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.

Pic of the Week: Martian Highlands

Posted on by onespaceman2000
Image (Credit): (ESA/DLR/FU Berlin)

This week’s image comes from the the European Space Agency (ESA). Captured by ESA’s orbiting Mars Express, you are looking at a portion of the crater-covered Arabia Terra, which is a large plain in Mars’s ancient highlands. You can read more about this Martian region by visiting this site.

Here is the ESA’s description of what you are viewing:

A high‑resolution overhead view of a rocky, desert‑like landscape on Mars. The surface is mostly reddish‑brown with patches of darker blue‑grey tones. Many circular impact craters of different sizes are scattered across the scene, some with raised rims and shadowed interiors. Subtle ridges, eroded valleys, and textured terrain patterns run diagonally through the image, giving a sense of ancient geological activity. The overall impression is of a dry, rugged, and heavily cratered Martian surface.

Second Launch by German Rocket Company Happens Soon

Posted on by onespaceman2000
Credit: Isar Aerospace.

You may remember the name Isar Aerospace from its attempt last year to launch a rocket from the Andoya Space Centre in Norway. It was the first test of the German company’s Spectrum two-stage rocket, and it lasted for less than a minute into launch. That’s how these tests often go.

The second launch, labeled “Onward and Upward,” is scheduled to happen shortly. While it was initially scheduled for January 21st, it has been delayed until March 19th due to pressurization valve issues.

This second time the Germans seem a little more confident given that the launch will include payloads – five CubeSats and one experiment. The company is also securing more space in Munich, Germany, Sweden (Esrange Space Center) and French Guyana (Guiana Space Centre).

When Dr. Markus Söder, Minister President of Bavaria, visited the Isar Aerospace facility last year, he stated:

The success story of our space program continues – and Isar Aerospace is playing a decisive role in writing it. …We are Germany’s Space Valley: Europe’s largest faculty for aerospace is being established at the Technical University of Munich – and 550 companies and 65,000 employees now work in this sector in Bavaria. The future looks bright. With the Bavarian high-tech agenda, we are investing a total of six billion euros in research and science. Live long and prosper, Isar Aerospace!”

Germany is no stranger to rocketry, which benefited the US in no small degree following WWII. With all of this energy directed towards the space industry, Germany and Europe become stronger players in this area and be somewhat less reliant on the US for future payloads.

Artemis II: Another Delay Until March

Posted on by onespaceman2000
Image (Credit): NASA’s Space Launch System and Orion spacecraft in front of the Moon, the ultimate target, on February 1, 2026. (NASA/Sam Lott)

It appears we will need to wait until next month for the Artemis II launch due to a liquid hydrogen leak during the wet dress rehearsal. As a result, the four astronauts can come our of quarantine and rejoin their families.

In its blog, NASA noted other issues as well:

In addition to the liquid hydrogen leak, a valve associated with Orion crew module hatch pressurization, which recently was replaced, required retorquing, and closeout operations took longer than planned. Cold weather that affected several cameras and other equipment didn’t impede wet dress rehearsal activities, but would have required additional attention on launch day. Finally, engineers have been troubleshooting dropouts of audio communication channels across ground teams in the past few weeks leading up to the test. Several dropouts reoccurred during the wet dress rehearsal. 

Such issues are not unusual, so we will just have to be patient. We are almost there.

As NASA Administrator Isaacman noted on Twitter:

This is just the beginning. It marks the start of an Artemis program that will evolve to support repeated and affordable missions to the Moon…Getting this mission right means returning to the Moon to stay and a future to Artemis 100 and beyond.