Zitat Jonathan McDowell@planet4589 Ariane 6 upper stage was passivated after the second burn, and remains in orbit with the two reentry capsules still attached. I am counting this as 'secondary payload unusable orbit' per https://planet4589.org/space/gcat/web/intro/success.html and scoring the success value as 0.85. 12:47 AM · Jul 10, 2024
Zitat Spaceflight Now@SpaceflightNow NASA astronauts Butch Wilmore and @Astro_Suni will be speaking with the press from the ISS regarding their Crew Flight Test mission, which launched from @NASAKennedy on June 5. The briefing will begin shortly. Watch live here: https://youtube.com/watch?v=737zWM5COQ0 Follow this thread for updates. 🧵1/n 5:04 PM · Jul 10, 2024
2/ Butch and Suni begin by discussing their time on station. Butch says given what they know now, they feel confident that Starliner could get them home safely, “unless the data shows otherwise.” Suni adds that they could figure out a good way to come home in an emergency as well. She says they will like continue doing testing connected to the helium leaks as they prepare to undock.
3/ Suni says they want to know, based on the thruster testing at White Sands, that there’s a good combination to be able to perform a safe deorbit burn. She and Butch add that the OMAC thrusters have not presented any issues.
(OMAC = Orbital maneuvering and attitude control)
4/ Stich says they hope to bring the helium leak up to the Starliner mission management team for resolution later this week. He says teams have been working to understand the issue at @NASA_Marshall in Huntsville, AL. He said they are also looking at Service Module 2, which was used for the first set of attempts for Orbital Flight Test 2.
5/ Nappi says the chief engineers on both the NASA and Boeing side are engaged and engineering teams are meeting daily to work on these issues (thrusters and helium leaks). He says they are doing some inspection work on the service module that will be used on the Starliner-1 mission, examining the doghouses and the helium system.
6/ NASA's Steve Siceloff confirms that there will be another press briefing with the crew on orbit before they undock. Details on that are in work.
7/ Stich says they are still targeting launch of the Crew-9 mission in mid-August and want to have a crew handover with Crew-8 before they depart. They think that an undocking by the end of July is possible, but they will "just follow the data each step at a time."
8/ Stich says the batteries are the current limiting item. They were approved for a 45-day limit and that is being assessed. The CFT mission is on day 35 today.
9/ Nappi clarifies that the work being done at White Sands is not acceptance testing, rather it's trying to replicate what the "worst case thruster saw in flight." Stich says they trying to replicate the pulses that the on-orbit thrusters saw.
10/ Stich says there's an injector temperature measurement, which is what they are trying to replicate. It was measured during the docking day from the five thrusters that presented some issue.
11/ Nappi said the service module that will fly on Starliner-1 is put together and the doghouses are installed on the SM. He said they are doing a series of leak checks to see if it may be susceptible to a leak, like the ones seen on the SM being used for the CFT mission. He says based on the testing and determination of root cause, they may need to take the doghouses off and replace some seals that may be undersized.
12/ Stich says the data from the flight shows that with the exception of the one thruster that didn't recover during the CFT docking, those thrusters are operating "just fine." "The prime option today is to return Butch and Suni on Starliner." Nappi says the plan is to bring the crew home on Starliner and "we see no reason why that should be changed."
13/ Stich says all 12 OMAC thrusters are working just fine, saying that they will provide the delta V for the deorbit maneuver. They are more critically important than the reaction control system (RCS) thrusters, which are being studied at White Sands.
14/ Nappi says, if the crew needed to return now in an emergency scenario, they would "just perform a nominal undocking," adding that "we don't believe that we have damaged thrusters." He says "we do have a lot of confidence in the thrusters as they are today."
15/ Stich says even if they lose many of the same thrusters as they did during rendezvous and docking, the simulation data shows that they could still hit their target landing site.
16/ Stich says they have "dusted off" some of the potential contingency concepts to use Crew Dragon as a backup, as they did when looking at how to bring NASA astronaut Frank Rubio home. However, the prime plan is still to return Butch and Suni on Starliner, which was declared safe to be used as an emergency return vehicle.
17/ Stich says they could entertain the option of undocking the Crew Dragon being used for the SpaceX Crew-8 mission to make room for the Crew-9 astronauts, if more time is needed with Starliner docked at the ISS. He says they started looking at that, but haven't done an extensive assessment on that. He says NASA's preference is still for a direct handover on the ISS between Crew-8 and Crew-9.
18/18 Stich says there have been no discussions with SpaceX regarding sending another Crew Dragon to bring the Starliner CFT astronauts back to Earth. That will conclude today's briefing.
Zitat Christian Davenport@wapodavenport NASA's Steve Stich says NASA has "two different systems that we could use to return crew." Teams will look at Starliner test data and "then make a decision as to whether we need to do anything different. But the prime option today is to return Butch and Suni on Starliner." 7:05 PM · Jul 10, 2024
Zitat Starliner's flight software disabled the five control jets when they started overheating and losing thrust. Four of the thrusters were later recovered, although some couldn't reach their full power levels as Starliner came in for docking.
Wilmore, who took over manual control for part of Starliner's approach to the space station, said he could sense the spacecraft's handling qualities diminish as thrusters temporarily failed. "You could tell it was degraded, but still, it was impressive," he said. Starliner ultimately docked to the station in autopilot mode.
In mid-June, the Starliner astronauts hot-fired the thrusters again, and their thrust levels were closer to normal. ... These small thrusters aren't necessary for the deorbit burn itself, which will use a different set of engines to slow Starliner's velocity enough for it to drop out of orbit and head for landing. But Starliner needs enough of the control jets working to maneuver into the proper orientation for the deorbit firing.
After the thruster trouble last month, NASA and Boeing officials decided to test a Starliner thruster at a test facility at White Sands, New Mexico, and run it through the same sequence of firings that one of the overheating thrusters saw as the spacecraft flew to the space station. Ideally, engineers would like the thruster to reach the same high operating temperature that led to its degraded performance in orbit. Then, once the test sequence is complete, engineers will physically examine the thruster to see if the overheating caused any damage.
“What we have found in this flight is we have fired the thrusters more than expected, and I would say more frequently," said Stich. "When I say frequently, I’m talking about how close you fire an individual thruster pulse to the next pulse of that thruster.
"What we’re trying to do at White Sands is really replicating exactly what those pulses were that those thrusters saw, and then understand the heating effects from those pulses, and then make sure there’s no unintended consequences of those pulses," Stich said.
Their thinking is that if the thruster overheats on the ground and engineers are able to prove it wasn't damaged from the extra thermal stress, officials will gain more confidence in the thruster system's ability to control the spacecraft after it leaves the space station. Also, it's important to better understand the performance of the thrusters for future Starliner flights to know whether it's necessary to change settings in control software, or how often the thrusters are fired to keep them from overheating.
The test sequence began July 3 with a series of firings mimicking what one of Starliner's thrusters experienced in orbit. But test engineers couldn't get the thruster on the ground as hot as the Starliner thrusters got in space, so officials have paused the tests this week to see if there's a way to better simulate the actual thermal conditions on the spacecraft. They hope to resume testing later this week and wrap it up over the weekend.
Starliner's control thrusters are located in four propulsion pods, known as doghouses, around the circumference of the service module. It turns out these doghouses act like a thermos, and their design exacerbates the overheating problem with the thrusters.
"We had a great deal of thermal kickback from the doghouse itself, so not all the heat is coming directly from the thruster or through the injector of the thruster," Nappi said. "We’re getting quite a bit of heat soak from the doghouse, so that’s good information to have as we move forward and determine what the future mission profiles are going to look like."
Zitat von Ulrich Elkmann im Beitrag #200The upper stage encountered a problem with its auxiliary power unit preventing third burn.
Starliner gestranded. Zweitstufe der Ariane 6 havariert. Und jetzt:
Zitat SpaceX Falcon 9 second stage fails leaving Starlink satellites in wrong orbit
SpaceX suffered its first in-flight failure of a Falcon 9 rocket since 2015, leaving 20 Starlink satellites in a perilously low orbit. SpaceX founder Elon Musk said it was unclear if the spacecraft could be saved using onboard ion thrusters.
SpaceX’s 70th orbital launch of the year, designated Starlink 9-3, initially appeared to go well after lifting off from Vandenberg Space Force Base Thursday night at 7:35 p.m. PDT (10:35 p.m. EDT, 0235 UTC). But during the burn of the Falcon 9’s second stage an unusual amount of ice was seen building up around the Merlin Vacuum engine in camera views from the rocket.
About an hour after satellite deployment, Musk posted on his social media platform X: “Upper stage restart to raise perigee resulted in an engine RUD [Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly] for reasons currently unknown. Team is reviewing data tonight to understand root cause.”
The one-second burn of the second stage to circularise the orbit was planned to occur 52 minutes and 20 seconds after liftoff.
As to the fate of the rocket’s payload, Musk added: “Starlink satellites were deployed, but the perigee may be too low for them to raise orbit. Will know more in a few hours.” ... The last failure of a Falcon 9 rocket in-flight occurred on June 28, 2015, when a Dragon cargo resupply mission ended 139 seconds into flight. Another Falcon 9 exploded on the launch pad at Cape Canaveral during fueling operations for a pre-flight static test fire on Sept. 1, 2016, destroying an Israeli communications satellite and causing extensive damage to Space Launch Complex 40.
Zitat Scott Manley@DJSnM I don’t expect SpaceX to pause their Starlink launch cadence in response to this failure, but I expect that some other customers may want some report before continuing. I will point out that once again the failure is in a new piece of hardware rather than flight proven boosters. 8:13 AM · Jul 12, 2024
Zitat SpaceX’s unmatched streak of perfection with the Falcon 9 rocket is over
An investigation into the engine failure could delay SpaceX's upcoming crew launches.
Frosty evidence After departing Vandenberg to begin SpaceX's Starlink 9-3 mission, the rocket's reusable first stage booster propelled the Starlink satellites into the upper atmosphere, then returned to Earth for an on-target landing on a recovery ship parked in the Pacific Ocean. A single Merlin Vacuum engine on the rocket's second stage fired for about six minutes to reach a preliminary orbit.
A few minutes after liftoff of SpaceX's Starlink 9-3 mission, veteran observers of SpaceX launches noticed an unusual build-up of ice around the top of the Merlin Vacuum engine, which consumes a propellant mixture of super-chilled kerosene and cryogenic liquid oxygen. The liquid oxygen is stored at a temperature of several hundred degrees below zero.
Numerous chunks of ice fell away from the rocket as the upper stage engine powered into orbit, but the Merlin Vacuum, or M-Vac, engine appeared to complete its first burn as planned. A leak in the oxidizer system or a problem with insulation could lead to ice accumulation, although the exact cause, and its possible link to the engine malfunction later in flight, will be the focus of SpaceX's investigation into the failure.
A second burn with the upper stage engine was supposed to raise the perigee, or low point, of the rocket's orbit well above the atmosphere before releasing 20 Starlink satellites to continue climbing to their operational altitude with their own propulsion. ... SpaceX could absorb the loss of 20 Starlink satellites relatively easily. The company's satellite assembly line can produce 20 Starlink spacecraft in a few days. But the Falcon 9 rocket's dependability and high flight rate have made it a workhorse for NASA, the US military, and the wider space industry. An investigation will probably delay several upcoming SpaceX flights.
Two crew missions are supposed to launch on SpaceX's human-rated Falcon 9 rocket in the next six weeks, but those launch dates are now in doubt.
The all-private Polaris Dawn mission, commanded by billionaire Jared Isaacman, is scheduled to launch on a Falcon 9 rocket July 31 from NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Isaacman and three commercial astronaut crewmates will spend five days in orbit on a mission that will include the first commercial spacewalk outside their Crew Dragon capsule, using new pressure suits designed and built by SpaceX.
NASA's next crew mission with SpaceX is slated to launch from Florida aboard a Falcon 9 rocket around August 19. This team of four astronauts will replace a crew of four who have been on the International Space Station since March.
Some customers, especially NASA's commercial crew program, will likely want to see the results of an in-depth inquiry, and require SpaceX string together a series of successful Falcon 9 flights with Starlink satellites before clearing their own missions for launch. SpaceX has already launched 70 flights with its Falcon family of rockets since January 1, an average cadence of one launch every 2.7 days, more than the combined number of orbital launches by all other nations this year.
Zitat Adrian Beil@BCCarCounters UPDATE: The @FAANews is requiring an investigation into Starlink Group 9-3. The FAA needs to determine public safety before Falcon 9 can return to flight. See the statement to @NASASpaceflight down below: 4:28 PM · Jul 12, 2024
"The FAA is aware that an anomaly occurred during the SpaceX Starlink 9-3 mission that launched from Vandenberg Space Force Base in California on July 11. The incident involved the failure of the upper stag rocket while it was in space. No public injuries or public porperty damage have been reported. The FAA is requiring an investigation.
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.
The FAA will be involved in every step of the investigation process and 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. 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."
Zitat Scott Manley@DJSnM OK that's a surprised. The FAA wants a report on the mishap before return to flight of Falcon 9, that's going to leave a massive hole in the US launch schedule.
This was a FAA licensed launch, so the FAA will always require an investigation that they have to sign off on. That's part of the agreement, but it's not clear if there's some process where the excellent statistics can be deployed as an argument for public safety. i.e. Right now, we know it was a second stage failure, and 1 failure in over 300 launches puts things in a safe corner of the risk assessment. 4:59 PM · Jul 12, 2024 https://x.com/DJSnM/status/1811777308824657961
Bisheriger Flugplan der kommenden Starts:
14. Juli 2024 F9 Starlink 10-4 Cape Canaveral 16. Juli 2024 F9 ASBM-1 & 2 (Norwegisches Verteidigungsministerium), Vandenberg 17. Juli 2024 F9 Starlink 10-5 Cape Canaveral 18. Juli 2024 F9 Starlink 10-9 Cape Canaveral 18. Juli 2024 F9 Transporter 11 Vandenberg
nächste bemannte Starts: 31. Juli 05:30 F9 Polaris Dawn Mitte August F9 Crew-9 PS. WENN ich schon mal so unterwegs bin, dann gleich richtig:
Zitat Marcia Smith@SpcPlcyOnline In a blog post, NASA reveals that transitors on the $5B Europa Clipper mission, skld for launch in Oct, may not be able to withstand Europa's radiation enviornment. They control the flow of electricity on the spacecraft. Testing underway. 2:57 PM · Jul 12, 2024
Zitat von July 11, 2024NASA Continues Assessing Electrical Switches on Europa Clipper
The issue with the transistors came to light in May when the mission team was advised that similar parts were failing at lower radiation doses than expected. In June 2024, an industry alert was sent out to notify users of this issue. The manufacturer is working with the mission team to support ongoing radiation test and analysis efforts in order to better understand the risk of using these parts on the Europa Clipper spacecraft.
Testing data obtained so far indicates some transistors are likely to fail in the high-radiation environment near Jupiter and its moon Europa because the parts are not as radiation resistant as expected. The team is working to determine how many transistors may be susceptible and how they will perform in-flight. NASA is evaluating options for maximizing the transistors’ longevity in the Jupiter system. A preliminary analysis is expected to be complete in late July.
Radiation-hardened electronics are used throughout industry to protect spacecraft from radiation damage that can occur in space. The Jupiter system is particularly harmful to spacecraft as its enormous magnetic field — 20,000 times stronger than Earth’s magnetic field — traps charged particles and accelerates them to very high energies, creating intense radiation that bombards Europa and other inner moons. It appears that the issue that may be impacting the transistors on Europa Clipper is a phenomenon that the industry wasn’t aware of and represents a newly identified gap in the industry standard radiation qualification of transistor wafer lots.
Europa Clipper’s launch period opens Oct. 10, and it is set to arrive at Jupiter in 2030, where it will conduct science investigations to understand the potential habitability of Europa as it flies by the moon multiple times.
Zitat Chris Bergin - NSF@NASASpaceflight NASA Statement on the Falcon 9 Second Stage issue:
"Although the SpaceX Starlink launch was a fully commercial mission, NASA receives insight from SpaceX on all items of interest about the Falcon 9 rocket, as part of the agency’s standard fleet following activities. Crew safety and mission assurance are top priorities for NASA. SpaceX has been forthcoming with information and is including NASA in the company’s ongoing anomaly investigation to understand the issue and path forward. NASA will provide updates on agency missions including potential schedule impacts, if any, as more information becomes available." 12:38 AM · Jul 13, 2024
Zitat von Ulrich Elkmann im Beitrag #195 Zur Erinnerung: als Raumfahrt-Premieren stehen an: Im Lauf des Juli: Erststart der RFA One der Rocket Factory Augsburg vom Raumhafen Saxaford auf den Shetland-Inseln
Zitat Rocket Factory Augsburg@rfa_space
On Monday evening, RFA conducted a hot fire of its first stage at their launch site at SaxaVord Spaceport.
This resulted in an anomaly that led to the loss of the stage. No one was injured in the process. The launch pad has been saved and is secured, the situation is under control, and any immediate danger has been mitigated. We are now working closely with SaxaVord Spaceport and the authorities to gather data and info to eventually resolve what happened.
We will take our time to analyze and assess the situation.
We develop iteratively with an emphasis on real testing. This is part of our philosophy and we were aware of the higher risks attached to this approach. Our goal is to return to regular operations as soon as possible.
Zitat A rocket engine has exploded during a launch test at the UK's new spaceport in Shetland. The test was being carried out by German company Rocket Factory Augsburg (RFA) who hope to eventually launch the UK's first vertical rocket into orbit. The scheduled nine-engine test was part of a number of trials due to be carried out before progressing to launch. RFA said no-one was injured in the explosion and the launch pad had been "saved and is secured". Large flames and plumes of smoke could initially be seen shooting horizontally from the bottom of the rocket. The entire structure was then engulfed by fire. It comes three months after the first rocket test at the site on Unst was carried out and declared a success. On that occasion, RFA fired their engines for eight seconds before shutting down. A statement from SaxaVord Spaceport said all safety protocols were fully observed and the site was evacuated prior to the test, leaving no staff at risk.
PS. Der Kleine Zyniker merkt an, daß "deutsche Raketen & England" einen etwas seltsamen Beiklang haben & erinnert daran, daß es am 8. September genau 80 Jahre her sein wird, als der Grund dafür gelegt wird.
"Les hommes seront toujours fous; et ceux qui croient les guérir sont les plus fous de la bande." - Voltaire
Zitat von Ulrich Elkmann im Beitrag #208...als der Grund dafür gelegt wird.
Bei der Gelegenheit fällt mir natürlich prompt dieser Song von Tom Lehrer aus dem Jahr 1965 ein:
Zitat Gather 'round while I sing you of Wernher von Braun, A man whose allegiance Is ruled by expedience. Call him a Nazi, he won't even frown, "Ha, Nazi, Schmazi, " says Wernher von Braun.
Don't say that he's hypocritical, Say rather that he's apolitical. "Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department, " says Wernher von Braun.
Some have harsh words for this man of renown, But some think our attitude Should be one of gratitude, Like the widows and cripples in old London town, Who owe their large pensions to Wernher von Braun.
You too may be a big hero, Once you've learned to count backwards to zero. "In German oder English I know how to count down, Und I'm learning Chinese!" says Wernher von Braun.
Heut sing' ich euch was über Wernher von Braun Ein Mann, dessen Loyalität Übers Praktische geht. Nennt ihn wer einen Nazi, wird er nicht mal bös schaun - "Nazi - Schmazi!" sagt Wernher von Braun.
Nennt ihn bitte nicht den Scheinheiligen Er will sich nur nicht politisch beteiligen. "Wenn die Raketen erst fliegen, ist's gleich, wo sie reinhaun - "Das ist nicht mehr mein Job," sagt Wernher von Braun.
Manche reden von ihm recht bös und gemein doch ich finde, wir sollten ihm dankbarer sein, Wie in London die Krüppel und verwitweten Fraun: * Die verdanken ihre Renten Doktor Wernher von Braun.
Auch dich wird man zum Helden erwählen: Du brauchst nur bis Null abwärts zu zählen. "Auf Deutsch und Englisch beherrsch' ich den Countdown - "Und ich lerne Chinesisch," sagt Wernher von Braun.
(* emendiert, um den englischen Reim loszuwerden) PS.
Kleines Stöbern im Archiv fördert zutage, daß die beiden ersten versuchten Abschüsse einer V2 am Mittwoch, den 6. September 1944, erfolgten. Ziel war in diesem Fall Paris. Der Start erfolgte durch die Lehr- und Versuchsbatterie 444, in Stellung in St. Vith, 18 km südöstlich von Malmedy, um 9:00 und 9:40 morgens. Beide Starts endeten nach wenigen Sekunden mit einem Fehlschlag. Die ersten erfolgreichen Abschüsse erfolgten 2 Tage später; die beiden ersten durch die Batterie 444 (8:40), die in der Zwischenzeit nach Houffalize verlegt worden war, über deren Einschlag nichts bekannt ist, der zweite um 11 Uhr, der in Maisons-Alfort einschlug, mit 6 Todesopfern & 36 Verwundeten. Zwei weitere Abschüsse wurden durch die Batterie 2/485 durchgeführt, die in Wassenaar stationiert war, deren erster Meillerwagen auf der Kreuzung Lijsterlaan - Konijnenlaan - Koekoekslaan postiert war und die in Chiswick einschlug (3 Tote, 7 Schwerverletzte) und gleichzeitig vom 2. Meillerwagen auf der Kreuzung Lijsterlaan/Schouweg, die in Farndon Wood einschlug & nur leichten Sachschaden anrichtete.
"Les hommes seront toujours fous; et ceux qui croient les guérir sont les plus fous de la bande." - Voltaire
Zitat Chris Bergin - NSF@NASASpaceflight A longer video from the BBC shows the failure at ignition during the Static Fire test. The vehicle tried to depress at the point of the anomaly, but it was then just a progression to the RUD of the entire booster. 3:31 AM · Aug 20, 2024
RUD = "Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly" / Schnelle Unvorhergesehene Selbstzerlegung. Auf Deutsch: Rapide Ungeplante Demontage.
PS.
Zitat Rocket Factory Augsburg - Test von deutscher Raumfahrtrakete vor Premierenflug endet im Feuer-Fiasko
Schwerer Rückschlag für den deutschen Raketenbauneuling Rocket Factory Augsburg (RFA). Bei einem der letzten Schlüsseltests für den ursprünglich bis Jahresende geplanten Erstflug der Kleinrakete RFA One gab es einen Zwischenfall.
Nach der Zündung der Triebwerke der ersten Stufe ist es zu einer nicht näher beschriebenen Anomalie gekommen. Dies habe zum Verlust der Stufe geführt, heißt es in einer von RFA auf der Plattform X veröffentlichten Stellungnahme.
Der Test sei am Montagabend am Startplatz auf dem kleinen Weltraumbahnhof SaxaVord Spaceport im äußersten Norden der Shetland-Nordseeinseln erfolgt. Auf der Plattform X kursieren Bilder von einer Raketenstufe, die von einem Feuerball umhüllt ist. RFA hat bisher selbst keine Bilder veröffentlicht.
Der Raketenbauer RFA gehört zur Gruppe von drei deutschen Start-up-Firmen, die sogenannte Microlauncher, also Kleinraketen, für den Satellitentransport in den Weltraum entwickeln. Bereits im Mai hat das Unternehmen HyImpulse aus Baden-Württemberg erstmals eine Vorläuferversion seiner Rakete in Australien erfolgreich gestartet, aber bislang keine genauen Bahndaten veröffentlicht.
Erst kürzlich hatte der Chef des Raumfahrtkonzerns OHB, Marco Fuchs, den RFA-Raketenstart für die „kommenden Wochen“ in Aussicht gestellt. RFA ist eine Beteiligungsgesellschaft von OHB. Der Bremer Konzern hält die Kapitalmehrheit an dem 2018 gegründeten Raketenneuling. Der US-Finanzinvestor KKR, der auch an der Springer SE beteiligt ist (zu der auch WELT gehört), hat nicht nur in OHB, sondern auch 30 Millionen Euro in RFA investiert.
OHB-Chef Fuchs hatte ahnungsvoll bereits vor zu hohen Erwartungen an der Erststart der dreistufigen RFA-Rakete mit rund 30 Meter Höhe und insgesamt neun Triebwerken gewarnt. „Raketenwissenschaft ist Raketenwissenschaft“, sagte Fuchs. „Niemand weiß, wie weit die Rakete bei diesem ersten Startversuch wirklich fliegen wird, aber wir sehen diesen ersten Startversuch eher früher als später.“ Nun wird sich der Erstflug erst verschieben, bis die Ursache geklärt ist.
Zitat Videoaufnahmen zeigen eine große, stark rußende Stichflamme seitlich der neun Haupttriebwerke, die vermutlich auf ein Leck in einer Kerosinleitung oder einer Turbopumpe zurückzuführen ist. Erst im Anschluss ist die Verbrennung von Aluminium und flüssigem Sauerstoff mit glühendem Funkenflug zu beobachten. ... Allerdings war die Ankündigung eines Startversuchs innerhalb weniger Wochen nach einem nur 15-sekündigen Test mit nur fünf von neun Triebwerken kaum realistisch. So blieb kaum Zeit für die Datenauswertung und sorgfältige Installation der Hardware mit allen notwendigen Tests durch die Ingenieure. Diese hatten noch keine Erfahrung mit vollständigen Test- und Flugkampagnen irgendeiner Rakete des Unternehmens und insbesondere nicht mit der komplexen Technik einer dreistufigen Rakete mit insgesamt elf Haupttriebwerken.
Wobei das mit den "3 Stufen" cum grano salis zu nehmen ist. Die Rakete selbst besteht aus 2 Stufen mit isg. 30 m. Länge; die dritte Stufe ist ein OTV, ein Orbital Transfer Vehicle, das die Nutzlast nach Erreichen der niedrigen Erdumlaufbahn weiter befördert, mit einem Triebwerk mit einem Schub von 1 kN (die 1 Stufe entwickelt 900 kN, die zweite 500).
Diese Bauweise in zwei Hauptstufen ist mittlerweile allgemein üblich, von der Ariane über die F9, die Sojus bis zur japanischen H3. Ausnahme sind die Inder: die GSLV verfügt über 3 Stufen, die SSLV und die PSLV über je 4 (die ASLV war sogar mit 5 Hauptstufen ausgelegt). Das liegt schlicht daran, daß nach der Ziolkowskischen Raketengleichung für die ersten Stufen Brenndauer + Beschleunigung bei größer ausfallender Nutzlast exponentiell abnehmen, da der verbleibende Rest zusätzlich beschleunigt werden muß.
PS. Aus dem gleichen Bericht:
Zitat Ein vorsichtiges Vorgehen mit ausreichend Zeit für Tests und Kontrollen bei der Installation wäre also geboten gewesen. Aber die Tatsache, dass die Ankündigung eines Starts binnen weniger Wochen nicht vom Raketenbauer selbst stammte, sondern vom Hauptanteilseigner OHB, deutet auf einen großen Zeitdruck des Managements von außen hin. Zeitdruck geht unabhängig von iterativen Testansätzen immer mit einer hohen Gefahr von Flüchtigkeitsfehlern einher, die insbesondere bei der komplexen Triebwerkstechnik von RFA zu schweren Fehlfunktionen führen können.
Die Triebwerkstechnik wurde auch nicht von RFA selbst entwickelt, sondern 2020 vom ukrainischen Staatskonzern Yuzhnoye, also noch vor Kriegsbeginn, importiert. Sie nutzt einen Vorverbrenner, der kleine Mengen Kerosin mit Sauerstoff mischt und eine Hochleistungsturbine mit dem resultierenden heißen Sauerstoffgas betreibt. Das Abgas wird anschließend unter hohem Druck in die Brennkammer geleitet und mitverbrannt, statt durch einen Auspuff ausgeleitet zu werden.
Das heiße sauerstoffreiche Gas ist jedoch stark korrosiv und schwer zu beherrschen. Die sehr effiziente Technik kam deshalb bis vor wenigen Jahren außerhalb von Russland und der Ukraine kaum zum Einsatz, da anderswo der hohe Entwicklungsaufwand gescheut wurde.
Die Firmengründer der Rocketfactory Augsburg fielen bereits 2021 mit unrealistischen Angaben zu Technik, Zeitplanung und Kosten der Rakete auf. Erst in einer Gegendarstellung zur Berichterstattung von Golem.de gab das Unternehmen zu, dass die Triebwerkstechnik keine Eigenentwicklung sei. Am Zeitplan des damals für 2022 geplanten ersten Fluges hielt das Unternehmen trotz Entwicklungsbeginn im Jahr 2020 und fehlender Vorerfahrung im Bau vollständiger Raketen dennoch fest.
Später wurde klar, dass die Firmengründer lediglich pro forma von der Mutterfirma OHB eingesetzt wurden, was auch deren mangelnde Sachkenntnis im Interview erklärte. Golem.de prognostizierte 2021 auf Grundlage der Erfahrung mit Unternehmen wie SpaceX, Rocketlab und Astra – die ihre deutlich kleineren Raketen besonders schnell entwickelten – einen ersten erfolgreichen Flug zwischen 2025 und 2027.
Die Firmengründer planten damals für das Jahr 2025 hingegen schon 30 Raketenstarts für nur drei Millionen Euro pro Start ein und sprachen dabei von "Ultrahigh Performance" und "Ultralow Cost".
Zitat Rocket Factory Augsburg macht unglaubwürdige Versprechen - Die Rocketfactory Augsburg will das deutsche SpaceX sein. Aber für die Entwicklung ihrer neuen Rakete ist die Technik zu kompliziert, die Zeit zu knapp und der Preis zu niedrig. Eine Analyse von Frank Wunderlich-Pfeiffer veröffentlicht am 7. März 2021
Zitat Triebwerkstechnik der Rocket Factory kommt aus der Ukraine - In einer Stellungnahme klärt die Rocket Factory Augsburg die Herkunft ihrer Triebwerkstechnik auf. Die niedrigen Startkosten der Rakete bleiben weiterhin unglaubwürdig. Artikel von Frank Wunderlich-Pfeiffer veröffentlicht am 8. März 2021
Zitat Golem bat stattdessen RFA um eine Stellungnahme dazu, wie "die technischen Herausforderungen der Entwicklung des Raketentriebwerks und der Rakete selbst innerhalb der nächsten 22 Monate überwunden werden können und mit welchen Mitteln der ungewöhnlich niedrige Kostenpunkt erreicht wird." Die Stellungnahme befindet sich vollständig am Ende des Artikels.
Aus der Stellungnahme geht hervor, dass die Turbopumpe und andere ungenannte Teile der Triebwerkstechnik vom ukrainischen Konzern Yuzhmash geliefert werden. Das ermöglicht die schnelle Entwicklung eines Triebwerks mit geschlossenem Brennstoffzyklus. Die übliche Entwicklungszeit eines solchen Triebwerks beträgt rund 10 Jahre.
Aus den Aussagen im Podcast lässt sich schließen, dass es sich bei den importierten Teilen um Elemente des RD-809K-Triebwerks oder des RD-870 handelt, möglicherweise auch um das gesamte Triebwerk als Bausatz. Eine Variante des RD-809 wurde auch schon als mögliches Oberstufentriebwerk für die amerikanische Antares-Rakete gehandelt. Die Strukturen und Treibstofftanks der ersten Antares-Stufe werden ebenfalls von Yuzhmash gefertigt und geliefert. Entwickelt wurde das Triebwerk für die geplante ukrainische Mayak Rakete, die aber bislang noch keinen Investor gefunden hat.
Es folgt die Stellungnahme von RFA im Wortlaut.
"Les hommes seront toujours fous; et ceux qui croient les guérir sont les plus fous de la bande." - Voltaire
Zitat The engine is based on RD-8 steering engine assemblies. The staged-combustion RD-809K is a single-chamber, single-mode engine with a turbo-pump-feed system. The turbo pump assembly turbine uses oxygen-rich gas as a working fluid The RD-809K engine generates thrust and controls flight of the upper stages of the Mayak family rockets.
Propellants components: Oxidizer Fuel: Liquid oxygen Kerosene Ratio of fuel components: 2,62 Vacuum thrust, kgf: 10 Vacuum specific impulse, kgf·s/kg: 352 The pressure in the combustion chamber, kgf/сm2: 100 The pressure at the nozzle exit, кgf/сm2: 0.029 Engine mass, kg: 330 Number of restarts:2 Total running time in flight, s: 600 The swing plane: 2 Engine gimbal angle, ang.deg: 5
Zitat RD-870 could become Ukraine's first booster engine
More than quarter of a century after the end of the USSR, rocket engineers in the former Soviet republic of Ukraine are embarking on the development of a large rocket engine for the first stage of an indigenously built space vehicle. The RD-870 engine, intended to propel the first stage of the Tsyklon-4M (Cyclone-4M) rocket will be based on a Soviet-era second-stage engine but redesigned to lift the rocket off the launch pad, instead of firing in the stratosphere.
Burning non-toxic kerosene and cryogenic liquid oxygen, RD-870 is a closed-cycle engine, which means that the oxidizer gas created in the gas generator first performs its primary job of driving the engine's turbo-pump, which sucks propellant into the combustion chamber, and then it flows into the combustion chamber to burn with the rest of the propellant generating thrust. This complex system gives the engine some extra performance, compared to simpler designs where generator gas is dumped overboard after it has driven the pump.
The RD-870 engine will fire for 200 seconds beginning at liftoff and it can not be restarted in flight.
History of the project
In 2016, KB Yuzhnoe in the city of Dnepr, Ukraine, began work on the Tsyklon-4M (Cyclone-4M) rocket, which would launch from Canada. The new commercial vehicle would be closely based on the Zenit and Antares space rockets but relying on Ukrainian-built engines, instead of the Russian RD-171 on Zenit and RD-181 on the Antares.
With its roots deep in Soviet rocketry, KB Yuzhnoe accumulated extensive know-how in rocket propulsion. After the end of the Cold War, the company was able to retain its cadre of propulsion engineers, as well as production and testing facilities for rocket engines, thanks to its cooperation with China, Russia and South Korea. The ability to build rocket engines would be crucial if Ukraine wanted to build a self-reliant rocket industry after its very close ties to Russia were interrupted in 2014.
The Tsyklon-4M program would be the first significant step in the process of building a fully Ukrainian space launcher, resembling the Russian effort in the 1990s to develop the Soyuz-2 launch vehicle.
The combustion chamber used in the RD-263 engine is similar to that used on the RD-120, but it has a nozzle optimized to work at sea level. However, because these chambers use a fuel injector that would not work with the kerosene and oxygen combination, the new engine would receive a fuel injector borrowed from the RD-120. The resulting hybrid was designated RD-870.
Gimbal suspension system
Unlike its fixed position on the second stage of Zenit, two of four main engines on Tsyklon-4M would be attached to the first stage via a special gimbal mechanism. The gimbal will enable a pair of RD-870s to tilt up to six degrees from its vertical axis along the two planes perpendicular to each other in order to steer the rocket in flight. The gimbal will be located just above the injection system and connected to the combustion chamber via an adapter cone.
Other modifications to RD-120 to build RD-870
The combustion chambers for the RD-120 and RD-263 both feature a cooling system using fuel as a coolant, but the design of the cooling loop on the two engines is different, affecting the location of the fuel valve. On the RD-870, the fuel valve, borrowed from the RD-120, will be installed directly at the entrance into the cooling loop of the combustion chamber.
Several other modifications of the pneumatic and hydraulic systems of the original RD-120 were also introduced to increase the reliability of the new engine.
To reduce the time necessary for the engine to transition from ignition mode to full-thrust mode, a special hydraulic switch will be replaced with an electric valve. Its design will be based on a similar device developed at KB Yuzhnoe for the KRD-120 engine under a commercial agreement with China. Under the name YF-100, that Ukrainian engine successfully propelled a Chinese launch vehicle for the first time in 2015.
The RD-870 will also have modified hardware for filling the tanks of its pneumatic system. The pneumatic valves which are used to fill or drain pressurized gas, had previously shown some reliability problems, therefore they will be replaced with valves borrowed from the RD-8 (11D513) engine developed at the KB-4 division of KB Yuzhnoe for the second stage of the Zenit.
The RD-870 engine at a glance: Oxidizer: Liquid oxygen Fuel: Kerosene ("Naftil") Ignition fuel: PG-2 Thrust at sea level / thrust in vacuum: 79.4-79.8 tons / 88.46 tons Specific impulse at sea level / specific impulse in vacuum: 298 seconds / 332 seconds Combustion chamber pressure: 160 kilograms per square centimeter Dry mass: 1,280 kilograms Burn duration: No more than 200 seconds Engine dimensions: 2,746 by 1,436 millimeters Thrust variation range from nominal: + or - 1.5 percent Nominal propellant component ratio: 2.6 Variation range in propellant component mass ratio from nominal amount + or - 10 percent Nominal temperature of oxidizer: -182 degrees C Nominal temperature of fuel: -15 degrees C
Es sieht also ganz so aus, als ob die Startvorgabe (der von mir oben zitierte Termin für den Erststart im Juli) von OHB angekündigt worden ist (statt von RFA), die 53 Prozent Anteile an der Rocket Factory halten, weil die ihre naßforsch gesetzten Termine, mit denen sie Kapital eingeworben haben - eben von OHB - gerissen haben, was zu fahrlässiger Vorgehensweise angesichts der überkomplexen Technik geführt hat.
Vor 12 Minuten übrigens der Start der Starlink-Tranche 5-10 von Cape Canaveral; der 57. Starlink-Launch im laufenden Jahr; ausnahmsweise mit einer nagelneuen Startstufe (Seriennummer B 1085).
"Les hommes seront toujours fous; et ceux qui croient les guérir sont les plus fous de la bande." - Voltaire
Zitat von Ulrich Elkmann im Beitrag SpX-DM2 und darüber hinaus. Nebst der Beantwortung der Frage: "Wer ist Elon Musk"? PS. Hrmpf. Grmbl. Bei dem Schlag-auf-Schlag von SpaceX fiel mir der alte Satz des Obergenossen Nikita Chruschtschow ein, die Soffjetunion könne Interkontinentalraketen "wie Würstchen" produzieren. Irgendwie habe ich das Zitat immer mit seinem Auftritt in der UN-Vollversammlung und der Schuhklopf-Episode am 12. Oktober 1960 in Verbindung gebracht, weil in diversen Abrissen zur russischen Raumfahrt zu lesen ist, daß Sergej Koroljew & seinen Stab, die in Moskau die Rede live auf Langwelle mithörten, da das Entsetzen gepackt haben soll, weil die R7 erst vier Starts hinter sich hatte, die alle als Fehlschlag endeten. Kleine Suche nach "советские заводы могут производить ракеты, как сосиски" (ich hatte zunächst nach колбаски statt сосиски gesucht), zeigt, daß das Zitat auch im Russischen ohne Datum & Ort herumschwirrt: "seit dem Start von Sputnik 1," "auf dem Höhepunkt des Kalten Kriegs..." und ähnlichem). Es dürfte sich somit um eine kolportierte Wendung handeln, die so nie gefallen ist, aber als Stafette immer weitergereicht wird, à la "Equal goes it loose."
PPS. Die taz meint, der Satz sei 1958 nach einem Besuch im Kombinat Южмаш / Juschmasch gefallen, die neben Traktoren auch Mittelstreckenraketen produzierten; aber auch da geben die russischen Quellen nichts her.
Hmphf redux. Hier meint man, der Satz sei bei einem der beiden Auftritte von der UN in New York am 12. & 13. Oktober 1960 gefallen; in die Überschrift hat es der Satz jedenfalls geschafft: "Мы печем ракеты как сосиски".
Air Force Magazine/Space Digest, April 1962, Bd. 45, S. 37-38, Arnold L. Horelick, "Power and Politics in the Soviet Space Effort."
Zitat Khrushchev chose the occasion of the UN General Assembly debate on disarmament in October 1960 to announce that in the USSR "rocket after rocket is coming off our factory lines, like sausages from an automatic machine." (Pravda, October 12, 1960.) On four separate occasions, the Soviet Premier has asserted that the USSR's strategic missile capability is so large that, if employed, it could "wipe form the face of the earth all of our potential enemies." (Pravda, November 18 and December 2, 1959; and March 7, 1961.) The first time Khrushchev boasted of this awesome capacity for destruction, in November 1959, he offered in evidence ... the USSR's successful earth-to-moon shot. (Pravda, November 18, 1959.) (S.37)
PPS. Der Satz lautet also in originaler Formulierung "теперь мы делаем ракеты на конвейере, как сосиски".
"Les hommes seront toujours fous; et ceux qui croient les guérir sont les plus fous de la bande." - Voltaire
Der Laden trägt seit einigen Jahren im Ukrainischen den Namen Південний машинобудівний завод, abgekürzt Південмаш/Pivdenmasch, "Piwdennij Maschinenbau." Leonid Kutschma, ab 1992 erster Ministerpräsident der unabhängigen Ukraine, hat dort ab 1975 gearbeitet & war von 1986 bis 1992 Generaldirektor.
Das Zündverfahren für nicht-hypergolische Treibstoffe nennt sich übrigens "Pre-Chamber Jet Ignition" (PJI).
"Les hommes seront toujours fous; et ceux qui croient les guérir sont les plus fous de la bande." - Voltaire
Hier kann man den Ablauf gut verfolgen: zuerst brennt nur die Kerosinzuleitung zu den Triebwerken, weil da augenscheinlich ein Leck aufgetreten ist. Bei Sek. 14 wird der Haupttank in Brand gesetzt. Aus Gründen der Flugstabilität liegt der größere Tank unter dem kleineren; das Verhältnis von Treibstoff zu Oxydanten (flüssigem Sauerstoff) liegt bei dem Kerosinderivat RP-1 bei 1 zu 2,56.
Zitat von Ulrich Elkmann im Beitrag #211Sie nutzt einen Vorverbrenner, der kleine Mengen Kerosin mit Sauerstoff mischt und eine Hochleistungsturbine mit dem resultierenden heißen Sauerstoffgas betreibt. Das Abgas wird anschließend unter hohem Druck in die Brennkammer geleitet und mitverbrannt, statt durch einen Auspuff ausgeleitet zu werden.
Das heiße sauerstoffreiche Gas ist jedoch stark korrosiv und schwer zu beherrschen.
Bingo.
Der CEO (neudeutsch für "Chef-vons-Janze") von RFA, Stefan Tweraser, heute in einer Video-Stellungsnahme:
Zitat Rocket Factory Augsburg@rfa_space UPDATE on our S1 test anomaly! Our first stage is gone – but we have collected a significant amount of data and film footage. After reviewing it, we want to share some insights into the technical analysis, preliminary conclusions and our next steps
Zitat The plan for Monday was to hot-fire the stage with all nine engines for the first time. We would ignite the center engine and then pairs of two engines with a small delay. We have gone through the entire filling process; we have gone through the chilldown process; and we have pressed the vehicle - and the plan was to run this test for a total duration of 35 seconds until propellant depletion. That has worked fairly well: we actually ignited eight motors. Unfortunately, one of these motors has developed an anomaly. We know now from the debris analysis that we have conducted in the last days that this anomaly was a very unusual one. It was most likely a fire in the oxygen pump that's really difficult to contain. This damage has spread onto neighboring engines, and when the stage introduced the emergency stop procedure, it appears that everything that followed thereafter was simply not sized for this extensive damage from this oxygen fire in the turbo-pump. The fact that there was a fire jet coming out of the side of the vehicle is indicative that the engines that were compromised have damaged the propellant manifolding to such a great extent that we're actually pushing kerosine out of those vent lines. And that is really the point of no return. the engine propellant manifold system was damaged to such a great extent that kerosene kept fueling the fire. The fire got more and more intense. We know from the debris analysis that the fire actually turned into an oxygen fire at a later point in time because large portions of engines were simply combusted: they are no longer there. And that has unfortunately compromised the entire thrust frame structure of the stage, and unfortunately the entire stage collapsed from that result. The fire suppression systems, first the CO2 fire suppression system, then the water fire suppression system was simply not adequately sized to deal with this kind of damage. Unfortunately, this has happened in that very important stage test, and unfortunately this has taken out the entire stage. This comes at a really critical time: we wanted to launch within the next few weeks and months, and this is unfortunately no longer possible.
We have inspected the damage on the site. We have realized a few things. First: when the stage collapsed, it actually collapsed in the right direction. Meaning that it did not collapse on the umbilical tower , and it did not collapse in the direction where it would have caused major damage on the launch site infrastructure. The launch site infrastructure is fine. There is basically no damage on the launch site systems - except the direct suppporting systems of the of the stage that are integrated on the launch stool, that are basically sitting right around the engines. Those systems were compromised. We have to rebuild them. But there are no major elements of the launch site infrastructure that have to be rebuilt.
We have ignited the Helix motors more than a hundred times, and we have never seen an oxygen fire in one of the turbo-pumps. This is the very first time, and we are quite confident that this is not related to the design. We are quite confident that the design is very sound, and we don't have to make any changes there. We have a lot of improvements for both the launch stool and the vehicle. It's important to know that this was the very first first stage that we ever built. It was basically the engineering model. We have the second first stage in the workshop downstairs, and there are more than 100 improvement tickets on that second-build. The stage that we're building now originally meant for Flight 2. We will now build it and construct it for Flight 1 -and it will have many improvements. The improvements mostly are related to propellant manifolding, to pressurization system manifolding, and the improvements will help us to sustain a major engine damage in-flight and on the pad without basically losing the stage. The launch stool improvements will relate to the fire suppression systems mostly. We want to make sure that if we have such a severe engine failure where a turbo-pump basically explodes, we will not lose stages in the future. It's important to note that the second stage, the third stage and the fairing are all ready for flight in SaxaVord. They are there in our Integration Hangar. We are waiting for the integration activities. The most important task for us to become a real launcher company is obviously to inject payload into orbit. If you have not injected payload into orbit, you're not a real launcher company. We will attempt that as quickly as possible. We have to rebuild engines. We have to rebuild the stage - but we wil be back on the pad relatively quickly. Thank you very much for the support. Thank you for all the messages and thank you for all the wishes that we have received. Enjoy the footage: it is quite spectacular, and it has cost us quite some money to generate. We will be back on the pad shortly, and we will come back with a stage that is better than what we have had there previously.
Zitat Intuitive Machines@Int_Machines Odysseus continues to generate solar power on the Moon
Stichwort Intuitive Machines.
Zitat Intuitive Machines@Int_Machines NASA has awarded Intuitive Machines a Near Space Network Contract with a maximum potential value of $4.82 billion. As part of the contract, Intuitive Machines will deploy lunar relay satellites and provide communication & navigation services that play an essential role in NASA’s Artemis campaign to establish a long-term presence on the Moon. 10:38 PM · Sep 17, 2024
Zitat NASA Awards Intuitive Machines Near Space Network Contract with a Maximum Potential Value of $4.82 Billion
Intuitive Machines, Inc. (Nasdaq: LUNR, LUNRW) (“Intuitive Machines”) (“Company”), a leading space exploration, infrastructure, and services company, today announced NASA has awarded the Company a Near Space Network (“NSN”) contract for communication and navigation services for missions in the near space region, which extends from Earth’s surface to beyond the Moon.
This Subcategory 2.2 Geostationary Orbit to Cislunar Relay Services is a new Firm-Fixed-Price, Multiple Award, Indefinite-Delivery/Indefinite-Quantity (“IDIQ”) Task Order Contract. The contract has a base period of five years with an additional five-year option period, with a maximum potential value of $4.82 billion. The incrementally funded base ordering period begins Tuesday, October 1, 2024, through September 30, 2029, with the option period potentially extending the contract through September 30, 2034.
“This contract marks an inflection point in Intuitive Machines’ leadership in space communications and navigation,” said Intuitive Machines CEO Steve Altemus. “We’re pleased to partner with NASA, as one team, to support the Artemis campaign and endeavors to expand the lunar economy.”
The constellation will provide enhanced data and transmission services and autonomous operations, creating a robust infrastructure in line with Intuitive Machines’ three pillars to commercialize a celestial body.
Delivery: Scaling lunar lander capabilities to support cargo and infrastructure delivery.
Data Transmission Services: Establishing a network of satellites capable of delivering 4K resolution video data and navigation services, assisting in landing site selection and resource prospecting.
Autonomous Operations: Developing infrastructure, logistics, and mapping solutions on the Moon to facilitate exploration and operations.
As part of this contract, the Company will deploy lunar relay satellites and provide communication and navigation services that play an essential role in NASA’s Artemis campaign to establish a long-term presence on the Moon.
Zitat We finally have a glimpse of the first-ever samples collected from the far side of the moon.
The first paper on the samples collected from China's Chang'e 6 lunar probe reveals that the specimens differ in some ways from those collected from the moon's near side. Thus, they could provide fresh insights and lead to new theories about the moon and its evolution. ... The samples were initially taken to specially developed facilities for storage, analysis and eventual distribution for research. And now, a new study published in National Science Review has given us our first insight into the precious material.
Li Chunlai and fellow researchers studied the portion of the samples collected by robotic scoop. They found the collected samples have a lower density compared to previous lunar samples, which were retrieved from the lunar near side. More specifically, the far side samples indicate a looser and more porous structure than the near side samples. The "sample is quite loose and would be even fluffier in its 'natural' state on the lunar surface," the researchers wrote.
The soil also contains more light-coloured particles like feldspar and glass compared to the samples collected by the 2020 Chang'e 5 near side mission. This, and other insights into composition, suggests a higher presence of materials delivered to the sampling area from afar. This occurs, for example, when impact events (such as an asteroid hit) leads to ejecta spraying upward and outward from the impact area.(*) The composition of the basaltic rock at the site of the sampling is thought to be mixed with ejecta from non-basaltic regions.
The samples also hold a lower concentration of KREEP, a rock signature short for potassium (chemical symbol K) enriched rock, rare‐earth elements (REE) and phosphorus (chemical symbol P), which is more abundant on the near side. This asymmetry could partially explain why the far side is so different from the near side of the moon.
Zitat "Nature of the lunar farside samples returned by the Chang'E-6 mission", National Science Review, nwae328, https://doi.org/10.1093/nsr/nwae328 Published: 16 September 2024
Abstract The Chang'E-6 (CE-6) mission successfully achieved the first sample from the farside of the Moon. The sampling site of CE-6 is located in the South Pole-Aitken (SPA) basin, the largest, deepest and oldest impact basin on the Moon. The 1935.3 g of CE-6 lunar samples exhibit distinct characteristics compared to previous lunar samples. This study analyses the physical, mineralogical, petrographic, and geochemical properties of CE-6 lunar scooped samples. The CE-6 soil has a significantly lower bulk density (0.983 g/cm3) and true density (3.035 g/cm3) than the Chang'E-5 (CE-5) samples. The grain size of CE-6 soil exhibits a bimodal distribution indicating a mixture of different compositions. Mineralogically, the CE-6 soil consists of 32.6% plagioclase (anorthite and bytownite), 19.7% augite, 10% pigeonite, 3.6% orthopyroxene, with low olivine (0.5%) but high amorphous glass (29.4%). Geochemically, the bulk composition of CE-6 soil is rich in Al2O3 (14%) and CaO (12%) but low in FeO (17%), and trace elements of CE-6 soil such as K (∼630 ppm), U (0.26 ppm), Th (0.92 ppm), and REE are significantly lower than those of the lunar soils within the Procellarum KREEP Terrane (PKT). The local basalts are characterized by low-Ti (TiO2, 5.08%), low-Al (Al2O3 9.85%), and low-K (∼830 ppm) features, suggesting the CE-6 soil is a mixture of local basalts and non-basaltic ejacta. The returned CE-6 sample contains diverse lithic fragments, including local mare basalt, breccia, agglutinate, glasses, and leucocrate. These local mare basalt documents the volcanism history of lunar farside, while the non-basaltic fragments may offer critical insights into the lunar highland crust, SPA impact melts, and potentially the deep lunar mantle, making these sample highly significant for scientific research.
* Nur zur Erinnerung: die Rückseite des Mondes ist erheblich verkraterter als die uns zugewandte Seite. Die Lavabecken der Maria bedecken auf der sichtbaren Hemisphäre eine Fläche von 31 Prozent ("Facie quae in orbe lunae apparet," mit Plutarch gesprochen), auf der Rückseite nur 1 Prozent (mit dem Mare Moscoviense als größter Fläche). Die gängige Theorie sieht darin nicht eine geringere Einschlagsrate, sondern schwerere Impakte während der Frühzeit der Mondentstehung, die zu größeren Lavaflüssen aus dem noch geschmolzenen Mondinneren geführt haben. Die Frage des Basaltanteils greift eine der alten Kontroversen in der Geschichte der Himmelskunde auf. Bis in die 1950er war der überwiegende Teil der Forscher davon überzeugt, daß die Krater fast ganz oder ausschließlich das Resultat von Vulkanismus seien, während sich das ab Anfang der 1960er Jahre auf die Seite "100% Einschlagkrater" geneigt hat. Ausschlaggebend waren hier zwei Aspekte: zum einen der Nachweis von Einschlagkratern auf der Erde (mit dem Barringer-Krater in Arizona als erstem Beispiel) sowie der experimentelle Nachweis, daß Einschläge von Projektilen mit hoher Geschwindigkeit unter jedem Winkel stets kreisrunde Krater erzeugen. Nach den Chang'e-6-Proben wäre für die frühe Epoche der Mondentstehung damit ein erheblicher Vulkanismus belegt.
"Les hommes seront toujours fous; et ceux qui croient les guérir sont les plus fous de la bande." - Voltaire
Das private Startup 深蓝航天 (Shēnlán hángtiān, wörtlich übersetzt "tiefblaues Himmelsschiff"), im Westen meist unter der englischen Eigenbezeichnung Deep Blue Aerospace geläufig, hat gestern in der inneren Mongolei den ersten 10-km-Teststart mit einer Dauer von 150 Sekunden der Startstufe der Nebula M1 - einem Klon der Falcon 9 - durchgeführt (der erste 1-km-Flug fand im Mai 2022 statt, der erste erfolgreiche 100-m-Flug im Oktober 2021). Bei der Landung hat der Antrieb eine Sekunde vor dem Aufsetzen ausgesetzt, was zur Explosion des Boosters geführt hat. Darum geht es aber nicht. Sondern um die Drohnen-Aufnahmen vom Flug (& den anschließenden Feuerball) - hier bei Min. 1:55. Ich habe ja schon einiges gesehen, aber so etwas noch nicht. Nur zur Erinnerung: das ist kein computergeneriertes Rendering, keine KI, das ist Echtzeit.
Zitat Volcanoes were erupting on the Moon as recently as 120 million years ago, evidence collected by a Chinese spacecraft suggests.
Until the last few years, scientists had thought volcanic activity ended on the Moon around 2 billion years ago. The findings, published in Science, come from analysis of lunar rock and soil delivered to Earth by China’s Chang'e 5 spacecraft in 2020. While these results are difficult to reconcile with the accepted history of lunar volcanism, it’s possible some areas of the Moon’s interior were more enriched in radioactive elements that generate the heat that drives volcanic activity. The region where Chang'e 5 landed, called Oceanus Procellarum, may be one such area where rocks were enriched in these heat-producing elements.
Volcanism is a major way in which all rocky planetary bodies lose their heat. The rocky bodies in our Solar System are Earth, Venus, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter’s satellite Io, and Earth’s satellite, the Moon.
Most eruptions on the Moon took place near the edges of giant depressions formed early in the Moon’s history by asteroid impacts. Lava flooded the interiors of these basins to form the dark areas on the Moon’s near side. These areas are call maria (singular mare), the Latin for seas, because the flat sheets of lava were mistaken for expanses of water by early observers.
Analyses of the composition and age of samples returned from these mare areas by the six Apollo missions and three Soviet robotic probes were consistent with the belief there had been no geologically recent volcanic activity on the Moon. This understanding persisted until very high-resolution images of the lunar surface from the US Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter mission became available following the mission’s launch in 2009. Counts of the numbers of very small impact craters revealed a lack of craters in some volcanic areas with unusual surface textures, named irregular mare patches (IMPs).
The simplest explanation for this was that these IMPs were young, typically about 100 million years old. This is 20 times younger than the 2 billion-year youngest age that had been expected. In an attempt to reconcile these observations with the accepted history of lunar volcanism, it was pointed out that the lack of any atmosphere on the Moon would make eruptions there significantly different from those on Earth. The lack of confining pressure would have allowed erupting lavas to release almost all of the gaseous compounds dissolved in them, allowing some lava flows to contain very large numbers of gas bubbles – to the extent of being a foam.
Chang'e 5 brought back samples from a very large lava flow which was already known, from crater-counting, to be relatively young in geological terms. Initial analyses of many fragments of the lava were consistent with the long-accepted theory that lunar volcanism stopped 2 billion years ago. However, closer examination of the Chinese samples, as described in the new Science paper, focused on some of the smallest fragments – the majority from rock shattered and melted into droplets by meteoroid impacts.
The three “volcanic droplets” identified in the Chang'e 5 sample were probably not erupted from the same vent as the bulk of the rock and soil delivered to Earth. This would explain why these droplets are much younger than the lava flow at Chang'e 5’s landing site. These three glassy droplets are the first physical evidence we have for anomalously recent volcanic activity on the Moon. There would have to have been much higher concentrations of heat-producing radioactive elements in some areas than others for volcanic activity to have occurred as recently as the new results imply. So, these findings could prompt a major revision in our understanding of how the Moon developed.
"Returned samples indicate volcanism on the Moon 120 million years ago," Bi-Wen Wang et al., Science 5 Sep 2024, Vol 385, Issue 6713, pp. 1077-1080
Zitat Abstract There is extensive geologic evidence of ancient volcanic activity on the Moon, but it is unclear how long that volcanism persisted. Magma fountains produce volcanic glasses, which have previously been found in samples of the Moon’s surface. We investigated ~3000 glass beads in lunar soil samples collected by the Chang’e-5 mission and identified three as having a volcanic origin on the basis of their textures, chemical compositions, and sulfur isotopes. Uranium-lead dating of the three volcanic glass beads shows that they formed 123 ± 15 million years ago. We measured high abundances of rare earth elements and thorium in these volcanic glass beads, which could indicate that such recent volcanism was related to local enrichment of heat-generating elements in the mantle sources of the magma.
Zitat It’s increasingly unlikely that humans will fly around the Moon next year
It's not just Orion's heat shield; the mission's ground systems are running out of time.
Eric Berger – 17. Okt. 2024 21:24
We have had reason to doubt the official September 2025 launch date for the mission, the first crewed flight into deep space in more than five decades, for a while now. This is principally because NASA is continuing to mull the implications of damage to the Orion spacecraft's heat shield from the Artemis I mission nearly two years ago.
However, it turns out that there are now other problems with holding to this date as well.
No schedule margin
A new report from the US Government Accountability Office found that NASA's Exploration Ground Systems program—this is, essentially, the office at Kennedy Space Center in Florida responsible for building ground infrastructure to support the Space Launch System rocket and Orion—is in danger of missing its schedule for Artemis II. The new report, published Thursday, finds that the Exploration Ground Systems program had several months of schedule margin in its work toward a September 2025 launch date at the beginning of the year. But now, the program has allocated all of that margin to technical issues experienced during work on the rocket's mobile launcher and pad testing.
This kind of boggles the mind. Yes, the ground systems program has had to complete some important work since the Artemis I mission in late 2022, including building an emergency egress system for astronauts in the event of a problem during the launch countdown. But by September of next year, the agency will have had the better part of three years to work on those and other accommodations. At this point, there is no longer any margin in the schedule.
NASA also has yet to provide any additional information on the status of its review of the Orion spacecraft's heat shield. During the Artemis I mission that sent Orion beyond the Moon in late 2022, chunks of charred material cracked and chipped away from Orion's heat shield during reentry into Earth's atmosphere. Once the spacecraft landed, engineers found more than 100 locations where the stresses of reentry damaged the heat shield. As Ars reported in September, the space agency faces a critical decision on whether to fly the heat shield as is, or make modifications.
To prepare for the Artemis II launch next September, Artemis officials had previously said they planned to begin stacking operations of the rocket in September of this year. But so far, this activity remains on hold pending a decision on the heat shield issue. Asked when NASA now plans to start stacking operations, the space agency official said, "We are still tracking toward stacking beginning this fall."
The bottom line is that NASA is facing schedule challenges on multiple fronts for the Artemis II mission. Although a launch delay is unlikely to be announced soon, we can be fairly confident that it is eventually coming.
Wenn mein Optimismus, den ich zum Zeitpunkt des Erstflugs noch an den Tag gelegt habe, mittlerweile ziemlich gedämpft ist, dann liegt das an solchen Berichten. Angefangen hat das mit der Ankündigung der NASA im Januar, dem ersten bemannten Flug vom Herbst 2024 auf 2025 zu verlegen. Was im "Ars Technica"-Bericht nicht erwähnt ist, sind die Verzögerungen und Kostenexplosionen beim neuen Startturm, der 2019 mit einem Budget von 330 Mio. USD lanciert worden ist und mittlerweile mit 2,7 Milliarden Dollar zu Buche schlägt. Mittlerweile halte ich es sogar für nicht unwahrscheinlich, daß hier noch einiges hinzukommt und der Kongreß im Vorlauf des Staatshaushalt für das Fiskaljahr 25/26 oder 26/27 das gesamte Programm kippt - falls Harris/Walz am 5. November um 4 Uhr nachts noch genügend Briefwahlzettel in der Besenkammer finden. Trump als POTUS würde das nicht kippen, aber er hat keinerlei Budgethoheit.
"Les hommes seront toujours fous; et ceux qui croient les guérir sont les plus fous de la bande." - Voltaire
Zitat von Ulrich Elkmann im Beitrag #222das gesamte Programm kippt ... Trump als POTUS würde das nicht kippen, aber er hat keinerlei Budgethoheit
Zitat ALEX@ajtourville NEWS: Michael Bloomberg calls for cancellation of NASA's Artemis program and the SLS rocket – Says @SpaceX Starship can do same for a small fraction of the cost and, unlike SLS, it's reusable. Read more: https://bloomberg.com/opinion/articl 2:37 PM · Oct 18, 2024
Zitat Keith’s note: this editorial by Mike Bloomberg “NASA’s $100 Billion Moon Mission Is Going Nowhere“ certainly does not mince words. “A celestial irony is that none of this is necessary. A reusable SpaceX Starship will very likely be able to carry cargo and robots directly to the moon – no SLS, Orion, Gateway, Block 1B or ML-2 required – at a small fraction of the cost. Its successful landing of the Starship booster was a breakthrough that demonstrated how far beyond NASA it is moving.Meanwhile, NASA is canceling or postponing promising scientific programs – including the Veritas mission to Venus; the Viper lunar rover; and the NEO Surveyor telescope, intended to scan the solar system for hazardous asteroids – as Artemis consumes ever more of its budget. Taxpayers and Congress should be asking: What on Earth are we doing? And the next president should be held accountable for answers.”
Zitat There are government boondoggles, and then there’s NASA’s Artemis program.
More than a half century after Neil Armstrong’s giant leap for mankind, Artemis was intended to land astronauts back on the moon. It has so far spent nearly $100 billion without anyone getting off the ground, yet its complexity and outrageous waste are still spiraling upward. The next US president should rethink the program in its entirety.
As someone who greatly respects science and strongly supports space exploration, the more I have learned about Artemis, the more it has become apparent that it is a colossal waste of taxpayer money.
The problems start with the mission, which is more political than scientific. There is little humans can do on the moon that robots cannot. Technology has come a long way since 1969, to put it mildly. We do not need another person on the moon to collect rocks or take scientific measurements. And the costs of putting people on the moon — and of planning for their potential rescue, should complications arise — are truly astronomical.
To understand the level of wasteful spending, forget the $1 billion in spacesuits that have yet to be delivered. That’s pocket change compared to the rocket, called the Space Launch System. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s inspector general estimates the program has so far burned through $23.8 billion. Each launch will likely cost at least $4 billion, quadruple initial estimates. This exceeds private-sector costs many times over, yet it can launch only about once every two years and — unlike SpaceX’s rockets — can’t be reused.
Even if the Space Launch System is completed, there’s a hitch: It isn’t even powerful enough to actually get anyone to the moon, at least not in its current configuration. It will instead deposit its capsule, called Orion, into what’s called near-rectilinear halo orbit. Here, the capsule — which, despite $20 billion being poured into it, currently has a faulty heat shield — must rendezvous with a landing spacecraft, which will then take the astronauts to the lunar surface. And getting the landing spacecraft into orbit, before it can be propelled toward the moon to meet Orion, is itself a complex process.
Simple, Artemis is not. A lot could go wrong. And that’s before NASA adds its new space station into the mix. Known as the Gateway, it will cost more than $5 billion to build, require perhaps $1 billion in annual maintenance and has no clear rationale. The idea is that, in future missions, Orion might dock at the Gateway, two astronauts will exit and board the lander, and the remaining crew will sit in the station and observe their colleagues collecting rocks.
Unfortunately, that’s not all. To build Gateway, NASA is adding a second stage to the Space Launch System, called Block 1B, that is six years behind schedule, expected to cost $5.7 billion and will add about $1 billion to every launch. To accommodate Block 1B, the agency is erecting a new launch tower called ML-2, which is expected to cost $2.7 billion, more than seven times initial estimates, and doesn’t have a plausible completion date. (The company building ML-2 has billed the government for 850,000 overtime hours in the past two years.)
A celestial irony is that none of this is necessary. A reusable SpaceX Starship will very likely be able to carry cargo and robots directly to the moon — no SLS, Orion, Gateway, Block 1B or ML-2 required — at a small fraction of the cost. Its successful landing of the Starship booster was a breakthrough that demonstrated how far beyond NASA it is moving.
Meanwhile, NASA is canceling or postponing promising scientific programs — including the Veritas mission to Venus; the Viper lunar rover; and the NEO Surveyor telescope, intended to scan the solar system for hazardous asteroids — as Artemis consumes ever more of its budget.
Taxpayers and Congress should be asking: What on Earth are we doing? And the next president should be held accountable for answers.
Zitat Jared Isaacman@rookisaacman I did not know @MikeBloomberg was so close to the space industry and government contracting. These points are not new, and I agree with most of them, but it’s great to have someone like Mike, with a loud voice, educating people on topics they may not be as familiar with.
The government in general, not just NASA, has a problem getting the best product at the lowest price due to excessive consolidation among defense and aerospace players. Disclosure: I know I sound like a broken record on this topic, but my opinion is based on over a decade of experience as a founder and CEO of a defense aerospace company, witnessing firsthand how the big primes operate and seeing how it threatens the competitiveness of our nation.
The bottom line is, these companies have faced little competition for decades-- and without that competitive pressure, they have become so bloated that they can’t take on a fixed-price project without hemorrhaging cash. Meanwhile, cost-plus contracts are designed to drag on for years at great expense to taxpayers.
The government has been conditioned to think this is the only way, though I give NASA a lot of credit for having the foresight to create the Commercial Resupply and Commercial Crew programs. The points raised in the article and Artemis aside, NASA does seem to truly recognize the value of fixed-price contracts and getting the best service for the lowest price.
You know, this often turns into a SpaceX vs. everyone or Elon fans vs. everyone debate, but it is really not exclusive to the space industry. This issue is rampant across the entire defense sector. In many cases, it is not about how good SpaceX is, but how bad the legacy players have become. There is a lot to be hopeful about as the big defense primes are overtaken by companies like SpaceX, Rocket Lab, Anduril and I am sure Blue Origin will soon make the right contributions as well. I know I am leaving out a bunch of up-and-comers, and that’s not meant to be a slight on any of them.
The world needs more companies like these and fewer from the past if we want our children to witness NASA astronauts and other astronauts accomplishing great things on the Moon, Mars and beyond. That is where I disagree with Mike, and I am obviously biased here, but I do believe we need a human presence out there—exploring, learning and building that exciting future where humans live among the stars. It just should not bankrupt the nation or hinder our ability to solve other problems here on Earth.
Fortunately, good companies have the solution, with a recent world-changing proof point, to inspire hope that we can achieve great things in space while tackling the important challenges back here on Earth. 8:36 PM · Oct 18, 2024
Bitte beachten Sie diese Forumsregeln: Beiträge, die persönliche Angriffe gegen andere Poster, Unhöflichkeiten oder vulgäre Ausdrücke enthalten, sind nicht erlaubt; ebensowenig Beiträge mit rassistischem, fremdenfeindlichem oder obszönem Inhalt und Äußerungen gegen den demokratischen Rechtsstaat sowie Beiträge, die gegen gesetzliche Bestimmungen verstoßen. Hierzu gehört auch das Verbot von Vollzitaten, wie es durch die aktuelle Rechtsprechung festgelegt ist. Erlaubt ist lediglich das Zitieren weniger Sätze oder kurzer Absätze aus einem durch Copyright geschützten Dokument; und dies nur dann, wenn diese Zitate in einen argumentativen Kontext eingebunden sind. Bilder und Texte dürfen nur hochgeladen werden, wenn sie copyrightfrei sind oder das Copyright bei dem Mitglied liegt, das sie hochlädt. Bitte geben Sie das bei dem hochgeladenen Bild oder Text an. Links können zu einzelnen Artikeln, Abbildungen oder Beiträgen gesetzt werden, aber nicht zur Homepage von Foren, Zeitschriften usw. Bei einem Verstoß wird der betreffende Beitrag gelöscht oder redigiert. Bei einem massiven oder bei wiederholtem Verstoß endet die Mitgliedschaft. Eigene Beiträge dürfen nachträglich in Bezug auf Tippfehler oder stilistisch überarbeitet, aber nicht in ihrer Substanz verändert oder gelöscht werden. Nachträgliche Zusätze, die über derartige orthographische oder stilistische Korrekturen hinausgehen, müssen durch "Edit", "Nachtrag" o.ä. gekennzeichnet werden. Ferner gehört das Einverständnis mit der hier dargelegten Datenschutzerklärung zu den Forumsregeln.
Sie sind vermutlich noch nicht im Forum angemeldet - Klicken Sie hier um sich kostenlos anzumelden
Offline
