Disarming Space Will Have to Wait

Posted on by onespaceman2000
Source/Credit: Satellite imagery showing the military buildup in Yelnya, Russia as of November 1, 2021 from Maxar Technologies/Getty Images.

Politico reported this week that Russia has asked that next week’s discussion at the United Nations (U.N.) about arms in space be delayed. It is possible the Russians are busy preparing for war in Ukraine and have little time to look up. But it should be possible to resolve matters here on the surface and in space.

The  U.N. Committee on Disarmament established a working group after seeking member input on the “…development and implementation of norms, rules and principles of responsible behaviours and on the reduction of the risks of misunderstanding and miscalculations with respect to outer space.” Sounds like a good idea to me. You can find the report with the members’ input here.

Here is part of what the United States submitted in its response to the U.N. query:

Some States are developing, operationalizing, and stockpiling a variety of [anti-satellite] weapons that could be used to, or have the potential to, deny, disrupt, degrade, or destroy civil, commercial, or national security space capabilities and services. Some of these anti-satellite weapons could be used to deny or disrupt space services temporarily, while others are designed to permanently degrade or destroy satellites.

These threats against satellites and their supporting systems can generally be divided into four categories: 1) ground-space; 2) space-space; 3) ground-ground; and 4) space-ground. Within these categories, the threats can be described as 1) reversible, which include temporary effects such as interference with radiofrequency signals or dazzling of remote sensing systems, or 2) irreversible, which include measures that degrade or destroy a satellite. The consequences of all categories of threats could include loss of mission data; decreased lifespan or capability of space systems or constellations; the loss of positive control of space vehicles, potentially resulting in collisions that could impair systems or generate harmful orbital debris; or damage to or destruction of the space system.

The working group should have plenty to discuss if it can get everyone together. Let’s hope the Ukrainian matter can be resolved peacefully to allow work to start on a stable peace in space as well.

Note: The dates on the article and U.N. schedule do not align, but the main point about the Russians being too busy to worry about a space war remains the same.

Chinese Space Debris Clean-up or Something Else?

Posted on by onespaceman2000
Source/Credit: Chinese Shijian-21satellite from Asia Times.

Phys.org reported the success of a Chinese mission to retrieve a dead satellite, a hopeful sign given the increasing number of satellites and related debris in orbit. The story, “A Chinese space tug just grappled a dead satellite,” discusses how the Chinese spacecraft, Shijian-21, retrieved a dead navigation satellite belonging to the Chinese CompassG2 network. The story also included a video from ExoAnalytic Solutions demonstrating the retrieval and eventual release of the CompassG2 satellite into a graveyard orbit.

Of course, every pro comes with a con. Is this just a maintenance spacecraft or could it be part of a future offensive strategy to take other non-Chinese satellites out of orbit? The media in India were skeptical, as you can see from this headline: “China Preparing for War in Space?” Not that China is alone should it be looking for an anti-satellite spacecraft. Other countries, including the US, have similar dual-use spacecraft.

According to the Phys.org article, the Chinese have been silent, so the whole operation is somewhat opaque. Given the various attempts by other nations to solve the debris problem, it benefits each nation to share information on debris mitigation efforts so everyone can learn from them. Greater transparency from China would be nice.

Pic of the Week: Distant Dancing Galaxies

Posted on by onespaceman2000
Source/Credit: Galaxy cluster (described below) from NASA.

The image above is from the Hubble Space Telescope and shared on NASA’s site last month under the title “Hubble Spots a Starship-Shaped Galactic Pair.” While the author of the story below sees the USS Enterprise from Star Trek, I see a decloaking Klingon Bird-of-Prey. Here is the full description from NASA:

The subject of this image is a group of three galaxies, collectively known as NGC 7764A. They were imaged by the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, using both its Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) and Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3). The two galaxies in the upper right of the image appear to be interacting with one another — indeed, the long trails of stars and gas extending from them both give the impression that they have both just been struck at great speed, thrown into disarray by the bowling-ball-shaped galaxy to the lower left of the image. In reality, however, interactions between galaxies happen over very long time periods, and galaxies rarely collide head-on with one another. It is also unclear whether the galaxy to the lower left is actually interacting with the other two, although they are so relatively close in space that it seems possible that they are. By happy coincidence, the collective interaction between these galaxies have caused the two on the upper right to form a shape, which from our Solar System’s perspective, ressembles the starship known as the USS Enterprise from Star Trek!

NGC 7764A, which lies about 425 million light years from Earth in the constellation Phoenix, is a fascinating example of just how awkward astronomical nomenclature can be. The three galaxies are individually referred to as NGC 7764A1, NGC 7764A2 and NGC 7764A3, and just to be really difficult, an entirely separate galaxy, named NGC 7764, sits in the skies about a Moon’s distance (as seen from Earth) away. This rather haphazard naming makes more sense when we consider that many of the catalogues for keeping track of celestial bodies were compiled well over 100 years ago, long before modern technology made standardising scientific terminology much easier. As it is, many astronomical objects have several different names, or might have names that are so similar to other objects’ names that they cause confusion.

Source/Credit: Klingon Bird-of-Prey from wallpapercave.com.

Space Quote: We Have Come A Long Way

Posted on by onespaceman2000
Source/Credit: Milky Way Galaxy from NASA.

“No competent thinker [can] maintain any single nebula to be a star system of coordinate rank with the Milky Way.”

–Agnes Mary Clerke, Irish astronomer, founding member of the  British Astronomical Association, and honorary member of the Royal Astronomical Society, commenting in 1890 on the likelihood that other galaxies existed beyond the Milky Way. This comment was captured in an excellent article from the July 31, 2021 Science News, “A Century of New Worlds,” which discusses discoveries in astronomy over the last 100 years. The article also notes that it was the work of another female astronomer, Henrietta Leavitt, that helped to eventually prove the existence of other galaxies.

Extra: A crater on the Moon is named after astronomer Agnes Mary Clerke (shown below).

Source/Credit: Clerke crater from NASA’s Apollo 17.

Sidebar: The Artemis Mission

Posted on by onespaceman2000
Source/Credit: Orion spacecraft from NASA.

With all the previous posts about NASA’s Artemis mission, I should have outlined the three stages ahead as we return to the Moon:

Artemis I: This stage involves an uncrewed flight test around the Moon. The new Space Launch System carrying the empty Orion spacecraft will launch from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The mission will last from four to six weeks. The European Space Agency has supplied a key piece for this mission – a service module, which will supply the spacecraft’s main propulsion system and power (and also house air and water for astronauts on future missions).

Artemis II: This next stage will confirm all of the Orion spacecraft’s systems operate as designed with crew aboard in the actual environment of deep space as the spacecraft circles the Moon. The mission is expected to last just over 10 days

Artemis III: This third and final stage will land a crew on the surface of the Moon. NASA has awarded Human Landing System contracts to Blue Origin, Dynetics, and SpaceX. This final stage will be followed by annual crewed missions to the Moon.

The ultimate goal of Artemis is to establish a presence on the Moon as well as build an orbiting Gateway that can serve as a multi-purpose outpost providing essential support for long-term human return to the lunar surface. The Gateway will also serve as a staging points for deep space exploration, such as travel to Mars.

This is a broad and hopeful mission. The only thing that seems a bit odd is the website mission statement for Artemis:

With Artemis missions, NASA will land the first woman and first person of color on the Moon, using innovative technologies to explore more of the lunar surface than ever before. We will collaborate with commercial and international partners and establish the first long-term presence on the Moon. Then, we will use what we learn on and around the Moon to take the next giant leap: sending the first astronauts to Mars.

I think the first focus of this multi-billion dollar lunar mission should be space exploration, which should also include a diverse crew. Maybe it is better to stick to the more universal statement in the earlier Artemis Plan:

Under the Artemis program, humanity will explore regions of the Moon never visited before, uniting people around the unknown, the never seen, and the once impossible. We will return to the Moon robotically beginning next year, send astronauts to the surface within four years, and build a longterm presence on the Moon by the end of the decade…we will use the Moon as the stepping stone for our next greatest leap—human exploration of Mars.

You say potato and I say spuds.

Source/Credit: Artemis I mission map from NASA.

Note: NASA’s Artemis page was somewhat out of date when I posted this summary. For instance, in April 2021, SpaceX was chosen to provide the lunar lander.

Update: On March 31st, NASA announced it was looking for “…other U.S. companies to provide new lander development and demonstration missions from lunar orbit to the surface of the Moon.”