the orbit meant the vehicle would skirt the Van Allen radiation belts, periodically passing through the South Atlantic Anomaly. This meant that during their five days in space, all four crew would be exposed to the same amount of radiation an astronaut on the International Space Station (ISS – orbiting at an average of some 400 km) would require some three or more months to experience. Whilst such a concentrated exposure marked a great long-term risk to the health of the four, it formed part of the science programme for the mission.

In brief, radiation exposures as a fact of space travel, but despite all the work aboard the ISS and other orbital vehicles like the space shuttle on extended missions, there are numerous active factors of radiation exposure in space that are not clearly understood. To this end, Polaris Dawn flew a series of experiments put together by Translational Research Institute for Health (TRISH), a NASA-funded consortium of academic institutions specifically aimed at investigating some of the more usual aspects of space-based radiation exposure, in order to better understand them.

Polaris Dawn crewmembers participating in these TRISH studies will provide data about how spaceflight affects mental and physical health through a rigorous set of medical tests and scans completed before, after, and during the mission. The work will include assessments of behaviour, sleep, bone density, eye health, cognitive function and other factors, as well as analysis of blood, urine and respiration.

– NASA statement on the Polaris Dawn NASA-sponsored science

Much of this work will continue well after the mission’s conclusion, with studies and checks on their health and welfare continuing over the next few years.

Scott Poteet rehearses with one of the TRISH instruments designed to test the effects of space-based radiation exposure on the human eye (notably bright flashes seen when they eyelids are closed). Credit: Polaris Programme

In addition, the mission flew Tempus Pro, a commercial package NASA has been adapting for use on space missions. It is designed to collect collect multiple health measurements from astronauts and compare them with a database of medical data on Earth, allowing flight surgeons to more fully diagnose an astronaut’s overall physical and mental health and well-being. The system can also be used to provide real-time telemedicine support (including any consultations from specialist almost anywhere on Earth) to assist medical personnel on space missions in provide physical and mental treatment to their fellow crewmembers.

In all the mission carried a total of 36 experiments from 31 partner institutions around the world. However, it was the EVA – to be undertaken in turn by Isaacman as crew commander (and major financier, who originally flew the Inspiration4 private venture orbital flight in 2021, and which also utilised Crew Dragon capsule Resilience), and Sarah Gillis, the senior space operations engineer at SpaceX – which had captured the attention of the world ahead of the mission.

The EVA took place on Flight Day 3, after the vehicle’s orbit haf been lowered and circularised at some 730 km above sea level. It commenced some time in advance of the actual hatch opening, with a further round of pre-breathing a 100% oxygen atmosphere to purge remaining nitrogen from the astronauts’ bodies, and a slow final lowering of the cabin pressure prior to full  venting.  All four then donned their IVA / EVA suits and tested their umbilical life support and power feeds (the SpaceX suits do not operate with the kind of back-pack common to NASA / Roscosmos EVA suits, but are reliant on a physical connection to the space vehicle).

A helmet cam view as Jared Isaacman looks up at the “skywalker” platform in the nose area of Resilience, as he’s about to climb up onto it for his part of the EVA. Credit: SpaceX via NBC News

At 15:12 UTC on Thursday September 12th, 2024, all four crew reported their suits were sealed and operational, and they were operating entirely off of the life support reserves supplied to their suits. The final de-pressurisation of the capsule cabin could then commence, causing their suits to expand to their pressurised size. Some 37 minutes after final depressurisation had  started, the vehicle was ready for the inner hatch to be unlatched by Isaacman, as EVA-1, and the pressure seal broken. This then allowed the hatch opening mechanism to be triggered, with the hatch sliding fully open at 15:56 UTC.

Isaacman then egressed through the nose chamber onto the “skywalker”, a special ladder-come-work platform with hand holds and foot restraints, design to allow a crew member to both raise themselves out of the nose of the craft and anchor their feet on the platform so that they can perform hands-free work.

A zoomed-out shot from the Earth-controlled camera within the nose cone hatch of Resilience, showing Isaacman as he paused on the “skywalker” platform to carry out the first set of arm mobility tests. Credit: SpaceX via NBC News

A camera mounted on Resilience’s nose cone cap (which had been opened as per standard practice since the craft’s arrival in orbit to help with general heat regulation) filmed Isaacman as he emerged from the nose of the vehicle, initially rising to waist level before carrying out a range of mobility tests as the spacecraft raced over Australia and towards New Zealand and the terminator between the day and night sides of Earth.

The mobility tests were designed to test both ease and range of movement within a pressurised IVA / EVA suit, both with arms and legs, moving up and down the steps on the “skywalker”, testing the ease of use of the foot restraints, and the overall freedom of movement and reach allowed by the suits when in the near-vacuum of space. In all, Isaacman spent roughly 8 minutes on the platform before climbing back down into the capsule.

Sarah Gillis then replaced him, moving into the nose of the capsule and onto the “skywalker”. Unfortunately, shortly after she anchored herself on the “skywalker” to commence her own series of tests, Resilience passed out of video relay range of NASA Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS), so the live video feed was lost, leaving only verbal communications. However, she spent almost the same amount of time as Isaacman in her EVA, allowing her to give an engineer’s perspective on the usability of the suits.

By 16:21 UTC, Gillis was back inside Resilience and the inner hatch was closed, leaving Isaacman with the task of latching and locking it securely. Over the next 50 minutes, the pressure inside the vehicle was restored to a point where the crew could use the cabin’s atmosphere and start removing their IVA / EVA suits.

The EVA by the numbers (from space commentator Jonathan McDowell:

  • Total elapsed time (starting when the capsule was fully depressurised through to being re-pressurised to approx 5 psi): 1 hour 46 minutes.
  • Total “spacewalk time” (time from unlatching the inner hatch to re-latching it): 33 min 25 seconds.
  • Total time Isaacman spent on the “skywalker” and outside the cabin: 7 minutes 56 minutes.
  • Total time Gillis spent on the “skywalker” and outside the cabin: 7 minutes 15 seconds.
The crew seen after the EVA period and following the removal of their IVA / EVA suits (l to r): Sarah Gillis, Jared Isaacman, Scott Poteet, and Anna Menon. Credit: Polaris Programme

These may not be record-breaking numbers, but they are nevertheless extraordinary and of potential significance as a starting-point for such operations by non-career astronauts. Private venture EVA operations are bound to become more and more commonplace and of longer and more complex duration as the next generation of private / commercial orbital facilities by the likes of Axiom and the Blue Origin / Sierra Space led Orbital Reef consortium come on-stream.

The remaining two days of the mission saw the four astronauts resume their science work as cabin pressure within the vehicle was gradually brought back up to more reasonable pressures in advance of a return to Earth. As well as the science work, the crew also conducted tests in using the SpaceX Starlink satellite network for audio and video communications with mission control.

Sarah Gillis filmed aboard Resilience as she plays Rey’s Theme from the music for Star Wars: The Force Awakens, composed by John Williams. Credit: Polaris Programme

Part of the latter once again involved Sarah Gillis, who is also a classically-trained violinist. On September 13th, she performed of Rey’s Theme by legendary composer John Williams. Whilst the performance was misreported in some media as the “first” performance of a musical instrument in space (instruments have been played in space for decades; for example, Catherine Coleman played the flute on the ISS in 2011 and Chris Hadfield, commander of ISS Expedition 35  famously recorded a music video of David Bowie’s Space Oddity, marking it as the first music video ever shot in space), it was nevertheless still and important factor for the mission’s overall objectives.

One of the things Isaacman has done with her personal fortune and through his private space ventures is to raise money St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee. In 2021, for example he both donated several million to the hospital and auctioned off seats on the Inspiration4 mission with the money raised going to the hospital.  Gillis’ rendition of Rey’s Theme was combined with six orchestras from around the world to produce a recording and video entitled Harmony of Resilience to help raise further funds for the hospital from this mission.

As we travel around our beautiful planet Earth on this five-day mission, we wanted to share this special musical moment with you. Bringing together global talent, this performance symbolizes unity and hope, highlighting the resilience and potential of children everywhere.

– Sarah Gillis, September 13th, 2024, from orbit aboard SpaceX Crew Dragon Resilience

Polaris Dawn ended on Sunday, September 15th, 2024, with de-orbit operations starting at 06:34 UTC. These saw Resilience orient itself ready for atmospheric interface and jettison its service module – the Trunk, in SpaceX parlance to expose its heat shield. A series of thruster firings of the capsule’s Draco motors followed, slowing it velocity. These were completed by 06:50 UTC and the forward nose cone was swung back into its closed positions and latched.

At 07:15 UTC, the vehicle reached interface and entered a roughly 7-minute period of descent through the upper atmosphere during which the vehicle experience peak frictional heating around it, together with a loss of communications. The track of Resilience meant it was not only caught on camera by recovery vessels in the Gulf of Mexico, but also seen by the crew of the ISS.

A dramatic shot captured by tracking systems on the recovery ship Bob, showing Resilience living up to its name as super-heated plasma surrounds it and streams behind it as it passes through the upper reaches of Earth’s atmosphere at over 20,000 km/h. Credit; SpaceX

Things then proceeded rapidly. After re-entry, the vehicle’s drogue parachutes deployed so start slowing it, and not long afterwards, the four large main parachutes deployed, with Resilience splashing down at 07:37 UTC.

An initial safety and recovery team approached the capsule in a RHIB deployed by the SpaceX recovery vessel Bob (named for astronaut Bob Behnken, one of the first two people to fly a Crew Dragon to space (the other being Doug Hurley, who has the larger recovery ship Doug named for him) to confirm the capsule was safe and not venting harmful gasses. At the same time, additional RHIBs sought to recover the spacecraft’s parachutes.

With the confirmation all was safe, the recovery operation began, the RHIB team preparing Resilience for hoisting onto Bob’s stern deck as the recovery vessel slowly closed with the capsule to arrive alongside at 08:00 UTC. Eight minutes later, with the lifting lines secured, the loading arm at the stern of Bob raised the capsule up onto the ship’s deck, where it was moved forward to the egress platform under the cover of the ship’s helipad and at a height that allows for easier opening of the capsule’s hatch.

Resilience comes aboard Bob at the conclusion of the Polaris Dawn flight, 08:08 UTC, September 13th, 2024. Credit: SpaceX

The latter was opened at 08:20 UTC, after a final round of checks, and the recovery ship’s surgeon entered the capsule to check on the overall condition of all four crew to ensure they were showing no signs of decompression sickness or other issues. After this, the crew were allowed to exit the vehicle, with SpaceX lead space operations and mission director Anna Menon the first to leave the capsule, followed by Sarah Gillis then pilot Scott Poteet and finally Isaacman. All were in a jubilant frame of mind – and rightly so.

Polaris Dawn was in many respects a high-stakes mission; Resilience had to be extensively modified for the flight – not just her forward nose area, but throughout, with electronics and other systems inside the vehicle being “hardened” for us in the near-vacuum of Earth orbit; the IVA / EVA suit, despite extensive testing on Earth was still unknown in terms of how it would work in space, and the crew themselves took on a lot in respect of future health and welfare through such an intense exposure to Earth’s radiation fields over so limited a time. In this latter aspect, the mission’s work will continue through post-flight research, as noted above.

First glimpse on hatch opening following recovery (l to r): Anna Menon, Scott Poteet, Jared Isaacman and Sarah Gillis, all in a jubilant frame of mind, September 13th, 2024. Credit: SpaceX

Two more Polaris missions are in development, although their time frames and goals have yet to be confirmed. One will most likely involve another Crew Dragon flight, and Isaacman has stated he plans the third to be the first crewed flight of SpaceX’s Starship vehicle; so that one at least is unlikely to be in the immediate (and potentially foreseeable) future.

Space Sunday: Starliner home; New Glenn update

A high-resolution image of the vestibule area within the nose of CST-100 Calypso showing some of the docking mechanism as the vehicle clear the International Space Station (ISS) on September 6th, 2024. Credit: NASA

Boeing’s Starliner capsule Calypso is back on Earth after what appears to have been an almost pitch-perfect automated return flight form the International Space Station (ISS).

The vehicle departed the ISS at 22:04 UTC on September 6th, after almost a day of preparations during which Starliner’s inner hatches were sealed as was the hatch on the ISS’s Harmony docking adaptor, prior to the “vestibule” at the forward end of Calypso, containing the vehicle’s half of the docking mechanism, being slowly depressurised. Some time prior to the undocking, and while awaiting the formal ATP – authority to proceed – the two control rooms at Johnson space Centre, Texas, one for the ISS the other for Starliner, did a final go / no-go poll, after which ISS Flight Director Chloe Mehring called the station.

Station Houston space-to-ground 2 for Starliner undock.
Go ahead, we’re with ya.
Hey, Suni both the Starliner and the ISS flight control teams have polled GO for undock at this time. Expected undock time is 22:04 [UTC].
Okay, copy. 22:04. Hey, y’know, just looking at the flight control roster, and like wow! It is the all-star team! You guys, it IS time to bring Calypso home. You have GOT this! We have your backs, and you’ve got this. Bring her back to Earth.

– Exchange between Flight Director  Chloe Mehring and astronaut Suni Williams on the ISS prior to Starliner’s departure.

The Starliner Mission Operations Control Centre during the Starliner return to Earth operation, Friday, September 6th, 2024. Credit: NASA

ATP came at 22:02 UTC, and the 12 docking “hooks” on the ISS docking adaptor rotated to their “open” position, allowing springs on the Starliner’s docking mechanism to very gently push it away from the space station two minutes later. The use of such springs avoids the need for the vehicle to use its forward thrusters, potentially spraying ISS docking adaptor and hatch with toxic hydrazine exhaust gas.

Once the separation between station and vehicle had exceeded 5 metres, Starliner commenced a series of 12 short firings of the forward facing reaction control thrusters on the service module, pushing itself outside the 200-metre Keep Out Sphere (KOS), an imaginary zone around the ISS within which a spacecraft must be on what is called a “4-orbit safe free drift trajectory”, meaning that it can float freely in close proximity with the station for a period of 4 orbits (roughly 6 hours)  without any risk of collision should its manoeuvring system fail.

These burns were more or less a “reversing manoeuvre” in a straight line. Once outside the KOS, Starliner was within the larger Approach Ellipsoid (AE), another imaginary area of space around the station within which spacecraft must be able to float freely for up to 24 hours without risk of impacting the space station. Once in the AE, Starliner continued to move away from the station whilst starting to raise its orbit until some 19 minutes after undocking, it was clear of the AE as well and moving on to an orbit that would carry it around the Earth several times and bring it to the required position for its de-orbit burn.

Starliner is pushed clear of the ISS by springs within the nose of Calypso, the vehicle’s capsule. Credit: NASA TV

Once clear of the AE, the ISS involvement in the flight concluded, leaving the NASA Starliner flight team to oversee the rest of the return, an operation of multiple parts.

In particular, the Calypso’s own Reaction Control System (RCS) thrusters were tested. Entirely separate from the problematic thruster systems on the service module, Calypso’s RCS allow the capsule to manoeuvre and maintain orientation once it has separated from the service module after the de-orbit burn, in order for it to successfully re-enter the denser atmosphere.  These 12 thrusters are divided to two “strings” of 6, with only one “string” being used in flight operations, the other being there for redundancy purposes. One of the thrusters did fail to fire during the tests, but posed no threat to the flight.

A view from the ISS television camera as the departing Starliner fires its forward-facing thrusters as it moves away from the station. Credit: NASA TV

Similar redundancy exists within the service module RCS (hence why it has 28 thrusters in 4 banks of 7 apiece), and a test of 10 of the unused RCS thrusters on the service module during the same period saw them all operate without a hitch.

Then, immediately prior to the de-orbit burn was due to commence, a final weather check was carried out over the landing zone to confirm everything was above the required minimums for a Starliner landing. These checks include ensuring that winds be no greater than 12 knots, temperatures at ground level will be no lower the -9.4ºC, and the cloud base must not be lower that approx. 300 metres and allow for an all-round visibility of no less than 1.85 km (1 nautical mile). It must also be confirmed that there are no thunder or electrical storms within a 35.4 km radius centred on the landing zone which might interfere with data transmissions / reception. Should any of these criteria not be met, the de-orbit burn would be postponed until such time as all could be met.

Mission control graphics of the de-orbit OMACS de-orbit burn of the CST-100 Starliner, September 6th/7th. 2024. The four OMACS motors (white) can be seen firing along the vehicle’s line of flight, with reaction control thrusters (coloured) also firing to maintain the vehicle’s orientation and rotation. Credit: NASA TV

As it was, everything was well within tolerances at the landing zone, and at approximate 03:15 UTC, four OMACS – orbital manoeuvring and Attitude Control System– motors on the service module fired in a 59-second burn, with several RCS thrusters also firing to maintain the vehicles overall orientation and attitude, slowing the vehicle sufficiently for natural drag to start pulling it into the denser atmosphere.

Immediately following the de-orbit burn, Calypso separated from the service module and oriented itself so the primary heat shield was at the correct entry for atmospheric interface, whilst the service module dropped into an uncontrolled re-entry so it would burn-up in the atmosphere and any surviving debris full into the southern Pacific Ocean. Calypso reached its re-entry interface – the period when it passed into the upper reaches of the denser atmosphere and experienced maximum re-entry temperatures – some 15 minutes after jettisoning  the service module, and as it approach California’s Baja Peninsula. After this, things happened rapidly.

An infra-red, low-light image of Calypso deploying her drogue parachutes during her atmospheric descent. The bight disk of light below the vehicle is the forward heat shield falling away. Credit: NASA

At 22km altitude, the forward heat shield at the top of the capsule was jettisoned, clearing the way for parachute deployment. This commenced almost immediately with the deployment of the vehicle’s two drogue parachutes, designed to help reduce its speed. These opened slowly over a 28-second period in order to reduce the stress on their canopies and the degree of sudden deceleration on the vehicle.

The drogues were in turn released at 10km altitude, allowing the three main parachutes to deploy and open over a 16-second period, again to reduce the strain on them and the vehicle. They then carried Calypso down towards landing. With a couple of hundred metres left in the descent, the primary heat shield was released, exposing the six airbags sitting between it and the base of the capsule, allowing them to rapidly inflate to cushion the actual landing.

At an altitude of around 10km, with the main parachute deployed and the capsule held upright, the main heat shield is dropped, freeing-up the six airbags under Calypso to inflate. Credit: NASA

Touchdown came at 04:01 UTC on September 7th, and the recovery teams started their operations shortly after, moving in to the landing site from upwind of the vehicle to avoid risk of any harmful gases from the propulsion systems, etc. Safing of the vehicle and preparing it for transit away from the landing zone proceeded over the course of the next several hours.

With Calypso now on Earth, the focus will shift to trying to rectify the causes of the issues with the service module propulsion systems. As I’ve previously noted, this is made harder as engineers have no physical parts to eyeball; they will have to continue to work on data gathered through ground testing of identical units and data gathered during all the test-firings performed during the flight (including those carried out during the vehicle’s return to Earth).

Seconds before touchdown: with the airbag inflated, Calypso is a seconds from landing within the White Sands Space Harbour, New Mexico, Credit; NASA

Calypso, meanwhile, with two flights under her belt, will now return to Boeing for a thorough check-out, overhaul and refurbishment. Although when she or the unnamed Capsule S2 (which performed the seconded uncrewed flight test to the ISS in 2022) will fly again is unclear. Currently, S2 is scheduled to fly the first Starliner operational mission (Starliner-1) in August 2025; however, NASA is now hedging its bets: it has recently double-booked the SpaceX Crew Dragon Crew-11 mission (crew yet to be assigned) to fly in the same period if it becomes apparent Starliner-1 will not be ready to fly.

As previously noted, this means that astronauts Barry “Butch” Wilmore and Sunita “Suni” Williams will be remaining aboard the ISS until February / March 2025, when they will return to Earth on the SpaceX Crew Dragon Freedom. This is due to lift-off from Kennedy Space Centre on or around September 24th, carrying astronaut Nicklaus “Nick” Hague, and cosmonaut Aleksandr Gorbunov to the ISS, where they will complete a 5-day hand-over with the Crew 8 team. The latter are set to depart the ISS around October 1st.

A high-speed tracking image of Calypso passing through re-entry, the plasma around it glowing bright and leaving a heated trail behind the capsule. Credit: NASA

However, Crew 9 will not be the first the reach the station following Starliner’s departure. Soyuz TM-26 is to due to depart the Baikonur Cosmodrome on September 11th, carrying cosmonauts Aleksey Ovchinin and Ivan Vagner, and NASA astronaut Don Pettit.

They will dock with the ISS a few hours later, after a “fast” ascent and rendezvous, and raise the total crew on the ISS to 12. Then on September 24th (the day NASA is targeting for the launch of Crew 9 / Expedition 72), Soyuz TM-25 is set to depart the station and bring Oleg Kononenko, Nikolai Chub, and NASA astronaut Tracy Caldwell-Dyson back to Earth .

Calypso on the ground on September 6th / 7th, 2024. following her return to Earth at the end of her second flight into space (and first to the ISS). Credit: Boeing

Blue Origin Advances New Glenn Maiden Flight, But Without NASA’s EscaPADE

Blue Origin is progressing toward the maiden flight of its New Glenn semi-reusable medium-to-heavy lift launch vehicle – although there are doubts about whether the company will meet the mid-October launch window NASA originally set it.

On September 3rd, the company deployed the new rocket’s 23m tall second stage to its launch facilities at Cape Canaveral Space force Station, Florida, where it will undergo a static fire test of its two Blue Origin BE-3U motors. However, this is just one of a number of milestones the company must meet in very short order if it is to make the mid-October launch window they state they still intend to meet.

The second stage of the first New Glenn rocket built for flight by Blue Origin, is moved to Launch Complex 36 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida where it is due to undergo static fire tests. Credit: Blue Origin

This date was set by NASA when Blue Origin offered the flight as the launch vehicle for NASA’s EscaPADE Mars orbiter mission. A part of NASA’s  Small Innovative Missions for Planetary Exploration (SIMPLEx) programme, whereby missions costs are to be reduced by launching them as secondary payloads alongside primary missions, thus reducing their launch costs.

In this, EscaPADE – standing for Escape and Plasma Acceleration and Dynamics Explorers – a pair of identical satellites designed to study Mars’ atmosphere, were supposed to be launched with NASA’s Psyche mission, which originally was going to make a fly-by of Mars whilst heading for asteroid 16 Psyche, eliminating virtually all launch costs. However, Pysche’s launch was revised to a point where the Mars fly-by was no longer possible, and EscaPADE needed a new ride.

The New Glenn second stage raised to its vertical position on on the static fire test stand, Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida. Credit: Blue OriginWhile Blue Origin offered the maiden flight of New Glenn at the bargain basement price of $20 million, it was still more that the original budget for the mission. With the launch facing a host of deadlines, including the second stage static fire test, and things like the integration and testing of the vehicle’s seven first stage BE-4 engines; stacking and integration of the vehicle’s two stages together with the payload and payload fairing; pad roll-out and countdown demonstration tests, NASA has been understandably concerned about Blue Origin’s ability to make the launch window for the last couple of months.

These concerns gained momentum because in order for EscaPADE to be ready for the launch, both satellites must be loaded within toxic hypergolic propellants. This is a costly, time-consuming exercise, and if New Glenn cannot make the October launch window, then NASA will have to go through an equally costly and delicate “de-tanking” exercise and purging of the propellant tanks of the satellites – and then go through the process again when the mission is ready for launch. So the decision was taken to avoid the additional costs and pull EscaPADE from the New Glenn launch. Instead, the agency is looking to launch the mission in spring 2025 – but still using a New Glenn vehicle.

Blue and Gold, the two identical EscaPADE satellites, built by Rocket Lab for NASA, seen in their “folded” configuration within an NASA clean room. Credit: NASA / Rocket Lab

This  in itself has raised eyebrows; optimal launch windows to Mars occur around every 26 months, which spring 2025 does not meet. As such, it currently looks as if EscaPADE, a 990 kg all-up weight – will be the sole payload for the launcher, which will have to throw it into a heliocentric orbit around the Sun and out to Mars on an extended transfer flight.

In the meantime, and as noted, Blue Origin have stated they are still aiming to launch New Glenn on its maiden flight in October. With the removal of EscaPADE, they now intend to use the launch to place its Blue Ring “space tug” into orbit. This is a vehicle at the centre of a new operation for Blue Origin – providing on-orbit maintenance and movement of satellites. The company is also talking to the US government about using the flight to certify New Glenn as  National Security Space Launch system.

As a semi-reusable vehicle, the first stage of New Glenn is designed to be able to land after each use. To achieve this, it will use a sea-going landing barge akin to, but larger than, the SpaceX autonomous drone ship landing platforms. Officially called a landing platform vessel (LPV), the first of these barges arrived at Port Canaveral at the start of September 2024 in readiness for the maiden flight of New Glenn.

Built in Romania and outfitted and commissioned in France, LPV-1 Jacklyn, named for the mother of Blue Origin founder Jeff Bezos (who has also personally financed the company), the 115-metre long platform has already caused raised eyebrows as it has four large structures fore and aft of the 45m wide landing area. It’s not clear if these are integral to the barge (although the do seem to be) and what they might be for.

Blue Origin LPV-1 Jacklyn alongside at Port Canaveral, September 3rd, 2024

Certainly, putting such large structures on the barge is an interesting choice. Trying to successfully land a tall, thin tube containing the remnants of liquids that like to go kaboom when mixed and given the excuse, is not exactly a sinecure (just ask SpaceX). As such, hemming-in the landing zone with tall structures that could cause an even greater conflagration were a booster stage to topple into them whilst going the way of said kaboom seems to be somewhat tempting fate; I guess time will tell on that.