Space update: 2020 landing video and audio of the Martian wind

A CGI model of the Mars 2020 rover Perseverance on the surface of Mars. Credit; NASA/JPL

On Thursday, February 18th, NASA’s Mars 2020 mission delivered the rover Perseverance, carrying the helicopter drone Ingenuity, safely to the surface of Jezero Crater, Mars (see: Space Sunday: ‘Perseverance will get you anywhere’). Sine then, the rover has been going through its initial checks, and on Monday, February 22nd, members of the mission team gave the latest update on the rover’s status, which included a unique video and an audio recording.

The video was made up of images recorded by a suite of cameras specifically mounted on the rover and its landing systems specifically with the aim of recording the landing event in as much detail as possible. These cameras comprised:

  • A pair of camera on the top of the aeroshell that protected the rover and its “skycrane” descent stage through entry into, and initially deceleration and flight through, the upper atmosphere of Mars. These were intended to capture video of the supersonic parachute deployment.
  • A single camera attached to the skycrane that looked down on to the stowed rover, designed to record the process of winching it down in its harness and then delivering it to the ground.
  • A camera up the upper deck of the rover looking up at the skycrane to record the same, and the skycrane’s departure from the landing site.
  • A camera on the side of the rover and looking down, intended to record the vehicle’s descent via parachute and its approach for landing.
The Mars 2020 EDL cameras. Credit: NASA/JPL

With the exception of one of the aeroshell cameras, which appears to have failed when the explosive “mortar” fired the parachute package clear of the aeroshell, all of these camera captured some incredible footage of the landing sequence.

Once retuned to Earth, the footage was poured over by the mission’s imaging team at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), with elements combined with audio recorded at JPL’s mission control during the landing, to produce an incredible short film, that puts the audience right there with the rover as it landed on Mars, as you can see below.

The first part of the film showed the deployment of the parachute system. This comprised firing the 67 Kg parachute pack out of the top of the aeroshell at 150 km/h, detaching a protective cover from the aeroshell (parts of which broke off) in the process.

The aeroshell cameras capture the deployment and unfurling of Mar 2020’s supersonic parachute. Credit; NASA/JPL

The package pulled the parachute harness out behind it until it reached its full extent (about 46 metres), which caused the 21.5m diameter parachute to deploy at a time when the vehicle was still travelling at around Mach 1.75. In all, this process took around 1.5 seconds to complete.

At this point the the rover down-look camera started recording, capturing the jettisoning of the heat shield that formed the lower part of the aeroshell. This demonstrated its aerodynamic nature by falling away without tumbling, leaving the rover’s look-down camera to film the inflow delta to one side of the crater  – and the intended landing point –  as the rover and aeroshell swayed under the parachute.

The heat shield is jettisoned and falls away with great stability. Credit: NASA/JPL
Not long after this, the rover and its skycrane descent stage dropped clear of the aeroshell, the view of the ground shifting dramatically as the descent stage used its motors to  propel itself away from the areoshell to avoid any risk of collision before gently veering back to centre itself over the landing zone.

This footage – still via the rover’s down-look camera – then captures the thrust from the rocket motors as the skycrane comes to a hover some 20 metres above the ground, then there is a sharp jerk as the rover is released to be lowered to the ground by the skycrane and its harness.

As the rover is released by the descent stage, so the remaining camera systems come into play, one looking down from the skycrane as the rovers is lowered, and the other on the rover looking up as it leaves the skycrane as it hovers steadily over the landing zone.

The skycrane and the rover capture the latter’s deployment just before touch-down from opposite ends of the harness. Credit: NASA/JPL

It was also this up-look camera that caught the last images of the skycrane as, with the rover on the ground, the harness cables and data umbilical detached, it re-oriented itself to fly away to crash some 700m from the rover.

As well as cameras to record the images of the landing, it had been hoped that one of the rover’s two microphones would record the sounds of the descent and landing. Unfortunately, it failed to do so, but over the weekend, it did capture the sigh of a gust of wind passing over the rover at about 5 metres/second, giving us our first direct recording of the Martian wind.

Since landing, various checks have been performed on the vehicle, and instrument packs deployed. The most important of these has been the RSM – the Remote Sensing Mast. This houses a range of instruments, including the SuperCam, the Mastcam-Z high-resolution camera and the rover’s main navigation cameras (NavCams). The latter are, like their cousins on Curiosity’s RSM, designed to assist with rover driving and navigation. However, they are far more capable and much higher resolution, each one capable of take up to a 20 megapixel image.

For their initial testing, there were operated at one-quarter of this capacity, taking a series of images around the rover, which were shown at the February 22nd press conference without any colour processing or white-balancing, so they showed Mars exactly as it were appear to a human standing there.

Two relatively low resolution images taken by the NavCams on Perseverance during initial check out. They show the rover and its surroundings in natural colour and lighting. Credit: NASA/JPL

Over the next few days, the remaining systems on the RSM will be tested, and the rover will also go into a data download mode.

Since launch, the on-board computers have been configured with software required to keep the rover safe during Mars transit and to allow it to play its part in the EDL phase of the mission.  As this programming is no longer required, mission control will transmit the initial data sets required for the rover and its systems to go through their commissioning procedures – which are liable to take a few weeks – and prepared it for its initial science mission software. During this week, further tests will also be carried out, including allowing the rover to complete a short drive.

I’ll have more on all of these actives in future Space Sunday updates, but for now, why not scroll back up and what that video again?

Space Sunday: ‘Perseverance will get you anywhere’

A CGI model of the Mars 2020 rover Perseverance on the surface of Mars.  Credit; NASA

NASA once again has more than one rover operating on the surface of Mars. On Thursday, February 18th, the Mars 2020 mission, comprising the rover Perseverance and the aerial technology demonstrator Ingenuity, arrived in Jezero Crater in the northern hemisphere of the red planet.

The landing followed the same profile as that of NASA’s other operational rover, Curiosity, which arrived on Mars as the physical element of the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) mission in August 2012, and which is still exploring Aoelis Mons, the huge mound at the centre of Gale Crater, although there were some notable differences.

Referred to as “the seven minutes of terror”, the landing involved the rover and its helicopter payload and landing system packed within an aerodynamic aeroshell, slamming into the upper reaches of the tenuous Martian atmosphere at 20,000 km/h, then the rover and payload touching gently down on Mars on the end of a winch just seven minutes later.

Some ten minutes prior to atmospheric entry, the mission had separated from its supporting cruise stage – the component that that provided it with power, heat and communications with Earth. Small reaction control thrusters on the aeroshell fired shortly after, slowing the spin induced to assist with stability during the 3.4 million km cruise out from Earth so that it would interfere with the vehicle’s passage through the atmosphere.

Mars 2020 Entry, Decent and Landing (EDL).  Credit; NASA

Protected by the heat shield that formed the lower part of its aeroshell, Mars 2020 passed through the searing heat of atmospheric entry, the friction of its passage helping to decelerate it. From here on in, things happened fairly rapidly.

Just under five minutes from touchdown, the vehicle used programmed control checks to align itself onto a course towards its intended landing site and entered what NASA call the “straighten up and fly right” manoeuvre – jettisoning a final group of balance masses whilst using its aerodynamic shape to steady itself on course ready for parachute deployment. This occurred with the craft just 20.8 km up-range of its landing site and still travelling at more than 2,000 km/h – or supersonic speed.

With the parachute deployed, the heat shield could be jettisoned, exposing the rover vehicle and its instruments to Mars for the first time. This meant camera and radar systems could start operating (as could the on-board microphones), and the craft could enter an entirely new mode of robotic landing.

Given the distance between Earth and Mars, two-way communications are impossible, so Martian landing have to be programmed in advance and triggered triggered by events such as velocity, atmospheric pressure, elapsed time, etc., but without any means to deviate from programming in any way. However, Mars 2020 was equipped with Terrain Relative Navigation (TRN).

What TRN means for landing accuracy: superimposed over Jezero Crater, the white ellipses representing the potential landing sites for various missions. The outermost is that of Mars Pathfinder (1998) and reflects the lack of detailed data available on the proposed landing site for that mission. By 2012, and the MSL rover Curiosity, engineers had more then enough data to target a substantially smaller area for landing. Thanks to TRN, this could be reduced still further for Mars 2020 (note the InSight lander (2018) has a large landing ellipse because the amount of data available on the regions around the north and south poles of Mars is not as extensive as is the case with latitudes moving towards the planet’s equator. Credit: NASA

This essentially took readings of the ground below and ahead of the craft as it descended under its parachute,  comparing the findings with high-resolution terrain maps of the landing site and surroundings. If it noted any potential hazard, it would cause the vehicle to use its thrusters to steer itself away from the hazard whilst maintaining its overall heading towards the landing site. TRN also allowed the vehicle to identity any obstructions within its target landing area and feed the data necessary to avoid them to the rover’s skycrane system that would handle the final part of the landing.

Weighing around a tonne, Perseverance, like Curiosity before it, is too heavy to rely solely on parachutes to make a landing. Instead, both rovers relied upon a jet-powered “backpack” – the skycrane. This, with the rover strapped underneath it, fell clear of the backshell and parachute just 1.6 km above the surface of Mars. Once safely clear of the backshell, rock motors on the skycrane fired, reducing the rate of descent from around 360 km/h to just 3 km/h whilst also flying the rover directly over the ideal landing point.

Seconds from touchdown: this remarkable image was captured by a camera mounted on the Mars 2020 skycrane. It shows the Perseverance rover with wheels deployed and other systems (Mastcam camera systems, robot arm) still stowed, as the rover is winched away in preparation for delivery onto the surface of Mars on February 18th, 2021. The bin-like section of the rover, top right, is the shielded housing for its plutonium nuclear “battery” power source. Credit: NASA/JPL

Entering a hover some 21.5 metres above the landing site, the skycrane held steady as it released the rover on a winch mechanism and lowered it towards the ground. This triggered the rover’s wheels, which had been folded stowed against its body, to deploy and lock themselves into their operational position. With the rover at the extent of the cables, the skycrane eased it down to deliver it to the surface.

Once the rover was able to confirm it was firmly on Mars – a matter of a second or so using sensors in its wheel mechanisms – it sent a message up the wire to the skycrane telling it to detach. This it did before carefully piloting itself away along a course that prevented the rocket motor exhausts washing over the rover and possibly damaging / contaminating it, before crashing into the surface of Mars.

The entire EDL – Entry, Decent and Landing – phase of the mission had been watched over by three of the craft currently in orbit around Mars. The first of these was the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO – now approaching 15 years of continuous operations in Mars orbit) that was specifically tasked to act as both observer and communications relay. Also recording the event was NASA’s MAVEN spacecraft – it would transmit the data it received some time after the landing had been completed, whilst ESA’s Mars Express orbiter (currently the longest-running operational Mars orbital mission, with 17 years under its belt in Mars orbit) acting as a back-up relay.

Not only was NASA’s MRO vehicle performing the role of active communications relay during the Mars 2020 landing, it was actually observing the landing using its phenomenal HiRISE camera system, which actually caught Mars 2020 suspended under its parachute as it drifts towards and inflow delta within Jezero Crater (see on the left side on the main image). Credit NASA/JPL

In addition, it had been hoped that NASA’s InSight Lander, although over 2,000 km from Jezero Crater, might be able to hear the sonic booms of Mars 2020’s passage through the Martian atmosphere. However, at the time of writing, I’m not sure if this was successful.

Continue reading “Space Sunday: ‘Perseverance will get you anywhere’”

Space Sunday: orbits, landings, launches and a portrait

The United Arab Emirates celebrate the successful orbital insertion about Mars of their Hope mission

As I noted in my previous Space Sunday update, Mars is having one of its busiest period in the 50 years we have been sending probes to either orbit or land on that world, with no fewer than three new robotic missions either now in orbit or about to arrive.

The reason for this rapid-fire arrival is simple: Mars and Earth both orbit the Sun, but Earth, as the nearer of the two, completes a single orbit once every 365.25 days whilst Mars does the same once every 687 days. This means that Every so often, Earth “overtakes” Mars as they circle the Sun.

These periods of “overtaking” occur once every 26 terrestrial months,  and are – slightly confusingly – called periods of “opposition”,  so-called because Mars and the Sun appear to be on “opposite” sides of the Earth relative to one another in their orbits. However, where space missions are concerned, it’s not the point at which Earth “overtakes” Mars that is important, but the period of a couple of weeks beforehand, when Earth is in the final stages of “catching up”.

It is at this point that a mission to Mars can be most effectively launched. This is for a number of reasons: firstly, it marks the time when Earth and Mars are relatively close to one another in their respective orbits – perhaps as close as 50-60 million km when measured in a straight line. While spacecraft do not travel in a straight line between planets, it does mean the distance they do have to traverse is reduced to a few hundred million kilometres. Secondly, launching while Earth is still “catching up” with Mars means a spacecraft receives an added “boost”. Thirdly, it ensures the vehicle can enter a Hohmann Transfer orbit between the two planets.

A Hohmann Transfer Orbit linking Earth and Mars. Credit: unknown

Named for German engineer Walter Hohmann, who first calculated it in 1925, the Hohmann Transfer Orbit is the most fuel-efficient means for a spacecraft to move between the orbits of two different planets, further reducing the complexity of the journey by reducing the number of mid-course corrections that might otherwise be required. When taken as a whole, these three points mean that a mission to Mars can be launched with the minimum amount of time it needs to reach its destination and in a manner that maximises fuel efficiency.

Because the orbit of Mars is more elliptical than Earth’s, the actual time it takes to travel between the two during these periods can vary between six and seven months., with the distance this time meaning that the three missions launched in July 2020 have taken almost seven moths to reach Mars. They form an international flotilla, as I noted in my previous Space Sunday update, being from the United Arab Emirates by way of Japan, China and the United States.

All three are highly ambitious in nature, again as I noted last time around. The UAE’s Hope mission, the first to arrive, marks both the country’s first attempt to reach Mars and its very first interplanetary mission as a whole – no mean achievement for a country that has only recently committed itself to the goal of long-term space exploration and science.

Released on Sunday, February 14th, it is the first image of Mars take by Hope after it achieved its initial orbit around the planet. Credit: UAE / Mohammed bin Rashid Space Centre

The mission itself has been put together and is being run by a team of around 150 and at a cost of just US $200 million – which, as the saying goes, is just peanuts for space [missions]. It utilised a Japanese H-IIA launch vehicle to reach Mars, and in the face of understandable nervousness within the Hope mission team, the roughly cubic vehicle with a mass of around 1.4 tonnes, lipped into its initially orbit around Mars on Tuesday, February 9th following a 27-minute continuous burn of the vehicles main thrusters, a manoeuvre that used around half the craft’s available fuel load.

As it did so, the UAE staged a national celebration, with images of the Martian moons of Phobos and Deimos being projected into the night sky over the desert, while the skyline of Dubai saw buildings lit up with the mission name and images of the planet.

To celebrate the arrival of Hope in Martian orbit, the UAE government projected images of Phobos and Deimos into the desert skies. Credit: UAE government

The aim of the mission is to further understand the Martian weather, atmosphere and climate, and to specifically close existing gaps in our knowledge of all three. It occupies what is called a high supersynchronous orbit, circling the planet once every 55 hours at a distance of between 20,000 km (periapse) and an apopapse of 43,000 km, altitudes that allow it to observe daily cycles across the entire visible hemisphere of the planet and witness season changes as they affect both the northern and southern hemispheres.

Continue reading “Space Sunday: orbits, landings, launches and a portrait”

Space Sunday: crashes, tests and an Inspiration

Two seconds from disaster: an inverted Starship prototype SN9 about to impact the landing pad at Boca Chica, February 2nd,2021. Directly below the vehicle and on the horizon is the angled base of the Super Heavy launch platform (under construction). Centred on the ground is the Starhopper test vehicle with the SN7.2 test tank to the right. Image credit: Cosmic Perspective

On Tuesday, February 2nd, and after Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) related delays, SpaceX Starship prototype SN9 took to the skies over southern Texas in the second high altitude flight test for the Starship programme.

The flight itself, to some 10 km altitude, followed by a skydive descent to around the 2 km altitude mark, was remarkably successfully – as was the case with the first high-altitude flight (to 12 km on that occasion) seen with Starship prototype SN8 in December 2020 (see: Space Sunday: the flight of SN8 and a round-up). However, and also like the SN8 flight, things went off-kilter during the final element of the flight, resulting in a complete loss of the vehicle.

Lift-off: SN9 rises from its launch platform with SN10 beyond it. he angle of this shot makes the two vehicles appear closer than they were in reality; SN10 was in fact well clear of its sister. Image credit: LabPadre

As I’ve previously noted, the route of Staship prototype SN9 from fabrication high bay to launch stand had been remarkably fast compared to that of SN8, leading to speculation that the anticipated second flight test could occur in January. However, while the vehicle remained on the launch stand going through numerous pre-flight tests, including numerous Raptor engine re-start tests (which actually saw two of the motors swapped-out), things appeared stalled before that final step of an actual flight.

This now appears to be down to the fact that the FAA weren’t entirely happy with SpaceX over the flight of SN8, which effectively went ahead without proper approval. In short, SpaceX applied for a waiver against the licence the FAA had granted for Starship flight testing which would have allowed the company to exceed “maximum public risk as allowed by federal  safety regulations”.

At the time, the waiver was denied – but the SN8 launch went ahead, violating the required safety limits, and whilst no-one was injured in the crash of SN8, the FAA correctly ordered a full investigation into the flight and also the safety culture and management oversight of SpaceX operations. Those investigations not only took time to complete, but also afterwards required FAA review and modifications made to the licence granted to SpaceX to carry out Starship prototype flights.

Boca Chica from space: captured by a SkySat satellite approximately 568 km above the Earth, this image shows the SpaceX Boca Chica launch facility with the two Starship prototypes on their launch stands, the SN7.2 tank test unit, the Super Heavy booster launch stand under construction, and other elements such as the fuel farm, and Highway 4 running from the coast (r) back to the SpaceX construction and fabrication facilities (off to the left of the image). Image credit: Planet Labs
If a licensee violates the terms of their launch license, they did so knowing that an uninvolved member of the public could have been hurt or killed. That is not exaggeration. They took a calculated risk with your life and property … If the FAA does not enforce their launch licenses, it will damage the long-term viability of the launch industry and damage their credibility with Congress. It is possible that the industry could suffer significant regulatory burdens enforced by Congress to ensure safety.

– Former deputy chief of staff and senior FAA adviser Jared Zambrano-Stout,
commenting on SpaceX launching SN8 without the request licence waiver

The required licence modifications were not completed until February 1st, the day on which SpaceX initially attempted to launch SN9, and their lack of their availability may have been the reason that attempt was scrubbed, resulting in the February 2nd attempt.

Coverage of the test flight started very early on the morning (local time) on February 2nd, with SpaceX providing multiple camera points around the launch stand and on the vehicle, as well as via drones.flying overhead In addition, space flght enthusiast such as NASASpaceflight.com also provided coverage from multiple points around the Boca Chica, Texas, site, including video recorded by Mary “BocaChicaGirl”, who provides a daily 24/7 feed of activity at the site.

The vehicle, with prototype SN10 occupying a second launch stand nearby, lifted-off at 20:25:15 UTC, following the ignition of all three Raptor engines. The launch was delayed by some 25 minutes as a result of a range safety violation – one of the circumstances of concern to the FAA. However, the ascent itself was flawless, with the vehicle rapidly climbing to altitude over the next four minutes, two of the Raptors shutting down as it did so to reduce the dynamic stresses on the vehicle in light of it being only partially fuelled and to ensure it didn’t overshoot the planned apogee for the flight.

Flip over: at 10 km altitude, the one operational Raptor motor gimbals its thrust as the leeward midships RCS thruster fires, tipping SN9 over to start its 2-minute skydive back to the ground. Image credit: SpaceX

This came at 20:29:15 UTC, with the vehicle entering a brief hover using its one firing motor, as fuel supplies were switched from the main tanks to the smaller “header” tanks that would be used to power the engines during landing manoeuvres. At this point, the remaining motor shut down as the reaction control  system (RCS) thrusters fired, gently pushing the vehicle over from vertical and into its skydive position, where the fore and aft aerodynamic surfaces could be used to stabilise the vehicle during descent.

This phase of the descent lasted just over 2 minutes, with the order given to re-start two of the Raptor engines given at 20:31:35 UTC. These engines should have then gimballed and used their thrust, together with the forward RCS thrusters to return the vehicle to a vertical pose before one of the motors again shut down and the second slowed the vehicle into a propulsive, tail-first landing.

From below: a camera on the ground dramatically captures the moment one of the Raptor engines on SN9 re-starts as RCS systems fire to help maintain stability. Image credit: SpaceX

Both of these motors fire a split second apart, and footage of the rear of the vehicle suggests that the first may have suffered a mis-fire before starting correctly. However, the second motor appears to have suffered a catastrophic failure on re-start, possibly involving a turbopump failure: as it ignited, debris could clearly be seen being blown clear of the vehicle.

With only one operational main engine, SN9 was unable to stop its change in flight profile and remain upright. Instead, it continued to rotate and become inverted just before it struck the landing pad in what SpaceX refer to as “an energetic, rapid unscheduled disassembly” (that’s “exploded on impact” for the rest of us).

No official word on the failure has been given – obviously, SpaceX will need time for a thorough investigation, and will likely have the FAA watching closely. It is also not clear if the material coming away from the vehicle is actually parts of the engine, or sections of the engine skirt blown clear of the vehicle. As some are still to be drifting down to the ground fairly close to SN10 on its launch stand, it is possible they are from the vehicle’s skin.

A wider image of the inverted SN9 prototype just before impact, with the Super Heavy launch stand, SN7.2 tank and Starhopper prototype overlapping one another, and the SN10 prototype to the right. Note the debris (arrowed) drifting down behind the vehicle. Image credit: NasaSpaceflight.com

Continue reading “Space Sunday: crashes, tests and an Inspiration”

Space Sunday: Apollo 14, 50 years on

Panorama of the Apollo 14 landing site taken in 1971. Credit; NASA

Fifty years ago today, January 31st, 2021, America’s Apollo lunar missions resumed – and came perilously close to a second aborted mission.

Originally scheduled to take place in July 1970, Apollo 14 was delayed following the Apollo 13 crisis (see: Space Sunday: Apollo 13, 50 years on), to both allow time for recommendations resulting from the investigations into the Apollo 13 mishap to be implemented. This not only led to a hiatus in lunar landings, it also meant that the Apollo 14 crew of Mercury 7 veteran Alan B. Shepard Jr. (Commander),  Stuart A. Roosa (Command Module Pilot) and Edgar D. Mitchell (Lunar Module Pilot) eventually spent more time training together than any other Apollo crew to that point: a total of 19 months.

In the immediate aftermath of Apollo 13, NASA Administrator Thomas O. Paine indicated the agency would ideally like to launch the mission before the end of 1970; however, the recommendations for changes to be made to the Command and Service Module (CSM) combination meant that the earliest the agency could realistically schedule a launch for the mission was at the end of January 1971 – with much of the work in supervising the necessary changes being loaded directly onto the shoulders of Shepherd and Roosa.

We realised that if our mission failed—if we had to turn back—that was probably the end of the Apollo program. There was no way NASA could stand two failures in a row. We figured there was a heavy mantle on our shoulders to make sure we got it right

– Edgar D. Mitchell, discussing Apollo 14 preparations, speaking in 2011

A  further complication for the mission was that following Apollo 13, the original landing site for the Apollo 14 crew at Littrow crater, in Mare Serenitatis was abandoned in favour of sending the mission to Fra Mauro, the intended landing site for Apollo 13, and which was seen as having greater scientific relevance, requiring Shepherd and Mitchell to revisit their lunar surface and geology training – Littrow had required a high degree of training in volcanic geology; Fra Mauro was an impact crater site.

Official Apollo 14 crew photo: Stuart Roosa, Alan Shepard (centre) and Edgar Mitchell. Credit: NASA

The key changes to the CSM combination were around the oxygen tanks that had exploded on Apollo 13. These includes a complete redesign of the tanks and the circuitry within them, while a third tank was add on the opposite side of the SM that could act as a back-up in case of issues with the first two. Other changes included incorporating a 5 US gallon tank of “emergency” drinking water and an additional battery to help maintain electrical power to the Command Module in event of the main power buses failing. Alterations were also made to the connections between the Command and Lunar modules for easier and faster transfer of power and control between the two.

Outside of the need to overhaul the CSM combination in the wake of Apollo 13, the Lunar Module for the mission – the last of the “short term” H-class missions – underwent changes that included anti-slosh baffles in the descent engine fuel tanks intended to prevent incorrect low fuel warnings to be triggered – an issue that plagued both Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 – and the installation of additional equipment hard-points for the surface science mission, which would be the most intensive yet for an Apollo lunar mission.

Aside from these changes, the mission was to be the first to fly an altered Saturn V rocket. Whilst ostensibly the same externally as all the previous Saturn Vs that had flown, SA-509 had a series of internal changes made to its fuel system to prevent pogo oscillations – a self-excited vibration in liquid-propellant rocket engines caused by combustion instability that can, if unchecked, result in an engine exploding. On Apollo 13, such oscillations had meant the centre J2 engine of the rocket’s upper stage had to be prematurely shut down.

Saturn V SA-509, topped by the Apollo 14 spacecraft, rolls out from the Vertical Assembly Building (now the Vehicle Assembly Building) on its way to launch pad 39-A. Credit: NASA

Of the crew, Shepard was the only one to have previously flown in space as the first American to complete a sub-orbital hop aboard Mercury Freedom 7 in May 1961.

Born in 1923, Shepard attended the US Navy Academy at Annapolis from 1941 to 1944 (the normal 4-year training course having been cut by 12 months due to World War 2). He  initially served aboard the destroyer USS Cogswell – it then being a requirement that Navy aviators serve shipboard time prior to starting flying training -, rising to the rank of Air Gunnery Officer, responsible for the ship’s anti-aircraft guns and crews, a position he held while the Cogswell served critical roles in the Battle of Okinawa and off the coast of Japan.

In November 1945 he transferred to flight training school, and after almost washing out as a pupil, went on to  gain 3,600 flying hours  with more than 1,700 in jets, eventually rising to the position of Aircraft Readiness Officer on the staff of the Commander-in-Chief, Atlantic Fleet.

After his Mercury flight, In 1963 Shepard was grounded due to Ménière’s disease, an inner-ear ailment that caused episodes of extreme dizziness and nausea.This precluded him from flight involvement in the Gemini programme, although from 1963 through 1969 he was NASA’s Chief of the Astronaut Office with overall responsibility for astronaut training and mission selection.

In 1969, Shepard underwent successful surgery to correct his ear issue, and was returned to active flight status. He immediately lobbied his successor as Chief of the Astronaut Office, Donald “Deke” Slayton for a position on Apollo, and was initially earmarked to command Apollo 13. However, his “inexperience” in having missed the entire Gemini programme, and that of his crew as a whole, saw them “bumped” to Apollo 14 to allow them a greater amount of training.

Both Stuart Roosa and Edgar Mitchell were rookies, with Apollo 14 their first and only flight into space. Roosa had previously been a “smokejumper” with the US Forest Service, parachuting into remote area to combat forest fires, prior to transferring to the United States Air Force and training to be both a fighter pilot and an experimental test pilot.  On joining NASA in 1966, he was the capsule communicator (CAPCOM) for the tragic Apollo 1 fire, and also served on the support team for Apollo 9, working closely with Edgar Mitchell.

Mitchell was another Naval aviator, having entered the service in 1952 with a degree in industrial management.  During during his military flying career he gained a second bachelor’s degree in aeronautics and a doctorate in in aeronautics and astronautics. He also clocked an impressive 5,000 flying hours as both a front-line fighter pilot and a test pilot, 2,000 of those hours gained in jets.

Mitchell’s involvement with space activities actually started before he joined NASA, when in  1964 he was assigned to the US Air Force Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL), serving as Chief, Project Management Division of the Navy Field Office that was liaising with the Air Force, and also as an instructor in advanced mathematics and navigation theory for MOL astronaut candidates. When MOL was cancelled, he applied to NASA, and was accepted as a part of the fifth astronaut intake alongside Stuart Roosa.

Given it was the first mission to follow Apollo 13, there was a lot of media and political attention on Apollo 14, including pressure for it to launch on schedule. As it was, weather intervened on the launch day, causing the countdown to be paused for some 40 minutes – the first time such a delay had occurred with and Apollo mission. Launch eventually took place at 21:03:02 UTC on January 31st, 1971.

The pre-launch delay wasn’t considered to be a significant issue, as the mission was to take a faster trajectory to the Moon than previous launches, so the delay effectively left it running precisely “on time” compared to earlier missions. Following a require time in Earth orbit, the S-IVB third stage engines were-lit, pushing the mission on its way to the Moon.

Once en-route, the CSM – christened Kitty Hawk by the crew in honour of the Wright Brothers –  had to separate from the S-IVB, then turn through 180º to dock with the now-exposed Lunar Module (called Antares after the star Shepard and Mitchell were due to use as reference point when orienting their craft for its lunar landing) and then gently pull it clear of the rocket stage, which would then gently divert away from the Apollo vehicles flight path.

Roosa, as Command Module Pilot, hoped to set the record for competing this manoeuvre using the least amount of fuel. However, the extended docking mechanism in the nose of the Command Module had other ideas – it refused to latch onto the lunar module firmly enough to trigger the release of the pin holding the LM in place on the S-IVB. Over two hours Roosa repeatedly attempted to make an initial “soft dock” with the LM, but was repeatedly thwarted, leaving the crew and mission control agitated: if the LM could not be extracted by the CM, then the mission was over – and two mission failures in succession, even without any loss of life, would likely spell the end of Apollo.

Continue reading “Space Sunday: Apollo 14, 50 years on”

Space Sunday: rockets, water and spaceplanes

Starship SN9: three platform engine test firings in three hours.  Credit: Mary “BocaChicaGal”

After a build-up of excitement around a potential start-of-year flight for SpaceX Starship prototype SN9, things has slowed down somewhat – but the vehicle may now be on the brink of making its 12.5 km ascent to altitude and an attempt to land successfully after an unpowered “skydive” back towards Earth.

As I noted in my January 10th Space Sunday report, SpaceX had managed to accelerate the processing of SN9 in comparison to SN8 to a point where the majority of pre-flight checks for the vehicle – including a static fire test of the engines on January 6th –  had been completed in just a 2-week period following its delivery to the launch stand on December 22nd, compared to 2 months taken for prototype SN8 to reach the same point.

However, as I noted at the time, that static fire test was far shorter than had been expected – just 2 second in length, signifying a possible issue. This appeared to be confirmed when SpaceX attempted further engine tests between January 8th and January 12th, of of which had to be scrubbed for various reasons (including weather), before a further test was made on Wednesday, January 13th – and things took an unexpected turn: after the first brief test, two further tests took place within a 2-hour period for all three tests.

Tweeting about them SpaceX CEO Elon Musk referred to the three firings as “test starts” of the three Raptor motors, rather than full pre-flight static fire tests. Following them, and a successful de-tanking of excess fuel, inspections of the motors revealed that two needed slight repairs, causing the company to swap them out for other units.

As part of streamlining starship operations, SpaceX have refined the processes related to engine swap-outs to a point where they can effectively be achieved within days rather than weeks, depending on the availability of replacement motor units – the actual physical removal of an engine can be completed in hours, as can the installation of a replacement. In this case, the work was done over a couple of days, the engines requiring replacement being removed from the vehicle and shipped out of Boca Chica before the replacements were delivered and installed, clearing the way for a final engine test.

This took place on Friday, January 22nd, when all three engines were ignited for several seconds before shutting down. Described as “very smooth” by Musk afterwards, this final engine test – the 5th for SN9 – means that the door is open for a flight test, possibly as early as Monday, January 24th, 2021.

Outside of SN9, it appears work at Boca Chica has commenced on Starship prototypes SN17 and SN18, and on the second Super Heavy booster prototype. Also, in my January 10th Space Sunday update, I noted that work had been discontinued on Starship prototypes SN12 through SN14. Work has now commenced in dismantling those parts of SN12 that had been fabricated. This is likely due to the fact that SpaceX are iterating the design and construction of the prototypes so fast, SN12 had become effectively obsolete due to the materials used.

The rapid rate of iteration is also reflected in the move of a new fuel tank section – SN7.2 -, which has been moved to a test stand where it will  be pressurised to destruction in a similar manner to the SN7 and SN7.1, each of which also saw iterations in the basic tank design. SN7.2 in particular is built using 3 mm aluminium rather that the current 4 mm material in an attempt to reduce the overall “dry” mass of the vehicle.

In 2020, Musk raised the idea of launching Starship / Super Heavy vehicle from sea platforms, suggesting this could be used for vehicles intended to reach orbit or in passenger-carrying sub-orbital transcontinental flights. Now evidence has emerged this is more than an idea, and SpaceX is in the process of converting two former offshore drilling platforms for use as floating launch platforms.

Aerospace Photographer Jack Beyer was the first to bring the news to the public eye after exploring the port of Brownsville, Texas, not far from the SpaceX facilities at Boca Chica whilst waiting for the SN9 static fire tests to resume. In particular, he spotted an oil platform apparently called Deimos (“dread”) undergoing extensive refit work. Not long after, a image captured over the port of Galveston, Texas, and dated January 13th revealed another rig with the name Phobos (“fear”), and which was later moved to Pascagoula, Mississippi, between January 17th and 22nd.

Phobos and Deimos are, of course, the names given to the captured moons of Mars, and the discovery of the two rigs sparked speculation that the platforms had been purchased by SpaceX.

The soon-to-be SpaceX sea launch platform for Super Heavy / Starship. Credit: Jack Beyer via NASAspaceflight.com

Michael Baylor from NASAspaceflight.com started digging into things using further images captured by Jack Beyer, and discovered that the two rigs in question were originally owned by the world’s largest offshore drilling / well drilling company: UK-registered and Texas-based Valaris plc (formerly ENSCO-Rowan).

Originally constructed in Singapore in 2008, the two rigs were originally called ENSCO 8500 (later Valaris 8500 and now Deimos), and ENSCO 8501 (later Valaris 8501 and now Phobos). However, following the company declaring bankruptcy, the company offered the platforms for sale and US 3.5 million apiece. The purchaser was company called Lone Star Mineral Development LLC, which had only formed in June 2020. Further digging revealed that one of the principals for Lone Star Mineral Development is none other than SpaceX Chief Financial Officer (CFO), who is also the head of the company’s Strategic Acquisitions Group, Bret Johnsen.

Wreathed in cloud, the Deimos arrives at Pascagoula, Mississippi, January 22nd. Credit: Brady Kenniston via NASAspaceflight.com

Both platforms are classified as “semi-submersible”, meaning they float on large pontoons that can be filled with water ballast that both settles them in the water to stabilise them while dynamic positioning water thrusters hold them in a precise location, making them an ideal launch platform, as does their deck loading of around 8,000 tonnes,means that are more than capable of supporting a Super Heavy  / Starship combination and their fuel loads.

The work to convert the two platforms to support fuelling, payload integration, launch, and landing operations is extensive. As such neither is likely to be ready for use in 2021. However, once operational, they will effectively double the number of Super Heavy / Starship launch facilities – SpaceX is currently building the first Super Heavy platform at Boca Chica,and have plans for a second. Multiple launch facilities will be essential in the future if SpaceX is to start to build towards the planned number of launches for the system..

Continue reading “Space Sunday: rockets, water and spaceplanes”