Artemis 1 SLS on the Mobile Launcher 1 inside the Vehicle Assembly Building. Credit: NASA
Artemis 1, the planned first flight of NASA’s huge Space Launch System (SLS), is back on Pad 39B at Kennedy Space Centre and being prepared for another try at a full Wet Dress Rehearsal in what many are framing as a make-or-break for the new launch system. At the same time, the SLS programme has come under further critique by NASA’s own Office of Inspector General (OIG).
As I’ve noted in the past, the Wet Dress Rehearsal (WDR) is the final critical test for the SLS system, putting absolutely everything involved in a launch through its paces right up to just nine second before the rocket’s core RD-25 engines would light-off. The test is to ensure everything – the pad systems, the propellant loading systems, the rocket’s computers and avionics, the launch control systems, etc., are commissioned and ready for operational launch, with the data gathered from this first rocket going on to provide a baseline for checking future SLS vehicles as they go through pad preparations and launch in the future.
A graphic showing the tank filling which forms a core element of the WDR, currently scheduled for or around June 17yh, 2022. Credit: NASA
The first attempt at a WDR, back in April started with fanfare a high-profile roll-out of the pad by the first SLS, where it successfully completed a battery of tests prior to the WDR commencing, only to be followed by a series of issues that forced rocket and Mobile Launcher (ML-1) tower to be ignominiously rolled back to the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB).
The June 6th roll-out was far more low-key, the rocket and ML own leaving the VAB atop the veritable crawler-transporter just after midnight and arriving at the pad in the morning sunlight. Since then, the vehicle and launcher have been going through check-out and connection to all the ground support systems, and a second WDR attempt is provisionally set for on or around June 17th, 2022.
In the meantime, NASA’s OIG has issued a report critical of another aspect of the programme: Mobile Launcher 2 (ML-2).
ML 1 was originally built for launching Saturn 1B and Saturn V rockets in the 1960s. It was then modified for space shuttle launches and again to handle SLS Block 1 launches. However, it is incapable of supporting launches of the bigger and more powerful SLS Block 1B and Block 2 vehicles (assuming the latter are built). So in 2018/19, NAS awarded a US $383 million contract to engineering firm Bechtel to supply a new Launcher – ML-2 – capable of supporting SLS Block 1B and beyond launches, with delivery slated for 2024, ahead of the then planned launch of Artemis 4, the first SLS Block 1B vehicle.
However, the OIG report reveals that ML-2 is spiralling out of control, with costs already exceeding US $440 million, and set to hit at least US $960 million, with doubt cast on Bechtel’s ability to deliver the Launcher in time for Artemis 4, even though that mission is unlikely to fly before later 2027 or early 2028.
Comparing ML-1 and ML-2. Credit: NASA
The report is primarily critical of Bechtel for multiple failures and lapses, but also points out NASA’s own folly in playing “yes man” to an accelerated Artemis programme. Originally, the US return to the Moon was to commence in 2028, but the Trump administration pulled that date forward to 2024; while that was clearly unachievable, NASA attempted to meet the goal. As a result, the ML-2 contract was awarded as “cost plus”, meaning that overruns would be met out of NASA’s pocket, rather than fixed price, which would leave Bechtel holding the purse for errors and delays on their part. NASA further compounded the issue by awarding the contract for the ML-2 design before the SLS Block 1B design had been finalised. As a result, the space agency immediately became liable for continued changes to the ML-2 design as the SLS Block 1B design evolved.
Currently, NASA is attempting to move the contract to a fixed price basis; unsurprisingly, Bechtel appear somewhat resistant to doing so.
FRBs: Far, Far Away – or a Lot Closer to Home?
First discovered in 2007, FRBs are intense, brief flashes of radio-frequency emissions, lasting on the order of milliseconds, thought to emit as much energy in a millisecond as our Sun does over three days – although such are the vast distances they must cover, by the time they reach us their signal strength is around 1,000 times less powerful than a mobile ‘phone signal being received from the Moon.
What causes FRBs is unknown. Most have been thought to originate outside our galaxy – although some have clearly originated within it. Many are heard only once; others appear to repeat on a highly random basis. By listening for and measuring some of the latter, it has been possible to localise their likely point of origin to an area of space. Then, using their dispersion measurement (DM) and overall red-shift, it has been possible to calculate their approximate distance.
ive hundred-metre Aperture Spherical radio Telescope (FAST. Credit:
The DM a measurement of the period between the high-frequency range of a radio burst reaching us and the lower frequencies, which tend to get more dispersed more the first they travel, and so take longer to reach us. It’s a small, but measurable amount. As the composition of interstellar space is known, this difference can be used to calculate signal attenuation over distance, and thus the approximate distance of the originating object from Earth.
This measurement can then be combined with the overall red shift exhibited by the signal to yield a similar distance result, thus allowing reasonable certainty as to how far away the originating object is. But that’s not the case with FRB 20190520B.
What is particularly interesting about this FRB is that taken on its own, its DM suggests it originates in a small galaxy beyond our own. However, when the DM / red-shift relationship is extrapolated, the result suggests the originating point is a lot closer to Earth – as in possibly within our own galaxy.
This might make 20190520B some weird outlier among FRBs – but as some have pointed out, it might also indicate to our entire assumptions about extra-galactic FRBs and the use of dispersion measurements as a kind of “cosmic yardstick” as being totally wrong; that we could actually be mistaking events occurring within our own galaxy that result in FRBs for something far more distant and exotic.
Right now, it’s too early to tell either way, but 20190520B has caused a considerable stir among astronomers, with many looking to step-up the search for more of these strange events.
An artist’s impression of MAVEN as it looks down on Mars’ Vallis Marineris. The NASA mission, which arrived in orbit in September 2014, is studying the Martian atmosphere
NASA’s MAVEN Mars orbiter has been in orbit around the planet since September 2014. For the majority of that time, and following science commissioning (Sept-November 2014), the spacecraft has been studying the Martian atmosphere, yielding valuable science. Except for the past three months, that is.
On February 22nd, 2022 – ironically the day Shannon Curry, appointed to take over the role of MAVEN’s Principal Investigator in August 2021, was making a three-hour presentation on the vehicle’s science findings at the conclusion of its latest 6-month mission extension – when Things Went Wrong.
We finally finished the presentation, I turn my ‘phone back on, and our project manager calls me immediately. I’m thinking, he’s calling me to be like, ‘Congratulations, you did it, you’re doing great!’ And he was, ‘Shannon, we’re in safe mode.’
– Shannon Curry
Shannon Curry was appointed to the role of Principal Investigator for NASA’s MAVEN mission in August 2021, and steered the project through its most serious issue between February and June 2022. Credit; via Wikipedia
Regulars to Space Sunday will know that “safe mode” is when a spacecraft has encountered a condition that exceeds its programmed parameters / expectations, causing it to shut down most of its non-essential systems and services and ‘phone home with a call of “I’m in a spot of trouble, folks!”
Safe modes are rarely easy to diagnose and resolve remotely, with MAVEN (Mars Atmosphere and Volatile EvolutioN mission), the issue would prove to be almost catastrophic.
In order to both study Mars and communicate with Earth, MAVEN must periodically re-orient itself. Up until 2017, it did so by using one of two Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs) to calculate its position, attitude and rotation. However, from 2017 through until the end of 2021, MAVEN has been reliant on just one unit – IMU-2 – after IMU-1 experienced data issues.
By the start of 2022, IMU-2 was starting to show issues of its own, so a project was started to write new software to enable MAVEN to orient itself using the stars in what the mission team called “stellar mode”, a project that would take until late 2022 to complete. In the meantime, the vehicle was instructed to switch back to using IMU-1, with the power to the unit being periodically recycled to help with keeping it operating smoothly.
However, on February 22nd, 2022, with MAVEN oriented to communicate with Earth, a power recycle was started and IMU-1 crashed, and when IMU-2 automatically started, it had absolutely no idea of where it was, and MAVEN went into a loop of trying to restart IMU-1 after shutting down all science operations.
When it was clear IMU-2 was “lost”, and IMU-1 was not going to recover, risking MAVEN drifting out of communications alignment, the mission team took a desperate step: heartbeat termination.
That term is not just for dramatic effect: basically, it’s like ripping the cord out of the wall. We ordered the vehicle to shutdown and reboot its primary computer without switching to the back-up. When that failed, we had no choice but to then swap to the back-up and we’ve never been on that before.
– Shannon Curry.
Whilst the switch to the never-used back-up computer was a risk, it nevertheless allowed position data to be given to IMU-2 to ensure communications could be maintained with Earth. This allowed the mission team to accelerate the work on developing the “stellar mode” software.
On April 19th, the first version of the software was uplinked to MAVEN five months ahead of its due date. However, it could only be tested by shutting-down IMU-2. If the software failed, there was no guarantee either IMU would reboot, leaving MAVEN to drift out of its communications orientation within hours. Fortunately, the software demonstrated it could keep the vehicle correctly oriented, and the mission team were able to continue to refine the software and add the tasks required for MAVEN to use stellar mode for both communications and science operations.
In May, work had reached a point where the science instruments could each be brought out of safe mode and tested to ensure they had suffered no long-term damage. Then on May 28th, the order was given for MAVEN to fully transition all operations to use the stellar mode for navigation / orientation, allowing science operations to resume.
There will still be periods in MAVEN’s operations when it will have to rely on an IMU, but for now the mission team has brought the mission back from the brink of disaster, and are now focusing on ways in which the craft can better deal with possible data hiccups from the IMU systems.
Starship + Crew Dragon Update
Starship
The FAA report on the SpaceX starship facilities at Boca Chica, Texas, will now not be published until June 13th. In the meantime, it has been confirmed that the first orbital launch attempt will be undertaken by Ship 24 and Booster 7.
At the time of my last Starship update, Booster 7 had suffered a failure with a downcomer pipe, resulting in the booster being returned to the production facilities for examination, together with speculation that Booster 8 might replace it for the orbital launch attempt. However, repairs were made to Booster 7, enabling its return to the launch area.
Starship 24 undergoing liquid nitrogen cryogenic tests. A similar test at the end of May 2022 resulted in a header tank feed pipe failing, ejecting heat shield tiles from the underside of the vehicle. Credit: NASASpaceflight.com
At the end of Mays, Ship 24 was been rolled out to the test stands where cryogenic tests using liquid nitrogen commenced – only for a feed pipe connected to its LOX header tank to fail, throwing heat shield tiles off of the vehicle as the hull flexed. As a result, the pipe in question went through a rapid pipe redesign whilst on the test stand, with additional expansion joints being fitted to prevent any over-pressurisation.
With engines now being fitted to both ship and booster, and deliveries of liquid oxygen, liquid methane and liquid nitrogen being made to the tank farm, SpaceX appear confident the FAA report will give the green light for the orbital launch test – a test that will include a test deployment of Starlink satellites through the small payload slot.
This view exemplifies one of the issues SpaceX may still have with the Boca Chica launch facility. The orbital launch tower can be seen centre top; to the bottom left and in close proximity to the launch facilities, is the propellant and consumables tank farm, well within the blast radius should a starship / super heavy combination to explode at launch, the earth berm between tanks and launch stand notwithstanding. The horizontal tanks to the right of the upright tanks were installed after-the-fact in part to pre-empt concerns from the FAA on this matter. Credit: RGV Aerial photography
Even if this first flight test is a success (which is unlikely), it is perhaps important to note it is not a prototype test flight per se, but is rather an initial proof of concept. This is because the starship vehicle is far from its final configuration (Musk has announced first possible changes to the design). Nor is Ship 24 reflective of an “operational” starship: it has no means to carry the volume of payload promised (100-150 tonnes), the mechanism(s) required to support such a mass during launch, or the means to deploy it payload bay doors and their mechanisms. As such, there is a long way to go before starship reaches an actual prototype flight, with a lot more to prove. Even then, the realities of its promise are still highly questionable – something I hope to be looking at in a future Space Sunday.
As NASA moves forward with plans to return to the Moon under the umbrella of Project Artemis, it is now stirring the pot on ideas for sending humans to Mars once more.
There have been many proposals for crewed missions to Mars since the 1950s, and in the last thirty years we’ve had a fair plethora, from the utterly unworkable ideas put forward in the Space Exploration Initiative SEI) of the early 1990s through Mars Direct, NASA’s Sprint and Mars Semi-Direct outlines through to what amount to pipe dreams expressed by Elon Musk / SpaceX.
On May 17th, NASA published a video and documentation outlining a set of high-level objectives identifying four overarching categories for developing a Moon-to-Mars exploration strategy, including transportation and habitation, together with ideas for initial missions which, for those who have followed all the various plans for exploring Mars, come across as a fresh pulling together of some very old concepts.
NAS’s latest conceptual strategy for using technologies for Moon and Mars exploration. Credit: NASA
Managed by the Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate at NASA Headquarters in Washington DC, the purpose of the publications is to generate feedback from both interested parties within the space industry and from the general public (closing date, June 3rd, 2022). However, the process will not result in NASA issuing any RFIs or undertaking any procurement activity as a result of industry feedback received.
These objectives will move us toward our first analogue Mars mission with crew in space and prepare us for the first human mission to the surface of the Red Planet. After reviewing feedback on the objectives, we will work with our partners to discuss input and finalise our framework this fall.
– Jim Free, associate administrator, Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate.
In particular, the outline seeks to leverage capabilities that can be utilised / tested on the Moon and then extended to Mars, such as in-situ resource utilisation (ISRU) – although arguably, scaled ISRU for water, oxygen and propellant production is somewhat simplified on Mars, thanks to its atmosphere); and combining robotic and human systems.
The outline also provides insight into how NASA’s initial thinking on how to undertake initial missions and this is where echoes of past proposals comes in. In brief, these ideas include:
A “Transit Hab” capable of carrying crews of 4 between lunar orbit and Mars, using a mix of chemical and electric propulsion. Delivered to the Lunar Gateway station in the early 2030s, this vehicle would be capable of both conjunction and opposition trips to Mars.
The use of precursor cargo flights to deliver equipment and supplies to Mars ahead of any crewed landing.
Precursor crew ascent vehicle missions to provide the means for crews to return to Mars orbit at the end of their time on the surface and return to the transit vehicle.
An initial conjunction mission (previously referred to as a “Sprint” mission) with two astronauts spending just 30 days on the surface of Mars utilising a pressurised rover.
The first opposition mission with a 4-person crew spending 540 days on Mars utilising large lander-habitats.
NASA 2022 first crewed mission concept. Credit: NASA
To explain the difference between “conjunction” (/”Sprint”) and “opposition” missions to Mars:
Opposition missions refer to Earth and Mars being on the “same side” of the Sun in their orbits around the Sun (so the Sun and Mars are on “opposite sides” of Earth), allowing for the fastest transit time between the two planets – 180 to 270 days -, but which require crews to spend up to 540 days on Mars, for a mission duration of 900 days.
Conjunction mission refer to Earth and Mars being (more-or-less) on opposite sides of the Sun relative to one another, requiring a mission to “sprint” to catch Mars (usually by making a gravity-assist around Venus). These missions are of a shorter duration (600-650 days total), but restrict crews to just 30 days on Mars but with highly-variable transit times (200-400 days).
There are arguments on both sides of the coin for opposition / conjunction missions, but overall, the choice of a conjunction approach to the first mission is a little odd: it maximises transits times (620 days in space), minimises Mars surface time and requires a Venus sling-shot.
Mars transit options: conjunction (left) and Opposition (right). Credit: NASA
However, the most interesting aspect of the NASA outline is that for this initial landing, the two crew making the descent to the surface of Mars will do so within a pressurised rover. The reasoning behind this is to deal with the crew potentially being “deconditioned” as a result of the transit to Mars, and so will use the rover to reduce the amount of time they will need to take adjusting to conditions on Mars, limiting the amount of actual science they can perform in 30 days.
In actual fact, the idea of making a rover the lander for a crew isn’t new. The first complete Design Reference Mission proposal that suggested this approach was put forward in 2004 – by none other than film director James Cameron!
The lander-rover from the 2004 Cameron DRM, note the landing motors and fuel tanks and fore-and-aft cabins. Unlike the proposed NASA rover, this vehicle required a separate habitat module.
Cameron’s rover was admittedly far more massive that the vehicle NASA is suggesting in their outline, but it was part of an overall strategy involving transfer vehicles, deployable habitation modules, and the use of biconic vehicles to descend through the Martian atmosphere (SpaceX have copied the biconic approach with the shape of starship, although the overall landing is very different).
Similarly, the ideas of sending equipment / supplies and the vehicle that will get the crew off the surface of Mars and back to orbit are not particularly new. Zubrin, Baker, Wagner et al, developed the first modern plan for doing these in the Mars Direct mission plan – although in that, the crew would make the entire trip back to Earth within the very cramped confines of their ascent / return vehicle.
This proposal also laid out who the propellants for the craft could be manufactured on Mars, with the general idea being modified by NASA as a part of their Design Reference Mission proposals, such that the ascent vehicle would only carry the crew up to orbit and a waiting transit vehicle – albeit one much larger than its outline suggests.
As noted, the ideas presented in the NASA document and video are for discussion and feedback, rather than for presenting actual plans. As such, they will be something I’ll return to in the future; once more definition has been given to actual mission outlines, the use of ISRU, etc.
The CST-100 Starliner sits just 10 metres off the ISS, its nose open to expose its docking mechanism and forted port May 20th, 2022. Credit: NASA
Boeing’s CST-100 Starliner finally lifted-off from Space Launch Complex 41 at the Cape Canaveral Sport Force station on Thursday, May 19th, sitting atop a United Launch Alliance (ULA) Atlas 5 booster, in what is a critical test flight for the system, one that involves a rendezvous and docking with the International Space Station (ISS).
Called Orbital Flight Test 2 (OFT-2), the uncrewed mission is the second attempt to fly a Starliner vehicle to a successful docking with ISS – seen as a critical precursor to Starliner vehicles carrying crews to / from the ISS. The first attempt, carried out in December 2019 failed to rendezvous with the ISS after a software issue caused the vehicle’s orbital manoeuvring and attitude control (OMAC) thrusters to misfire repeatedly, leaving the vehicle with insufficient propellant reserve to make the rendezvous once the issue had been controlled. However, the Starliner – christened Calypso, and now earmarked for the first CST-100 crewed flight – still completed the orbital tests for the mission successfully, and made a safe return to Earth.
CST-100 OFT-2 lifts-off from SLC-41 at Cape Canaveral Space Force station, May 19th, 2021. Credit: NASA
Following lift-off at 22:54 UTC, on May 19th, the Starliner vehicle (currently unnamed) reached an initial orbit successfully. However, at 31 minutes after launch, things went slightly awry. At this point one of the vehicles 12 main OMAC thrusters was due to fire for 45 seconds to place the Starliner on the correct trajectory to commence its “chase” to the space station.
However, one second after firing, the thruster shut down. This triggered an automatic firing of a second thruster, which ran for 25 seconds before shutting down, leaving a third thruster completing the burn. Whilst of concern, the initial two thruster failures were not sufficient to prevent the mission continuing, and both NASA and Boeing are reviewing data to determine what the problem is – and whether the two faulty thrusters are still capable of firing correctly – the main OMAC thrusters being needed to de-orbit the vehicle at the end of its flight.
Sunlight flashes off of the hull of the CST-100 Starliner as it chases the ISS. Credit: NASA
Despite these teething problems, the Starliner “caught up” with the ISS on Friday, May 20th, having successful completed a series of tests whilst closing on the ISS. At 20:36 on the 20th, the crew on the ISS caught their first sight of the Starliner. The capsule steadily closed on the station before completing two “flyarounds”, allowing the ISS crew to observe the vehicle’s overall condition ahead of docking.
Utilising self guidance, the capsule then closed to within 180 metres of the space station before coming to a stop and then moving away once more in an “approach and retreat manoeuvre” intended to test the vehicle’s ability to carry out precise manoeuvres in close proximity to the station. After this, it resumed its approach towards the Harmony module and its docking port, coming to within 10 metres of the station when it was ordered to stop when mission control confirmed it was a little off-centre relative to the docking port.
Another view of the Starliner approaching the Harmony module of the ISS, May 20th, 2022. Credit: NASA
This eventually required the vehicle to back away from the station, correct its alignment and make a second approach – which was again halted at 10 metres from the station. This proved to be the start of an irritating period of minor issues with the docking mechanism at the front of the vehicle which ultimately delayed docking by 90 minutes, Starliner finally connecting with the ISS at 00:28 GMT on Saturday, May 21st.
Following docking, a further series of testes on the vehicle were conducted, and the hatches between station and capsule were finally opened at 16:04 GMT, allowing astronauts Robert Hines and Kjell Lindgren connect ventilation systems and move camera systems into the capsule. They also greeted the capsule’s main occupant: Rosie the Rocketeer, a mannequin occupying the commander’s seat in the capsule and equipped with various instruments to test how orbital ascent (and return to Earth) affect those riding in the vehicle.
The Starliner docked against the extended docking arm of the Harmony module – the latter retracts to pull the capsule against the docking port. Credit: NASAAlso on the flight is a plush toy of Jebediah Kerman, one of the four original characters from the space game Kerbal Space. The first Kerbal to officially make it to space, “Jeb” is the mission’s “zero-g indicator” for the flight. His presence was kept secret by the ground control team, so that he might be discovered by the ISS crew on entering the vehicle – Kerbal Space is apparently very popular among Boeing and NASA staff.
The Starliner is set to remain docked with ISS for 4-5 days before departing for a return to Earth. If declared a success post-analysis, OFT-2 should pave the way for the first crewed flight before the end of 2022. Called Crewed Flight Test, it will carry a crew of 3 (personnel still to be confirmed) to the ISS on a 10-day (ish) mission to the space station. That in turn should clear the way for operational flights with Starliner to start in early 2023.
Curiosity’s “Dog Door” and InSight’s Demise
Parts of the Internet have been all agog over the last few days, after NASA Tweeted images on May 18th captured by the Mars Science Laboratory rover Curiosity, labelled (perhaps a little unfortunately) as a “door shaped fracture” that offers (again, unfortunate wording) “a doorway into the ancient past” – terms that were taken just a little too literally by some.
A mosaic of 113 images captured by the MastCam system on NASA’s Curiosity rover captures the face of “East Cliff” on May 7th, 2022, (mission sol 3,466). The fissure of “Dog Door can be seen over to the upper left. This mosaic has been colour and light adjusted to give the same conditions as if the feature was being viewed on Earth. Credit: NASA/JPL
The images were part of a series captured by the rover on May 7th, during a survey of a sedimentary mound of rock layers dubbed “East Cliff”, and sitting on the flank of “Mount Sharp”, the 5-km high mound of material at the centre of Gale Crater. During the processing of 133 images taken of “East Cliff” using the rover’s MastCam, the science team noted an interesting fissure within the upper, most weathered layers of the mound.
Looking to be rectangular in shape, the fissure does appear to be door-like – although not one any human is going to be walking through, given it is just 29.1 cm tall and the maximum width of the feature in just 38.9cm (sizes which prompted NASA to call the feature a “dog door” as it is closer in dimensions to the front opening on a kennel).
A further mosaic from Curiosity taken on May 7th, 2022, showing the “Dog Door” fissure more centred (and circled) in the image. Again, the image has been colour / light adjusted for Earth lighting. Credit: NASA/JPL
However, while the fissure is real, it’s door-like appearance is the result of two key factors: the angle at which sunlight is striking the mound, which casts the back of the fissure into shadow, giving the impression it is some form of entrance; and the also pareidolia – the tendency for the human brain to try and interpret strange sights and objects by trying to perceive them as something familiar – in this case a door.
Such fissures are not actually uncommon within geological features like East Cliff, both here on Earth and on Mars. They are caused by the intersection of multiple vertical (from weathering under the influence of water / wind) with horizontal layering of rock such that the most exposed part of the result lattice break away, forming a shallow fissure with regular-looking sides.
An anaglyph close-up of the “Dog Door” with annotations indicating the approximate width, height, and depth of the open fissure. Credit: NASA/JPL
And the comment about being a “doorway into the past”? That’s simply a reference to the fact that the collapse that formed the fissure offers the opportunity to perhaps examine rocks that haven’t been so exposed to the ambient surface conditions of Mars and may have had a degree of protection from harsher solar radiation, and so might reveal further chemical / mineral clues to the ancient past of “Mount Sharp”.
It has also been announced that NASA’s InSight Lander mission, which has been operating on Mars since November 2018, but which tends to get overlooked in favour of the “sexier” rover missions, may be coming to an end as soon as mid-July 2022.
InSight, which I covered in-depth at its May 2018 launch (see: Space Sunday: insight on InSight, May 2018) has been carrying out studies into the interior of Mars, including the study of “Marquakes” that appear to take place deep within the planet. However, it has been suffering from a significant decrease in available power as a result of dust accumulation on the pair of 2.2 metre diameter solar arrays.
Comparative images showing how dust accumulated on InSight’s sollar arrays. On the left, one of the arrays 10 days after landing, looking fairly clean. On the right, the same array after just under 4 months on Mars. Credit: NASA/JPL
As I reported in 2021, such was the dust build up on the arrays, the electrical power generation on the lander has been reduced to just one-tenth of the 4.6 kilowatt-hours the arrays generated during the initial days of Mars operations, and is now insufficient to continue to meet the needs of all systems on the lander.
Because of this, the decision has been taken to start powering-down non-essential systems and instruments, the intention to leave only the seismometer positions on the surface of Mars working, together with the camera system mounted on the lander’s robot arm (which will be oriented to focus on the seismometer before the arm is shut down), and the lander’s communication system.
However, even with the reduction in power usage this will achieve, the mission team believe that power production levels will drop below the minimum required to keep the seismometer functioning by mid-to-late July; although sufficient power will still be generated to power the communications system through until possibly the end of 2022.
Despite being overlooked at times, InSight has far surpassed its planned 2-year primary mission, and has yielded a lot of information about the processes at work deep within Mars.
SpinLaunch Update
In November 2021, I wrote about Spinlaunch, a company that plans to use a 100-metre diameter vacuum accelerator to propel payloads of up to 200 kg on the first leg of their journey to orbit.
This would be achieved by placing the payloads and their rocket inside a ballistic projectile (total mass: 11.2 tonnes) which would then be spun-up to a speed of 8,000 km/h with the drum-like accelerator before releasing it along a guidance tube (think gun barrel) and out into the atmosphere to be hurtled to a altitude of 61 km, where the projectile splits open to release the rocket, which can ignite its motors and power its way to orbit.
The Spinlaunch prototype accelerator shown in scale to the statue of liberty. Credit: SpinLaunchThis may sound crazy – and there are a lot of issues / questions around the full-size implementation of the system – however, since October 2021, SpinLaunch has been carrying out increasingly ambitious sub-orbital tests using a 1/3rd scale accelerator operating at 20% of the full-scale system to launch projectiles (“simulators”) on ballistic flights to offer both a proof of concept for the idea and to gather essential data on its overall feasibility.
As a part of these tests, on April 22nd, 2022, Spinlaunch for the first time carried out a test launch of a simulator equipped with a camera system. The resultant video is impressive, showing the launch accelerator dwindling in size below the projectile as it climbs into the atmosphere at 1,600 km/h before starting its tumble back to Earth, where the video cuts out.
However, before watching the video be warned: a longitudinal spin is imparted to the simulator to help with stabilising it in flight (again akin to a bullet being stabilised by the rifling in a gun barrel), and this spinning might induce a sense of motion sickness in the sensitive.
The exact height reached by the projectile simulator has not been confirmed by SpinLaunch, but given the curve of the Earth can be seen, it would seem likely that the simulator reached several kilometres in attitude.
There is still a long way to go before SpinLaunch is close to being ready to start full-scale operations (and much to be proved before they do), but such has been their progress to date, NASA has signed-on to the project with the intent to fly at least one payload of their own on a sub-orbital launch so that they might gather data on system and payload performance.
More from China
May has been a busy month for announcements by China concerning its space ambitions. In the previous Space Sunday update, I covered the most recent news on China’s upcoming space telescope. It is just one of three initiatives to gain update / confirmation.
The first part of May saw a series of television interviews with CCTV, the state television network, Huang Zhen the chief designer at the China National Space Administration (CNSA) gave the first official confirmation of the multi-facetted work being put into developing a permanent human presence on the Moon.
In particular, the interviews gave the first official confirmation of China’s Manned Lunar Deep Space Exploration Project Office (MLDSEP), tasked with developing the technologies required to establish a permanent presence on the Moon – and to enhance those technologies, where relevant, for future crewed mission to Mars.
The interviews also touched upon – if only superficially – various aspects of the work MLDSEP is engaged upon. These include: the development of Earth-based training facilities for lunar hardware and operations; design and development on lunar hardware including: crewed lander vehicles, pressurised rover vehicles, payload landers, and what appears to be a lunar orbital space station similar in nature to NASA’s Gateway station, together with research into and research into in-situ resource utilisation capabilities to provide air, water, and building materials to support an expanding lunar presence.
A general graphic displayed by China state television during interviews with CNSA chief designer Huang Zhen, showing some of the lunar hardware CNSA are developing for human operations on the Moon. Credit: CNSA / CCTV
Then, on May 13th, another of China’s chief designers – Zhang Rongqiao, responsible for China’s highly successful Mars orbiter / lander / rover mission, Tianwen 1 – confirmed his team are deep into developing Tianwen-2, a decade-long two-phase, mission of enormous ambition.
The first phase of the mission, lasting 2 years, will see the vehicle launches and rendezvous with asteroid 469219 Kamo’oalewa, a quasi-satellite of Earth occupying a solar orbit close to our own..On arrival, Tianwen-2 will first perform a “touch and go” flyby similar to those used by Japan’s Hayabusa 2 and NASA’s OSIRIS-Rex, to gather samples from the surface of the asteroid.
Assuming a suitable location can be found; the vehicle will then attempt to anchor itself to the asteroid using a set of robot arms, and then drill into the asteroid to obtain a core sample. Tianwen-2 will then return to Earth and use the planet’s gravity to slingshot it on its way to its next target, but not before it has dropped off the samples from 469219 Kamo’oalewa for recovery and study.
The slingshot manoeuvre will set the vehicle on a 7-year journey to 311P/PanSTARRS, a so-called “active asteroid”, because it has properties seen within both asteroids and comets. Once there, it will orbit and analyse the asteroid for at least a year (possibly longer, depending on propellant reserves) using a range of cameras and spectrometers to glean insights into questions such as the mystery of the source of Earth’s water. Data gathered will be communicated back to Earth, although Tianwen-2 will not itself be returning. No images have been released as yet to show the proposed design of Tianwen-2.
NASA-ESA Mars Sample Return mission elements: the Mars 2020 rover (l) responsible for collecting / caches samples; the Sample Fetch Rover (2028) responsible for collecting the sample tubes and delivering them to (r) the SRL-1 lander (2028), part of the system for delivering the samples to orbit and the Earth Return Orbiter (MRO – 2027), seen overhead (Earth shown in a piece of artistic licence to illustrate the idea of a sample-return mission). Credit: NASA / ESA
NASA’s Mars 2020 rover Perseverance is busy on Mars carrying out a range of science duties, including gathering samples of sub-surface materials that can be sealed in tubes and returned to Earth by a future Mars Sample Return (MSR) mission.
In all, the rover has 43 such sample tubes, and the plan is for it to “geocache” them at one or two locations on Mars at some point, with one of the caches being used as the target for the MSR mission, which NASA had, until recently, vaguely pointed towards being some time in the 2030s.
However, MSR has been prioritised both by the Decadal Study (see: Space Sunday: Future Mission, SpaceX Update) and US politicians – and as a result NASA and ESA have dusted down plans first put forward in 2018/2019 and revised them for a proposed joint, three-part (and frankly overly-complicated), six vehicle mission. This comprises:
The Sample Retrieval Lander 1 (SRL1) – carrying the Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV) – NASA.
The Sample Retrieval Lander 2 (SRL 2) – NASA – carrying the Sample Fetch Rover (SFR) – ESA.
The Earth Return Orbiter (ERO) – ESA – – carrying the Earth Entry Vehicle (EEV) NASA/ESA.
An early concept of the MSR mission. Credit: NASA/ESA
The mission plan is complicated, but will currently run like this:
2027: The ESA-built ERO vehicle is launched to Mars via an Ariane 6 rocket. It uses ion drive propulsion to cruise to Mars, arriving in 2028, where it will use a separate propulsion system to ease itself into the correct orbit.
2028: SRL-1 and SRL-2 launch to Mars on faster transfer orbits.
These both make a soft-landing relatively close to the sample cache.
SRL-2 deploys the SFR, which drives to the sample cache and retrieves sample tubes. It then drives the tube to SRL-1.
SRL-1 uses a robot arm to transfer the tubes to a capsule at the forward end of the MAV (stowed horizontally on the top of SRL-1 in a protective tube).
When ready, the MAV and its protective tube are raised to a vertical position. A spring-loaded “catapult” will then eject the rocket from the tube at a rate of 5 metres per second, allowing the rocket’s motor to safely ignite and power it up to orbit to rendezvous with MRO.
A drawing indicating the major components of the Sample Fetch Rover (SFR). Credit: ESA
The sample return capsule is then transferred from the MAV to a NASA-built containment system contained in the EEV attached to MRO. The latter then engages its ion drive to start it on a gentle transfer flight back to Earth, which it will pass in 2032/33. As it approaches Earth, the EEV is ejected and enters the atmosphere to make a passive descent and landing (no parachutes), using shock absorbing materials to cushion its touch-down in Utah.
Work has already commenced on elements of the mission – such as the Sample Fetch Rover, which ESA is building, and uses design elements – such as the flexible wheels, the camera systems, etc., – used in the ExoMars Rosalind Franklin rover, and I’ll have more on this joint mission as it develops.
Rocket Lab Grab Their Rocket Out of the Air
Rocket Lab, the New Zealand / US commercial launch company, has recovered one of its launch vehicles after it had successfully sent its payload on its way to orbit. But unlike other companies developing / using re-useable rocket stages, Rocket Lab didn’t land their rocket or let it splashdown – they snatched it out of mid-air with a helicopter!
Rocket Lab’s Sikorsky S-92, trailing the capture line, circles on May 2nd (UTC), awaiting the descent of an Electron rocket first stage under a parachute. Credit: Rocket Lab
The two-stage Electron rocket lifted-off from Rocket Lab’s launch pad on New Zealand’s Mahia Peninsula at 22:49 UTC on May 2nd. The mission, called There and Back Again, was Rocket Lab’s 26th Electron flight, and after sending the upper stage and its payload of 34 smallsats on their way to a successful deployment on orbit, the rocket’s first stage started back to Earth, deploying a parachute to slow its descent.
At just under 2 km above the Pacific Ocean of New Zealand’s coast, Rocket’ Lab’s recovery Sikorsky S-92 made a successful rendezvous the the rocket’s first stage and made an initial capture using a line slung below the helo. Unfortunately, the helo’s crew were forced to release the line within seconds due to the way the booster started to behave after being caught. The rocket then continued one to a splashdown, and was recovered by the Rocket Lab recovery vessel, which was also on station for this eventuality.
Left: the cockpit view as the helicopter approaches the descending Electron first stage. Right: Moments before the capture line initially snags the lines of the rocket’s parachute lines. Credit: Rocket Lab
Whilst not 100% successful, the attempt demonstrated Rocket Lab are on the right track, and likely will be able to capture future Electron stages in mid-air (thus avoiding exposing them to saltwater on splashdown), and fly them back to base for re-use.
In Brief
Virgin Galactic Delays Passenger Sub-Orbital Flights Until 2023
On May 5th, 2022, Virgin Galactic announced it is postponing the start of commercial services with its SpaceShipTwo suborbital spaceplane from late 2022 to early 2023, citing supply chain and labour issues.
Both VSS Unity, the first of the operational Virgin Galactic spaceplanes and the MSS Eve carrier / launch aircraft have been hit by extended delivery times of “high performance metallics” used in some of their components, resulting in a shortage of spares and replacement units.
The first flight of Unity with fare-paying passengers had been expected to take place in the 4th quarter of 2022, but has now been pushed back until the start of 2023, with the end of 2022 now earmarked for final flight tests of both Unity and Eve once the supply chain issues have been resolved, ahead of final certification for commercial flight operations.
Virgin Galactic has pushed back the start of its sub-orbital, fare-paying passenger flights to early 2023
The second sub-orbital vehicle, VSS Imagine, the first f the company’s SpaceShip III class, has yet to complete its own test regime, but is also expected to start passenger flight operations later in 2023. It’s not clear how many vehicle of the class will be built, as the company recently announced it plans to introduce a new “delta class” spaceplane in the mid-2020s.
The company also stated it has now sold 800 tickets for sub-orbital flights that will enable customers to experience around 3 minutes of microgravity. The majority of these were at the “introductory” prices of $250,000, but at least 100 have been at the “full” price of $450,000 – although it is believed most customers have thus far only made the basic down payment of $150,000 a ticket.
ESA Indicate Rosalind Franklin Unlikely to Launch Before 2028
The European Space Agency (ESA) has stated that Rosalind Franklin, the agency’s Mars rover and surface contingent of the ExoMars programme is unlikely not launch until 2028.
As I’ve noted in that past, this rover programme is already around 20 years old, and has had more than its fair share of setbacks. It had been expected to head to Mars later in 2022 using a Russian launch vehicle and lander craft. However, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine put paid to that as all cooperative space activities and projects between Europe and Russia were initially suspended and then scrapped – with ESA noting it has no intention of working in partnership with Russia in the future.
While alternate launch vehicles are available that could get the rover to Mars, the ending of ESA-Roscosmos cooperation means Rosalind Franklin is currently without a lander vehicle and, realistically, one cannot be designed, built and tested in time for launch sooner than the 2028 opportunity (the optimal times to launch missions on a cost-effective basis to Mars using chemical rockets occur once every 26 months).
However, even a 2028 launch is questionable. Firstly, the new lander will require a specific type of rocket motor to slow it during the final stage of landing – and these would have to be supplied by the United States, which will require negotiation and agreement. Secondly, the rover now needs new RHUs (radioisotope heating units) that keep it warm both during the trip to Mars and when on the surface. These were originally supplied by Russia, but have now been withdrawn, so ESA must again turn to the United States for new units. The RHU situation means that ExoMars can only launch from US soil, and this, with the need for the US-built motors likely means the land should be built in the US, all of which needs to be negotiated, so ESA can’t simply go out and build a lander for itself.
Europe’s ExoMars rover Rosalind Franklin – more delays. Credit: ESA
Also, a 2028 launch would mean that the rover would arrive in its designated landing / science location just one month ahead of the annual dust storms that sweep through the region, something to could adversely impact getting the rover checked-out and commissioned after it arrives. A longer flight time could be employed, but orbital mechanics dictate that the rover would be stuck in interplanetary space for two years before arriving at Mars – which is also far from ideal.
Nor is that all. The 2028 launch opportunity has been prioritised for the revised ESA/NASA Mars Sample Return (MSR) mission (see above). As such, there have been suggestions that the entire ExoMars rover could be re-purposed to fulfil the role of the ESA rover in that mission – although it is not clear how this would impact the rover’s current design and its own science goals.
A study outlining priorities in US planetary science for the next decade was published by the United States National Research Council (NRC) on April 19th. Entitled Origins, Worlds, and Life: A Decadal Strategy for Planetary Science and Astrobiology 2023-2032, the report is part of a 20-year history of the NRC offering periodic roadmaps for America’s space exploration strategies, during which time many of the recommendations made have gone on to shape NASA’s activities and goals.
The next decade of planetary science and astrobiology holds tremendous promise. New research will expand our understanding of our solar system’s origins, how planets form and evolve, under what conditions life can survive, and where to find potentially habitable environments in our solar system and beyond.
– from the introduction of the 2023-2032 Decadal Survey
The report – running to 522 pages – includes input from science organisations, universities and research institutions from around the world. Within it, the committee has identified twelve priority science questions that should be the focus of NASA and America’s work in space. These are divided into three categories: Origins, Worlds and Processes, and Life & Habitability, with each category including a total of 12 major areas of investigation, with the committee outlining the robotic and crewed mission proposals that NASA should consider undertaking in support of these investigations.
This report sets out an ambitious but practicable vision for advancing the frontiers of planetary science, astrobiology, and planetary defence in the next decade. This recommended portfolio of missions, high-priority research activities, and technology development will produce transformative advances in human knowledge and understanding about the origin and evolution of the solar system, and of life and the habitability of other bodies beyond Earth
– from the 2023-2032 the Decadal Survey
Highlights of the survey’s recommendations include:
Flagship Missions
Flagship missions are the “big ticket” missions for NASA. At the time of the last Decadal Survey (2011), the flagship missions were identified at the Mars 2020 mission, Europa Clipper, and the Uranus Orbiter and Probe (UOP) – the latter ultimately losing out to the other two.
This being the case, UOP has been awarded the highest priority within the 2023-32 survey. It would deliver an in-situ atmospheric probe into Uranus’ atmosphere and conduct a multi-year orbital tour to study the ice giant and its system of moons, with the objectives including the study of Uranus’ interior, atmosphere, magnetosphere, satellites, and rings.
A drawing of the proposed Uranus Orbiter and Probe.
Due to the need to utilise planetary fly-bys (gravity assists) to reach its destination, UOP would not launch until the early 2030s, when planetary alignments would facilitate the needed assists, with the primary science mission around Uranus commencing in the mid-2040s.
A second Flagship mission identified by the survey as worthy of consideration by NASA is the Enceladus Orbilander. If funded, this mission would launch in the late 2030’s sending a compact robot vehicle to orbit Saturn’s icy moon of Enceladus, passing through the plumes of water we know to be escaping the moon’s subsurface ocean as a result of gravitational interactions with Saturn. The aim of the mission is to to sample and study the plumes before making a landing on Enceladus in the early 2050s to search for biosignatures either in the surface ice.
New Frontier Missions
Regarded as “medium priority” missions, the New Frontier missions identified in the survey for further / continued development are designed to increase our understanding of the major and minor bodies in the solar system. The cost of such missions is capped at US $1.65 billion, with NASA likely to select two new missions from the crop of recommendations. They comprise:
Europa Clipper: a former Flagship mission, now downgraded to reflect its advanced status, this is due for launch in October 2024. It will arrive in orbit around Jupiter where it will fly by Europa multiple times, investigating the moon’s habitability and help identify a potential landing site for a future Europa Lander mission.
A Ceres sample / return mission to follow-up on the Dawn mission’s orbital survey of the asteroid Ceres.
A comet sample return mission.
A network of lunar landers to collect geophysical data.
A Saturn orbiter mission to follow-up on the Cassini mission.
The Oceanus Titan orbiter, proposed but not selected as a 2017 Frontiers Mission.
A Venus “in situ atmospheric” mission – possibly a vehicle to deliver a balloon that would drift through the upper reaches of Venus’ atmosphere.
A Triton (Saturn’s largest moon) orbital mission.
Mars Exploration
For the first time, a Decadal Survey identifies Mars as a dedicated target for exploration, specifically underling two missions:
The long-planned Mars Sample Return mission, which has had its share of ups and downs, and has yet to be properly settled upon by NASA.
The yet-to-be-defined Mars Life Explorer (MLE) mission designed to look specifically for signs of current microbial life on Mars and to pave the way for future human missions to Mars.
[A] sample return will provide geologic materials that are not represented among Martian meteorites and whose volatile, organic, and secondary mineral composition have not been altered by impact… In addition, sample return will allow for future analyses by instruments and techniques not yet developed. As has been the case with the Apollo samples from the Moon, future analyses are expected to yield profound results for many decades after sample return.
– from the 2023-2032 the Decadal Survey
The survey calls for cohesion between robotic and human missions is a priority for future missions to the Moon and Mars. Credit: NASEM
Lunar and Human Exploration
Unsurprisingly, the survey supports NASA’s lunar ambitions, identifying the need for robotic missions in support of a human presence on the Moon, the establishment of an “Artemis Basecamp” in the south polar region of the Moon. This also recommends much more coordination for human activities on the Moon to be linked with human missions to Mars.
Planetary Defence
A call for the development and improvement of our abilities to detect and track near-Earth Objects (NEOs) that may come to pose an impact threat for Earth, and the means to mitigate such genuine threats when identified and confirmed.
The highest priority planetary defence demonstration mission to follow DART and NEO Surveyor should be a rapid-response, flyby reconnaissance mission targeted to a challenging NEO, representative of the population of objects posing the highest probability of a destructive Earth impact (~50-to-100 m in diameter). Such a mission should assess the capabilities and limitations of flyby characterization methods to better prepare for a short-warning-time NEO threat.
– from the 2023-2032 the Decadal Survey
Which of the missions outlined by the survey are actually adopted will be down to a combination of NASA planning and congressional funding / willingness to support the goals and aspirations set out throughout the report.
Picture of the Week
Paris, April 17th 2022: the full Moon rises in line with the Arc de Triomphe and the Avenue des Champs-Elysées – a single exposure image captured by astro-photographer Thierry Legault. No compositing or other post-process used. Credit: Thierry Legault
SpaceX Starship Update
SpaceX has been moving ahead rapidly with the development of both prototypes of their Starship / Super Heavy vehicles and the facilities required to manufacture and launch them. Here’s a quick summary of key activities since my last update:
Booster 7 (sans any Raptor 2 engines) has undergone initial cryogenic and pressure testing whilst on both the orbital launch platform and the “Can Crusher”.
The test on the launch stand marked the first time any Super Heavy booster has had both tanks filled with cryogenic liquid (in this case, liquid nitrogen).
The tests on the “Can Crusher” have comprised both an ambient nitrogen pressure test of the tanks under high gaseous pressures and liquid nitrogen load tests.
The load tests have apparently included the use of the thrust rams of the “Can Crusher”, designed to simulate the pressure exerted against the rocket as a result of the thrust from its Raptor 2 motors.
Booster 7 undergoing cryogenic testing using liquid nitrogen to fill both tanks to capacity, forming frost on the outside of the stainless steel hull. Credit: NASA Spaceflight.com
At the same time as this work has been carried out, work on the next Super Heavy rocket – Booster 8 – appears to have been accelerated.
This has led to a degree of speculation that Booster 8 will actually make the first orbital launch attempt, not booster 7, which may be consigned to the role of a structural test article (much like Booster 1 and Booster 4).
The reason for this thinking is that Elon Musk has stated that with Raptor 2 production still ramping up, there will only be sufficient engines for a single booster by May, when SpaceX hope to complete the first orbital launch test. So if these engines are to be used on Booster 7, there seems little need to accelerate the assembly of Booster 8.
It also now seems likely that Starship 24 will be the vehicle to participate in the orbital launch attempt with either Booster 7 or 8. Originally, the inclusion of a payload bay door to facilitate the deployment of Starlink satellites, had been thought of as indicative that Ship 24 would be held over until SpaceX is ready to commence testing Starlink deployments with Starship.
Animated showing how the payload slot on Ship 24 and Ship 25 could release multiple Starlink satellites. Credit: OweBL
However, Ship 25 has also now been fitted with a similar mechanism, suggesting that it will be a feature of Starship vehicle during at least the next phase of development. If so, it would fit with the idea that SpaceX would like to demonstrate Starship’s ability to deliver payloads to orbit as soon as possible, even if other aspects of the system are still in development.
Nor is this the end of progress over recent weeks:
The SpaceX launch faculties at Kennedy Space Centre’s Pad 39A have seen the foundations for the new Starship / Super Heavy launch facilities start to come together.
At Roberts Road just a few kilometres away, the sections of the massive orbital launch tower are being assembled in parallel, with each section additionally being outfitted with all the required plumbing, ducting, etc., it requires.
This means that when ready, it should be possible for SpaceX to rollout, secure, stack and connect the sections into a finished tower in relatively short order compared to the construction of the tower at Boca Chica, which was erected in stages and the plumbing added after initial construction was completed.
From early April: four sections of the Starship / Super Heavy launch support tower under construction at Robert Road, Kennedy Space Centre (KSC). When complete, this section will be moved to the launch facilitates under construction within Pad 39A at KSC. Credit: Julia Bergeron / NASA Spaceflight.com
Also at Robert’s Road, work on the new fabrication and assembly facilities for Super Heavy boosters and Starship vehicles is moving forward.
All of this progress has perhaps been why SpaceX appear to have abandoned – or at least delayed – the development of a second orbital launch facility at Boca Chica (although this might also be in order to head-off any negative findings by the FAA on those plans when the latter’s environmental study and recommendation is finally published).
one of the two oil rigs SpaceX purchased for offshore launches has also completed the first stage of refurbishment – the removal of all equipment and elements not required for its use as a floating launch platform – and has been relocated in preparation for more extensive fitting-out to commence.
There is a long way to go before the Starship / Super Heavy system proves itself – from being able to launch successfully through to the routine and safe recovery of both boosters and starship vehicles to demonstrating the system is safe for human flight, let alone routinely flying with crews / passengers or being ready to meet the company’s long-term goal of reach Mars (a very different proposition to launch / landing here on Earth). However, there can be no denying the determination of SpaceX to develop, iterate and expand along their development path.
Inara Pey: Living in a Modemworld