A Day in Astronomy: Lunar Orbiter 4

Posted on by onespaceman2000
Image (Credit): An artist’s image of NASA’s Lunar Orbiter at the Moon. (NASA)

On this day in 1967, NASA launched Lunar Orbiter 4 to continue a survey of the Moon (also conducted by three previous Lunar Orbiter missions) in preparation of the Apollo Moon missions. While NASA lost contact with the spacecraft on July 17th, the mission was a success. On October 6th, the spacecraft crashed onto the Moon’s surface. A total of five such missions were conducted, which mapped 99 percent of the Moon.

The rest is history with the successful Apollo missions, still the only program to land humans on the Moon. We shall see who follows in our footsteps, though we will be back on the Moon soon enough as part of the Artemis Program.

You can read more about the Lunar Orbiter missions at this NASA history link. The conclusion on the Lunar Orbiter missions states:

On September 2 Homer E. Newello Associate Administrator for Space Science and Applications, certified that the fifth mission was an unqualified success according to prelaunch objectives. Deputy Administrator Robert C. Seamans, Jr., concurred on September 6. Both NASA officials also assessed the whole program as successful; five missions had been flown out of five planned. Indeed the final Orbiter had capped an impressive effort by the Office of Space Science and Applications to bring man closer to stepping down upon the lunar soil and understanding where it was that he would be landing in the near future…

Five Orbiters had enabled the Manned Space Flight Network to train personnel in tracking and to check out equipment and computer programs for the manned lunar missions beginning with Apollo 8 in December 1968 and including Apollo 10 through 17, of which all but Apollo 10 and 13 landed on the Moon. (Apollo 10 tested the complete spacecraft in lunar orbit and Apollo 13 aborted its landing mission because an onboard oxygen tank exploded in cislunar space.) The Office of Manned Space Flight could not have obtained the needed tracking experience at a timely date if NASA had not flown the five Lunar Orbiter spacecraft.

Bernie Sanders Has Questions About Private Space Companies

Posted on by onespaceman2000
Image (Credit): Senator Bernie Sanders. (Rollcall)

In a recent The Guardian newspaper editorial, Bernie Sanders had some questions about the role of private companies, such as Blue Origin and SpaceX, in the future of space exploration or, as he sees it, space profiteering. In his editorial, “Jeff Bezos is worth $160bn – yet Congress might bail out his space company,” he noted the following:

At this moment, if you can believe it, Congress is considering legislation to provide a $10bn bailout to Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin space company for a contract to build a lunar lander. This legislation is taking place after Blue Origin lost a competitive bid to SpaceX, Musk’s company. Bezos is worth some $180bn.

He then cites the costs of Jeff Bezos’ yacht and homes while pointing out the plight of those living paycheck to paycheck. Of course, the same could be said about Elon Musk, rumored to be the wealthiest man in the world and now in the papers for buying another company unrelated to space (or the car industry).

First, this battle between Bernie and Bezos has been going on for some time, but the “bailout” in question was debunked by Verifythis.com last year, which stated:

Although NASA recently chose SpaceX over Blue Origin and one other company to receive funding for development of a human lunar lander, NASA stated in its decision that it wanted to fund two companies but lacked the budget to even fund one without negotiating the price down. The Senate bill is in response to that, allocating NASA enough funding to award a second contract. Blue Origin is the likely frontrunner for that contract, but it’s not guaranteed. Even if Blue Origin does win the contract, the allocated $10 billion to NASA isn’t just for this contract and therefore wouldn’t all go to Blue Origin.

Of course, the editorial is really a lead in to the real issue – who owes the minerals in space? Mr. Sanders highlights the worth of a single asteroid, stating “Just a single 3,000ft asteroid may contain platinum worth over $5tn.” It is a good point as we consider the next great race for minerals. Of course, maybe Uncle Sam can get some of it back via taxes, but it is not hard to believe space companies would incorporate in the Bahamas or somewhere similar to avoid such taxation.

Mr. Sanders is calling for a “rational space policy,” and wants Congress to be part of the process. Given the number of nations heading to the Moon and Mars, it is much bigger than the U.S. Congress. The United Nations will need to play a role here via the Outer Space Treaty, which NASA is attempting to update via the Artemis Accords. In addition, maybe Congress needs to update the rescind the 2015 U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act, which states in § 51303:

A United States citizen engaged in commercial recovery of an asteroid resource or a space resource under this chapter shall be entitled to any asteroid resource or space resource obtained, including to possess, own, transport, use, and sell the asteroid resource or space resource obtained in accordance with applicable law, including the international obligations of the United States.

By the way, NASA has already issued a press release regarding more lunar lander opportunities. You can find the press release here.

Movies: Apollo 10 1/2

Posted on by onespaceman2000
Image (Credit): Scene from Netflix’s film Apollo 10 1/2. (Netflix)

Last week’s film was about young adults in space, but now we are hitting elementary school for the right stuff. This Nextflix film, Apollo 10 1/2: A Space Age Childhood, is a good weekend movie for the whole family if you are looking for something light. The basic story is that NASA flubbed its Apollo program and created a lunar spaceship that is too small for adult astronauts. Hence, instead of sending a dog into space like the Russians, NASA goes to elementary school for what it needs. Here is a clip of the film narrated by Stan, the astroboy, and directed by Richard Linklater (from other films such as Boyhood and Before Sunrise).

Rogerebert.com, which notes that the films does a pretty good job providing context on American life in the late 60s, gives the movie three stars (out of a possible four), stating:

…Stan is a thoroughly likable storyteller, and there’s something to be said, in an era when Hollywood couldn’t care less about any idea not based on an pre-existing property, for intimate, personal films that don’t take you where you think you want to go.

It may be a silly plot, but given the state of the world at the moment it might also be a nice diversion. And don’t worry – it is my understanding that the Artemis lunar mission is being planned for full-sized adults.

The Future of the International Space Station

Posted on by onespaceman2000
Image(Credit): Northrop Grumman’s Cygnus space freighter approaching the International Space Station (NASA).

Over the weekend, the Washington Post published an editorial by Homer Hickam, former NASA engineer and advisor to the National Space Council, titled, “Our space partnership with Russia can’t go on.” In the piece, Mr. Hickam argues that the International Space Station (ISS) has accomplished its goals and the US can now move onto other projects without the Russians:

With our flourishing commercial space companies, who are already cutting metal on their own future space stations, plus our federal government’s Artemis moon program, the United States is entering a new golden age of space exploration. The Russians, meanwhile, are stuck in the past with antiquated spacecraft and nowhere to go except the ISS.

Mr. Hickam appears to believe pushing out the Russians may mean the end of the ISS. Of course, this is just one man’s view, and whatever we do we need to do it in conjunction with our other ISS partners.

We could continue to maintain the ISS through 2030, as planned, and schedule more useful science even without the Russians as partners. This may make sense until we have another viable station that we can use, such as NASA’s planned lunar Gateway. Russia will not be part of the Gateway given that it is working with China on other lunar plans, so we do not need to worry about another breakup.

It would be better if Russia had focused on its space accomplishments rather than territorial ambitions as it prepares for the future. Joint space programs are a great way to use rockets for peaceful missions. I am not against a space race that pushes us even farther into space, yet I would prefer it be fueled by scientific achievement rather than nationalist angst.

Image(Credit): Artist rendering of the Artemis lunar Gateway (NASA).

SpaceX Junkets?

Posted on by onespaceman2000
Source/Credit: Inspiration 4 crew from SpaceX.

I guess once was not enough. Billionaire Jared Isaacman wants to spend even more money sending private citizens into space aboard SpaceX spacecraft. He funded his first private flight last September, called Inspiration 4, and now wants to do three more of these flights. The first one raised funds for St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, whereas it is not clear whether these other voyages also relate to charitable causes.

Space tourism is all the rage these days, with Captain Kirk going up on Blue Origin’s capsule and Virgin Galactic sending Sir Richard Branson into space in preparation of paying customers in the near future. SpaceX always seemed to have more serious goals, but I suppose a buck is a buck.

The first of these three new flights is planned for later this year and will include a spacewalk and science experiments. The second will involve SpaceX’s Dragon, which is currently used for trips to the International Space Station (ISS). The third will involve SpaceX’s Starship created for lunar missions under NASA’s Artemis program.

Apparently, these new missions are expected to “…serve a bigger purpose of opening up space for everyone and making humankind a multiplanetary species, and ideally, have a benefit for the things we’re trying to accomplish back here on Earth.” Once might ask whether this bigger purpose, such as space walks and science experiments, can already be performed by professional astronauts aboard the ISS. It is hard to believe these new vanity missions are critical. And maybe dangerous stunts on such missions should only be performed by a professional team, but Mr. Isaacman wants to command the mission. I cannot see how having an accident on one of these flights will benefit SpaceX. I can still remember the blow-back after sending (and losing) the first teacher to space.

Space is still a dangerous place. Maybe money should not trump everything, including common sense. This seems more like a bored corporate executive spending $500,000 on a new fire truck, setting a few old buildings on fire, and then going in with an inexperienced crew to have fun putting out the blaze while claiming he is advancing the science of firefighting. I am not convinced.

Source/Credit: Walmart.