Space

ula’s-second-vulcan-rocket-lost-part-of-its-booster-and-kept-going

ULA’s second Vulcan rocket lost part of its booster and kept going

launch, military space, Science, Space, united launch alliance, vulcan / /

The US Space Force says this test flight was critical for certifying Vulcan for military missions.

United Launch Alliance’s Vulcan rocket, under contract for dozens of flights for the US military and Amazon’s Kuiper broadband network, lifted off from Florida on its second test flight Friday, suffered an anomaly with one of its strap-on boosters, and still achieved a successful mission, the company said in a statement.

This test flight, known as Cert-2, is the second certification mission for the new Vulcan rocket, a milestone that paves the way for the Space Force to clear ULA’s new rocket to begin launching national security satellites in the coming months.

While ULA said the Vulcan rocket continued to hit its marks during the climb into orbit Friday, engineers are investigating what happened with one of its solid rocket boosters shortly after liftoff.

After a last-minute aborted countdown earlier in the morning, the 202-foot-tall (61.6-meter) Vulcan rocket lit its twin methane-fueled BE-4 engines and two side-mounted solid rocket boosters to climb away from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida, at 7: 25 am EDT (11: 25 UTC) Friday.

A little tilt

As the rocket arced east from Cape Canaveral, a shower of sparks suddenly appeared at the base of the Vulcan rocket around 37 seconds into the mission. The exhaust plume from one of the strap-on boosters, made by Northrop Grumman, changed significantly, and the rocket slightly tilted on its axis before the guidance system and main engines made a steering correction.

Videos from the launch show the booster’s nozzle, the bell-shaped exhaust exit cone at the bottom of the booster, fall away from the rocket.

“It looks dramatic, like all things on a rocket,” Bruno wrote on X. “But it’s just the release of the nozzle. No explosions occurred.”

During the ascent of the Vulcan rocket on the #Cert2 mission, there appeared to be an issue with the solid rocket booster on the right side of the vehicle as seen from the KSC Press Site. However, the Centaur was able to reach orbit.https://t.co/3iwWLVWZHp

📹: @ABernNYC pic.twitter.com/5h06ffNMXr

— Spaceflight Now (@SpaceflightNow) October 4, 2024

The Federal Aviation Administration, which licenses commercial space launches in the United States, said in a statement that it assessed the booster anomaly and “determined no investigation is warranted at this time.” The FAA is not responsible for regulating launch vehicle anomalies unless they impact public safety.

The Vulcan rocket comes in several configurations, with zero, two, four, or six solid-fueled boosters clustered around the liquid-fueled core stage. ULA can tailor the configuration based on the parameters of each mission, such as payload mass and target orbit.

The boosters, which Northrop Grumman calls graphite epoxy motors, are 63 inches (1.6 meters) in diameter and 72 feet (22 meters) long. Their nozzles are made of a composite heat-resistant carbon-phenolic material.

Bruno added that the rest of the damaged booster’s composite casing held up fine during its roughly 90-second burn, but the anomaly caused “reduced, asymmetric thrust” that the rocket compensated for during the rest of its ascent into space.

The Federal Aviation Administration, which regulates commercial space launches, is not immediately requiring an investigation into the booster anomaly. The FAA said it is “assessing the operation and will issue an updated statement if the agency determines an investigation is warranted.”

Remarkably, the Vulcan rocket soldiered on and jettisoned both strap-on boosters to fall into the Atlantic Ocean. They’re not designed for recovery, so ULA and Northrop Grumman engineers will have to piece together what happened from imagery and performance data beamed down from the rocket in flight.

The BE-4 main engines, supplied by Jeff Bezos’ space company Blue Origin, appeared to work flawlessly for the first five minutes of the flight. The core stage shut down its engines and separated from Vulcan’s Centaur upper stage, which ignited two Aerojet Rocketdyne RL10 engines to propel the rocket into orbit.

The second Vulcan rocket lifts off from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida, powered by two methane-fueled BE-4 engines and two solid rocket boosters.

Credit: United Launch Alliance

The second Vulcan rocket lifts off from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida, powered by two methane-fueled BE-4 engines and two solid rocket boosters. Credit: United Launch Alliance

Live data displayed on ULA’s webcast of the launch suggested the RL10 engines fired for approximately 20 seconds longer than planned, apparently to compensate for the lower thrust from the damaged booster during the first phase of the flight. The Centaur upper stage completed a second burn about a half-hour into the mission.

The rocket did not carry a real satellite. Earlier this year, ULA decided to launch a dummy payload to simulate the mass of a spacecraft, when it became clear the original payload for Vulcan’s second flight—Sierra Space’s first Dream Chaser spaceplane—would not be ready to fly this fall. ULA says it self-funded most of the cost of the Cert-2 test flight, which Bruno suggested was somewhere below $100 million.

Bullseye insertion

“Orbital insertion was perfect,” Bruno wrote on X.

The Centaur engines were supposed to fire a third time later Friday to send the rocket on a trajectory to escape Earth orbit and head into the Solar System. ULA also planned to perform experiments with the Centaur upper stage to demonstrate technologies and capabilities for longer-duration missions that could eventually last days, weeks, or months. The company did not provide an update on the results of these experiments.

Friday morning’s launch follows the debut test flight of the Vulcan rocket on January 8, which sent a commercial lunar lander from Astrobotic on a trajectory toward the Moon. The launch in January was nearly perfect.

ULA is a 50-50 joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed Martin, which merged their rocket divisions to form a single company in 2006. SpaceX, with its Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets, is ULA’s main competitor in the market for launching large US military satellites into orbit.

In 2020, the Pentagon awarded ULA and SpaceX multibillion-dollar “Phase 2” contracts to share responsibilities for launching dozens of national security space missions through 2027. Defense officials selected ULA’s Vulcan rocket to launch 25 national security missions, the majority of the launches up for competition. The rest went to SpaceX’s Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, which started delivering on its Phase 2 contract in January 2023.

Later this year, the Space Force is expected to select up to three companies—almost certainly ULA, SpaceX, and perhaps Blue Origin with its soon-to-debut New Glenn rocket—in a fresh competition to be eligible for contracts to launch the military’s largest spacecraft through 2029.

The Space Force required ULA to complete two successful Vulcan test flights before clearing the new rocket for launching military satellites. Despite the booster malfunction, ULA officials clearly believe the Vulcan rocket did enough Friday for the Space Force to certify it.

“The success of Vulcan’s second certification flight heralds a new age of forward-looking technology committed to meeting the ever-growing requirements of space launch and supporting our nation’s assured access to space,” Bruno said in a statement. “We had an observation on one of our solid rocket boosters (SRBs) that we are reviewing, but we are overall pleased with the rocket’s performance and had a bullseye insertion.”

A closer view of the Vulcan rocket’s BE-4 main engines and twin solid-fueled boosters.

Credit: United Launch Alliance

A closer view of the Vulcan rocket’s BE-4 main engines and twin solid-fueled boosters. Credit: United Launch Alliance

In a press release after Friday’s launch, the Space Force hailed the test flight as a “certification milestone.”

“This is a significant achievement for both ULA and an important milestone for the nation’s strategic space lift capability,” said Brig. Gen. Kristin Panzenhagen, Space Systems Command’s program executive officer for assured access to space. “The Space Force’s partnership with launch companies, such as ULA, are absolutely critical in deploying on-orbit capabilities that protect our national interests.

“We are already starting to review the performance data from this launch, and we look forward to Vulcan meeting the certification requirements for a range of national security space missions,” Panzenhagen said in a statement.

The Space Force is eager for Vulcan to become operational. Some of the military’s most critical reconnaissance, communications, and missile warning satellites are slated to fly on Vulcan rockets.

Ramping up

Going into Friday’s test flight, ULA and the Space Force hoped to launch one or two more Vulcan rockets by the end of the year, both with US Space Force payloads. The timing of the next Vulcan launch, assuming the Space Force certifies the new rocket, will likely hinge on the outcome of the investigation into the booster anomaly.

ULA has already transported all major components of the next Vulcan rocket from its factory in Alabama to Cape Canaveral for final launch preparations. The company has a backlog of 69 Vulcan flights, counting missions for the Space Force, the National Reconnaissance Office, Amazon’s Kuiper network, and Sierra Space’s Dream Chaser spaceplane to resupply the International Space Station.

In a prelaunch briefing with reporters, Bruno said ULA aims to launch up to 20 times next year. Roughly half of that number will be Vulcan flights, and the rest will be Atlas V rockets, which ULA is retiring in favor of Vulcan.

There are 15 Atlas V rockets left to fly, primarily for Amazon and Boeing’s Starliner crew capsule. The nozzle failure Friday may also affect the schedule for Atlas V launches because the soon-to-retire rocket uses a similar booster design from Northrop Grumman.

ULA eventually wants to launch up to 25 Vulcan rockets per year from its launch pads at Cape Canaveral and at Vandenberg Space Force Base, California. The launch provider is outfitting a second assembly building in Florida to stack Vulcan rockets, a capability that will shorten the time between liftoffs. ULA is modifying its Atlas V launch pad in California to support Vulcan flights there next year.

ULA announced the Vulcan rocket in 2015 to replace the Atlas V and Delta IV rockets, which had stellar success records but were not cost-competitive with SpaceX’s partially reusable Falcon 9. The Atlas V also uses a Russian main engine, a situation that became politically untenable after Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, and more so after the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The final Russian engines for the Atlas V arrived in the United States in 2021.

The Vulcan rocket is somewhat less expensive than the Atlas V, and significantly cheaper than the Delta IV, but still more costly than SpaceX’s Falcon 9. There is a closer price parity between Vulcan and SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy rocket.

Bruno hinted at the cost of developing the rocket in his roundtable discussion with reporters earlier this week.

“Developing a rocket, and then the infrastructure to develop a new space launch vehicle, the rule of thumb is it costs you somewhere between $5 billion and $7 billion,” Bruno said. “Vulcan is not outside the rule of thumb.”

Updated at 5: 15 pm EDT (21: 15 UTC) with new FAA statement.

Photo of Stephen Clark

Stephen Clark is a space reporter at Ars Technica, covering private space companies and the world’s space agencies. Stephen writes about the nexus of technology, science, policy, and business on and off the planet.

ULA’s second Vulcan rocket lost part of its booster and kept going Read More »

ula-hasn’t-given-up-on-developing-a-long-lived-cryogenic-space-tug

ULA hasn’t given up on developing a long-lived cryogenic space tug

Centaur, Commercial space, launch, military space, Science, Space, united launch alliance, vulcan / /

On Friday’s launch, United Launch Alliance will test the limits of its Centaur upper stage.

United Launch Alliance’s second Vulcan rocket underwent a countdown dress rehearsal Tuesday. Credit: United Launch Alliance

The second flight of United Launch Alliance’s Vulcan rocket, planned for Friday morning, has a primary goal of validating the launcher’s reliability for delivering critical US military satellites to orbit.

Tory Bruno, ULA’s chief executive, told reporters Wednesday that he is “supremely confident” the Vulcan rocket will succeed in accomplishing that objective. The Vulcan’s second test flight, known as Cert-2, follows a near-flawless debut launch of ULA’s new rocket on January 8.

“As I come up on Cert-2, I’m pretty darn confident I’m going to have a good day on Friday, knock on wood,” Bruno said. “These are very powerful, complicated machines.”

The Vulcan launcher, a replacement for ULA’s Atlas V and Delta IV rockets, is on contract to haul the majority of the US military’s most expensive national security satellites into orbit over the next several years. The Space Force is eager to certify Vulcan to launch these payloads, but military officials want to see two successful test flights before committing one of its satellites to flying on the new rocket.

If Friday’s test flight goes well, ULA is on track to launch at least one—and perhaps two—operational missions for the Space Force by the end of this year. The Space Force has already booked 25 launches on ULA’s Vulcan rocket for military payloads and spy satellites for the National Reconnaissance Office. Including the launch Friday, ULA has 70 Vulcan rockets in its backlog, mostly for the Space Force, the NRO, and Amazon’s Kuiper satellite broadband network.

The Vulcan rocket is powered by two methane-fueled BE-4 engines produced by Jeff Bezos’ space company Blue Origin, and ULA can mount zero, two, four, or six strap-on solid rocket boosters from Northrop Grumman around the Vulcan’s first stage to propel heavier payloads to space. The rocket’s Centaur V upper stage is fitted with a pair of hydrogen-burning RL10 engines from Aerojet Rocketdyne.

The second Vulcan rocket will fly in the same configuration as the first launch earlier this year, with two strap-on solid-fueled boosters. The only noticeable modification to the rocket is the addition of some spray-on foam insulation around the outside of the first stage methane tank, which will keep the cryogenic fuel at the proper temperature as Vulcan encounters aerodynamic heating on its ascent through the atmosphere.

“This will give us just over one second more usable propellant,” Bruno wrote on X.

There is one more change from Vulcan’s first launch, which boosted a commercial lunar lander for Astrobotic on a trajectory toward the Moon. This time, there are no real spacecraft on the Vulcan rocket. Instead, ULA mounted a dummy payload to the Centaur V upper stage to simulate the mass of a functioning satellite.

ULA originally planned to launch Sierra Space’s first Dream Chaser spaceplane on the second Vulcan rocket. But the Dream Chaser won’t be ready to fly its first mission to resupply the International Space Station until next year. Under pressure from the Pentagon, ULA decided to move ahead with the second Vulcan launch without a payload at the company’s own expense, which Bruno tallied in the “high tens of millions of dollars.”

Heliocentricity

The test flight will begin with liftoff from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida, during a three-hour launch window opening at 6 am EDT (10: 00 UTC). The 202-foot-tall (61.6-meter) Vulcan rocket will head east over the Atlantic Ocean, shedding its boosters, first stage, and payload fairing in the first few minutes of flight.

The Centaur upper stage will fire its RL10 engines two times, completing the primary mission within about 35 minutes of launch. The rocket will then continue on for a series of technical demonstrations before ending up on an Earth escape trajectory into a heliocentric orbit around the Sun.

“We have a number of experiments that we’re conducting that are really technology demonstrations and measurements that are associated with our high-performance, longer-duration version of Centaur V that we’ll be introducing in the future,” Bruno said. “And these will help us go a little bit faster on that development. And, of course, because we don’t have an active spacecraft as a payload, we also have more instrumentation that we’re able to use for just characterizing the vehicle.”

The Centaur V upper stage for the Vulcan rocket.

The Centaur V upper stage for the Vulcan rocket. Credit: United Launch Alliance

ULA engineers have worked on the design of a long-lived upper stage for more than a decade. Their vision was to develop an upper stage fed by super-efficient cryogenic liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen propellants that could generate its own power and operate in space for days, weeks, or longer rather than an upper stage’s usual endurance limit of several hours. This would allow the rocket to not only deliver satellites into bespoke high-altitude orbits but also continue on to release more payloads at different altitudes or provide longer-term propulsion in support of other missions.

The concept was called the Advanced Cryogenic Evolved Stage (ACES). ULA’s corporate owners, Boeing and Lockheed Martin, never authorized the full development of ACES, and the company said in 2020 that it was no longer pursuing the ACES concept.

The Centaur V upper stage currently used on the Vulcan rocket is a larger version of the thin-walled, pressure-stabilized Centaur upper stage that has been flying since the 1960s. Bruno said the Centaur V design, as it is today, offers as much as 12 hours of operating life in space. This is longer than any other existing rocket using cryogenic propellants, which can boil off over time.

ULA’s chief executive still harbors an ambition for regaining some of the same capabilities promised by ACES.

“What we are looking to do is to extend that by orders of magnitude,” Bruno said. “And what that would allow us to do is have a in-space transportation capability for in-space mobility and servicing and things like that.”

Space Force leaders have voiced a desire for future spacecraft to freely maneuver between different orbits, a concept the military calls “dynamic space operations.” This would untether spacecraft operations from fuel limitations and eventually require the development of in-orbit refueling, propellant depots, or novel propulsion technologies.

No one has tried to store large amounts of super-cold propellants in space for weeks or longer. Accomplishing this is a non-trivial thermal problem, requiring insulation to keep heat from the Sun from reaching the liquid cryogenic propellant, stored at temperatures of several hundred degrees below zero.

Bruno hesitated to share details of the experiments ULA plans for the Centaur V upper stage on Friday’s test flight, citing proprietary concerns. He said the experiments will confirm analytical models about how the upper stage performs in space.

“Some of these are devices, some of these are maneuvers because maneuvers make a difference, and some are related to performance in a way,” he said. “In some cases, those maneuvers are helping us with the thermal load that tries to come in and boil off the propellants.”

Eventually, ULA would like to eliminate hydrazine attitude control fuel and battery power from the Centaur V upper stage, Bruno said Wednesday. This sounds a lot like what ULA wanted to do with ACES, which would have used an internal combustion engine called Integrated Vehicle Fluids (IVF) to recycle gasified waste propellants to pressurize its propellant tanks, generate electrical power, and feed thrusters for attitude control. This would mean the upper stage wouldn’t need to rely on hydrazine, helium, or batteries.

ULA hasn’t talked much about the IVF system in recent years, but Bruno said the company is still developing it. “It’s part of all of this, but that’s all I will say, or I’ll start revealing what all the gadgets are.”

A comparison between ULA’s legacy Centaur upper stage and the new Centaur V.

A comparison between ULA’s legacy Centaur upper stage and the new Centaur V. Credit: United Launch Alliance

George Sowers, former vice president and chief scientist at ULA, was one of the company’s main advocates for extending the lifetime of upper stages and developing technologies for refueling and propellant depot. He retired from ULA in 2017 and is now a professor at the Colorado School of Mines and an independent aerospace industry consultant.

In an interview with Ars earlier this year, Sowers said ULA solved many of the problems with keeping cryogenic propellants at the right temperature in space.

“We had a lot of data on boil-off, just from flying Centaurs all the way to geosynchronous orbit, which doesn’t involve weeks, but it involves maybe half a day or so, which is plenty of time to get all the temperatures to stabilize at deep space levels,” Sowers said. “So you have to understand the heat transfer very well. Good models are very important.”

ULA experimented with different types of insulation and vapor cooling, which involves taking cold gas that boiled off of cryogenic fuel and blowing it on heat penetration points into the tanks.

“There are tricks to managing boil-off,” he said. “One of the tricks is that you never want to boil oxygen. You always want to boil hydrogen. So you size your propellant tanks and your propellant loads, assuming you’re going to have that extra hydrogen boil-off. Then what you can do is use the hydrogen to keep the oxygen cold to keep it from boiling.

“The amount of heat that you can reject by boiling off one kilogram of hydrogen is about five times what you would reject by boiling off one kilogram of oxygen. So those are some of the thermodynamic tricks,” Sowers said. “The way ULA accomplished that is by having a common bulkhead, so the hydrogen tank and the oxygen tank are in thermal contact. So hydrogen keeps the oxygen cold.”

ULA’s experiments showed it could get the hydrogen boil-off rate down to about 10 percent per year, based on thermodynamic models calibrated by data from flying older versions of the Centaur upper stage on Atlas V rockets, according to Sowers.

“In my mind, that kind of cemented the idea that distribution depots and things like that are very well in hand without having to have exotic cryocoolers, which tend to use a lot of power,” Sowers said. “It’s about efficiency. If you can do it passively, you don’t have to expend energy on cryocoolers.”

“We’re going to go to days, and then we’re going to go to weeks, and then we think it’s possible to take us to months,” Bruno said. “That’s a game changer.”

However, ULA’s corporate owners haven’t yet fully bought into this vision. Bruno said the Vulcan rocket and its supporting manufacturing and launch infrastructure cost between $5 billion and $7 billion to develop. ULA also plans to eventually recover and reuse BE-4 main engines from the Vulcan rocket, but that is still at least several years away.

But ULA is reportedly up for sale, and a well-capitalized buyer might find the company’s long-duration cryogenic upper stage more attractive and worth the investment.

“There’s a whole lot of missions that enables,” Bruno said. “So that’s a big step in capability, both for the United States and also commercially.”

Photo of Stephen Clark

Stephen Clark is a space reporter at Ars Technica, covering private space companies and the world’s space agencies. Stephen writes about the nexus of technology, science, policy, and business on and off the planet.

ULA hasn’t given up on developing a long-lived cryogenic space tug Read More »

spacex-launches-mission-to-bring-starliner-astronauts-back-to-earth

SpaceX launches mission to bring Starliner astronauts back to Earth

commercial crew, Commercial space, crew dragon, dragon, falcon 9, human spaceflight, international space station, launch, NASA, roscosmos, russia, Science, Space, spacex, starliner / /

Ch-ch-changes —

SpaceX is bringing back propulsive landings with its Dragon capsule, but only in emergencies.

– Updated

SpaceX's Crew Dragon spacecraft climbs away from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida, on Saturday atop a Falcon 9 rocket.

Enlarge / SpaceX’s Crew Dragon spacecraft climbs away from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida, on Saturday atop a Falcon 9 rocket.

NASA/Keegan Barber

NASA astronaut Nick Hague and Russian cosmonaut Aleksandr Gorbunov lifted off Saturday from Florida’s Space Coast aboard a SpaceX Dragon spacecraft, heading for a five-month expedition on the International Space Station.

The two-man crew launched on top of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket at 1: 17 pm EDT (17: 17 UTC), taking an advantage of a break in stormy weather to begin a five-month expedition in space. Nine kerosene-fueled Merlin engines powered the first stage of the flight on a trajectory northeast from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, then the booster detached and returned to landing at Cape Canaveral as the Falcon 9’s upper stage accelerated SpaceX’s Crew Dragon Freedom spacecraft into orbit.

“It was a sweet ride,” Hague said after arriving in space. With a seemingly flawless launch, Hague and Gorbunov are on track to arrive at the space station around 5: 30 pm EDT (2130 UTC) Sunday.

Empty seats

This is SpaceX’s 15th crew mission since 2020, and SpaceX’s 10th astronaut launch for NASA, but Saturday’s launch was unusual in a couple of ways.

“All of our missions have unique challenges and this one, I think, will be memorable for a lot of us,” said Ken Bowersox, NASA’s associate administrator for space operations.

First, only two people rode into orbit on SpaceX’s Crew Dragon spacecraft, rather than the usual complement of four astronauts. This mission, known as Crew-9, originally included Hague, Gorbunov, commander Zena Cardman, and NASA astronaut Stephanie Wilson.

But the troubled test flight of Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft threw a wrench into NASA’s plans. The Starliner mission launched in June with NASA astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams. Boeing’s spacecraft reached the space station, but thruster failures and helium leaks plagued the mission, and NASA officials decided last month it was too risky to being the crew back to Earth on Starliner.

NASA selected SpaceX and Boeing for multibillion-dollar commercial crew contracts in 2014, with each company responsible for developing human-rated spaceships to ferry astronauts to and from the International Space Station. SpaceX flew astronauts for the first time in 2020, and Boeing reached the same milestone with the test flight that launched in June.

Ultimately, the Starliner spacecraft safely returned to Earth on September 6 with a successful landing in New Mexico. But it left Wilmore and Williams behind on the space station with the lab’s long-term crew of seven astronauts and cosmonauts. The space station crew rigged two temporary seats with foam inside a SpaceX Dragon spacecraft currently docked at the outpost, where the Starliner astronauts would ride home if they needed to evacuate the complex in an emergency.

NASA astronaut Nick Hague and Russian cosmonaut Aleksandr Gorbunov in their SpaceX pressure suits.

Enlarge / NASA astronaut Nick Hague and Russian cosmonaut Aleksandr Gorbunov in their SpaceX pressure suits.

NASA/Kim Shiflett

This is a temporary measure to allow the Dragon spacecraft to return to Earth with six people instead of the usual four. NASA officials decided to remove two of the astronauts from the next SpaceX crew mission to free up normal seats for Wilmore and Williams to ride home in February, when Crew-9 was already slated to end its mission.

The decision to fly the Starliner spacecraft back to Earth without its crew had several second order effects on space station operations. Managers at NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston had to decide who to bump from the Crew-9 mission, and who to keep on the crew.

Nick Hague and Aleksandr Gorbunov ended up keeping their seats on the Crew-9 flight. Hague originally trained as the pilot on Crew-9, and NASA decided he would take Zena Cardman’s place as commander. Hague, a 49-year-old Space Force colonel, is a veteran of one long-duration mission on the International Space Station, and also experienced a rare in-flight launch abort in 2018 due to a failure of a Russian Soyuz rocket.

NASA announced the original astronaut assignments for the Crew-9 mission in January. Cardman, a 36-year-old geobiologist, would have been the first rookie astronaut without test pilot experience to command a NASA spaceflight. Three-time space shuttle flier Stephanie Wilson, 58, was the other astronaut removed from the Crew-9 mission.

The decision on who to fly on Crew-9 was a “really close call,” said Bowersox, who oversees NASA’s spaceflight operations directorate. “They were thinking very hard about flying Zena, but in this situation, it made sense to have somebody who had at least one flight under their belt.”

Gorbunov, a 34-year-old Russian aerospace engineer making his first flight to space, moved over to take pilot’s seat in the Crew Dragon spacecraft, although he remains officially designated a mission specialist. His remaining presence on the crew was preordained because of an international agreement between NASA and Russia’s space agency that provides seats for Russian cosmonauts on US crew missions and US astronauts on Russian Soyuz flights to the space station.

Bowersox said NASA will reassign Cardman and Wilson to future flights.

NASA astronauts Suni Williams and Butch Wilmore, seen in their Boeing flight suits before their launch.

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

Operational flexibility

This was also the first launch of astronauts from Space Launch Complex-40 (SLC-40) at Cape Canaveral, SpaceX’s busiest launch pad. SpaceX has outfitted the launch pad with the equipment necessary to support launches of human spaceflight missions on the Crew Dragon spacecraft, including a more than 200-foot-tall tower and a crew access arm to allow astronauts to board spaceships on top of Falcon 9 rockets.

SLC-40 was previously based on a “clean pad” architecture, without any structures to service or access Falcon 9 rockets while they were vertical on the pad. SpaceX also installed slide chutes to give astronauts and ground crews an emergency escape route away from the launch pad in an emergency.

SpaceX constructed the crew tower last year and had it ready for the launch of a Dragon cargo mission to the space station in March. Saturday’s launch demonstrated the pad’s ability to support SpaceX astronaut missions, which have previously all departed from Launch Complex-39A (LC-39A) at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center, a few miles north of SLC-40.

Bringing human spaceflight launch capability online at SLC-40 gives SpaceX and NASA additional flexibility in their scheduling. For example, LC-39A remains the only launch pad configured to support flights of SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy rocket. SpaceX is now preparing LC-39A for a Falcon Heavy launch October 10 with NASA’s Europa Clipper mission, which only has a window of a few weeks to depart Earth this year and reach its destination at Jupiter in 2030.

With SLC-40 now certified for astronaut launches, SpaceX and NASA teams are able to support the Crew-9 and Europa Clipper missions without worrying about scheduling conflicts. The Florida spaceport now has three launch pads certified for crew flights—two for SpaceX’s Dragon and one for Boeing’s Starliner—and NASA will add a fourth human-rated launch pad with the Artemis II mission to the Moon late next year.

“That’s pretty exciting,” said Pam Melroy, NASA’s deputy administrator. “I think it’s a reflection of where we are in our space program at NASA, but also the capabilities that the United States has developed.”

Earlier this week, Hague and Gorbunov participated in a launch day dress rehearsal, when they had the opportunity to familiarize themselves with SLC-40. The launch pad has the same capabilities as LC-39A, but with a slightly different layout. SpaceX also test-fired the Falcon 9 rocket Tuesday evening, before lowering the rocket horizontal and moving it back into a hangar for safekeeping as the outer bands of Hurricane Helene moved through Central Florida.

Inside the hangar, SpaceX technicians discovered sooty exhaust from the Falcon 9’s engines accumulated on the outside of the Dragon spacecraft during the test-firing. Ground teams wiped the soot off of the craft’s solar arrays and heat shield, then repainted portions of the capsule’s radiators around the edge of Dragon’s trunk section before rolling the vehicle back to the launch pad Friday.

“It’s important that the radiators radiate heat in the proper way to space, so we had to put some some new paint on to get that back to the right emissivity and the right reflectivity and absorptivity of the solar radiation that hit those panels so it will reject the heat properly,” said Bill Gerstenmaier, SpaceX’s vice president of build and flight reliability.

Gerstenmaier also outlined a new backup ability for the Crew Dragon spacecraft to safely splash down even if all of its parachutes fail to deploy on final descent back to Earth. This involves using the capsule’s eight powerful SuperDraco thrusters, normally only used in the unlikely instance of a launch abort, to fire for a few seconds and slow Dragon’s speed for a safe splashdown.

A hover test using SuperDraco thrusters on a prototype Crew Dragon spacecraft in 2015.

Enlarge / A hover test using SuperDraco thrusters on a prototype Crew Dragon spacecraft in 2015.

SpaceX

“The way it works is, in the case where all the parachutes totally fail, this essentially fires the thrusters at the very end,” Gerstenmaier said. “That essentially gives the crew a chance to land safely, and essentially escape the vehicle. So it’s not used in any partial conditions. We can land with one chute out. We can land with other failures in the chute system. But this is only in the case where all four parachutes just do not operate.”

When SpaceX first designed the Crew Dragon spacecraft more than a decade ago, the company wanted to use the SuperDraco thrusters to enable the capsule to perform propulsive helicopter-like landings. Eventually, SpaceX and NASA agreed to change to a more conventional parachute-assisted splashdown.

The SuperDracos remained on the Crew Dragon spacecraft to push the capsule away from its Falcon 9 rocket during a catastrophic launch failure. The eight high-thrust engines burn hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide propellants that combust when making contact with one another.

The backup option has been activated for some previous commercial Crew Dragon missions, but not for a NASA flight, according to Gerstenmaier. The capability “provides a tolerable landing for the crew,” he added. “So it’s a true deep, deep contingency. I think our philosophy is, rather than have a system that you don’t use, even though it’s not maybe fully certified, it gives the crew a chance to escape a really, really bad situation.”

Steve Stich, NASA’s commercial crew program manager, said the emergency propulsive landing capability will be enabled for the return of the Crew-8 mission, which has been at the space station since March. With the arrival of Hague and Gorbunov on Crew-9—and the extension of Wilmore and Williams’ mission—the Crew-8 mission is slated to depart the space station and splash down in early October.

This story was updated after confirmation of a successful launch.

SpaceX launches mission to bring Starliner astronauts back to Earth Read More »

the-war-of-words-between-spacex-and-the-faa-keeps-escalating

The war of words between SpaceX and the FAA keeps escalating

Commercial space, Federal Aviation Administration, launch, Science, Space, spacex, starship, texas / /
Elon Musk, SpaceX's founder and CEO, has called for the resignation of the FAA administrator.

Enlarge / Elon Musk, SpaceX’s founder and CEO, has called for the resignation of the FAA administrator.

The clash between SpaceX and the Federal Aviation Administration escalated this week, with Elon Musk calling for the head of the federal regulator to resign after he defended the FAA’s oversight and fines levied against the commercial launch company.

The FAA has said it doesn’t expect to determine whether to approve a launch license for SpaceX’s next Starship test flight until late November, two months later than the agency previously communicated to Musk’s launch company. Federal regulators are reviewing changes to the rocket’s trajectory necessary for SpaceX to bring Starship’s giant reusable Super Heavy booster back to the launch pad in South Texas. This will be the fifth full-scale test flight of Starship but the first time SpaceX attempts such a maneuver on the program.

This week, SpaceX assembled the full Starship rocket on its launch pad at the company’s Starbase facility near Brownsville, Texas. “Starship stacked for Flight 5 and ready for launch, pending regulatory approval,” SpaceX posted on X.

Apart from the Starship regulatory reviews, the FAA last week announced it is proposing more than $633,000 in fines on SpaceX due to alleged violations of the company’s launch license associated with two flights of the company’s Falcon 9 rocket from Florida. It is rare for the FAA’s commercial spaceflight division to fine launch companies.

Michael Whitaker, the FAA’s administrator, discussed the agency’s ongoing environmental and safety reviews of SpaceX’s Starship rocket in a hearing before a congressional subcommittee in Washington Tuesday. During the hearing, which primarily focused on the FAA’s oversight of Boeing’s commercial airplane business, one lawmaker asked Whitaker the FAA’s relationship with SpaceX.

Public interest

“I think safety is in the public interest and that’s our primary focus,” said Michael Whitaker, the FAA administrator, in response to questions from Rep. Kevin Kiley, a California Republican. “It’s the only tool we have to get compliance on safety matters,” he said, referring to the FAA’s fines.

The stainless-steel Super Heavy booster is larger than a Boeing 747 jumbo jet. SpaceX says the flight path to return the first stage of the rocket to land will mean a “slightly larger area could experience a sonic boom,” and a stainless-steel ring that jettisons from the top of the booster, called the hot-staging ring, will fall in a different location in the Gulf of Mexico just offshore from the rocket’s launch and landing site.

The FAA, which is primarily charged with ensuring rocket launches don’t endanger the public, is consulting with other agencies on these matters, along with issues involving SpaceX’s discharge of water into the environment around the Starship launch pad in Texas. The pad uses water to cool a steel flame deflector that sits under the 33 main engines of Starship’s Super Heavy booster.

SpaceX says fines levied against it this year by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) related to the launch pad’s water system were “entirely tied to disagreements over paperwork” and not any dumping of pollutants into the environment around the Starship launch site.

SpaceX installed the water-cooled flame deflector under the Starship launch mount after the engine exhaust rocket’s first test flight excavated a large hole in the ground. Gwynne Shotwell, SpaceX’s president and chief operating officer, summed up her view of the issue in a hearing with Texas legislators in Austin on Tuesday.

“To protect that from happening again, we built this kind of upside-down shower head to basically cool the flame as the rocket was lifting off,” she said. “That was licensed and permitted by TCEQ. The EPA came in afterwards and didn’t like the license or the permit that we had for that, and wanted to turn it into a federal permit, which we are working on now.”

“We work very closely with organizations such as TCEQ,” Shotwell said. “You may have read a little bit of nonsense in the papers recently about that, but we’re working quite well with them.”

The war of words between SpaceX and the FAA keeps escalating Read More »

in-the-room-where-it-happened:-when-nasa-nearly-gave-boeing-all-the-crew-funding

In the room where it happened: When NASA nearly gave Boeing all the crew funding

Boeing, commercial crew, Features, reentry, Space, spacex / /

The story behind the story —

“In all my years of working with Boeing I never saw them sign up for additional work for free.”

–

But for a fateful meeting in the summer of 2014, Crew Dragon probably never would have happened.

Enlarge / But for a fateful meeting in the summer of 2014, Crew Dragon probably never would have happened.

SpaceX

This is an excerpt from Chapter 11 of the book REENTRY: SpaceX, Elon Musk and the Reusable Rockets that Launched a Second Space Age by our own Eric Berger. The book will be published on September 24, 2024. This excerpt describes a fateful meeting 10 years ago at NASA Headquarters in Washington, DC, where the space agency’s leaders met to decide which companies should be awarded billions of dollars to launch astronauts into orbit.

In the early 2010s, NASA’s Commercial Crew competition boiled down to three players: Boeing, SpaceX, and a Colorado-based company building a spaceplane, Sierra Nevada Corporation. Each had its own advantages. Boeing was the blue blood, with decades of spaceflight experience. SpaceX had already built a capsule, Dragon. And some NASA insiders nostalgically loved Sierra Nevada’s Dream Chaser space plane, which mimicked the shuttle’s winged design.

This competition neared a climax in 2014 as NASA prepared to winnow the field to one company, or at most two, to move from the design phase into actual development. In May of that year Musk revealed his Crew Dragon spacecraft to the world with a characteristically showy event at the company’s headquarters in Hawthorne. As lights flashed and a smoke machine vented, Musk quite literally raised a curtain on a black-and-white capsule. He was most proud to reveal how Dragon would land. Never before had a spacecraft come back from orbit under anything but parachutes or gliding on wings. Not so with the new Dragon. It had powerful thrusters, called SuperDracos, that would allow it to land under its own power.

“You’ll be able to land anywhere on Earth with the accuracy of a helicopter,” Musk bragged. “Which is something that a modern spaceship should be able to do.”

A few weeks later I had an interview with John Elbon, a long-time engineer at Boeing who managed the company’s commercial program. As we talked, he tut-tutted SpaceX’s performance to date, noting its handful of Falcon 9 launches a year and inability to fly at a higher cadence. As for Musk’s little Dragon event, Elbon was dismissive.

“We go for substance,” Elbon told me. “Not pizzazz.”

Elbon’s confidence was justified. That spring the companies were finalizing bids to develop a spacecraft and fly six operational missions to the space station. These contracts were worth billions of dollars. Each company told NASA how much it needed for the job, and if selected, would receive a fixed price award for that amount. Boeing, SpaceX, and Sierra Nevada wanted as much money as they could get, of course. But each had an incentive to keep their bids low, as NASA had a finite budget for the program. Boeing had a solution, telling NASA it needed the entire Commercial Crew budget to succeed. Because a lot of decision-makers believed that only Boeing could safely fly astronauts, the company’s gambit very nearly worked.

Scoring the bids

The three competitors submitted initial bids to NASA in late January 2014, and after about six months of evaluations and discussions with the “source evaluation board,” submitted their final bids in July. During this initial round of judging, subject-matter experts scored the proposals and gathered to make their ratings. Sierra Nevada was eliminated because their overall scores were lower, and the proposed cost not low enough to justify remaining in the competition. This left Boeing and SpaceX, with likely only one winner.

“We really did not have the budget for two companies at the time,” said Phil McAlister, the NASA official at the agency’s headquarters in Washington overseeing the Commercial Crew program. “No one thought we were going to award two. I would always say, ‘One or more,’ and people would roll their eyes at me.”

Boeing's John Elbon, center, is seen in Orbiter Processing Facility-3 at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida in 2012.

Boeing’s John Elbon, center, is seen in Orbiter Processing Facility-3 at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida in 2012.

NASA

The members of the evaluation board scored the companies based on three factors. Price was the most important consideration, given NASA’s limited budget. This was followed by “mission suitability,” and finally, “past performance.” These latter two factors, combined, were about equally weighted to price. SpaceX dominated Boeing on price.

Boeing asked for $4.2 billion, 60 percent more than SpaceX’s bid of $2.6 billion. The second category, mission suitability, assessed whether a company could meet NASA’s requirements and actually safely fly crew to and from the station. For this category, Boeing received an “excellent” rating, above SpaceX’s “very good.” The third factor, past performance, evaluated a company’s recent work. Boeing received a rating of “very high,” whereas SpaceX received a rating of “high.”

While this makes it appear as though the bids were relatively even, McAlister said the score differences in mission suitability and past performance were, in fact, modest. It was a bit like grades in school. SpaceX scored something like an 88, and got a B; whereas Boeing got a 91 and scored an A. Because of the significant difference in price, McAlister said, the source evaluation board assumed SpaceX would win the competition. He was thrilled, because he figured this meant that NASA would have to pick two companies, SpaceX based on price, and Boeing due to its slightly higher technical score. He wanted competition to spur both of the companies on.

In the room where it happened: When NASA nearly gave Boeing all the crew funding Read More »

nasa-is-ready-to-start-buying-vulcan-rockets-from-united-launch-alliance

NASA is ready to start buying Vulcan rockets from United Launch Alliance

launch, military space, NASA, Science, Space, united launch alliance, US Space Force, vulcan / /

Full stack —

The second test flight of the Vulcan rocket is scheduled for liftoff on October 4.

–

The first stage of ULA's second Vulcan rocket was raised onto its launch platform August 11 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida.

Enlarge / The first stage of ULA’s second Vulcan rocket was raised onto its launch platform August 11 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida.

United Launch Alliance is free to compete for NASA contracts with its new Vulcan rocket after a successful test flight earlier this year, ending a period where SpaceX was the only company competing for rights to launch the agency’s large science missions.

For several years, ULA was unable to bid for NASA launch contracts after the company sold all of its remaining Atlas V rockets to other customers, primarily for Amazon’s Project Kuiper Internet network. ULA could not submit its new Vulcan rocket, which will replace the Atlas V, for NASA to consider in future launch contracts until the Vulcan completed at least one successful flight, according to Tim Dunn, senior launch director at NASA’s Launch Services Program.

The Vulcan rocket’s first certification flight on January 8, called Cert-1, was nearly flawless, demonstrating the launcher’s methane-fueled BE-4 engines built by Blue Origin and an uprated twin-engine Centaur upper stage. A second test flight, known as Cert-2, is scheduled to lift off no earlier than October 4 from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida. Assuming the upcoming launch is as successful as the first one, the US Space Force aims to launch its first mission on a Vulcan rocket by the end of the year.

The Space Force has already booked 25 launches on ULA’s Vulcan rocket for military payloads and spy satellites for the National Reconnaissance Office. But these missions won’t launch until Vulcan completes its second test flight, clearing the way for the Space Force to certify ULA’s new rocket for national security missions.

Back in the game

NASA’s Launch Services Program (LSP) is responsible for selecting and overseeing launch providers for the agency’s robotic science missions. NASA’s near-term options for launching large missions include SpaceX’s Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets, ULA’s Vulcan, and Blue Origin’s New Glenn launcher.

However, only SpaceX’s rockets have been available for NASA bids since 2021, when ULA sold all of its remaining Atlas V rockets to Amazon. For example, ULA did not submit proposals for the launch of a GOES weather satellite or NASA’s Roman Space Telescope, two of the more lucrative launch contracts the agency has awarded in the last couple of years. NASA selected SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy, the only eligible rocket, for both missions.

This is a notable role reversal for SpaceX and ULA, a 50-50 joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed Martin that was the sole launch provider for large NASA science missions and military satellites for nearly a decade. SpaceX launched its first mission for NASA’s Launch Services Program in January 2016.

The situation changed with the first flight of the Vulcan rocket in January.

“They certainly demonstrated a huge success earlier this year flying Cert-1,” Dunn told Ars in an interview. “They needed a successful flight to then bid for future missions, so that allowed them to be in a position to bid on our missions.”

NASA has not yet formally certified the Vulcan rocket to launch one of the agency’s science missions, but that would not stop NASA from selecting Vulcan for a contract. Some of NASA’s next big science missions up for launch contract awards include the nuclear-powered Dragonfly mission to explore Saturn’s moon Titan and an asteroid-hunting telescope named NEO Surveyor.

The second Vulcan flight next month will move ULA’s rocket toward certification by the Space Force and NASA.

“A second Cert flight that will then demonstrate a few other capabilities of the rocket allows more data for our certification team that is working in concert with the US Space Force’s certification team,” Dunn said. “We’re doing a lot of shared, intergovernmental collaborations in the certification work, so it allows us all more data, more confidence in that launch vehicle to meet all the needs that we believe we will have in the coming decade-plus.”

Two strap-on solid-fueled boosters and twin BE-4 main engines on ULA's second Vulcan rocket.

Enlarge / Two strap-on solid-fueled boosters and twin BE-4 main engines on ULA’s second Vulcan rocket.

Blue Origin’s New Glenn could also compete for contracts to launch NASA’s larger, more expensive missions after it completes at least one successful flight. Blue Origin is currently eligible for bids to launch NASA’s smaller missions, such as the ESCAPADE mission to Mars already assigned to New Glenn. NASA is willing to accept more risk for launching these types of lower-cost missions.

ULA capped off the assembly of its second Vulcan rocket at Cape Canaveral on Saturday when technicians lifted the launcher’s payload fairing atop Vulcan’s first-stage booster and Centaur upper stage. For its second launch, Vulcan will carry a dummy payload instead of a real satellite. The second Vulcan flight was initially supposed to launch Sierra Space’s first Dream Chaser spaceplane to the International Space Station, but Dream Chaser isn’t ready, and the Space Force is eager for ULA to get moving and finish the certification process.

The head of Space Systems Command, Lt. Gen. Philip Garrant, told Ars last week that he is “optimistic” ULA will be in a position to launch its first Space Force missions with the Vulcan rocket by the end of this year. ULA has already delivered Vulcan rocket parts for the next two missions to Cape Canaveral, but the Cert-2 launch needs to go off without a hitch.

“We’re working very closely with ULA on that, as well as the manifest for the following missions,” Garrant said. “All of the rocket parts are at the launch locations, ready to go, but clearly the priority is the certification flight and making sure that the launch vehicle is certified. But we are optimistic that we’re going to get those launches off.”

NASA is ready to start buying Vulcan rockets from United Launch Alliance Read More »

satellite-images-suggest-test-of-russian-“super-weapon”-failed-spectacularly

Satellite images suggest test of Russian “super weapon” failed spectacularly

Military, nuclear, Plesetsk Cosmodrome, russia, Sarmat, Science, Space / /

  • The Sarmat missile silo seen before last week’s launch attempt.

    Maxar Technologies

  • A closer view of the Sarmat missile silo before last week’s launch attempt.

    Maxar Technologies

  • Fire trucks surround the Sarmat missile silo in this view from space on Saturday, September 21.

    Maxar Technologies

Late last week, Russia’s military planned to launch a Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) on a test flight from the Plesetsk Cosmodrome. Imagery from commercial satellites captured over the weekend suggest the missile exploded before or during launch.

This is at least the second time an RS-28 Sarmat missile has failed in less than two years, dealing a blow to the country’s nuclear forces days after the head of the Russian legislature issued a veiled threat to use the missile against Europe if Western allies approved Ukraine’s use of long-range weapons against Russia.

Commercial satellite imagery collected by Maxar and Planet show before-and-after views of the Sarmat missile silo at Plesetsk, a military base about 500 miles (800 kilometers) north of Moscow. The view from one of Maxar’s imaging satellites Saturday revealed unmistakable damage at the launch site, with a large crater centered on the opening to the underground silo.

The crater is roughly 200 feet (62 meters) wide, according to George Barros, a Russia and geospatial intelligence analyst at the Institute for the Study of War. “Extensive damage in and around the launch pad can be seen which suggests that the missile exploded shortly after ignition or launch,” Barros wrote on X.

“Additionally, small fires continue to burn in the forest to the east of the launch complex and four fire trucks can be seen near the destroyed silo,” Barros added.

An RS-28 Sarmat missile fires out of its underground silo on its first full-scale test flight in April 2022.

Enlarge / An RS-28 Sarmat missile fires out of its underground silo on its first full-scale test flight in April 2022.

Russian Ministry of Defense

The Sarmat missile is Russia’s largest ICBM, with a height of 115 feet (35 meters). It is capable of delivering nuclear warheads to targets more than 11,000 miles (18,000 kilometers) away, making it the longest-range missile in the world. The three-stage missile burns hypergolic hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide propellants, and is built by the Makeyev Design Bureau. The Sarmat, sometimes called the Satan II, replaces Russia’s long-range R-36M missile developed during the Cold War.

“According to Russian media, Sarmat can reportedly load up to 10 large warheads, 16 smaller ones, a combination of warheads and countermeasures, or hypersonic boost-glide vehicle,” the Center for Strategic and International Studies writes on its website.

The secret is out

Western analysts still don’t know exactly when the explosion occurred. Russia issued warnings last week for pilots to keep out of airspace along the flight path of a planned missile launch from the Plesetsk Cosmodrome. Russia published similar notices before previous Sarmat missile tests, alerting observers that another Sarmat launch was imminent. The warnings were canceled Thursday, two days before satellite imagery showed the destruction at the launch site.

“It is possible that the launch attempt was undertaken on September 19th, with fires persisting for more than 24 hours,” wrote Pavel Podvig, a senior researcher at the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research in Geneva, on his Russian Nuclear Forces blog site. “Another possibility is that the test was scrubbed on the 19th and the incident happened during the subsequent defueling of the missile. The character of destruction suggests that the missile exploded in the silo.”

James Acton, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote on X that the before-and-after imagery of the Sarmat missile silo was “very persuasive that there was a big explosion.”

Satellite images suggest test of Russian “super weapon” failed spectacularly Read More »

nasa-has-a-fine-plan-for-deorbiting-the-iss—unless-russia-gets-in-the-way

NASA has a fine plan for deorbiting the ISS—unless Russia gets in the way

human spaceflight, international space station, NASA, roscosmos, russia, Science, Space / /
This photo of the International Space Station was captured by a crew member on a Soyuz spacecraft.

Enlarge / This photo of the International Space Station was captured by a crew member on a Soyuz spacecraft.

NASA/Roscosmos

A little more than two years ago, Dmitry Rogozin, the bellicose former head of Russia’s space agency, nearly brought the International Space Station partnership to its knees.

During his tenure as director general of Roscosmos, Rogozin was known for his bombastic social media posts and veiled threats to abandon the space station after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin tersely dismissed Rogozin in July 2022 and replaced him with Yuri Borisov, a former deputy prime minister.

While the clash between Russia and Western governments over the war in Ukraine has not cooled, the threats against the International Space Station (ISS) ended. The program remains one of the few examples of cooperation between the US and Russian governments. Last year, Russia formally extended its commitment to the ISS to at least 2028. NASA and space agencies in Europe, Japan, and Canada have agreed to maintain the space station through 2030.

It’s this two-year disparity that concerns NASA officials plotting the final days of the ISS. NASA awarded SpaceX a contract in June to develop a deorbit vehicle based on the company’s Dragon spacecraft to steer the more than 450-ton complex toward a safe reentry over a remote stretch of ocean.

“We do have that uncertainty, 2028 through 2030, with Roscosmos,” said Robyn Gatens, director of the ISS program at NASA Headquarters, in a meeting of the agency’s advisory council this week. “We expect to hear from them over the next year or two as far as their follow-on plans, hoping that they also extend through 2030.”

Fighting through the tension

Roscosmos works in four-year increments, so Russia’s decision last year extended the country’s participation in the space station program from 2024 until 2028. Russian space officials know the future of the country’s space program is directly tied to the ISS. If Russia pulls out of the space station in 2028, Roscosmos will be left without much of a human spaceflight program.

There’s no chance Russia will have its own space station in low-Earth orbit in four years, so abandoning its role on the ISS would leave Russia’s Soyuz crew ferry spacecraft without a destination. Russian and Chinese leaders have fostered closer ties in space in recent years, but China’s Tiangong space station is inaccessible from Russia’s launch sites.

The US and Russian segments of the ISS depend on one another for critical functions. The US section generates most of the space station’s electricity and maintains the lab’s orientation without using precious rocket fuel. Russia is responsible for maintaining the station’s altitude and maneuvering the complex out of the path of space junk, although Northrop Grumman’s Cygnus cargo craft has also demonstrated an ability to boost the station’s orbit.

While Russia’s space program would feel the pain if Roscosmos made an early exit from the space station, the relationship between Russia and the West is volatile. US and European leaders may soon give Ukraine the green light to use Western-supplied weapons for attacks deep inside Russian territory. Putin said last week that this would be tantamount to war. “This will mean that NATO countries, the United States, and European countries are fighting Russia,” he said.

NASA has a fine plan for deorbiting the ISS—unless Russia gets in the way Read More »

one-company-appears-to-be-thriving-as-part-of-nasa’s-return-to-the-moon

One company appears to be thriving as part of NASA’s return to the Moon

artemis, intuitive machines, Science, Space, Uncategorized / /

Talking to the Moon —

“This has really been a transformational year for us.”

–

The second Intuitive Machines lander is prepared for hot-fire testing this week.

Enlarge / The second Intuitive Machines lander is prepared for hot-fire testing this week.

Intuitive Machines

One of the miracles of the Apollo Moon landings is that they were televised, live, for all the world to see. This transparency diffused doubts about whether the lunar landings really happened and were watched by billions of people.

However, as remarkable a technical achievement as it was to broadcast from the Moon in 1969, the video was grainy and black and white. As NASA contemplates a return to the Moon as part of the Artemis program, it wants much higher resolution video and communications with its astronauts on the lunar surface.

To that end, NASA announced this week that it had awarded a contract to Houston-based Intuitive Machines for “lunar relay services.” Essentially this means Intuitive Machines will be responsible for building a small constellation of satellites around the Moon that will beam data back to Earth from the lunar surface.

“One of the requirements is a 4K data link,” said Steve Altemus, co-founder and chief executive of Intuitive Machines, in an interview. “That kind of high fidelity data only comes from a data relay with a larger antenna than can be delivered to the surface of the Moon.”

About the plan

This is part of NASA’s plan to build a more robust “Near Space Network” for communications within 1 million miles of Earth (the Moon is about 240,000 miles from Earth). Intuitive Machines’ contract is worth as much as $4.82 billion over the next decade, depending on the level of communication services that NASA chooses to purchase.

The space agency is also expected to award a ground-based component of this network for large dishes to receive signals from near space, taking some of this burden off the Deep Space Network. Altemus said Intuitive Machines has also bid on this ground component contract.

The Houston company, with its IM-1 mission, made a largely successful landing on the Moon in February. A second lunar landing mission, IM-2, is scheduled to take place in late December or January, a few months from now. Funded largely by NASA, the IM-2 mission will carry a small drill to the South Pole of the Moon to search for water ice in Shackleton Crater.

Then, approximately 15 months from now, the company is planning to launch another lander, IM-3. This mission is likely to carry the first data-relay satellite—each is intended to be about 500 kg, Altemus said, but the final design of the vehicles is still being finalized—to lunar orbit. Assuming this first satellite works well, the two following IM missions will each carry two relay satellites, making for a constellation of five spacecraft orbiting the Moon.

Two of the satellites will go into polar orbits and serve NASA’s Artemis needs at the South Pole, Altemus said. Two more are likely to go into halo orbits, and a fifth satellite will be placed into an equatorial orbit. This will provide full coverage of the Moon not just for communications, but also for position, navigation, and timing.

Intuitive Machines rising

A former deputy director of Johnson Space Center, Altemus founded Intuitive Machines in 2013 along with an investor, Kam Ghaffarian, and an aerospace engineer named Tim Crain. It hasn’t always been easy. Development of Intuitive Machines’ Nova C lander took years longer than anticipated; there were setbacks such as a propellant tank failure, and money was at times tight.

In part to address these financial difficulties, the company went public in 2023, at the tail end of the mania in which space companies were becoming publicly traded via special purpose acquisition companies, or SPACs. Many space companies that went public this way have struggled mightily, and Intuitive Machines has also faced similar pressures.

“It’s been a challenge,” Altemus said. “We went public in 2023, and navigating that was the story of last year, as well as getting to the launch pad.”

But then good things started happening. Despite some technical troubles, including the failure of its altimeter, the company’s first lander managed a soft touchdown on the Moon on its side. Even with this untinended orientation, the Intuitive Machines-1 mission still managed to complete the vast majority of its science objectives. In August, the company won its fourth task order from NASA—essentially a lunar delivery mission—under the Commercial Lunar Payload Services program.

And then the company won the massive data relay contract this week.

“This has really been a transformational year for us,” Altemus said. “The vision for the company is finally coming together.”

One company appears to be thriving as part of NASA’s return to the Moon Read More »

a-key-nasa-commercial-partner-faces-severe-financial-challenges

A key NASA commercial partner faces severe financial challenges

artemis, axiom space, CLDs, NASA, Science, Space, space station / /

Station struggles —

“The business model had to change.”

–

Spacious zero-g quarters with a big TV.

Enlarge / Rendering of an individual crew quarter within the Axiom habitat module.

Axiom Space

Axiom Space is facing significant financial headwinds as the company attempts to deliver on two key commercial programs for NASA—the development of a private space station in low-Earth orbit and spacesuits that could one day be worn by astronauts on the Moon.

Forbes reports that Axiom Space, which was founded by billionaire Kam Ghaffarian and NASA executive Mike Suffredini in 2016, has been struggling to raise money to keep its doors open and has had difficulties meeting its payroll dating back to at least early 2023. In addition, the Houston-based company has fallen behind on payments to key suppliers, including Thales Alenia Space for its space station and SpaceX for crewed launches.

“The lack of fresh capital has exacerbated long-standing financial challenges that have grown alongside Axiom’s payroll, which earlier this year was nearly 1,000 employees,” the publication reports. “Sources familiar with the company’s operations told Forbes that co-founder and CEO Michael Suffredini, who spent 30 years at NASA, ran Axiom like a big government program instead of the resource-constrained startup it really was. His mandate to staff up to 800 workers by the end of 2022 led to mass hiring so detached from product development needs that new engineers often found themselves with nothing to do.”

The report underscores a lot of what Ars has been hearing about the financial struggles of Axiom in recent months. Dozens of employees have been laid off, and Thales officials have made no secret of their discontent at not being paid in full for the production of pressure modules for the Axiom space station. Although the departure of Suffredini as chief executive was framed as being his decision for personal reasons, it seems probable that he moved out of the company for performance reasons.

Space station troubles

All of this raises significant questions about Axiom’s ability to deliver on the primary reason the company was created—to build a successor to the International Space Station. Suffredini joined Ghaffarian in the venture after serving as manager of NASA’s space station program for more than a decade. When they founded the company in 2016, the plan was to launch an initial space station module in 2020.

The timeline for station development has since been delayed multiple times. Presently, Axiom plans to launch its first module to the International Space Station no earlier than late 2026. And the company’s ambitions have been downsized, according to the report. Instead of a four-module station that would be separated from the government-operated space station by 2030, Axiom is likely to go forward with a smaller station consisting of just two elements. This station would have lower power and reduced commercial potential, according to the article.

“The business model had always counted on having significant power for microgravity research, semiconductor production, and pharmaceutical production, plus supporting life in space,” a source told the publication. “The business model had to change… and that has continued to make it challenging for the company to get around its cash flow issues.”

Axiom is one of several companies—alongside Blue Origin, Voyager Space, Vast Space, and potentially SpaceX—working with NASA to devise commercial replacements for the International Space Station after that facility retires in 2030.

NASA plans to issue a “request for proposals” for the second round of commercial space station contracts in 2025 and make an award the following year. Multiple sources have indicated that the space agency would like to award at least two companies in this second phase. However, Ghaffarian told Forbes that he would prefer NASA to decide next year and award a single competitor.

“Today there’s not enough market for more than one,” he said.

This may be true, although some of Axiom’s competitors may dispute it. Nevertheless, Ghaffarian’s desire for an award next year, and for a sole winner, underscores the evident urgency of Axiom’s fundraising needs.

Dragons and spacesuits

The report also notes that Axiom has lost significant amounts of funding on three private astronaut missions it has flown to the International Space Station to date. Ghaffarian said these missions were conducted at a loss to build relationships with global space agencies. This does make some sense, as space agencies in Europe, the Middle East, and elsewhere are likely to be customers of commercial space stations in the next decade. However, Axiom is ill-positioned to absorb such launches financially.

The publication reveals that Axiom is due to pay $670 million to SpaceX for four Crew Dragon missions, each of which includes a launch and ride for four astronauts to and from the station encompassing a one- to two-week period. This equates to $167.5 million per launch, or $41.9 million per seat.

Axiom’s other major line of business is a $228 million development contract with NASA to develop spacesuits for the Artemis Program, which will allow astronauts to venture outside the Starship lunar lander on the Moon’s surface. According to the Forbes report, this initiative has pulled resources away from the space station program.

Multiple sources have told Ars that, from a financial and technical standpoint, this spacesuit program is on better footing than the station program. And at this point, the spacesuit program is probably the one element of Axiom’s business that NASA views as essential going forward.

A key NASA commercial partner faces severe financial challenges Read More »

so-what-are-we-to-make-of-the-highly-ambitious,-private-polaris-spaceflight?

So what are we to make of the highly ambitious, private Polaris spaceflight?

Polaris dawn, Space / /

Riding the Dragon —

They flew high, they walked in space, and finally early on Sunday, they landed.

–

Crew Dragon enters Earth's atmosphere on Sunday morning as recovery boats await.

Enlarge / Crew Dragon enters Earth’s atmosphere on Sunday morning as recovery boats await.

Polaris Program/John Kraus

A white spacecraft, lightly toasted like a marshmallow and smelling of singed metal, fell out of the night sky early on Sunday morning and splashed down in the Gulf of Mexico not all that far from Key West.

The darkened waters there were carefully chosen from among dozens of potential landing spots near Florida. This is because the wind and seas were predicted to be especially calm and serene as the Crew Dragon spacecraft named Resilience floated down to the sea and bobbed gently, awaiting the arrival of a recovery ship.

Inside waited a crew of four—Commander Jared Isaacman, a billionaire who funded the mission and had just completed his second private spaceflight; SpaceX engineers Sarah Gillis and Anna Menon, who were the company’s first employees to fly into orbit; and Pilot Kidd Poteet.

They were happy to be home.

“We are mission complete,” Isaacman said after the spacecraft landed.

A significant success

Their mission, certainly the most ambitious private spaceflight to date, was a total success. Named “Polaris Dawn,” the mission flew to an altitude of 1,408.1 km on the first day of the flight. This was the highest Earth-orbit mission ever flown, and the furthest humans have traveled from our planet since the Apollo missions more than half a century ago.

Then, on the third day of the flight, the four crew members donned spacesuits designed and developed within the last two years. After venting the cabin’s atmosphere into space, first Isaacman, and then Gillis, spent several minutes extending their bodies out of the Dragon spacecraft. This was the first-ever private spacewalk in history.

Although this foray into space largely repeated what the Soviet Union, and then the United States performed in the mid-1960s, with tethered spacewalks, it nonetheless was significant. These commercial spacesuits cost a fraction of government suits, and can be considered version 1.0 of suits that could one day enable many people to walk in space, on the Moon, and eventually Mars.

The crew of Polaris Dawn calls back to SpaceX's headquarters in Hawthrone, California, on Saturday.

The crew of Polaris Dawn calls back to SpaceX’s headquarters in Hawthrone, California, on Saturday.

SpaceX

Finally, on the mission’s final full day in space Saturday, the Dragon spacecraft demonstrated connectivity with a mesh of Starlink satellites in low-Earth orbit. The crew held a 40-minute, uninterrupted video call with flight operators back at SpaceX’s headquarters in Hawthorne, California. During that time, according to the company, Dragon maintained contact via laser links to Starlink satellites through 16 firings of the spacecraft’s Draco thrusters.

This test demonstrated the viability of using the thousands of Starlink satellites in orbit as a means of providing high-speed internet to people and spacecraft in space.

Wait, isn’t this just a billionaire joyride?

Some people have misunderstood the mission. They saw in Isaacman a financial tech billionaire gratifying his desire to go to space, inside a crew vehicle built by Elon Musk’s rocket company SpaceX. Thus, this appeared to be just a roller coaster ride for the ultra-rich and famous—for those who could not sate their thrill-seeking with the pleasures attainable on planet Earth.

I understand this viewpoint, but I do not share it.

The reality is that Isaacman and his hand-picked crew, which included two SpaceX employees who will take their learnings back to design spacecraft and other vehicles at the company, trained hard for this mission over the better part of two years. In flying such a daring profile to a high altitude through potential conjunctions with thousands of satellites; and then venting their cabin to perform a spacewalk, each of the crew members assumed high risks.

For its Crew Dragon missions that fly to and from the International Space Station, NASA has an acceptable “loss-of-crew” probability of 1-in-270. But in those spaceflights the crew spends significantly less time inside Dragon, and flies to a much lower and safer altitude. They do not conduct spacewalks out of Dragon. The crew of Polaris Dawn, therefore, assumed non-trivial dangers in undertaking this spaceflight. These risks assumed were measured rather than reckless.

So why? Why take such risks? Because the final frontier, after nearly seven decades of spaceflight, remains largely unexplored. If it is human destiny to one day expand to other worlds, and eventually other stars, we’re going to need to do so with more than few government astronauts making short sorties. To open space there must be lower cost access and commercial potential.

With his inventive and daring Polaris Dawn mission, Isaacman has taken a step toward such a future, by pushing forward the performance of Dragon, and accelerating SpaceX’s timeline to develop low-cost spacesuits. Certainly, Isaacman had a blast. But it was for a very good cause. He was lucky enough to go first, but through his actions, he aims to blaze a trail for multitudes to follow.

So what are we to make of the highly ambitious, private Polaris spaceflight? Read More »

navy-captains-don’t-like-abandoning-ship—but-with-starliner,-the-ship-left-them

Navy captains don’t like abandoning ship—but with Starliner, the ship left them

Boeing, commercial crew, Commercial space, international space station, NASA, Science, Space, starliner / /
NASA astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams wave to their families, friends, and NASA officials on their way to the launch pad June 5 to board Boeing's Starliner spacecraft.

Enlarge / NASA astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams wave to their families, friends, and NASA officials on their way to the launch pad June 5 to board Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft.

NASA astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams are no strangers to time away from their families. Both are retired captains in the US Navy, served in war zones, and are veterans of previous six-month stays on the International Space Station.

When they launched to the space station on Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft on June 5, the astronauts expected to be home in a few weeks, or perhaps a month, at most. Their minimum mission duration was eight days, but NASA was always likely to approve a short extension. Wilmore and Williams were the first astronauts to soar into orbit on Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft, a milestone achieved some seven years later than originally envisioned by Boeing and NASA.

However, the test flight fell short of all of its objectives. Wilmore and Williams are now a little more than three months into what has become an eight-month mission on the station. The Starliner spacecraft was beset by problems, culminating in a decision last month by NASA officials to send the capsules back to Earth without the two astronauts. Rather than coming home on Starliner, Wilmore and Williams will return to Earth in February on a SpaceX Dragon spacecraft.

Grateful for options

On Friday, the two astronauts spoke with reporters for the first time since NASA decided they would stay in orbit until early 2025.

“It was trying at times,” Wilmore said. There were some tough times all the way through. Certainly, as the commander or pilot of your spacecraft, you don’t want to see it go off without you, but that’s where we wound up.”

Both astronauts are veteran Navy test pilots and have previous flights on space shuttles and Russian Soyuz spacecraft. Captains never want to abandon ship, but that’s not what happened with Starliner. Instead, their ship left them.

Williams said she and Wilmore watched Starliner’s departure from the space station from the lab’s multi-window cupola module last week. They kept busy with several tasks, such as monitoring the undocking and managing the space station’s systems during the dynamic phase of the departure.

“We were watching our spaceship fly away at that point in time,” Williams said. “I think it’s good we had some extra activities. Of course, we’re very knowledgeable about Starliner, so it was obvious what was happening at each moment.”

NASA’s top managers did not have enough confidence in Starliner’s safety after five thrusters temporarily failed as the spacecraft approached the space station in June. They weren’t ready to risk the lives of the two astronauts on Starliner when engineers weren’t convinced the same thrusters, or more, would function as needed during the trip home.

It turned out the suspect thrusters on Starliner worked after it departed the space station and headed for reentry on September 6. One thruster on Starliner’s crew module—different in design from the thrusters that previously had trouble—failed on the return journey. Investigating this issue is something Boeing and NASA engineers will add to their to-do list before the next Starliner flight, alongside the earlier problems of overheating thrusters and helium leaks.

“It’s a very risky business, and things do not always turn out the way you want,” Wilmore said. “Every single test flight, especially a first flight of a spacecraft or aircraft that’s ever occurred, has found issues …  90 percent of our training is preparing for the unexpected, and sometimes the actual unexpected goes beyond what you even think that could happen.”

Navy captains don’t like abandoning ship—but with Starliner, the ship left them Read More »