Rocket Company Issues: Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket will be grounded while the Federal Aviation Administration investigates the matter.
Satellite Company Issues: AST, the owner of the Bluebird 7 satellite placed in the wrong orbit, will now need to “de-orbit” its satellite. This means the satellite will be burned up in the Earth’s atmosphere. It also means that the roll out of AST SpaceMobile will be delayed, which has impacted the company’s stock.
Artemis Issues: The timeline for Artemis III, where NASA tests the lunar landers, may need to be delayed, at least for Blue Origin. Of course, SpaceX is having its own problems getting its Starship ready.
Astronomy Issues: The Bluebird satellites have been controversial because of their large size. This will only add to the growing light pollution from orbiting satellites that impact ground-based astronomers. So, in this case, with the loss of Bluebird 7 the astronomers get a reprieve for now.
So, three negative outcomes and one position outcome. A turnaround on all of these issues will take time, including the design of the satellite itself. While it appears each generation of the Bluebird satellite is getting larger, this could be a fixable problem given that AST stated it is willing to work with the National Science Foundation to limit the damage to the night sky.
Jeff Bezos’ rocket company, Blue Origin, blamed a bad engine Monday for a failed weekend launch that left a satellite in the wrong orbit, dooming it. Launches of the huge New Glenn rocket are grounded until Blue Origin and the Federal Aviation Administration complete their investigation.The rocket blasted off from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station on Sunday. The recycled first-stage booster performed well, landing on an ocean barge several minutes into the flight. But the upper stage was unable to put the satellite into a high enough orbit to begin operations.
The Space Force is launching a new acquisition task force to study how the Defense Department should move into cislunar space as it looks to support a planned NASA moon base, according to Maj. Gen. Stephen Purdy, senior advisor to Air Force Secretary Troy Mink for space acquisition. “We’re going to stand up a Cislunar Coordination Office on the Space Force acquisition side,” he told the annual Space Symposium here on April 15, who said the new office will bring together program managers and engineers to “build road maps” for “acquiring the necessary technology and a schedule for action.”
A US move to freeze the Lunar Gateway orbiting space station could render Japan’s new technologies redundant – but its space agency is expected to be diplomatic in its response. The Lunar Gateway project was initially planned as an installation that would orbit the moon as part of the United States’ Artemis programme, which recently made headlines for a record-breaking journey that went deeper into space than anyone had ever flown before…On March 24, however, Nasa announced it was freezing the project to focus on the construction of a base on the lunar surface, with future crewed missions to Mars in mind…The agency is now expected to focus all its attention on the third element of its collaboration with Nasa, the pressurised lunar rover that is being developed with Toyota to allow astronauts to drive on the moon.
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.
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.
…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.
Image (Credit): Artist’s rendering of SpaceX’s Starship HLS preparing for a Moon landing. (SpaceX)
Mr. Musk seems to move like a weather vane regarding where SpaceX is going next, but whether SpaceX is heading for the Moon or Mars it still needs a functioning Starship.
First the confusion. For all of Musk’s ongoing criticism of a Moon mission, it appears he is finally focusing on Artemis III. On Sunday, he tweeted:
For those unaware, SpaceX has already shifted focus to building a self-growing city on the Moon, as we can potentially achieve that in less than 10 years, whereas Mars would take 20+ years.
The mission of SpaceX remains the same: extend consciousness and life as we know it to the stars.
It is only possible to travel to Mars when the planets align every 26 months (six month trip time), whereas we can launch to the Moon every 10 days (2 day trip time). This means we can iterate much faster to complete a Moon city than a Mars city.
That said, SpaceX will also strive to build a Mars city and begin doing so in about 5 to 7 years, but the overriding priority is securing the future of civilization and the Moon is faster.
It seems that someone explained planetary alignment to him over the weekend, but that’s a point for another day.
So the target this week will be the Moon. But a crewed landing on the Moon depends on SpaceX’s Human Landing System (HLS) at the moment, which is where the Starship comes in. Or, more to the point, this is where a multitude of Starships come into play between the refueling in orbit as well and the HLS.
Given that SpaceX planned for 25 Starship launches in 2025 yet achieved only 5, we have an issue Houston (or should I say “Starbase”?).
All indications are that the first launch in 2026 will be early next month (based on one sentence from Musk on January 26th stating “Starship launch in six weeks”), following the last launch of October 13th. Five months between launches is not a very robust schedule given that the Starship not only needs to work but also needs to test the idea of fueling in space before landing a crew on the Moon in 2028.
So far the only parts of Artemis that have proven to work are the Space Launch System and Orion capsule, which are also the two most demonized components said to be substandard based on what the private sector can provide. However, waiting on SpaceX for a workable Moon model is becoming about as logical as waiting for Twitter to become profitable.
Remember, Musk was supposed to have a crew on Mars two years ago. As the Planetary Society noted in 2017:
SpaceX’s previous plan called for landing its first transport ship on Mars in 2022. The timeline Musk gave today was similar; two cargo landers would land on Mars in 2022, with four vehicles launching in 2024. Two of those 2024 ships would be crewed, meaning, in Musk’s timeline, humans could walk on Mars in just seven years.
It now seems like 50/50 that SpaceX can get a crew on the Moon before the Chinese. NASA may need the help of Blue Origin before it has a workable plan.
It may be time to ignore SpaceX’s promises and plan for some new players without tossing out the older technology just yet.
Our Awesome Universe 