Science

nasa-has-to-be-trolling-with-the-latest-cost-estimate-of-its-sls-launch-tower

NASA has to be trolling with the latest cost estimate of its SLS launch tower

Science, Space / /

The plague lives on —

“NASA officials informed us they do not intend to request a fixed-price proposal.”

–

Teams with NASA’s Exploration Ground Systems Program and primary contractor Bechtel National, Inc. continue construction on the base of the platform for the new mobile launcher at Kennedy Space Center in Florida on Wednesday, April 24, 2024.

Enlarge / Teams with NASA’s Exploration Ground Systems Program and primary contractor Bechtel National, Inc. continue construction on the base of the platform for the new mobile launcher at Kennedy Space Center in Florida on Wednesday, April 24, 2024.

NASA/Isaac Watson

NASA’s problems with the mobile launch tower that will support a larger version of its Space Launch System rocket are getting worse rather than better.

According to a new report from NASA’s inspector general, the estimated cost of the tower, which is a little bit taller than the length of a US football field with its end zones, is now $2.7 billion. Such a cost is nearly twice the funding it took to build the largest structure in the world, the Burj Khalifa, which is seven times taller.

This is a remarkable explosion in costs as, only five years ago, NASA awarded a contract to the Bechtel engineering firm to build and deliver a second mobile launcher (ML-2) for $383 million, with a due date of March 2023. That deadline came and went with Bechtel barely beginning to cut metal.

According to NASA’s own estimate, the project cost for the tower is now $1.8 billion, with a delivery date of September 2027. However the new report, published Monday, concludes that NASA’s estimate is probably too conservative. “Our analysis indicates costs could be even higher due in part to the significant amount of construction work that remains,” states the report, signed by Deputy Inspector General George A. Scott.

Bigger rocket, bigger tower

NASA commissioned construction of the launch tower—at the express direction of the US Congress—to support a larger version of the Space Launch System rocket known as Block 1B. This combines the rocket’s existing core stage with a larger and more powerful second stage, known as the Exploration Upper Stage, under development by Boeing.

The space agency expects to use this larger version of the SLS rocket beginning with the Artemis IV mission, which is intended to deliver both a crewed Orion spacecraft as well as an element of the Lunar Gateway into orbit around the Moon. This is to be the second time that astronauts land on the lunar surface as part of the Artemis Program. The Artemis IV mission has a nominal launch date of 2028, but the new report confirms the widely held assumption in the space community that such a date is unfeasible.

To make a 2028 launch date for this mission, NASA said it needs to have the ML-2 tower completed by November 2026. Both NASA and the new report agree that there is a zero percent chance of this happening. Accordingly, if the Artemis IV mission uses the upgraded version of the SLS rocket, it almost certainly will not launch until mid-2029 at the earliest.

Why have the costs and delays grown so much? One reason the report cites is Bechtel’s continual underestimation of the scope and complexity of the project.

“Bechtel vastly underestimated the number of labor hours required to complete the ML-2 project and, as a result, has incurred more labor hours than anticipated. From May 2022 to January 2024, estimated overtime hours doubled to nearly 850,000 hours, reflecting the company’s attempts to meet NASA’s schedule goals.

Difficult to hold Bechtel to account

One of the major takeaways from the new report is that NASA appears to be pretty limited in what it can do to motivate Bechtel to build the mobile launch tower more quickly or at a more reasonable price. The cost-plus contracting mechanism gives the space agency limited leverage over the contractor beyond withholding award fees. The report notes that NASA has declined to exercise an option to convert the contract to a fixed-price mechanism.

“While the option officially remains in the contract, NASA officials informed us they do not intend to request a fixed-price proposal from Bechtel,” the report states. “(Exploration Ground Systems) Program and ML-2 project management told us they presume Bechtel would likely provide a cost proposal far beyond NASA’s budgetary capacity to account for the additional risk that comes with a fixed-price contract.”

In other words, since NASA did not initially require a fixed price contract, it now sounds like any bid from Bechtel would completely blow a hole in the agency’s annual budget.

The spiraling costs of the mobile launch tower have previously been a source of frustration for NASA Administrator Bill Nelson. In 2022, after cost estimates for the ML-2 structure neared $1 billion, Nelson lashed out at the cost-plus mechanism during testimony to the US Congress.

“I believe that that is the plan that can bring us all the value of competition,” Nelson said of fixed-price contracts. “You get it done with that competitive spirit. You get it done cheaper, and that allows us to move away from what has been a plague on us in the past, which is a cost-plus contract, and move to an existing contractual price.”

The plague continues to spread.

NASA has to be trolling with the latest cost estimate of its SLS launch tower Read More »

tattoo-ink-sold-on-amazon-has-high-levels-of-weird-and-rare-bacteria

Tattoo ink sold on Amazon has high levels of weird and rare bacteria

bacteria, contamination, fda, health, microbiology, pathogens, recall, Science, Tattoo, tattoo ink / /

Infectious ink —

The recall announcement noted that the germs “present a health concern.”

–

BARCELONA, SPAIN - 2021/10/02: Spanish tattoo artist Oscar Garcia works on a man, during the Expo. Fira de Barcelona hosts the XXIV edition of the Barcelona Tattoo Expo where tattoo artists from Spain and other countries exhibit tattoos and tattoo material such as ink, needles and special machinery for tattoo work. (Photo by Ramon Costa/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)

Enlarge / BARCELONA, SPAIN – 2021/10/02: Spanish tattoo artist Oscar Garcia works on a man, during the Expo. Fira de Barcelona hosts the XXIV edition of the Barcelona Tattoo Expo where tattoo artists from Spain and other countries exhibit tattoos and tattoo material such as ink, needles and special machinery for tattoo work. (Photo by Ramon Costa/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)

The Food and Drug Administration has been warning for years that some tattoo inks are brimming with bacteria—a large assortment that, when injected into your skin, can cause inflammatory reactions, allergic hypersensitivity, toxic responses, and, of course, straight-up infections. And, worse yet, the labels that say the inks are sterile are not reliable.

But, a recent recall of three tattoo pigments from the same manufacturer does a good job of illustrating the FDA’s concerns. The water-based inks, all from Sierra Stain, had a bizarre array of bacteria, which were found at high levels, according to FDA testing.

One ink product—described as “Carolina Blue”—offered a microbial menagerie, with six odd species identified. They included a bacterium that often dwells in the gastrointestinal system and can inflame the mucosal lining of the intestines (Citrobacter braakii), a water-borne bacterium (Cupriavidus pauculus), and several that cause opportunistic infections (Citrobacter farmer, Achromobacter xylosoxidans, Ochrobactrum anthropi, and Pseudomonas fluorescens). These are bacteria that don’t typically go about attacking humans but will if the conditions are right, including when they find themselves inside a human with a compromised immune system.

An ink called “UV China Pink” contained an unusual soil bacterium (Curtobacterium citreum/pusillum). And an “All Purpose Black” ink puzzlingly contained Acetobacter senegalensis, a bacterium first isolated from mangos in Senegal and used for industrial vinegar production in low-income countries.

The three inks were sold nationwide through Amazon. To date, there have been no reported infections or adverse reactions linked to these inks. But the FDA notes that reactions to contaminated inks can be difficult to accurately diagnose. The infections and skin responses can look like generic rashes and allergic responses, sometimes including lesions with red papules in areas where the ink was injected, the FDA notes. However, infections from tattoo ink can leave permanent scarring.

In a study published in July in Applied and Environmental Microbiology, FDA researchers tested 75 samples of tattoo and permanent makeup inks from 14 manufacturers. Of the 75 inks, 26 (35 percent) were contaminated with a total of 34 types of bacteria, many that were possibly disease-causing. Some of the bacteria were anaerobic, meaning they don’t need oxygen to grow, suggesting they could thrive in the low-oxygen environment of skin layers. Of the 40 tattoo inks specifically, nine (22 percent) were contaminated. Among all the ink samples, 49 were labeled “sterile” and, of those, 16 (33 percent) were contaminated.

The recall announcement noted that Sierra Stain is no longer in business. While the company lists a remaining email address, it did not immediately respond to a comment request from Ars on the bacteria found in their inks.

The FDA recommends that consumers be vigilant about the quality and safety of tattoo supplies and techniques. It also encourages tattoo artists to work in professional environments that can reduce the risk of contamination.

Tattoo ink sold on Amazon has high levels of weird and rare bacteria Read More »

more-bad-news-for-psychedelic-drug-company:-fda-expands-probe-after-rejection

More bad news for psychedelic drug company: FDA expands probe after rejection

health, lykos, maps, mdma, psychedelics, PTSD, Science / /

trippy trip up —

Psychedelic drug company Lykos already slashed staff and overhauled leadership.

–

President of Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS) Rick Doblin speaks onstage during the 2023 Concordia Annual Summit at Sheraton New York on September 18, 2023, in New York City.

Enlarge / President of Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS) Rick Doblin speaks onstage during the 2023 Concordia Annual Summit at Sheraton New York on September 18, 2023, in New York City.

There’s more bad news for the company behind an experimental MDMA therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder, which the Food and Drug Administration roundly rejected earlier this month.

According to a report from The Wall Street Journal, the FDA is now expanding an investigation into clinical trials behind the experimental psychedelic therapy—even though the agency has already rejected it. Agency investigators reportedly interviewed four additional people last week, asking questions regarding whether the trials underreported side effects.

People involved in the trial have previously alleged, among other things, that ill effects, such as suicidal thoughts, went undocumented, and trial participants were discouraged from reporting them to bolster the chances of FDA approval. Overall, the MDMA trials faced crushing criticism amid the FDA’s review, with outside experts and agency advisors calling out allegations of sexual misconduct at one trial site, as well as flaws in overall trial designs, multiple sources of biases, and claims of that the company behind the therapy, Lykos, fostered a cult-like belief in psychedelics.

According to the Journal, the recent interviews were being conducted by the FDA’s Office of Regulatory Affairs, which oversees inspections, and a subdivision of that office called Biomedical Research Monitoring Program, which works to ensure the quality and integrity of data submitted to FDA. Notably, when the agency rejected MDMA, it advised Lykos to conduct a new trial.

While the FDA’s rejection and expanded investigation are bad enough for Lykos, the company announced this month that it’s laying off 75 percent of its staff and overhauling its leadership. The moves were in response to the FDA’s rejections, the company said. Additionally, a scientific journal retracted three of the company’s MDMA studies, citing “protocol violations amounting to unethical conduct” in its trials, echoing claims raised amid the FDA review.

Troubling roots

Underpinning the allegations and criticisms against Lykos is its roots in drug advocacy. Lykos is a commercial spinoff of the psychedelic advocacy nonprofit Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS). For decades, MAPS has worked to legalize psychedelics and research their use as potential treatments, particularly mental health conditions, including PTSD, anxiety, and substance use disorders. MAPS was founded by Rick Doblin, a longtime psychedelic activist and advocate who openly believes the use of psychedelics will lead to world peace. Amid the leadership overhaul this month, Doblin left his position on Lykos’ board.

“After 38 plus years of work, I’m profoundly saddened by the FDA decision around this critically needed therapy, but am heartened that Lykos will still move forward continuing clinical research that addresses the FDA’s questions,” Doblin said in a statement. “I can speak more freely as a public advocate by resigning from the Lykos Board. The FDA delays make it more important than ever that I work at MAPS toward developing global legal access to MDMA and other psychedelics for public benefit through MAPS’ multidisciplinary research, education, and drug policy reform.”

Lykos did not immediately respond to Ars’ request for comment on the FDA’s investigation. In a response to the Journal, a company spokesperson said that “Lykos is committed to engaging with the FDA and addressing any questions it raises.” The spokesperson also noted that the company is planning to meet with the FDA about the rejection, which it is appealing.

But, trial participants and outsiders have levied heavy criticism against the company that will likely be hard to move beyond.

“The prospect of a therapy cult guiding a suggestibility-enhancing drug through clinical trials highlights unique risks that have never been publicly discussed,” Neşe Devenot, a Johns Hopkins University senior lecturer in the university’s writing program who focuses on the issue of drugs in society, said in public comments prior to the FDA rejection. “The trials should be scrutinized as if Scientology or NXIVM had submitted a new drug application to the FDA.”

Those public comments appeared in a damning report from Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, which concluded that there was insufficient evidence to back MDMA-based therapy. According to the Journal report, Devenot was among the people interviewed by FDA investigators recently.

Lykos’ saga has been a blow to the psychedelic community in general and to many patients, particularly veterans, who have reported benefits from using MDMA to treat PTSD, a condition in desperate need of effective treatments.

Amid Lykos’ troubles, the company has brought in David Hough as senior medical advisor to oversee clinical and regulatory work. Hough is a former vice president at Johnson & Johnson, where he notably helped develop Spravato—esketamine—a compound related to ketamine that was approved for use against treatment-resistant depression in 2019.

More bad news for psychedelic drug company: FDA expands probe after rejection Read More »

one-of-the-most-adventurous-human-spaceflights-since-apollo-may-launch-tonight

One of the most adventurous human spaceflights since Apollo may launch tonight

jared isaacman, Polaris, Science, Space, spacex / /

Above and beyond —

Liftoff is set for 3: 38 am ET in Florida.

–

The crew of Polaris Dawn, from L to R: Scott

Enlarge / The crew of Polaris Dawn, from L to R: Scott “Kidd” Poteet, Anna Menon, Sarah Gillis, and Jared Isaacman.

Polaris Program/John Kraus

SpaceX is set to launch the 14th crewed flight on its Dragon spacecraft early on Tuesday morning—and it’s an intriguing one.

This Polaris Dawn mission, helmed and funded by an entrepreneur and billionaire named Jared Isaacman, is scheduled to lift off at 3: 38 am ET (07: 38 UTC) on Tuesday from Launch Complex 39A at Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

This is just the second free-flying Crew Dragon mission that SpaceX has flown, and like the Inspiration4 mission that came before it, Polaris Dawn will once again field an entire crew of private astronauts. Although this is a private spaceflight, it really is not a space tourism mission. Rather, it seeks to push the ball of exploration forward. Isaacman has emerged as one of the most serious figures in commercial spaceflight in recent years, spending hundreds of millions of dollars to fly into space and push forward the boundaries of what private citizens can do in space.

“The idea is to develop and test new technology and operations in furtherance of SpaceX’s bold vision to enable humankind to journey among the stars,” Isaacman said last week during a news conference ahead of Tuesday’s launch.

A novel step forward

Isaacman, chief executive of the Shift4 payments company, led the Inspiration4 mission in September 2021, which was unique because the crew consisted of himself—an experienced pilot—and three newcomers to spaceflight. Isaacman used the world’s first all-civilian spaceflight, on a private vehicle, to raise hundreds of millions of dollars for charity and expand the window of who could become an astronaut.

Yet whereas Inspiration4 felt like something of a novelty, Polaris Dawn is truly pushing the boundary of private spaceflight forward. Working closely with SpaceX, Isaacman has plotted a five-day flight that will accomplish a number of significant tasks after it launches.

During the initial hours of the spaceflight, the crew will seek to fly in a highly elliptical orbit, reaching an altitude as high as 1,400 km (870 miles) above the planet’s surface. This will be the highest Earth-orbit mission ever flown by humans and the farthest any person has flown from Earth since the Apollo Moon landings more than half a century ago. This will expose the crew to a not insignificant amount of radiation, and they will collect biological data to assess harms.

The Resilience spacecraft will then descend toward a more circular orbit about 700 km above the Earth’s surface. Assuming a launch on Tuesday, the crew will don four spacesuits on Friday and open the hatch to the vacuum of space. Then Isaacman, followed by mission specialist Sarah Gillis, will each briefly climb out of the spacecraft into space.

Isaacman’s interest in performing the first private spacewalk accelerated, by years, SpaceX’s development of these spacesuits. This really is just the first generation of the suit, and SpaceX is likely to continue iterating toward a spacesuit that has its own portable life support system (PLSS). This is the “backpack” on a traditional spacesuit that allows NASA astronauts to perform spacewalks untethered to the International Space Station.

The general idea is that, as the Starship vehicle makes the surface of the Moon and eventually Mars more accessible to more people, future generations of these lower-cost spacesuits will enable exploration and settlement. That journey, in some sense, begins with this mission’s brief spacewalks, with Isaacman and Gillis tethered to the Dragon vehicle for life support.

Sarah Gillis, a mission specialist on Polaris Dawn, is pretty darn excited about going to space.

Enlarge / Sarah Gillis, a mission specialist on Polaris Dawn, is pretty darn excited about going to space.

Polaris Program/John Kraus

Lasers and SpaceXers

Isaacman and his crew will also conduct a number of other research experiments, including trying to better understand a recently detected but major concern of space habitation, spaceflight-associated neuro-ocular syndrome. This will also be the first crewed mission to test Starlink-based laser communications in space.

Then, there is the crew. Isaacman’s close friend, retired US Air Force Col. Scott “Kidd” Poteet, will be the mission’s pilot, with Gillis and Anna Menon serving as mission specialists. Both Gillis and Menon are SpaceX engineers who worked with Isaacman during Inspiration4. Now, they’ll become the first SpaceX employees to ever go into orbit, bringing their experiences back to share with their colleagues.

This is the first of three “Polaris” missions that Isaacman is scheduled to fly with SpaceX. The plan for the second Polaris mission, also to fly on a Dragon spacecraft, has yet to be determined. But it may well employ a second-generation spacesuit based on learnings from this spaceflight. The third flight, unlikely to occur before at least 2030, will be an orbital launch aboard the company’s Starship vehicle—making Isaacman and his crew the first to fly on that rocket.

One of the most adventurous human spaceflights since Apollo may launch tonight Read More »

natgeo’s-cursed-gold-documents-rise-and-fall-of-notorious-1980s-treasure-hunter

NatGeo’s Cursed Gold documents rise and fall of notorious 1980s treasure hunter

culture, Disney Plus, documentaries, maritime archaeology, National Geographic, Science, science documentaries, shipwrecks, streaming television / /

From rags to riches—to jail —

Thompson’s expedition discovered wreck of the SS Central America, aka the “Ship of Gold.”

–

gold coins and gold bars scattered on the ocean floor

Enlarge / Cursed Gold: A Shipwreck Scandal documents the spectacular rise and fall of treasure hunter Tommy Thompson.

Recovery Limited Partnership Liquidating Trust

Many people dream of finding lost or hidden treasure, but sometimes realizing that dream turns out to be a nightmare. Such was the case for Tommy Thompson, an American treasure hunter who famously beat the odds to discover the location of the SS Central America shipwreck in 1988. It had been dubbed the “Ship of Gold” since it sank in 1857 laden with 30,000 pounds of gold bars and coins—collectively worth enough money to have some impact on the Panic of 1857 financial crisis.

Thompson and his team recovered significant amounts of gold and artifacts to great fanfare, with experts at the time suggesting the trove could be worth as much as $400 million. The euphoria proved short-lived. Thirty-nine insurance companies filed lawsuits, claiming the gold was rightfully theirs since the companies had paid damages for the lost gold back in the mid-19th century. Thompson eventually prevailed in 1996, when courts awarded him and his discovery team 92 percent of the gold they’d recovered.

But actually realizing profits from the gold proved challenging; In the end, Thompson sold the gold for just $52 million, almost all of which went to pay off the massive debt the project had accumulated over the ensuing years. So naturally, there were more lawsuits, this time from the investors who had financed Thompson’s expedition, accusing him of fraud. Thompson didn’t help his case when he went on the run in 2012 with his assistant, living off some $4 million in assets stashed in an offshore account.

Thompson was finally captured by US marshals in 2015 to face his investors in court. A jury awarded the investors substantial compensatory damages, and the court ordered Thompson to hand over 500 commemorative gold coins that had been minted out of some of the Central America gold to meet that judgment. Thompson claimed he had forgotten where he’d stashed them and was jailed for contempt of court until the coins had been recovered and handed over. He’s still in prison as of this writing, and the gold coins have yet to be found.

It’s quite a tale, so small wonder that National Geographic has made a riveting three-part documentary about Thompson’s spectacular rise and fall: Cursed Gold: A Shipwreck Scandal, based on the 1998 book by Gary Kinder entitled Ship of Gold in the Deep Blue Sea. Cursed Gold director Sam Benstead read Kinder’s book and was instantly hooked on the story. “Not only was it a hugely exciting story with many twists and turns, but it was also an emotional story, which left you pulling for Tommy and his crew,” he told Ars. “Tommy came through as an extraordinary character: eccentric, brilliant, someone willing to try things no one else had. When I discovered all the things that had happened after the book, I knew it was a story I had to tell.”

Ship of Gold

  • Engraving by J. Childs of the 1857 sinking of the SS Central America.

    Public domain/National Maritime Museum, London

  • Sonar expert Mike Williamson hard at work during production of Cursed Gold.

    National Geographic

  • John Moore is a lead designer of deep-sea robot Nemo.

    National Geographic

  • Dramatic reconstruction of crew members looking at monitors in the ship’s control room.

    National Geographic

  • Dramatic reconstruction of a crew member looking at computer screens in the ship’s control room.

    National Geographic

  • Dramatic reconstruction of sonar operator John Lettow navigating Nemo from the ship’s control room.

    National Geographic

  • Dramatic reconstruction showing Nemo descending to the seabed off the coast of North Carolina.

    National Geographic

  • Gold bars and coins on the bottom of the sea bed off the coast of North Carolina.

    Recovery Limited Partnership Liquidating Trust

  • Robotic machine recovers gold bars on the bottom of the seabed.

    Recovery Limited Partnership Liquidating Trust

  • Crew members ogle gold bars on deck after being brought up from the sea floor.

    Recovery Limited Partnership Liquidating Trust

  • Crew members looking at gold bars retrieved from the ocean floor.

    Recovery Limited Partnership Liquidating Trust

  • Journalist Dylan Taylor-Lehman looks through case files.

    National Geographic

  • Veteran US Marshal Mark Stroh lifting box of files in a dramatic reconstruction.

    National Geographic

  • Lawyer Quintin Lindsmith works on case files.

    Gold bars and coins on the bottom of the sea bed off the cost of North Carolina.

  • US Marshal Christopher Crotty waits in his car in a dramatic reconstruction.

    National Geographic

  • A case displaying the missing 500 commemorative gold coins.

    Recovery Limited Partnership Liquidating Trust

A lot has happened to Thompson since Kinder’s book was published in 1998. Benstead and his production team combed through more than 600 hours of archival footage from the original expedition, as well as over 700 pages of court transcripts. “We also consulted multiple figures who we didn’t film with but who helped inform the story,” said Benstead. “In the editing process, National Geographic’s research department, together with our team, worked diligently to do their best to bottom out every fact, every claim. In a story that is so contested, this really helped us feel confident in standing behind the resulting films.”

“One of the main challenges was in condensing an incredibly complex 30-year saga into three films,” Benstead continued. “There were many legal cases and side stories that we had to exclude or could only touch on. And there were areas of the story that were strongly disputed by different sides. Sometimes we had to make choices that didn’t fully satisfy either camp, but we did our best to remain fair to the plurality of viewpoints, while also telling a powerful story.”

The director remains in awe of the original discovery, however badly the adventure turned out. “For the guys on the boat, almost without exception, this period was one of the best times of their lives,” he said. “It was a privilege to relive their struggles and final triumph in finding the gold. I still find it remarkable that they found the SS Central America in almost two miles of water with the resources they had in the 1980s.”

The experience also instilled “a real respect for the people who shared their story with us, especially Tommy’s family members, who have had so much written about them over the years,” said Benstead. “They didn’t trust us easily, and I feel very fortunate that they took part. Whenever people share the deepest, most affecting parts of their lives with you, you walk away carrying a big responsibility. I hope that they feel we have done their side of the story justice.”

Did Benstead come to his own conclusions about whether or not Thompson committed fraud? “Different people have different viewpoints on Tommy, even amongst those on the boat, investors, lawyers, and law enforcement,” he said. “We felt it was very important to allow the series to reflect this diversity and to allow the audience to make up their own mind. My own view is that Tommy isn’t a con man, and to be in prison for approaching nine years for contempt of court feels like a sad reflection on the US justice system. But it is also the case that, albeit under immense pressure, he made certain choices (like going on the run), which contributed to his own downfall. I hope that in the coming years his achievements, which have been obscured by the legal circus, are given the recognition that they deserve.”

Cursed Gold: A Shipwreck Scandal is now streaming on Disney+ and Hulu.

NatGeo’s Cursed Gold documents rise and fall of notorious 1980s treasure hunter Read More »

us-grid-adds-batteries-at-10x-the-rate-of-natural-gas-in-first-half-of-2024

US grid adds batteries at 10x the rate of natural gas in first half of 2024

batteries, Energy, green, natural gas, nuclear, renewable energy, Science, solar, Sustainability, Wind / /

In transition —

By year’s end, 96 percent of the US’s grid additions won’t add carbon to the atmosphere.

–

US grid adds batteries at 10x the rate of natural gas in first half of 2024

While solar power is growing at an extremely rapid clip, in absolute terms, the use of natural gas for electricity production has continued to outpace renewables. But that looks set to change in 2024, as the US Energy Information Agency (EIA) has run the numbers on the first half of the year and found that wind, solar, and batteries were each installed at a pace that dwarfs new natural gas generators. And the gap is expected to get dramatically larger before the year is over.

Solar, batteries booming

According to the EIA’s numbers, about 20 GW of new capacity was added in the first half of this year, and solar accounts for 60 percent of it. Over a third of the solar additions occurred in just two states, Texas and Florida. There were two projects that went live that were rated at over 600 MW of capacity, one in Texas, the other in Nevada.

Next up is batteries: The US saw 4.2 additional gigawatts of battery capacity during this period, meaning over 20 percent of the total new capacity. (Batteries are treated as the equivalent of a generating source by the EIA since they can dispatch electricity to the grid on demand, even if they can’t do so continuously.) Texas and California alone accounted for over 60 percent of these additions; throw in Arizona and Nevada, and you’re at 93 percent of the installed capacity.

The clear pattern here is that batteries are going where the solar is, allowing the power generated during the peak of the day to be used to meet demand after the sun sets. This will help existing solar plants avoid curtailing power production during the lower-demand periods in the spring and fall. In turn, this will improve the economic case for installing additional solar in states where its production can already regularly exceed demand.

Wind power, by contrast, is running at a more sedate pace, with only 2.5 GW of new capacity during the first six months of 2024. And for likely the last time this decade, additional nuclear power was placed on the grid, at the fourth 1.1 GW reactor (and second recent build) at the Vogtle site in Georgia. The only other additions came from natural gas-powered facilities, but these totaled just 400 MW, or just 2 percent of the total of new capacity.

Wind, solar, and batteries are the key contributors to new capacity in 2024.

Enlarge / Wind, solar, and batteries are the key contributors to new capacity in 2024.

The EIA has also projected capacity additions out to the end of 2024 based on what’s in the works, and the overall shape of things doesn’t change much. However, the pace of installation goes up as developers rush to get their project operational within the current tax year. The EIA expects a bit over 60 GW of new capacity to be installed by the end of the year, with 37 GW of that coming in the form of solar power. Battery growth continues at a torrid pace, with 15 GW expected, or roughly a quarter of the total capacity additions for the year.

Wind will account for 7.1 GW of new capacity, and natural gas 2.6 GW. Throw in the contribution from nuclear, and 96 percent of the capacity additions of 2024 are expected to operate without any carbon emissions. Even if you choose to ignore the battery additions, the fraction of carbon-emitting capacity added remains extremely small, at only 6 percent.

Gradual shifts on the grid

Obviously, these numbers represent the peak production of these sources. Over a year, solar produces at about 25 percent of its rated capacity in the US, and wind at about 35 percent. The former number will likely decrease over time as solar becomes inexpensive enough to make economic sense in places that don’t receive as much sunshine. By contrast, wind’s capacity factor may increase as more offshore wind farms get completed. For natural gas, many of the newer plants are being designed to operate erratically so that they can provide power when renewables are under-producing.

A clearer sense of what’s happening comes from looking at the generating sources that are being retired. The US saw 5.1 GW of capacity drop off the grid in the first half of 2024, and aside from a 0.2 GW of “other,” all of it was fossil fuel-powered, including 2.1 GW of coal capacity and 2.7 GW of natural gas. The latter includes a large 1.4 GW natural gas plant in Massachusetts.

But total retirements are expected to be just 7.5 GWO this year—less than was retired in the first half of 2023. That’s likely because the US saw electricity use rise by 5 percent in the first half of 2025, based on numbers the EIA released on Friday (note that this link will take you to more recent data a month from now). It’s unclear how much of that was due to weather—a lot of the country saw heat that likely boosted demand for air conditioning—and how much could be accounted for by rising use in data centers and for the electrification of transit and appliances.

That data release includes details on where the US got its electricity during the first half of 2024. The changes aren’t dramatic compared to where they were when we looked at things last month. Still, what has changed over the past month is good news for renewables. In May, wind and solar production were up 8.4 percent compared to the same period the year before. By June, they were up by over 12 percent.

Given the EIA’s expectations for the rest of the year, the key question is likely to be whether the pace of new solar installations is going to be enough to offset the drop in production that will occur as the US shifts to the winter months.

US grid adds batteries at 10x the rate of natural gas in first half of 2024 Read More »

nasa’s-starliner-decision-was-the-right-one,-but-it’s-a-crushing-blow-for-boeing

NASA’s Starliner decision was the right one, but it’s a crushing blow for Boeing

Boeing, commercial crew, Commercial space, Features, human spaceflight, international space station, NASA, Science, Space, starliner / /

Falling short —

It’s unlikely Boeing can fly all six of its Starliner missions before retirement of the ISS in 2030.

–

A Starliner spacecraft mounted on top of an Atlas V rocket before an unpiloted test flight in 2022.

Enlarge / A Starliner spacecraft mounted on top of an Atlas V rocket before an unpiloted test flight in 2022.

Ten years ago next month NASA announced that Boeing, one of the agency’s most experienced contractors, won the lion’s share of government money available to end the agency’s sole reliance on Russia to ferry its astronauts to and from low-Earth orbit.

At the time, Boeing won $4.2 billion from NASA to complete development of the Starliner spacecraft and fly a minimum of two, and potentially up to six, operational crew flights to rotate crews between Earth and the International Space Station (ISS). SpaceX won a $2.6 billion contract for essentially the same scope of work.

A decade later the Starliner program finds itself at a crossroads after Boeing learned it will not complete the spacecraft’s first Crew Flight Test with astronauts onboard. NASA formally decided Saturday that Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams, who launched on the Starliner capsule June 5, will instead return to Earth inside a SpaceX Crew Dragon spacecraft. Put simply, NASA isn’t confident enough in Boeing’s spacecraft after it suffered multiple thrusters failures and helium leaks on the way to the ISS.

So where does this leave Boeing with its multibillion contract? Can the company fulfill the breadth of its commercial crew contract with NASA before the space station’s scheduled retirement in 2030? It now seems that there is little chance of Boeing flying six more Starliner missions without a life extension for the ISS. Tellingly, perhaps, NASA has only placed firm orders with Boeing for three Starliner flights once the agency certifies the spacecraft for operational use.

Boeing’s bottom line

Although Boeing did not make an official statement Saturday on its long-term plans for Starliner, NASA Administrator Bill Nelson told reporters he received assurances from Boeing’s new CEO, Kelly Ortberg, that the company remains committed to the commercial crew program. And it will take a significant commitment from Boeing to see it through. Under the terms of its fixed price contract with NASA, the company is on the hook to pay for any expenses to fix the thruster and helium leak problems and get Starliner flying again.

Boeing has already reported $1.6 billion in charges on its financial statements to pay for delays and cost overruns on the Starliner program. That figure will grow as the company will likely need to redesign some elements in the spacecraft’s propulsion system to remedy the problems encountered on the Crew Flight Test (CFT) mission. NASA has committed $5.1 billion to Boeing for the Starliner program, and the agency has already paid out most of that funding.

Boeing's Starliner spacecraft, seen docked at the International Space Station through the window of a SpaceX Dragon spacecraft.

Enlarge / Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft, seen docked at the International Space Station through the window of a SpaceX Dragon spacecraft.

The next step for Starliner remains unclear, and we’ll assess that in more detail later in the story. Had the Starliner test flight ended as expected, with its crew inside, NASA targeted no earlier than August 2025 for Boeing to launch the first of its six operational crew rotation missions to the space station. In light of Saturday’s decision, there’s a high probability Starliner won’t fly with astronauts again until at least 2026.

Starliner safely delivered astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams to the space station on June 6, a day after their launch from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida. But five of the craft’s 28 reaction control system thrusters overheated and failed as it approached the outpost. After the failures on the way to the space station, NASA’s engineers were concerned Starliner might suffer similar problems, or worse, when the control jets fired to guide Starliner on the trip back to Earth.

On Saturday, senior NASA leaders decided it wasn’t worth the risk. The two astronauts, who originally planned for an eight-day stay at the station, will now spend eight months on the orbiting research lab until they come back to Earth with SpaceX.

If it’s not a trust problem, is it a judgement issue?

Boeing managers had previously declared Starliner was safe enough to bring Wilmore and Williams home. Mark Nappi, Boeing’s Starliner program manager, regularly appeared to downplay the seriousness of the thruster issues during press conferences throughout Starliner’s nearly three-month mission.

So why did NASA and Boeing engineers reach different conclusions? “I think we’re looking at the data and we view the data and the uncertainty that’s there differently than Boeing does,” said Jim Free, NASA’s associate administrator, and the agency’s most senior civil servant. “It’s not a matter of trust. It’s our technical expertise and our experience that we have to balance. We balance risk across everything, not just Starliner.”

The people at the top of NASA’s decision-making tree have either flown in space before, or had front-row seats to the calamitous decision NASA made in 2003 to not seek more data on the condition of space shuttle Columbia’s left wing after the impact of a block of foam from the shuttle’s fuel tank during launch. This led to the deaths of seven astronauts, and the destruction of Columbia during reentry over East Texas. A similar normalization of technical problems, and a culture of stifling dissent, led to the loss of space shuttle Challenger in 1986.

“We lost two space shuttles as a result there not being a culture in which information could come forward,” Nelson said Saturday. “We have been very solicitous of all of our employees that if you have some objection, you come forward. Spaceflight is risky, even at its safest, and even at its most routine. And a test flight by nature is neither safe nor routine. So the decision to keep Butch and Suni aboard the International Space Station and bring the Starliner home uncrewed is the result of a commitment to safety.”

Now, it seems that culture may truly have changed. With SpaceX’s Dragon spacecraft available to give Wilmore and Williams a ride home, this ended up being a relatively straightforward decision. Ken Bowersox, head of NASA’s space operations mission directorate, said the managers polled for their opinion all supported bringing the Starliner spacecraft back to Earth without anyone onboard.

However, NASA and Boeing need to answer for how the Starliner program got to this point. The space agency approved the launch of the Starliner CFT mission in June despite knowing the spacecraft had a helium leak in its propulsion system. Those leaks multiplied once Starliner arrived in orbit, and are a serious issue on their own that will require corrective actions before the next flight. Ultimately, the thruster problems superseded the seriousness of the helium leaks, and this is where NASA and Boeing are likely to face the most difficult questions moving forward.

NASA astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams aboard the International Space Station.

Enlarge / NASA astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams aboard the International Space Station.

Boeing’s previous Starliner mission, known as Orbital Flight Test-2 (OFT-2), successfully launched in 2022 and docked with the space station, later coming back to Earth for a parachute-assisted landing in New Mexico. The test flight achieved all of its major objectives, setting the stage for the Crew Flight Test mission this year. But the spacecraft suffered thruster problems on that flight, too.

Several of the reaction control system thrusters stopped working as Starliner approached the space station on the OFT-2 mission, and another one failed on the return leg of the mission. Engineers thought they fixed the problem by introducing what was essentially a software fix to adjust timing and tolerance settings on sensors in the propulsion system, supplied by Aerojet Rocketdyne.

That didn’t work. The problem lay elsewhere, as engineers discovered during testing this summer, when Starliner was already in orbit. Thruster firings at White Stands, New Mexico, revealed a small Teflon seal in a valve can bulge when overheated, restricting the flow of oxidizer propellant to the thruster. NASA officials concluded there is a chance, however small, that the thrusters could overheat again as Starliner departs the station and flies back to Earth—or perhaps get worse.

“We are clearly operating this thruster at a higher temperature, at times, than it was designed for,” said Steve Stich, NASA’s commercial crew program manager. “I think that was a factor, that as we started to look at the data a little bit more carefully, we’re operating the thruster outside of where it should be operated at.”

NASA’s Starliner decision was the right one, but it’s a crushing blow for Boeing Read More »

nasa-not-comfortable-with-starliner-thrusters,-so-crew-will-fly-home-on-dragon

NASA not comfortable with Starliner thrusters, so crew will fly home on Dragon

Boeing, dragon, Science, Space, spacex, starliner / /

Boeing is going home empty handed —

“I would say the White Sands testing did give us a surprise.”

–

Photos of Crew Dragon relocation on the International Space Station.

Enlarge / Crew Dragon approaches the International Space Station

NASA TV

Following weeks of speculation, NASA finally made it official on Saturday: two astronauts who flew to the International Space Station on Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft in June will not return home on that vehicle. Instead, the agency has asked SpaceX to use its Crew Dragon spacecraft to fly astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams back to Earth.

“NASA has decided that Butch and Suni will return with Crew-9 next February,” said NASA Administrator Bill Nelson at the outset of a news conference on Saturday afternoon at Johnson Space Center.

In a sign of the gravity surrounding the agency’s decision, both Nelson and NASA’s deputy administrator, Pam Melroy, attended a Flight Readiness Review meeting held Saturday in Houston. During that gathering of the agency’s senior officials, an informal “go/no go” poll was taken. Those present voted unanimously for Wilmore and Williams to return to Earth on Crew Dragon. The official recommendation of the Commercial Crew Program was the same, and Nelson accepted it.

Therefore, Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft will undock from the station early next month—the tentative date, according to a source, is September 6—and attempt to make an autonomous return to Earth and land in a desert in the southwestern United States.

Then, no earlier than September 24, a Crew Dragon spacecraft will launch with two astronauts (NASA has not named the two crew members yet) to the space station with two empty seats. Wilmore and Williams will join these two Crew-9 astronauts for their previously scheduled six-month increment on the space station. All four will then return to Earth on the Crew Dragon vehicle.

Saturday’s announcement has big implications for Boeing, which entered NASA’s Commercial Crew Program more than a decade ago and lent legitimacy to NASA’s efforts to pay private companies for transporting astronauts to the International Space Station. The company’s failure—and despite the encomiums from NASA officials during Saturday’s news conference, this Starliner mission is a failure—will affect Boeing’s future in spaceflight. Ars will have additional coverage of Starliner’s path forward later today.

Never could get comfortable with thruster issues

For weeks after Starliner’s arrival at the space station in early June, officials from Boeing and NASA expressed confidence in the ability of the spacecraft to fly Wilmore and Williams home. They said they just needed to collect a little more data on the performance of the vehicle’s reaction control system thrusters. Five of these 28 small thrusters that guide Starliner failed during the trip to the space station.

Engineers from Boeing and NASA tested the performance of these thrusters at a facility in White Sands, New Mexico, in July. Initially, the engineers were excited to replicate the failures observed during Starliner’s transit to the space station. (Replicating failures is a critical step to understanding the root cause of a hardware problem.)

However, what NASA found after taking apart the failed thrusters was concerning, said the chief of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program, Steve Stich.

“I would say the White Sands testing did give us a surprise,” Stich said Saturday. “It was this piece of Teflon that swells up and got in the flow path and causes the oxidizer to not go into the thruster the way it needs to. That’s what caused the degradation of thrust. When we saw that, I think that’s when things changed a bit for us.”

When NASA took this finding to the thruster’s manufacturer, Aerojet Rocketdyne, the propulsion company said it had never seen this phenomenon before. It was at this point that agency engineers started to believe that it might not be possible to identify the root cause of the problem in a timely manner and become comfortable enough with the physics to be sure that the thruster problem would not occur during Starliner’s return to Earth.

Thank you for flying SpaceX

The result of this uncertainty is that NASA will now turn to the other commercial crew provider, SpaceX. This is not a pleasant outcome for Boeing which, a decade ago, looked askance at SpaceX as something akin to space cowboys. I have covered the space industry closely during the last 15 years, and during most of that time Boeing was perceived by much of the industry as the blueblood of spaceflight while SpaceX was the company that was going to kill astronauts due to its supposed recklessness.

Now the space agency is asking SpaceX to, in effect, rescue the Boeing astronauts currently on the International Space Station.

It won’t be the first time that SpaceX has helped a competitor recently. In the last two years SpaceX has launched satellites for a low-Earth orbit Internet competitor, OneWeb, after Russia’s space program squeezed the company; it has launched Europe’s sovereign Galileo satellites after delays to the Ariane 6 rocket; and it has launched the Cygnus spacecraft built by NASA’s other space station cargo services provider, Northrop Grumman, multiple times. Now SpaceX will help out Boeing, a crew competitor.

After Saturday’s news conference, I asked Jim Free, NASA’s highest-ranking civil servant, what he made of the once-upstart SpaceX now helping to backstop the rest of the Western spaceflight community. Without SpaceX, after all, NASA would not have a way to get crew or cargo to the International Space Station.

“They’re flying a lot, and they’re having success,” Free said. “And you know, when they have an issue, they find a way to recover like with the second-stage issue, We set out to have two providers to take crew to station to have options, and they’ve given us the option. In the reverse, Boeing could have been out there, and we still would face the same thing if they had a systemic Dragon problem, Boeing would have to bring us back. But I can’t argue with how much they’ve flown, that’s for sure, and what they’ve flown.”

NASA not comfortable with Starliner thrusters, so crew will fly home on Dragon Read More »

from-recycling-to-food:-can-we-eat-plastic-munching-microbes?

From recycling to food: Can we eat plastic-munching microbes?

food supply, microbes, plastic, recycling, Science, syndication / /

breaking it down —

Researchers are trying to turn plastic-eating bacteria into food source for humans.

–

From recycling to food: Can we eat plastic-munching microbes?

Olga Pankova/Moment via Getty Images

In 2019, an agency within the US Department of Defense released a call for research projects to help the military deal with the copious amount of plastic waste generated when troops are sent to work in remote locations or disaster zones. The agency wanted a system that could convert food wrappers and water bottles, among other things, into usable products, such as fuel and rations. The system needed to be small enough to fit in a Humvee and capable of running on little energy. It also needed to harness the power of plastic-eating microbes.

“When we started this project four years ago, the ideas were there. And in theory, it made sense,” said Stephen Techtmann, a microbiologist at Michigan Technological University, who leads one of the three research groups receiving funding. Nevertheless, he said, in the beginning, the effort “felt a lot more science-fiction than really something that would work.”

That uncertainty was key. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, supports high-risk, high-reward projects. This means there’s a good chance that any individual effort will end in failure. But when a project does succeed, it has the potential to be a true scientific breakthrough. “Our goal is to go from disbelief, like, ‘You’re kidding me. You want to do what?’ to ‘You know, that might be actually feasible,’” said Leonard Tender, a program manager at DARPA who is overseeing the plastic waste projects.

The problems with plastic production and disposal are well-known. According to the United Nations Environment Program, the world creates about 440 million tons of plastic waste per year. Much of it ends up in landfills or in the ocean, where microplastics, plastic pellets, and plastic bags pose a threat to wildlife. Many governments and experts agree that solving the problem will require reducing production, and some countries and US states have additionally introduced policies to encourage recycling.

For years, scientists have also been experimenting with various species of plastic-eating bacteria. But DARPA is taking a slightly different approach in seeking a compact and mobile solution that uses plastic to create something else entirely: food for humans.

The goal, Techtmann hastens to add, is not to feed people plastic. Rather, the hope is that the plastic-devouring microbes in his system will themselves prove fit for human consumption. While Techtmann believes most of the project will be ready in a year or two, it’s this food step that could take longer. His team is currently doing toxicity testing, and then they will submit their results to the Food and Drug Administration for review. Even if all that goes smoothly, an additional challenge awaits. There’s an ick factor, said Techtmann, “that I think would have to be overcome.”

The military isn’t the only entity working to turn microbes into nutrition. From Korea to Finland, a small number of researchers, as well as some companies, are exploring whether microorganisms might one day help feed the world’s growing population.

Two birds, one stone

According to Tender, DARPA’s call for proposals was aimed at solving two problems at once. First, the agency hoped to reduce what he called supply-chain vulnerability: During war, the military needs to transport supplies to troops in remote locations, which creates a safety risk for people in the vehicle. Additionally, the agency wanted to stop using hazardous burn pits as a means of dealing with plastic waste. “Getting those waste products off of those sites responsibly is a huge lift,” Tender said.

The Michigan Tech system begins with a mechanical shredder, which reduces the plastic to small shards that then move into a reactor, where they soak in ammonium hydroxide under high heat. Some plastics, such as PET, which is commonly used to make disposable water bottles, break down at this point. Other plastics used in military food packaging—namely polyethylene and polypropylene—are passed along to another reactor, where they are subject to much higher heat and an absence of oxygen.

Under these conditions, the polyethylene and polypropylene are converted into compounds that can be upcycled into fuels and lubricants. David Shonnard, a chemical engineer at Michigan Tech who oversaw this component of the project, has developed a startup company called Resurgent Innovation to commercialize some of the technology. (Other members of the research team, said Shonnard, are pursuing additional patents related to other parts of the system.)

From recycling to food: Can we eat plastic-munching microbes? Read More »

cards-on-the-table:-are-butch-and-suni-coming-home-on-starliner-or-crew-dragon?

Cards on the table: Are Butch and Suni coming home on Starliner or Crew Dragon?

boing, crew dragon, Features, NASA, Science, Space, starliner / /
NASA astronauts Suni Williams and Butch Wilmore, seen in their Boeing flight suits.

Enlarge / NASA astronauts Suni Williams and Butch Wilmore, seen in their Boeing flight suits.

After months of consideration, NASA said Thursday that it will finally decide the fate of two astronauts on board the International Space Station, Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams, by this weekend. As soon as Saturday, the two crew members will learn whether they’ll return on a Starliner spacecraft in early September or a Crew Dragon vehicle next February.

On the eve of this fateful decision, the most consequential human spaceflight safety determination NASA has had to make in more than two decades, Ars has put together a summary of what we know, what we believe to be true, and what remains yet unknown.

Why has NASA taken so long?

Wilmore and Williams arrived at the International Space Station 11 weeks ago. Their mission was supposed to last eight days, but there was some expectation that they might stay a little longer. However, no one envisioned the crew remaining this long. That changed when, during Starliner’s flight to the space station, five of the 28 small thrusters that guide Starliner failed. After some touch-and-go operations, the astronauts and flight controllers at Johnson Space Center coaxed the spacecraft to a safe docking at the station.

This failure in space led to months of testing, both on board the vehicle in space and with similar thrusters on the ground in New Mexico. This has been followed by extensive data reviews and modeling by engineers to try to understand the root cause of the thruster problems. On Friday, lower-level managers will meet in a Program Control Board to discuss their findings and make recommendations to senior managers. Those officials, with NASA Administrator Bill Nelson presiding, will make a final decision at a Flight Readiness Review on Saturday in Houston.

What are the two options?

NASA managers will decide whether to send the astronauts home on Starliner, possibly as early as September 2, or to fly back to Earth on a Crew Dragon vehicle scheduled to be launched on September 24. To make room for Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams, this so-called “Crew-9” mission would launch with two astronauts instead of a full complement of four. Wilmore and Williams would then join this mission for their six-month increment on board the space station—their eight-day stay becoming eight months.

How are Butch and Suni feeling about this?

We don’t know, as they have not spoken to the media since it became apparent they could be in space for a long time. However, based on various sources, both of the crew members are taking it more or less in stride. They understand this is a test flight, and their training included the possibility of staying in space for an extended period of time if there were problems with Starliner.

That’s not to say it’s convenient. Both Wilmore and Williams have families back on Earth who expected them home by now, and the station was not set up for an extended stay. Wilmore, for example, has been having to sleep in a science laboratory rather than a designated sleeping area, so he has to pack up his personal things every morning.

What does seem clear is that Wilmore and Williams will accept NASA’s decision this weekend. In other words, they’re not going to stage a revolt in space. They trust NASA officials to make the right safety decision, whatever it ends up being. (So, for that matter, does Ars.)

Why is this a difficult decision?

First and foremost, NASA is concerned with getting its astronauts home safely. However, there are myriad other secondary decision factors, and bringing Butch and Suni home on Dragon instead of Starliner raises a host of new issues. Significantly among these is that it would be devastating for Boeing. Their public optics, should long-time rival SpaceX have to step in and “rescue” the crew from an “unsafe” Boeing vehicle, would be terrible. Moreover, the company has already lost $1.6 billion on the Starliner program, and there is the possibility that Boeing will shut it down. NASA does not want to lose a second provider of crew transport services to the space station.

Cards on the table: Are Butch and Suni coming home on Starliner or Crew Dragon? Read More »

rocket-report:-a-ula-sale-tidbit;-polaris-dawn-mission-is-on-deck

Rocket Report: A ULA sale tidbit; Polaris Dawn mission is on deck

rocket report, Science, Space / /

Flying high —

“The idea is to learn as much as we possibly can about this suit.”

–

India's Small Satellite Launch Vehicle launched for the third time this week.

Enlarge / India’s Small Satellite Launch Vehicle launched for the third time this week.

ISRO

Welcome to Edition 7.08 of the Rocket Report!  Lots of news as always, but what I’m most interested in is the launch of the Polaris Dawn mission. If all goes as planned, the flight will break all sorts of ground for commercial spaceflight, including the first-ever private spacewalk. Best of luck to Jared Isaacman and his crew on their adventurous mission.

As always, we welcome reader submissions, and if you don’t want to miss an issue, please subscribe using the box below (the form will not appear on AMP-enabled versions of the site). Each report will include information on small-, medium-, and heavy-lift rockets as well as a quick look ahead at the next three launches on the calendar.

RFA One blows up a booster. The first stage of Rocket Factory Augsburg’s first orbital launcher was destroyed in a fireball during a test-firing Monday evening at a spaceport in Scotland, Ars reports. It’s a notable event for the European commercial space industry as the German launch startup aimed to send its first rocket into space later this year and appeared to be running ahead of several competitors in Europe’s commercial launch industry that are also developing rockets to deploy small satellites in orbit. BBC obtained video of the fiery explosion.

Now comes the hard work of an anomaly investigation … In a statement, RFA said there was “an anomaly that led to the loss of the stage” Monday evening. The company said no one was injured and reported that the launch pad had been “saved and secured.” This was the same rocket RFA planned to launch on its inaugural test flight. The hot fire test Monday was the first with all nine engines on RFA One’s first stage. “We are now working closely with SaxaVord Spaceport and the authorities to gather data and info to eventually resolve what happened,” RFA said. “We will take our time to analyze and assess the situation.” On Thursday, the cause was attributed to a turbopump fire. (submitted by SPHK_Tech, gizmo23, brianrhurley, Jay500001, and Ken the Bin)

Orbex says it’s targeting a 2025 launch, but get real. UK-based Orbex is now projecting a 2025 first launch of its small launch vehicle, the company’s chief executive told Space News recently. Phil Chambers, chief executive of the United Kingdom-based company, said the company was making progress on both its Prime small rocket and launch site at Sutherland Spaceport in northern Scotland. “We are shooting for a 2025 launch,” Chambers said but declined to be more specific about a launch date other than to say that the company wanted to avoid a launch in winter because of poor weather conditions. “But I do want it to be 2025.”

Shooting to be the first orbital launch success from the UK … There is an interesting detail in the story that caught my eye: “Vehicle subsystems are going through critical design reviews, with some flight hardware under construction.” Let’s be honest, if they’re still working through the critical design review process for subsystems, the chance of a launch in 2025 is zero, and honestly for a company founded in 2015 it should not provide much confidence that the company will ever successfully launch an orbital rocket. (submitted by EllPeaTea)

The easiest way to keep up with Eric Berger’s space reporting is to sign up for his newsletter, we’ll collect his stories in your inbox.

SSLV makes its third launch. India successfully launched its third Small Satellite Launch Vehicle on Thursday, placing an Earth observation satellite into orbit and completing the solid rocket’s development process, Space News reports. The rocket carried the experimental Earth observation EOS-08 spacecraft into its intended 475-kilometer circular orbit for the Indian Space Research Organization.

Two for three … According to ISRO chairman S. Somanath, the successful completion of the SSLV’s development phase paves the way for technology transfer to Indian industry, enabling serial production and operational deployment of the SSLV. The first SSLV flight failed in August 2022 when an upper stage malfunction left its payloads stranded in a very low orbit. The second launch, in February 2023, was successful. (submitted by Ken the Bin)

Indian firm plans suborbital launch. A Chennai-based startup, Space Zone India, plans to launch its Rhumi-01 suborbital rocket on Saturday from a mobile launcher. The hybrid vehicle, combining both solid and liquid rocket propellants, will carry three cubesats and 50 smaller picosats on its debut launch, the New Indian Express reports.

Seeking to recycle rockets … According to the company’s website, the Rhumi launch vehicle can reach an altitude of about 30 km. The three cubesats are designed to monitor and collect data on atmospheric conditions, including cosmic radiation intensity, UV radiation intensity, air quality, and more. The company said most of the rocket is designed to be recoverable and reused. (submitted by brianrhurley)

Sierra Space kicking the tires on ULA. Boeing and Lockheed Martin are in talks to sell their rocket-launching joint venture United Launch Alliance to Sierra Space, Reuters reports. A deal could value ULA at around $2 billion to $3 billion, sources told the publication. A potential deal would be an ambitious move for Sierra Space, spun off from Sierra Nevada in 2021 to focus on bringing to market its long-delayed Dream Chaser spaceplane. A deal with ULA could give the company a rocket, Vulcan, for uncrewed and potentially crewed launches of Dream Chaser.

A source believes the deal is unlikely … ULA has been up for sale, actively, for more than a year. Blue Origin and Cerberus Capital Management had placed bids in early 2023 for the company, but none of those offers resulted in a deal. I heard about Sierra’s interest last Friday, but the Reuters story came out before I could write something up. I will say, from the reporting I have been able to do, that the discussions between Sierra and ULA’s owners were serious and substantial. However, at this time, my best information indicates that a sale is unlikely to happen. The parents believe ULA is worth more than Sierra is willing to pay. Sierra would also need to borrow substantially to make any transaction happen. (submitted by Hacker Uno and Ken the Bin)

Rocket Report: A ULA sale tidbit; Polaris Dawn mission is on deck Read More »

after-months-of-mulling,-nasa-will-decide-on-starliner-return-this-weekend

After months of mulling, NASA will decide on Starliner return this weekend

commercial crew, Commercial space, human spaceflight, international space station, NASA, Science, Space, starliner / /

Standby for news —

“The agency flight readiness review is where any formal dissents are presented and reconciled.”

–

A high-resolution commercial Earth-imaging satellite owned by Maxar captured this view of the International Space Station on June 7 with Boeing's Starliner capsule docked at the lab's forward port (lower right).

Enlarge / A high-resolution commercial Earth-imaging satellite owned by Maxar captured this view of the International Space Station on June 7 with Boeing’s Starliner capsule docked at the lab’s forward port (lower right).

Senior NASA leaders, including the agency’s administrator, Bill Nelson, will meet Saturday in Houston to decide whether Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft is safe enough to ferry astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams back to Earth from the International Space Station.

The Flight Readiness Review (FRR) is expected to conclude with NASA’s most consequential safety decision in nearly a generation. One option is to clear the Starliner spacecraft to undock from the space station in early September with Wilmore and Williams onboard, as their flight plan initially laid out, or to bring the capsule home without its crew.

As of Thursday, the two veteran astronauts have been on the space station for 77 days, nearly 10 times longer than their planned stay of eight days. Wilmore and Williams were the first people to launch and dock at the space station aboard a Starliner spacecraft, but multiple thrusters failed and the capsule leaked helium from its propulsion system as it approached the orbiting complex on June 6.

That led to months of testing—in space and on the ground—data reviews, and modeling for engineers to try to understand the root cause of the thruster problems. Engineers believe the thrusters overheated, causing Teflon seals to bulge and block the flow of propellant to the small control jets, resulting in losing thrust. The condition of the thrusters improved once Starliner docked at the station when they weren’t repeatedly firing, as they need to do when the spacecraft is flying alone.

However, engineers and managers have not yet reached a consensus about whether the same problem could recur, or get worse, during the capsule’s journey back to Earth. In a worst-case scenario, if too many thrusters fail, the spacecraft would be unable to point in the proper direction for a critical braking burn to guide the capsule back into the atmosphere toward landing.

The suspect thrusters are located on Starliner’s service module, which will perform the deorbit burn and then separate from the astronaut-carrying crew module before reentry. A separate set of small engines will fine-tune Starliner’s trajectory during descent.

If NASA managers decide it’s not worth the risk, Wilmore and Williams would extend their stay on the space station until at least February of next year, when they would return to Earth inside a Dragon spacecraft provided by SpaceX, Boeing’s rival in NASA’s commercial crew program. This would eliminate the threat that thruster problems on the Starliner spacecraft might pose to the crew’s safety during the trip to Earth, but it comes with myriad side effects.

These effects include disrupting crew activities on the space station by bumping two astronauts off the next SpaceX flight, exposing Wilmore and Williams to additional radiation during their time in space, and dealing a debilitating blow to Boeing’s Starliner program.

If Boeing’s capsule cannot return to Earth with its two astronauts, NASA may not certify Starliner for operational crew missions without an additional test flight. In that case, Boeing probably wouldn’t be able to complete all six of its planned operational crew missions under a $4.2 billion NASA contract before the International Space Station is due for retirement in 2030.

FRR-eedom to speak

The Flight Readiness Review at NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston will begin Saturday morning. Ken Bowersox, a former astronaut and head of NASA’s Space Operations Mission Directorate, will chair the meeting. NASA Administrator Bill Nelson will participate, too. If there’s no unanimous agreement around the table at the FRR, a final decision on what to do could be elevated above Bowersox to NASA’s associate administrator, Jim Free or to Nelson.

“The agency flight readiness review is where any formal dissents are presented and reconciled,” NASA said in a statement Thursday. “Other agency leaders who routinely participate in launch and return readiness reviews for crewed missions include NASA’s administrator, deputy administrator, associate administrator, various agency center directors, the Flight Operations Directorate, and agency technical authorities.”

NASA has scheduled a press conference for no earlier than 1 pm ET (17: 00 UTC) Saturday to announce the agency’s decision and next steps, the agency said.

Lower-level managers will meet Friday in a so-called Program Control Board to discuss their findings and views before the FRR. At a previous Program Control Board meeting, managers disagreed on whether the agency was ready to sign off that the Starliner spacecraft was safe enough to return its astronauts to Earth.

There’s one new piece of information that engineers will brief to the Program Control Board on Friday:

“Engineering teams have been working to evaluate a new model that represents the thruster mechanics and is designed to more accurately predict performance during the return phase of flight,” NASA said. “This data could help teams better understand system redundancy from undock to service module separation. Ongoing efforts to complete the new modeling, characterize spacecraft performance data, refine integrated risk assessments, and determine community recommendations will fold into the agency-level review.”

After months of mulling, NASA will decide on Starliner return this weekend Read More »