Tag: Blue Origin

Space Sunday: NG-1 and IFT-7

Posted on by Inara Pey
New Glenn NG-1 rises from SLC-36, Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida, on the morning of January 16th, marking the start of the vehicle’s maiden flight. Credit: Blue Origin

This past week marked several space launch events and announcements, including India’s first successful on-orbit rendezvous and docking between two of its satellites, However, for this edition of Space Sunday, I’m focusing on the two “biggies” of the week.

New Glenn NG-1: Primary Goal Met, even with Booster Lost

On Thursday, January 16th, 2025, Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket finally lifted off on its maiden flight after multiple delays over a 4-year period.

Originally targeting 2020/21 for a first launch, New Glenn was delayed numerous times both as a result of changes to the vehicle’s overall design (some coming as late at 2018), technical issues in development, external forces such as the COVID-2 pandemic, and as one Blue Origin executive put it in 2018, “we study a little too much and do too little.”

Such was the delay that the company lost the chance to debut New Glenn with a high-profile launch – that of NASA’s EscaPADE mission to Mars. In late summer of 2024, the US space agency became concerned enough over Blue Origin’s ability to meet the required November 2024 launch window for the mission, the decision was made to push back EscaPADE to a spring 2025 launch date. Instead, the first New Glenn flight – NG-1 – took place with a prototype / demonstrator payload of another of the company’s vehicles, Blue Ring. This is a spacecraft platform designed to support spacecraft operation, under development by Blue Origin. The platform is to be capable of refuelling, transporting, and hosting satellites.

An artist’s impression of a Blue Ring vehicle in Earth orbit with its pair of 22-metre solar arrays deployed to provide electrical power and propulsion. Credit: Blue Origin

With a payload capacity of up to three tonnes and fully able to be refuelled itself, Blue Ring is capable of performing the role of a space tug, moving payload between orbits and itself capable operating in geostationary orbit, lunar orbit, cislunar space and within the Earth-Moon Lagrange points. This makes it a highly flexible vehicle, something added to by its mix of electric and chemical propulsion systems and its ability to be carried by a range of launch vehicles as well as New Glenn.

This first flight on Blue Ring did not see the vehicle detach from the rocket’s upper stage; instead, the launch was to test of whether New Glenn could accurately deliver it to an assigned orbit with a high level of accuracy and whether the vehicle’s own flight and data-gathering systems operated correctly. Both of these are key to both New Glenn and Blue Ring gaining certification to carry out US National Security Space Launch (NSSL) operations.

New Glenn on the launch stand at SLC-36, as seen from the just off the Florida coast. Note the large black object alongside the rocket is the Launch Table, a platform used to hold the rocket in both its horizontal orientation when being rolled-out from the integration building to the pad, and provide launch-tower like support when the vehicle is upright. Credit: Blue Origin

Lift-off for NG-1 came at 07:03 UTC on January 16th, the 98 metre tall two-stage vehicle rising from Space Launch Complex 36 at Canaveral Space Force Station. All seven BE-4 liquid oxygen / liquid methane engines on the first stage worked flawlessly, successfully pushing the vehicle up to a stage separation some 21 km above the Earth. The upper stage then lifted the Blue Ring pathfinder into an elliptical medium Earth orbit (MEO) with an apogee of 19,300 km and a perigee of 2,400 km at a 30-degree inclination (and not a “low Earth orbit” as some outlets reported) some 13 minutes after launch.

While the payload did not separate from the New Glenn upper stage, its on-board systems did power-up, allowing it to provide detailed telemetry as to its position and orbit – confirming it had deviated less than 1% from its optimal orbital track. Over a 6-hour period the pathfinder vehicle completed all assigned tasks, and the New Glenn was “safed” (all remaining propellants and any potentially hazardous elements such as batteries, vented / jettisoned).

All of this marked a highly successful maiden flight for New Glenn – which already has a fairly full launch manifest. However, there was one hiccup: Like SpaceX’s Falcon family, New Glenn’s first stage is designed to be recovered and re-used; and while ambitious, Blue Origin hoped to achieve what it admitted was “secondary goal” on the flight, and one unlikely to happen, a successful recovery of the NG-1 first stage aboard the Landing Platform Vessel Jacklyn, station-keeping some 1,000 km off the Florida coast.

However, following second stage separation, the first stage of the booster entered into a re-entry burn using three of its main engines, and at T+ 7:55, telemetry froze at the planned end of that burn, indicating the stage had been lost at an attitude of approximately 26.5 km while travelling at some 6,900 km/h.

Exactly what happened is unclear – the stage loss is now subject to a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Mishap Investigation which, following standard FAA practice, will be led by Blue Origin as the launch vehicle operator, and subject to FAA oversight. It is not clear at present in this investigation will impact on upcoming New Glenn launches; that will depend on what is identified as the cause of the loss.

Starship IFT-7: Booster Caught, but Exposed the Risks

Almost on January 16th, 2025, SpaceX attempted the seventh integrated flight teat (IFT) of their Starship / Super Heavy (S/SH) launch system. The launch featured Booster 14 (a Block 1 – i.e. “original version”- vehicle) and a Ship 33, a Block 2 craft said to feature multiple updates and improvements to increase “reliability, capability and safety”.

Chief among the changes to the Block 2 series of Starship vehicles and their predecessors are:

  • An increase in hull length by 3.1 metres.
  • Redesigned forward aeroflaps, which are smaller and thinner than Block 1, thinner, and positioned both further forward and more leeward (further “up” the hull relative to the heat shield in an attempt to reduce their exposure to plasma flow heating during re-entry).
  • A 25% increase in overall propellant load.
  • Redesigned flight avionics, improvements to the interstage venting.

Additionally, Block 2 vehicles are specifically designed to fly with the upcoming Raptor 3 engine, which is an even lighter variant of the motor (1.525 tonnes), wither greater maximum thrust (280-300 tonne-force (tf) at sea level compared to Raptor 2’s 230 tf). However, Ship 33 flew with Raptor 2 motors. The Block 2 vehicle is also the first variant of Starship reportedly designed to lift 100 tonnes of payload to LEO.

IFT-7 was to be a further proving flight for S/SH, with a number of core milestones:

  • Vehicle launch with booster recovery.
  • Starship sub-orbital insertion & on-orbit re-light of engines.
  • Starship deployment of a dummy Starlink payload via a “pez dispenser” hatch.
  • Starship re-entry test and possible splashdown.

It’s important to note that whether or not Ship 33 survived re-entry was to be questionable. Ship 33 had a reduction in the area of its hull covered by thermal protection system tiles in an attempt to reduce vehicle mass and complexity, and intentionally had a number of tiles removed from various points to test the ability of the steel used in the vehicle to withstand heating (the areas devoid of tiles will eventually mount the “catch pins” required during launch tower recovery operations.). Therefore, the loss of this vehicle during re-entry was considered likely, even if everything else went smoothly.

Ship 33 and Booster 14 lift-off from Boca Chica, Texas at the start of IFT-7, January 16th, 2025

IFT-7 launched from the SpaceX facilities at Boca Chica, Texas, at 22:37 UTC, and the initial ascent proceeded smoothly. At 2:32 into the flight and at around 60 km altitude, the booster shut down all but its central three directional motors ready for “hot staging” – the ignition of Ship 33’s six motors and its separation from the booster. This took place at T+ 2:46, the booster immediately re-lighting all but one of its inner ring of 10 fixed motors at the start of the boost-back manoeuvre designed to stop its ascent and push it back towards the launch point.

Boost-back lasted some 42 seconds before the inner ring of motors on the booster shut down again, immediately followed by the jettisoning of the hot stage (the ring mounted between the booster and the starship and used to deflect the latter’s exhaust flames away from the former during the hot staging sequence. At this point the booster was in an aerodynamic fall / glide back towards Boca Chica, the fall becoming increasingly vertical as it closed on the launch point.

Just over 3 minutes after shutting-down from boost-back, all 10 motors on the booster’s inner ring re-lit at approximately 1.2 km altitude, slowing its decent, before shutting down a final time 8 seconds later, allowing the three directional motors to both continue to slow the boosters descent to a hover and guide it between the “chopstick” arms of the launch tower’s “Mechazilla” mechanism for a successful “catch”, marking a successful conclusion to the initial two milestones for the flight.

Meanwhile, Ship 33 continued its ascent towards a sub-orbital trajectory. Then, at 7:39 into the flight and at an altitude of 141 km, telemetry indicated one of Ship 33’s inner three inner sea-level Raptor motors prematurely shut down. Fourteen seconds later, livestream camera footage appeared to show flames from an internal fire passing over the exposed hinge mechanism of an aft flap. This is followed by telemetry indicating the loss of a second sea-level Raptor, together with one of the outer three vacuum-optimised Raptors, likely resulting in an off-centre thrust from the three remaining motors (only one of which – the central sea-level motor – could be gimballed to provide directional thrust to counter the thrust bias from the two fixed outer motors.

At 8:19 into the flight, and at altitude of 145 km, telemetry indicates the last of the remaining central motors and one of the two outer motors were no longer functioning. Seven seconds later, telemetry freezes, suggesting at this point the vehicle was breaking up. As has been seen from numerous videos released over social media, it appears the vehicle exploded (euphemistically called “a rapid unscheduled disassembly” by SpaceX, a term making light of the potential harm such an event can cause).

A close-up of a still from the IFT-1 livestream showing one of the hinge mechanisms on a aft flap of Ship 33 – flames are just visible passing through the aperture. Credit: SpaceX

SpaceX founder Elon Musk made light of the event, stating SpaceX had already likely identified the cause – a propellant leak resulting in a fire within the aft section of Ship 33 – and the next flight, planned for February will not be affected.

Whether this is the case or not remains to be seen; like it or not, the FAA have called for a mishap investigation; there’s also the fact the break-up of Ship 33 highlights the potential risk of flights out of Boca Chica. These carry ascending vehicles directly over over the Caribbean and close to many of the islands and archipelagos forming the Greater Antilles (including the Bahamas, Cuba, the Turks and Caicos, Hispaniola, Puerto Rico and the Virgin islands) – thus presenting a high risk of debris falling on populated areas.

As it is, debris from this flight has been reported as striking the Turks and Caicos Islands (fortunately without injury), and the spread of debris required the delay and diversion of numerous flights from and into the region (whilst passengers in some already in the area witness the aftermath of the vehicle’s destruction). These points alone warrant a review of the risks involved in launches out of Boca Chica.

Space Sunday: big rockets and (possible) ISS troubles

Posted on by Inara Pey
A shot from the “flap cam” on Starship, showing the Super Heavy immediately after separation during IFT6. Note the residual gases burning within the hot staging ring. Credit: SpaceX

The sixth integrated flight test (IFT-6) of the SpaceX Starship / Super Heavy behemoth took place on Tuesday, November 19th, 2024, and proved to be perhaps the most successful test yet of the system, even though the core aspect of the first part of the flight didn’t occur.

The vehicle lifted-off from the SpaceX Starbase facility at Boca Chica, Texas at 22:00 UTC. All 33 Raptor-2 engines on the Super Heavy booster ignited, and the massive vehicle lifted-off smoothly. All continued to run, and the initial phases of the flight passed without incident: the vehicle passed through Max-Q, reached Most Engines Cut-Off (MECO) at 2 minutes 35 seconds, leaving it with just three motors running.  Seven second later, hot staging occurred, Starship firing all 6 of its engines and then separating from the booster.

Starship IFT6 rising from the launch facilities, November 19th, 2024. Credit: Redline Helicopter Tours

This was followed by the booster flipping itself onto a divergent trajectory to Starship and re-igniting the ring of 10 inner fixed motors to commence its “boost back”: gradually killing it ascent velocity and bringing it to a point where it could commence a controlled fall back to Earth, and then a powered final descent into being caught b the Mechazilla system on the launch tower, as seen during the October flight.

However, during the boost-back, the call was made to abort the attempt at capture, and to instead direct the booster to splashdown in the Gulf of Mexico. The booster then went through a nominal descent, dropping engines first (and causing them to glow red-hot during the compression of air inside their nozzles, despite the fact none were firing).

Booster in the water: seconds after splashdown, a single motor still running, the Super Heavy booster sits in the Gulf of Mexico. Credit: SpaceX

At just over 1 km altitude, the 13 inner motors did right, all of them firing for some 7 seconds and reducing the rocket’s descent from 1,278 km/h to just 205 km/h. At this point nine of the ten motors on the inner fixed ring shut down, with one appearing to run a second or so longer. When it shut down, there was a belch of flame of the base of the booster, which might indicate an issue.

Nevertheless, the three central motors continued to operate, gimballing to bring the booster to a vertical position and a brief hover right above the water before cutting off and allowing the rocket to drop end-first into the sea. Remaining upright for a moment, the booster then started to topple over. However, as the live stream cut away at that point, it was down to other camera to capture the subsequent explosion due to water ingress around the super-hot engines, etc., which destroyed the rocket.

“There’s the kaboom!” Shots from onlookers demonstrating that 13 super-heated engines and their plumbing and residual gases in propellant tanks don’t play nice with cold sea water, as the Super Heavy booster explodes

The Starship vehicle, meanwhile, made it to orbit and continued on over the Atlantic and Africa to  the Indian Ocean, where it went through its de-orbit manoeuvres.

Whilst in the coast phase of the flight, the vehicle had been due to re-ignite one of its vacuum engines to demonstrate this could be done in space. This occurred at 37 minutes 46 seconds into the flight, the motor running for about 4 seconds. Although brief, the re-light was a milestone – Starship will need the capability while on orbit in the future.

A camera in Starship’s engine bay captures the steady firing of one of its vacuum Raptor-2 motors during the flight’s orbital coast phase. Credit: SpaceX

The Starship’s return to Earth was anticipated as being potentially “whackadoodle”, and subject to possible vehicle loss. This was because SpaceX had removed elements of the thermal protection system designed to protect the vehicle from burning-up during atmospheric re-entry.

The purpose in removing tiles from the vehicle was to expose parts of the hull where, if Starship is also to be “caught” by the Mechazilla system on its return to Earth, it will need exposed elements on the side bearing the brunt of the heat generated by re-entry into the atmosphere, and SpaceX wanted data on how the metal of the vehicle held-up to being exposed to plasma heat, particularly given the previous two flights had seen plasma burn-through of at least one of the exposes hinges on the vehicle’s aerodynamic flaps.

The leading edge of a flap show clear signs of impending burn-through during re-entry – but the damage is a lot less than previous flights. Credit: SpaceX

As it turned out, the vehicle managed very well during re-entry; there was a significant amount of very visible over-heating on the leading edge of a flap, but even this was less than seen in IFT4 and IFT 5. It’s not clear as to how much damage the exposed areas of the vehicle suffered were TPS tiles had been removed, but given the vehicle survived, any damage caused was clearly not sufficient to compromise its overall integrity.

The drop through the atmosphere was visually impressive, the flight so accurate that as the vehicle flips itself upright at less than 1 km above the ocean, the landing zone camera buoy anchored ready to record the splashdown can clearly be seen. Immediately after entering the water, the Starship toppled, bursting into flame – but this time not immediately exploding.

After fling half-way around the world, the Starship vehicle is about to splashdown just a handful of metres from the camera buoy (arrowed, top right)at the landing zone. Credit: SpaceX

Whilst a booster catch might not have been achieved, IFT6 can be classified a success. All criteria but the catch of the booster was achieved, and even though the later was lost as a result of a forced splashdown, the successful diversion of the booster to do so demonstrates an ability for SpaceX to divert a vehicle away from a landing tower in the event of an issues with the tower – providing said issues are spotted earl enough.

The flip side of this is that it exposes an inherent weakness in the system; the reason for the abort was that the actual launch of the vehicle had caused damage to the launch tower and its communications systems, calling into question its ability to make the catch. Tower / launch stand damage has been a recurring theme with Super Heavy launches, although the degree of damage caused has been dramatically reduced.

The moment before splashdown, as seen from the Starship flap cam (l) and the remote camera buoy (r). Credit: SpaceX

Even so, the fact that comms systems could be KO’d reveals how vulnerable the system is to a potential loss of vehicle (and the knock-on impact in terms of “rapid reusability”), particularly if there is no close-at-hand and available launch / catch tower available to take over the role. And while this abort was called when the vehicle was still 87 km altitude, with lots of time to bring it safely into a splashdown, can the same be said if an issue occurs when the vehicle is just 13 km above ground? Or ten? Or two? Or if the malfunction occurs in the final engine burn?

ISS Reports “Toxic Smell” and Atmosphere Scrubbed

Update: Several hours after this article was published, NASA issued a statement on the event described below.

Reports are surfacing of possible toxic contamination board a resupply vehicle at the International Space Station (ISS). Initial news on the situation was broken by the highly-reliable Russian Space Web, operated by respected space journalist and author, Anatoly Zak, but that the time of writing this piece, western outlets had not reported the story, which is still breaking.

On November 21st Russia launched the automated Progress MS-29 resupply vehicle to the International Space Station (ISS), carrying some 2.487 tonnes of supplies, including 1.155 tonnes of pressurised supplies, 869 Kg of propellants; 420 kg of water and 43 kg of nitrogen gas.

Cosmonauts Ivan Vagner and Alexei Ovchinin monitor the automated approach and docking of Progress MS-29 at the Poisk module of the Russian section of the ISS. The majority of Progress dockings are automated, but members of the crew are on hand to manually intervene if required. Credit: Roscosmos / NASA

After being placed in an initial parking orbit, the vehicle rendezvoused with the ISS on November 23rd, manoeuvring to dock with the zenith port of the Poisk module (mini research module – MSM 2), attached to the Zvezda main module of the Russian section of the station. Following docking, the vehicle was secured and the pressure between the module and Progress vehicle pressurised to allow the hatches between the two to be opened.

However, the hatch to the Progress has to be immediately closed due to a “toxic smell” and a potential contamination hazard in the form of free-floating droplets. Following the securing of the hatches, NASA’s flight controllers apparently ordered the activation of the Trace Contaminant Control Sub-assembly (TCCS) in the International section of the ISS, a system designed to remove traces of potential airborne contaminants, effectively scrubbing the atmosphere in the ISS, with the Russian crew activating a similar system within the Russian section for around 30 minutes, with the cosmonauts themselves donning protective equipment (as reported last week, the main hatch between the two sections of the station is now kept shut due to a continuous leak of air through the Russian Zvezda module).

Progress MS-29 approaching the ISS, November 23rd, 2024. Credit: Roscosmos

The cause of the smell and the overall status of the MS-29 vehicle have yet to be determined; this is a developing story.

New Glenn Gets Ready

Blue Origin is approaching a readiness to launch their new heavy lift launch vehicle (HLLV), the New Glen rocket.

Earlier in November I reported on the new rocket’s first stage being rolled from the Blue Origin manufacturing facilities at Kennedy Space Centre to the launch preparation facilities at Space Launch Complex 36 (SLC-36), Cape Canaveral Space Force Station. These facilities already held the rocket’s upper stage, which had undergone a series of static fire tests of its motors whilst on a test stand at the pad earlier in the year.

Integrating the first and upper stages of the first New Glenn rocket to fly. Credit: Blue Origin

Since the arrival of the 57.5 metre long first stage at the integration facility at SLC-36, Blue Origin engineers have been preparing the vehicle for launch. By November 14th, the first and second stages of the rocket has been integrated with each other, and worked moved to integrating the payload and its protective fairings to the rocket.

Originally, the inaugural flight for the massive rocket – capable of lifting up to 45 tonnes to low Earth orbit (LEO) – was to have been the NASA EscaPADE mission to Mars. However, due to complications, the flight will now be the first of two planned launches designed to certify the system for the United States Space Force’s National Security Space Launch (NSSL) programme. The payload for the flight will be a prototype of Blue Origin’s Blue Ring satellite platform, a vehicle capable of delivering satellites to orbit, moving them to different orbits and refuelling them.

The fully assemble rocket, two stages plus the payload and its protective fairings, backs towards launch pad SLC-36, Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, November 21st, 2024. Credit: Blue Origin

On November 21st, the completed rocket – over 80 metres in length – rolled out of the integration facility and delivered to SLC-36, where it was raised to a vertical position, mounted on the 476-tonne launch table designed to support it and keep it clamped to the pad.

The actual launch date for the mission has yet to be confirmed, but it will see the company both launch the rocket and attempt to recover the reusable first stage, called So You Think There’s a Chance? Following separation from  the upper stage of the rocket, the first stage will attempted to make and controlled / power decent to and landing on the Blue Origin’s Landing Platform Vessel 1 (LPV-1) Jacklyn.

The New Glenn rocket mounted on its 476-tonne launch table at SLC-26, November 21st, 2024. Credit: Blue Origin

Artemis 2 Vehicle Progress

Even as NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) continues to face a potentially uncertain future due to its per-launch cost, the second fully flight-ready vehicle continues to come together at NASA’s Kenned Space Centre in readiness for the Artemis II mission.

The mission, which is targeting a launch in late 2025, is due to carry a crew of four – Reid Wiseman (Commander); Victor Glover Pilot; Christina Koch, flight engineer and Jeremy Hansen (Canada), mission specialist – on an extended flight of up to 21 days, commencing with the crew aboard their Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV), being placed in low Earth orbit, prior to transiting to a high Earth orbit with a period of 24 hours.

The Artemis II mission profile – click for full size, if required. Credit: NASA

Once there, they will carry out a series of system checks on the Orion and its European Service Module (ESM), as well as performing rendezvous and proximity flight tests with the rocket’s Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS), simulating the kind of rendezvous operations future crews will have to do in order to dock with the vehicles that will actually carry them down to the surface of the Moon and back. After this, the crew will make a trip out and around the Moon and back to Earth.

The Orion capsule for the mission is nearing completion, with core assembly completed and the internal fixtures, fittings and systems on-going. Earlier in November 2024, and sans its outer protection shell and heat shield, it was subjected to a series of pressure tests to simulate both the upper atmosphere and space to ensure it had no structural integrity issues.

The core stage of the Artemis II SLS rocket, complete with its four main engines, inside NASA’s gigantic Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB). One of the base segments of a solid rocket booster (SRB) can be seen in the background. Credit: NASA

Meanwhile, the SLS vehicle itself has commenced stacking. The core stage, with is massive propellant tanks and four RS-25 “shuttle” engines, arrived at the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB), Kennedy Space Centre, in July 2024, and since this has been undergoing much work whilst still lying on its side.

More recently, work on stacking the two solid rocket boosters (SRBs) developed from those used with the space shuttle, that will help power it up through the atmosphere has also commenced.

A crane inside the VAB prepares to lift one of the SRB motor sections and its assembly gantry, ready to place it on the back of a transport vehicle. November 13th, 2024. Credit: NASA

The SRBs comprise 5 individual segments which need to be manufactured and then bolted together, prior to being filled with their wet cement-like solid propellant mix. The base segments of these boosters include the rocket motor and guidance controls, and on November 13th, these were rolled into the Vehicle Assembly Building on special transport / stacking gantries. Over the next several months, the two SRBs will be assembled vertically in one of the bays within the VAB, and then loaded with their propellant and capped off.

Once the SRBs are ready and their avionics, etc., checked out, the core stage of the SLS will be hoisted up into one of the VAB’s high bays, moving to a vertical orientation as it does so. It will then be lowered between the two SRBs so that they can all be joined together. After this the ICPS will be moved up into position and mated to the top of the core stage of the rocket, and then work can commence stacking the Orion and its ESM and their launch fairings.

The SRB motor and its mounting gantry on the transporter, ready to be moved to the VAB bay where stacking can commence, November 13th, 2024. Credit: NASA

Whether or not Artemis II makes its planned late 2025 launch (no earlier than September) is open to question; currently, NASA has yet to fully complete the work on ensuring the already manufactured heat shield for the mission’s Orion vehicle is fit for purpose, per my previous report on heat shield issues.