Leonard David's INSIDE OUTER SPACE

Archive for the ‘Wait a Minute!’ Category

The on-going, unfolding, wait-a-minute drama of the Boeing Starliner and its “stuck or stranded” crew in space was discussed the other day by NASA during a Starliner test mission briefing.

For me, personally, the media gaggle was a late reminder of a wake-up call.

It harkened back to my covering the space shuttle Challenger (O-ring finger pointing) and Columbia accidents (suspected wing damage via foam) and loss of 14 shuttle astronauts. Also, there was a tinge of Apollo-1’s fiery tragedy of a three-person crew.

But more specific to the Boeing Starliner thruster issues, I recalled Gemini-8 – yes, I’m old, but that too was a heart-stopper of a problem.

 

Retro-fire back to March of 1966.

Gemini 8, with Neil Armstrong and David Scott onboard, carried out the first docking of two spacecraft in orbit. A stuck thruster in their Gemini spacecraft’s Orbital Attitude and Maneuvering System threatened their lives and necessitated an immediate abort of the mission. Planned for three days, Gemini 8’s mission lasted less than 11 hours due to spacecraft thruster woes.

Apples and oranges, oranges and apples – I guess.

Uncertainty band

Meanwhile, back to this week’s Starliner briefing.

Words used like “uncertainty band” and not understanding the “physics” of the hardware come to mind – but plenty of other phrases that conjure up memories of the past.

It prompted me to jell in my mind a few questions. Well, those inquiries were left unanswered as the media briefing closed and I was still in the queue.

But to their credit, NASA specialists did respond to my questions later via email.

Starliner questions

Question 1:

At the end of the day – to what degree do Starliner’s crew – Butch and Sunni — have the “final say” on coming home – shouldn’t they be the final go/no go folks?

Answer: “NASA does not commit to flight without a go from the Flight Operations Directorate from which crew readiness is determined. Crew safety is the agency’s top priority. NASA does not fly without the crew’s concurrence.”

Question 2:

What I heard today was unnerving in some of the words used, particularly “uncertainty band” and not understanding the “physics” of the hardware. Any additional words to clarify those terms?

Answer: “Often in human spaceflight, engineering teams are working to assess risk for problems in which the root cause is not known or the hardware affected is not recoverable. While much can be done on the ground and in flight to shrink the issue’s band of uncertainty and better understand the physics involved, reasonable individuals can interpret data differently and come to various conclusions. This is a healthy part of any flight rationale development process and it is critical for crew safety.”

Question 3:

Lastly, forget the thrusters (for the moment!) – what I wanted to ask is about longevity life-time specs for the heat shield, on-orbit parachutes, gas-generator units for airbag deployment, etc. Has there been an assessment of their operability in the chain of events that must happen to assure safe recovery of the crew and capsule – if that crew scenario is taken?

Answer: “All the components you listed are certified for the standard 210-day crew rotation, however, some systems like the thermal protection system do require on-orbit inspections before being cleared for return.”

Whatever the outcome of upcoming NASA decision-making regarding Starliner, what’s your view?

Also, give a listen to that press briefing at: 800-584-7317

Also (2) Special thanks to NASA spokesperson, Steven Siceloff, for championing my questions and handling my inquiry.

 

I just hung up from a wake-up call.

NASA officials today addressed the on-going saga of the Boeing Starliner test mission to the International Space Station.

NASA provided a Starliner crew flight test and space station mission update to a gaggle of attentive media, including me.

On the end of that media call:

Ken Bowersox, associate administrator, Space Operations Mission Directorate

Steve Stich, manager, Commercial Crew Program 

Dana Weigel, manager, International Space Station Program

Why don’t you give a listen yourself to a recorded replay that’s accessible until Nov. 7 by calling:  800-584-7317.

Uncertainty band

As a reporter, sad to say, that covered the space shuttle Challenger (O-rings) and Columbia accidents (wing damage via foam) and loss of 14 astronauts, what I heard today was unnerving.

Words used like “uncertainty band” and not understanding the “physics” of the hardware come to mind – but plenty of other phrases that sparked retro-fire moments of years ago.

For one, at the end of the day – to what degree does Starliner’s crew – Butch and Sunni — have the “final say” on coming home – shouldn’t they give the final go/no go return home decision?

In the doghouse

Lastly, forget the Starliner thrusters (for the moment!) that have put, quite literally, Boeing in the doghouse.

What about the longevity/life-time specs for the heat shield, on-orbit parachutes, generator units for airbag deployment, etc. Are these spacecraft systems, and other re-entry gear, all up to snuff?

Has there been an assessment of their operability in the chain of events that must happen to assure safe recovery of the crew and capsule – if that astronaut return to Earth via Starliner is taken?

SpaceX to the “rescue?”

All in all, the NASA briefing is welcomed, if not worrisome news about a “deposit, no return” astronaut crew.

Meanwhile, the prospect of SpaceX Dragon to the rescue was brought up. But “rescue” is/isn’t a stretch? You decide.

Last month, NASA requested SpaceX to carry out a month-long “Special Study for Emergency Response,” a contract valued at $266,678.00.

The work request was signed on July 15 and that work is to be completed by August 15. This action was signed by a procurement officer at Kennedy Space Center.

Contingency options

While there has been speculation that the SpaceX study was related to the Boeing Starliner woes, in response to an Inside Outer Space inquiry, this NASA statement:

“NASA continuously explores a wide range of contingency options with our partners to ensure crew safety aboard the International Space Station. Over the past couple of years, the agency has worked with its commercial partner SpaceX to provide additional return capability on the Dragon spacecraft in the event of a contingency. This is not related to Starliner.”

Whatever the outcome of upcoming NASA decision-making regarding Starliner, what’s your view?

Listen to that press briefing at: 800-584-7317

On Mars, it’s a wait-a-minute conundrum.

Question: Has life been found on Mars?

The answer: Well, maybe…maybe not.

Clear as mud.

NASA’s Perseverance rover is busily scouting about Jezero Crater on the Red Planet. Indeed, the Mars machinery is doing its assigned job with a key objective that’s fine-tuned for astrobiology, including caching samples that may contain signs of ancient microbial life.

 

New discovery

On July 25, Ken Farley, project scientist for NASA’s Perseverance Mars rover mission, shared information about a new discovery that is now tagged as “the most puzzling, complex, and potentially important rock yet investigated by Perseverance.”

Farley spoke to a full auditorium of Mars researchers during the 10th International Conference on Mars at Caltech in Pasadena, California.

“So I call this rock ‘the unknown,’ but also tagged the find as “potentially very important.”

Under Sapphire Canyon skies

The rock outcrop is called Cheyava Falls. Perseverance drilled a core from Cheyava Falls, the rover’s 22nd rock sample on July 21, as the robot probed the northern edge of Neretva Vallis, an ancient river valley.

Perseverance obtained a full-length, 6.2 centimeters long core of the rock, filling an onboard sampling tube. The sample is called Sapphire Canyon.

Farley said that sample is a potential biosignature, carefully defining that term: “A potential biosignature is a substance or structure that might have a biological origin, but requires more data or further study before reaching a conclusion.”

The Sapphire Canyon sample has a collection of features, possibly several potential biosignatures.

“So I think it is safe to say,” Farley told the attendees, “this rock constitutes a rock that has potential biosignatures in it,” and a sample that “is the strongest case that we have for why sample return should go forward.”

Rethinking underway

That going forward is now stuck in neutral.

The currently being rethought Mars Sample Return effort, due to cost, complexity, and timeliness, is a joint campaign being blueprinted by NASA and the European Space Agency.

Independent reviews had price-tagged that initiative at a whopping $10 billion, perhaps more. No easy undertaking, rocketing specimens of Mars to Earth is an endeavor that entails multiple missions and components.

But it’s also a project mantra resolute in bringing Mars rock, loose surface material, and gas samples to Earth for detailed laboratory analysis and study.

By using an array of techniques, those specimens on inspection could, quite literally, de-muddy the question of whether or not the Red Planet was an extraterrestrial address for life…or possibly a comfy home for life today.

To view Ken Farley’s intriguing, fact-filled presentation, along with audience reactions, go to:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61phIWESjis

UPDATE: NASA’s Moon News: VIPER CANCELLED

Go to NASA announcement at:

https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-ends-viper-project-continues-moon-exploration/

“VIPER is 100% built and has completed part of its testing. It is ready to go and NASA is junking a very capable rover and ceding leadership in resource exploration. It is a dark day for lunar science and exploration and maybe the Artemis program,” responds Clive Neal, a lunar exploration expert at the University of Notre Dame.

Posted earlier:

In wait-a-minute style, the Moon exploration community is holding its collective breath for the news stemming from today’s “Exploration Science Program Update” by NASA.

Nobody is quite sure what’s coming, but on the rocket docket is Nicola Fox, associate administrator, Science Mission Directorate at NASA Headquarters.

Perhaps a tip on things to come, joining Fox is NASA’s Joel Kearns, deputy associate administrator for exploration, Science Mission Directorate.

Kearns also leads the Commercial Lunar Payload Services initiative, the CLPS space agency/private sector activity.

There is some speculation that an update will be given on the status of CLPS, particularly the NASA contracted Astrobotic delivery of the agency’s Volatiles Investigating Polar Exploration Rover (VIPER).

VIPER bite?

VIPER is a key part of NASA’s Artemis lunar exploration plan, a robotic endeavor in search of Moon ice and other potential resources.

Astrobotic is on tap to use its Griffin lunar lander to deliver VIPER to the Moon’s south pole, supposedly by year’s end. But the company experienced a rough-and-tumble start with CLPS.

In January of this year, the Astrobotic Peregrine Mission One to the Moon failed due to an in-space propulsion glitch.

So, perhaps, news on the whereabouts and timing of a VIPER sendoff?

Then, on the other hand, maybe no.

But stay tuned later today for some sort of Moon news.

 

Wait-a-minute: A misbehaving SpaceX Falcon 9 upper stage has led to Starlink satellites each taking destructive dives, willy-nilly style, into the Earth’s atmosphere.

The July 11 liftoff of the SpaceX Starlink Group 9-3 from Vandenberg Space Force Base in California was a definite dud, with several of the 20 Starlinks already nearing their plunge to oblivion according to The Aerospace Corporation’s Center for Orbital and Reentry Debris Studies (CORDS).

To keep an eye on incoming Starlinks associated with the rare SpaceX upper stage mishap, go to https://aerospace.org/cords

 

 

Eccentric orbit

As explained in a SpaceX posting, Falcon 9’s second stage performed its first burn nominally, “however a liquid oxygen leak developed on the second stage.”

After a planned relight of the upper stage engine to raise the lowest point of orbit, that stage’s Merlin Vacuum engine experienced an anomaly and was unable to complete its second burn.

“Although the stage survived and still deployed the satellites, it did not successfully circularize its orbit,” SpaceX explained, but the stage did passivate itself, a step normally performed at the end of each mission.

This left the satellites in an eccentric orbit, SpaceX added, with a very low perigee to Earth of under 85 miles (135 kilometers) altitude, which is less than half the expected perigee altitude.

Incident investigation

“No public injuries or public property damage have been reported,” reports the Federal Aviation Administration that is now requiring an investigation of the incident.

“An investigation is designed to further enhance public safety, determine the root cause of the event, and identify corrective actions to avoid it from happening again,” states the FAA.

Furthermore, the FAA must approve SpaceX’s final report, including any corrective actions.

“A return to flight is based on the FAA determining that any system, process, or procedure related to the mishap does not affect public safety,” the FAA explains. “In addition, SpaceX may need to request and receive approval from the FAA to modify its license that incorporates any corrective actions and meet all other licensing requirements.”

I’ll raise you

According to SpaceX, the satellites were left in an enormously high-drag environment as they circuited the Earth.

At that level of drag, “our maximum available thrust is unlikely to be enough to successfully raise the satellites.”

The Starlink satellites will re-enter Earth’s atmosphere and “fully demise,” SpaceX added. “They do not pose a threat to other satellites in orbit or to public safety.”

Fully demise

The term “fully demise” is worth a note here.

Evidence is mounting that the high-heating of spacecraft materials as they plow through the atmosphere at high speeds do off-load chemistry into the Earth’s upper stratosphere. How destructive to the atmosphere that process is remains in research mode.

Then there’s the issue of spacecraft pieces that do find their way to Earth’s surface, be it ocean or land.

Increased activity

Meanwhile, satellite tracker T.S. Kelso and the CelesTrak chief, has been monitoring all 20 Starlink spacecraft, eyeing their individual decay rates as they circle Earth.

“At least geomagnetic activity is low (normal) right now,” Kelso told Inside Outer Space, but NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center is forecasting increased activity today.

CelesTrak ‘s mission is focused on making data and other resources freely available to the space community “to facilitate understanding of our orbital environment and how to use it safely and responsibly.”

Uptick in skyfall

All in all, SpaceX and company leftovers falling from the heavens have garnered increased attention.

Last May, the remainders of a SpaceX Dragon “trunk” from its Crew-7 mission peppered separate sites in North Carolina.

While Starlink’s construction and the Dragon trunk design are worlds apart, the uptick from uncontrolled riff-raff coming down is a growing, worrisome trend.

For one, the list of other trunk dumps that survived their fiery skyfall also includes Australia, as well as Canada.

As reported by Canada’s CBC News, SpaceX employees visited a farm near Ituna, Saskatchewan, northeast of Regina, whisking away a number of trunk fragments in a U-haul trailer.

The farmer that owns the property where the clutter came to full-stop was later compensated by SpaceX, CBC reports, for an undisclosed amount. Some of that money was subsequently donated to installation of a new local hockey rink.

 

Hot-lines

For its part, SpaceX has established a “SpaceX debris hot line” call-in number, as well as a “recovery@spaceX.com” email address.

“If you believe you have identified a piece of debris, please do not attempt to handle or retrieve the debris directly. Instead, please either email or leave a voice mail here with your name, number, and a brief description of what you have discovered and where,” the hot-line phone message explains.

“Teams are actively monitoring both message boxes and will ensure the notification is handled appropriately,” the recording adds. “If you have concerns about an immediate hazard, please contact your local law enforcement agency. Thank you, your assistance is greatly appreciated.”

Not sure if any recovered Starlink bits and pieces can use these same hot lines, but why not?

“I wish I may, I wish I might…Have the wish I wish tonight.”

 

Wait-a-Minute!

It turns out – one group’s space junk is another person’s viewing hot spot.

The Glamping Collective in North Carolina was on the receiving end last May of leftovers from the SpaceX Dragon Crew-7 mission to the International Space Station. 

On May 22, a member of the Glamping Collective landscaping crew discovered the space clutter. “The debris was discovered about a half mile up our Sunset Summit Trail,” according to a Collective posting. “We invite you to come experience this yourself!”

In early June, the Clyde, North Carolina-based organization began displaying the space clutter.

Image credit: Glamping Collective

Snack pack

“The Glamping Collective has long been known as an incredible place to enjoy the night sky and stargazing! The Milky Way Galaxy can be even be seen around our fire pits, or on the Sunset Summit Trail on clear summer nights.”

Also, when completing your booking look for their Galactic Glamping Snack Pack “to complete your out of this world experience!”

Go to: https://www.theglampingcollective.com/

 

NASA later issued a release confirming the re-entry of the Dragon spacecraft trunk hardware following its service mission to the International Space Station.

“Most recently, the trunks that supported SpaceX’s 30th commercial services resupply and Crew-7 missions re-entered over Saudi Arabia and North Carolina, respectively,” the NASA release stated. “NASA is unaware of any structural damage or injuries resulting from these findings.”

SpaceX hot line

For its part, SpaceX has established a “SpaceX debris hot line” as well as a “recovery@spaceX.com” email address.

“If you believe you have identified a piece of debris, please do not attempt to handle or retrieve the debris directly. Instead, please either email or leave a voice mail here with your name, number, and a brief description of what you have discovered and where,” the phone message explains.

 

“Teams are actively monitoring both message boxes and will ensure the notification is handled appropriately,” the recording adds. “If you have concerns about an immediate hazard, please contact your local law enforcement agency. Thank you, your assistance is greatly appreciated.”

 

 

 

 

 

Trunk deliverables

For more details on this North Carolina incident, as well as other findings of Dragon trunk deliverables in Canada and Australia, go to:

 

 

 

 

1)

More SpaceX Space Trunk Debris Found?

https://www.leonarddavid.com/42221-2/

2)

More Trunk Space: New SpaceX Debris Found?

https://www.leonarddavid.com/trunk-space-new-spacex-debris-found/

3)

SpaceX Dragon Debris – Trunk Junk Recovered in Canada?

https://www.leonarddavid.com/spacex-dragon-debris-trunk-junk-recovered-in-canada/

4)

For a view of my recent SpaceNews story – “Uncontrolled reentry of space debris poses a real and growing threat” – go to:

https://spacenews.com/uncontrolled-reentry-of-space-debris-poses-a-real-and-growing-threat/

 

In classic “wait-a-minute” style, back in mid-April, NASA requested proposals from industry to do a double-take on the costly Mars Sample Return (MSR) initiative to return samples of the Red Planet in the 2030s.

NASA is now moving forward with 10 studies to examine more affordable and faster methods of bringing samples from Mars’ surface back to Earth.

The MSR seven

As part of this re-look, NASA will award a firm-fixed-price contract for up to $1.5 million to conduct 90-day studies to seven industry proposers.

Additionally, the go-ahead has been given to NASA centers, NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and Johns Hopkins’ Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) to also crank out MSR re-evaluation studies in the hopes of improving MSR’s price tag and schedule.

Alterations or enhancements

Once all the studies are in hand, NASA will assess them to consider alterations or enhancements to the Mars Sample Return architecture, tagged by independent assessment groups as perhaps costing upwards of $11 billion to carry out.

NASA has announced that the following companies and their proposals were selected from among those that responded to the April 15 request for help in re-shaping the MSR undertaking. They are:

 

Lockheed Martin, Littleton, Colorado: “Lockheed Martin Rapid Mission Design Studies for Mars Sample Return”

SpaceX, Hawthorne, California: “Enabling Mars Sample Return With Starship”

Aerojet Rocketdyne, Huntsville, Alabama: “A High-Performance Liquid Mars Ascent Vehicle, Using Highly Reliable and Mature Propulsion Technologies, to Improve Program Affordability and Schedule”

Blue Origin, Monrovia, California: “Leveraging Artemis for Mars Sample Return”

Quantum Space, Rockville, Maryland: “Quantum Anchor Leg Mars Sample Return Study”

Northrop Grumman, Elkton, Maryland: “High TRL [Technology Readiness Level]  MAV [Mars Ascent Vehicle] Propulsion Trades and Concept Design for MSR Rapid Mission Design”

Whittinghill Aerospace, Camarillo, California: “A Rapid Design Study for the MSR Single Stage Mars Ascent Vehicle”

Dumpster fire

All of this activity was sparked last September when an independent review board (IRB) released its findings after taking a diligent and detailed look at the flagship MSR project.

The IRB was established by NASA to judge the technical requirements, cost and calendar plans of the task. It was a thorough sanity check on how things were going for MSR…and things were found not to be going well.

For more information, go to my Scientific American story – “NASA’s Troubled Mars Sample Mission Has Scientists Seeing Red – NASA’s Mars Sample Return program is the agency’s highest priority in planetary science, but projected multibillion-dollar overruns have some calling the plan a “dumpster fire”” – at:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nasas-troubled-mars-sample-mission-has-scientists-seeing-red/

 

In a wait-a-minute moment, pre-launch imagery of China’s Chang’e-6 shows some sort of a mini-rover with four wheels.

But so far, as far as I know, there’s been no official word from the China National Space Agency (CNSA) regarding the rover.

A glimmer of information has come from a story via China’s Science Network (news.sciencenet.cn). It does note the presence of a Chang’e-6 lunar rover.

Imaging spectrometer

According to the article, the Shanghai Institute of Ceramics, Chinese Academy of Sciences (later referred to as Shanghai Institute of Ceramics) undertook the development of a number of key materials.

“The large-sized tellurium dioxide crystal developed by the Shanghai Silicate Institute has excellent acoustic and optical properties and is a key material to achieve a large field of view, high spatial and spectral resolution, and is used in the infrared imaging spectrometer of the Chang’e-6 lunar rover,” the story explains.

Shutter speak

“The ultrasonic motor is the ‘helper’ that presses the shutter for the ‘Chang’e Family’ lunar rover’s infrared imaging spectrometer. Piezoelectric ceramics are the core material of the ultrasonic motor,” the story continues. “Following Chang’e-3, 4 and 5, the wide temperature range and highly stable piezoelectric excitation element developed by Shanghai Silicate Institute was successfully used in the Chang’e-6 ultrasonic motor.”

So there you have it, all of it so far. But surely more is to come given a successful far side touchdown of the Chang’e-6 sample return mission. If the rover is deployed and in good shape, perhaps looks at lunar sampling operations may be in the offing.

Then there’s the prospect of a view of the Chang’e-6’s ascender craft departing the area, loaded with its precious cargo of collected Moon goodies.

Rover comparisons

On the other hand, the Chang’e-6 rover machinery is clearly different than the earlier Yutu-1 and Yutu-2 rovers, each with six wheels, both loaded to their solar panels with lots of equipment.

 

The Chang’e-3 Moon lander let loose Yutu-1 in Mare Imbrium after its December 2013 arrival on the Moon.  

Yutu-2’s home turf since deployed by the Chang’e-4 lander in January 2019 is Von Kármán crater within the Moon’s south pole-Aitken basin. It is reportedly alive and well and still on the move.

 

Lastly, as a prelude to the launch of Chang’e-6, a communication test between China’s recently lofted Queqiao-2 relay satellite was carried out, one aspect of which was linking up with Chang’e-4 far side lander/rover hardware.

Hopefully, more details about the Chang’e-6 rover duties are forthcoming, once rolling about the landing zone.

Over the last number of years, our planet has become encircled by Starlink, OneWeb, and other “megaconstellation” satellites.

Yes, the emergence of those megaconstellations offers great benefit for humanity. But in a wait-a-minute pause, there are also substantial costs, including the imposition on humankind’s ongoing and growing thirst for astronomical peering into the surrounding universe.

That’s the view of David Koplow, the Scott K. Ginsburg Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, D.C.

“We are just beginning to appreciate how bad the disruption can be for land-based and space-based telescopes, and as more and more satellite overflights occur, the problems will only intensify,” Koplow told Inside Outer Space.

Legal rights

Koplow’s concerns have been voiced in several scholarly works, the titles of which underscore his qualms, such as: “Large Constellations of Small Satellites: The Good, the Bad, the Ugly and the Illegal,” as well as “Blinded by the Light: Resolving the Conflict Between Satellite Megaconstellations and Astronomy.”

 “The world has mostly been assuming that the relevant international law basically allows the satellite companies to do whatever they want in space, while forcing the observatories to adapt as well as they can,” Koplow advised. 

But in reality, Koplow continues, the legal regime is not so one-sided. “Astronomers also have legal rights to free use of space, and they need not stand by idly while their profession is damaged.”

Hair on fire

Koplow points out that in 2019 the world of optical and radio astronomy changed abruptly and massively when the first SpaceX batch of 60 Starlink satellites was lofted.

“Jolted by the sudden brightness of those spacecraft, and alarmed by the prospect of their legions of successors, observatories scrambled to respond,” Koplow observes.

They did so by studying and documenting the true dimensions of the problem, beginning to invent or conceptualize mitigation measures, and entering into discussions with SpaceX and other companies.

“Some astronomers see this as a true ‘hair on fire’ emergency, heralding irretrievable losses to space science; others present a more sanguine face, depicting this as yet another challenge to be surmounted in surveying a decreasingly pristine sky,” Koplow remarks.

Incipient clash

That said, the astronomical community has related that the time and the financial costs of conducting effective astronomy will rise considerably, Koplow says, “and that some important data will simply be irretrievable, with concomitant losses for science and the future exploration and use of space.”

In his “Blinded by the Light” treatise, Koplow describes the incipient clash between satellite megaconstellations and astronomy, assesses the relevant international and domestic legal authorities, and proposes compromise solutions to mitigate the damage.

“Overall, the thesis is that a better balance must be struck between these competing types of space activities,” Koplow adds, “without ceding to either a comprehensive right to proceed in disregard of the key functions of the other.”

Voluntary measures

Koplow acknowledges that some satellite companies have voluntarily invested considerable corporate talent and money in efforts to mitigate their interference with astronomy. 

“But these voluntary measures are not adequate to solve the problem, they are not durable and reliable, and they have not been adopted by all the companies,” Koplow suggests.

“A stronger response is necessary,” Koplow concludes.

To gain access to “Blinded by the Light: Resolving the Conflict Between Satellite Megaconstellations and Astronomy” go to: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4346299

To review the paper “Three Things I Hate About Large Constellations of Small Satellites” go to: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4503593

 

 

In a post-flight analysis of the Artemis 1 uncrewed mission, NASA has identified more than 100 locations where ablative thermal protective material from the Artemis 1 Orion heat shield chipped away unexpectedly during reentry into Earth’s atmosphere.

In classic “wait a minute” style, a NASA Office of Inspector General (OIG) report has been issued – “NASA’s Readiness for the Artemis II Crewed Mission to Lunar Orbit” – calling attention to this issue and others before sending off a human crew to circle the Moon.

Root cause

To ensure the safety of the crewed Artemis II mission, the newly-issued OIG report recommends the Associate Administrator for Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate:

1. “Ensure the root cause of Orion heat shield char liberation is well understood prior to launch of the Artemis II mission.
2. Conduct analysis of Orion separation bolts using updated models that account for char loss, design modifications, and operational changes to Orion prior to launch of the Artemis II mission.”

The report by the NASA OIG also notes that “human space flight by its very nature is inherently risky, and the Artemis campaign is no exception. We urge NASA leadership to continue balancing the achievement of its mission objectives and schedule with prioritizing the safety of its astronauts and to take the time needed to avoid any undue risk.”

Taking the heat

In earlier reporting, here’s my take on the situation, as posted on Space.com:

“NASA still investigating Orion heat shield issues from Artemis 1 moon mission” at:

https://www.space.com/nasa-investigate-orion-heat-shield-artemis-1-mission

For more information on the new IG report, take a look at Brett Tingley’s new story at Space.com – “NASA inspector general finds Orion heat shield issues ‘pose significant risks’ to Artemis 2 crew safety” at:

https://www.space.com/nasa-artemis-1-orion-heat-shield-office-inspector-general

Also read this story by Eric Berger, senior space editor at Ars Technica titled “NASA says Artemis II report by its inspector general is unhelpful and redundant” at:

https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/05/nasa-seems-unhappy-to-be-questioned-about-its-artemis-ii-readiness/

For a full read of this just-issued NASA OIG report, go to:

https://oig.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/ig-24-011.pdf