Pic of the Week: Blue Origin Moon Landing

Posted on by onespaceman2000

The image above is from a NASA Office of the Inspector General audit report on the Human Landing System. It shows the complexity of the Blue Origin process for getting a crew on the Moon. It is complex, and has one more step than the SpaceX plan, which already seems close to impossible.

This is how the audit report explained the graphic you see above:

For the Artemis V mission, Blue Origin is developing its Blue Moon lander. Standing 52 feet tall, Blue Moon will launch on Blue Origin’s reusable New Glenn heavy-lift rocket from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida. The lander will utilize Blue Origin’s BE-7 engines, which are fueled by liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen. Prior to the Artemis V mission, Blue Origin will launch a transporter to low Earth orbit, essentially serving as a propellant depot. From there a fleet of refuelers will launch, rendezvous with the transporter, and transfer propellant. The Blue Moon lander will then launch to low Earth orbit to receive fuel from both a refueler and the transporter before traveling to NRHO to dock with Gateway for the Lunar Orbit Checkout Review. The transporter, left in low Earth orbit, will receive additional propellant there before traveling to a higher “stairstep” orbit for final propellant aggregation.14 Once the transporter has traveled to NRHO, Blue Moon will undock with Gateway to receive its final propellant transfer and then dock with Gateway a second time. Next, Orion will deliver the astronauts to Gateway, who will then transfer to Blue Moon for transit to the lunar surface and back to the station. At the end of the mission, Orion will return the astronauts to Earth and the lander will transition to another orbit for disposal or later reuse.

Audit Report: Questions about the Human Landing System

Posted on by onespaceman2000

Auditors with NASA’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) evaluated three aspects of the Human Landing System (HLS) to be used with the Artemis Moon landing: (1) the extent to which the HLS providers are meeting cost, schedule, and performance goals; (2) the HLS Program’s implementation of the insight/oversight model; and (3) the Program’s identification and mitigation of risks to astronaut safety.

In its report, NASA’s Management of the Human Landing System Contracts, the auditors found issues in all three areas. In particular, the report stated:

…both SpaceX and Blue Origin have experienced schedule delays and face technical and integration challenges that have the potential to further impact lander costs and delivery schedules. In particular, SpaceX’s lander will not be ready for a June 2027 lunar landing.

It is possible that the draft version of this audit report was already the desk of NASA Administrator Isaacman right before he decided to move the Moon landing date again. Pending audit reports have a tendency to stir action.

Yet, even once we get to the moon, the auditors identified some safety issues. Specifically, the auditors stated:

We also observed limitations in the Agency’s approach to crew survival analyses—the evaluation of available crew survival capabilities to counter a catastrophic event—due to functional constraints and the availability of resources…While NASA is taking steps to prevent catastrophic events from occurring, ultimately, should the astronauts encounter a life-threatening emergency in space or on the lunar surface, NASA does not have the capability to rescue the stranded crew.

None of this is too surprising with a new approach like this one. Delays are inevitable, and even the best of plans cannot account for everything, as Apollo 13 demonstrated. It also shows that NASA has a tough balancing act, with the need for speed weighed against the mechanisms to ensure the safety of the astronauts.

One of the safety concerns stated later in the report really should have been its own report. It discussed the height of the HLS. As shown in the image above, the Starship Lander is huge compared to the Apollo lander and even Blue Origin’s Blue Moon Lander. Here are the dimensions per the report:

Landers may also encounter hazards such as boulders or mounds that are too large or depressions that are too deep for the landing legs and stability design. For example, steep slopes of up to 20 degrees on the lunar South Pole present navigation and landing challenges. Given Starship’s height of 171 feet— about the equivalent of a 14-story tall commercial building—there is a risk that its momentum will continue after landing causing it to tip over. Blue Moon—standing at 53 feet tall—also faces landing risks, including exceeding the lander’s tilt tolerance for safe and effective execution of critical crew functions. Surpassing the tilt tolerance for either lander, which NASA established as not to exceed 8 degrees to support all post-landing crew activities, could impact the operation of equipment such as the hatch used by the crew to exit and enter the vehicle. By comparison, the Apollo Lunar Module stood 23 feet tall.

This is scary given the multiple spacecraft we have already witness toppling over onto the lunar surface just last year. Why would we ever want to land a 14-story tall rocket with an elevator on the Moon as our first attempt after 50 years? I can understand Elon Musk proposing this ridiculous idea, but it is not clear how the original planners could have gone along with it. This is a “catastrophic event” waiting to happen.

The auditors also added a Apollo 15 Lunar Module story (shown below) to the report. After reading this report and the Apollo 15 clip, I think I will also have trouble sleeping tonight due to an uncomfortable feeling that the current Artemis approach was a mess (if not doomed) from the start.

Space Quote: New Artemis Mission Added Before Moon Landing

Posted on by onespaceman2000

“You don’t go from one uncrewed launch of SLS [Artemis I], wait three years, go around the Moon [Artemis II], wait three years and land on it…I would certainly much rather have the astronauts testing out the integrated systems of the lander and Orion in low-Earth orbit than on the Moon.”

-Statement by NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman regarding the addition of one more Artemis mission – let’s call it Artemis III-A – to test out the lunar lander before the crew actually heads to the Moon – or Artemis III-B. The Moon landing itself is still planned for 2028, but we know how these dates continue to slip. SpaceX with its Starship issues is not making it any easier. Just like SpaceX saved the Starliner crew from a problem Boeing capsule, Blue Origin may eventually save the Artemis astronauts from a problem SpaceX rocket.

Note: Actually, I think it will just be an uncrewed Artemis III mission followed by the first Moon landing as Artemis IV, but for some reason I think we will be adding even more Roman numerals before we hit the Moon. Maybe we will get to X, Musk’s favorite letter, before we approach the Moon.

Space Stories: More Artemis II Delays, Starliner a Type A Mishap, and James Webb Space Telescope Studies Atmosphere of Uranus

Posted on by onespaceman2000
Credit; NASA

Here are some recent space-related stories of interest.

—NPR: “NASA’s Artemis II Lunar Mission May Not Launch in March After All“

Just one day after NASA said it was eyeing a potential March 6 launch date for the Artemis II lunar mission, the space agency said Saturday that complications with the rocket could delay all launch attempts in March from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida...In a blog post, NASA said it is “taking steps to potentially roll back the Artemis II rocket and Orion spacecraft to the Vehicle Assembly Building,” after technicians observed an “interrupted flow of helium” to the rocket system. NASA says its teams are “actively reviewing data” and taking steps to “address the issue as soon as possible while engineers determine the best path forward.”

—Astronomy Magazine:“NASA Report Declares Starliner Incident a Type A Mishap“

On Thursday, NASA released sobering results from an independent investigation into the 2024 crewed Boeing Starliner test flight that left two astronauts stranded in space for months, placing blame not only on hardware failures, but the agency’s own leadership and culture. In a press conference, NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman said the agency had now categorized the incident as a type A mishap — the same classification applied to the Columbia and Challenger shuttle disasters — something he believes should have happened from the start.

—European Space Agency: “Webb Maps Uranus’s Mysterious Upper Atmosphere“

For the first time, an international team of astronomers have mapped the vertical structure of Uranus’s upper atmosphere, uncovering how temperature and charged particles vary with height across the planet. Using NASA/ESA/CSA James Webb Space Telescope’s NIRSpec instrument, the team observed Uranus for nearly a full rotation, detecting the faint glow from molecules high above the clouds. The results offer a new window into how ice-giant planets distribute energy in their upper layers.

Americans May Be a Bit Too Optimistic About Space Travel

Posted on by onespaceman2000

The latest Harper’s Index from Harper’s magazine had a few interesting statistics related to space travel and alien encounters (something discussed in Friday’s post).

Here are the two stastistics:

  • Portion of Americans in 1998 who believed that space travel would be common for ordinary Americans by 2025:  3/10
  • Portion of Americans in 1998 who believed that humans would make contact with extraterrestrial life by 2025:  1/4

Both come from a Gallup poll conducted back in 1998. You can read more about the various survey results in this Gallup story.

Given that the Artemis II mission is still struggling to get to the Moon, and the only new life we seem to have encountered was created in a laboratory by OpenAI and others, I would say we are far from this mark. However, Americans were a little better at predicting some of the social trends, including the 69 percent who expected the country would elect a Black president by 2025.

It is also good that some of the predictions were off, particularly those related to disease, disaster, and war (shown below). Then again, the respondents (76 percent) who predicted the emergence of a deadly new disease were spot on regarding COVID.