Recently in ESA Category

In all the enthusiasm about Tim Peake's planned spaceflight to the International Space Station in November 2015 (which might be thought of as a de facto "thank you" for the UK's extra funding to ESA), and how it might promote the so called STEM (science, technology, engineering and maths) subjects in education, the question many schoolchildren and students will be asking is: which subjects and which career path do I need to do to get into space? 

Strangely, the Minister for Universities and Science, the Rt Hon David Willetts MP made sure to note that he was NOT promoting STEM subjects as a way to become an astronaut.  Citing former Army Apache helicoptor and test pilot, Tim Peake, as an example, Willetts thought that more practical skills like flying/pilot training would be better for those wanting to be astronauts in future than having a science-based degree though he noted that STEM subjects would help those wanting to work in the space industry.

Willetts said while he was encouraging STEM subject uptake as being good for the space industry and the nation in general, he was averse to forcing school children and young adults from taking subjects at university that they did not really want to do. "I believe in people being free to choose the courses that most interest them." said Willetts noting that arts subjects can lead to rewarding careers as well.

Peake agreed that the main key was to find what you are particularly passionate about and be as good at it as you can.   "There are astronauts who are school teachers.engineers, scientists, doctors, and pilots. Any career path can lead to to being an astronaut."

While Peake's mission running order is not yet decided, it is likely to have some element of microgravity research, especially as the UK is a recent contributor to ESA's European Life and Physical Sciences in Space (ELIPS) microgravity research programme. There is also a chance that Peake will mount a spacewalk as part of his mission, having done neutral buoyancy tank training.  "I have done several months over in Houston, I went through what is known as the novice flow and skills flow which qualifies me in the EMU (Extravehicular Mobilty Unit) suit." said Peake.  Peake is also qualified on the Russian Orlan suit as well. 

Tim Peak in initial EVA training in Neutral Buoyancy Tank at European Astronaut Centre, Cologne in 2010.  He later went to Houston to EVA qualify on the NASA spacesuit. Courtesy ESAPeake noted that he would like to stand on Mars on day even if his career may be over by the time that mankind achieves that aim.   More realisticallly, there is a genuine outside chance that Peake might one day visit a Chinese space station.  Thomas Rieter, ex-astronaut and now head of human spaceflight at ESA, noted that discussions with the Chinese over future cooperation had started but that they were at a very early stage.

Comment by David Todd:  While they may be right in noting that individuals tend to do best in subjects they enjoy most, Peake and Willetts are a bit wrong in not suggesting that a degree in a STEM subject would improve a candidate's chances of selection as an astronaut.  For the best chance of becoming an orbital-class astronaut, the traditional routes into space still hold: either be an exemplary pilot, or be a science/medicine or engineering specialist (or at least have degree in these subjects), or, even better, both. Peake himself was an army officer and test pilot, but did actually gain a degree in Flight Dynamics as part of his training at the Empire Test Pilots School at Boscombe Down (which was actually awarded by the University of Portsmouth). 

There is no evidence that lawyers, linguists, archeologists and historians are yet being made into astronauts in preference to those holding STEM expertise, though rich business types are making it - even if they have to pay for themselves via space tourism programmes. 

One trend will probably happen however.  Rather than having specialised astronauts: pilots, EVA (Extra-vehicular Activity) experts, and scientific specialists, that the Space Shuttle tended to carry, future astronauts on long range missions to the Moon, asteroids and planets, will probably have to be "jacks of all trades" like Apollo astronauts, given their smaller crews.  That is, they will have to be skilled pilots, AND be experts at EVA, AND have good STEM subject degrees - with geology, engineering and medicine probably being the most useful.

While STEM knowledge, at least to a background degree level, will probably be essential, Willetts was right to hint that like becoming pilot would be a good route in.  Pilots, like divers, explorers and other "operational types", apart from being fit and having practical and problem solving experience, also usually have the psychological make-up to be able to think quickly and calmly in dangerous situations.  This can mean the difference between mission success and failure and sometimes the difference between life and death.

 

After NASA found it could no longer offer launches for the ExoMars mission, the European Space Agency (ESA) approached Russia for help.  As a result of long running discussions, on 14 March the ESA Director General Jean-Jacques Dordain and Head of Roscosmos Vladimir Popovkin  have signed a formal agreement for their respective agencies  to work in partnership on the ExoMars programme towards the launch of two missions: one to be launched in January 2016, and one to be launched in 2018.

Under the deal, ESA will provide the Trace Gas Orbiter (TGO) and the Entry, Descent and Landing Demonstrator Module (EDM) in 2016, and the carrier and rover in 2018. Roscosmos will be responsible for the 2018 descent module and surface platform, and will provide launchers for both missions. Both partners will supply scientific instruments and will cooperate closely in the scientific exploitation of the missions.

The 2016 mission has two major ESA elements: the TGO and the EDM. The TGO will search for evidence of methane and other atmospheric gases that could be signatures of active biological or geological processes. It will also serve as a data relay for the 2018 mission. The EDM will land on Mars to prove key technologies for the 2018 mission.

In 2018, the ExoMars rover, to be provided by ESA, will search the planet's surface for signs of life, past and present. It will be the first Mars rover able to drill to depths of 2 m, collecting samples that have been shielded from the harsh conditions of the surface, where radiation and oxidants can destroy organic materials. The rover will be delivered by a Russian descent module that includes a surface platform equipped with additional scientific instruments.

While taking a back seat to the other partners, NASA will still make important contributions to the ExoMars programme, including the Electra UHF radio package for TGO, and Mars Proximity Link telecom and engineering support to the EDM

The ExoMars Programme is funded by fourteen ESA states (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the U.K., and Canada) of which Italy is the largest contributor and the UK the second largest. Member states also provide scientific instruments to ExoMars. For the 2016 TGO, these include the infrared and ultraviolet spectrometer package NOMAD (led by Belgium) and the CaSSIS high-resolution colour stereo camera (led by Switzerland). Italy will lead the DREAMS environmental station on the EDM.

The 2018 Rover will comprise PanCam, a wide-angle and high resolution camera system (led by the United Kingdom); CLUPI, a close-up imager (led by Switzerland); WISDOM, a ground-penetrating radar (led by France); Ma_MISS, a miniaturised infrared spectrometer integrated in the subsurface drill (led by Italy); MicrOmega, a visible and infrared imaging spectrometer (led by France); RLS, a Raman spectrometer (led by Spain), and MOMA, a novel organic molecule detector (led by Germany, with substantial contributions from the United States).

After Flightglobal's Hyperbola revelation that the Breeze M (Briz M) upper stage had not peformed a planned post-satellite delivery final orbit-lowering/propellant depletion manoeuvre during the latest Rockot launch, Eurorockot, the firm that markets Russian-built Rockot launch vehicles, has confirmed that an investigation is underway and that subsequent Rockot launches including the planned early year launch of the European Space Agency's Swarm mission will now be delayed.

"The situation on Swarm is such that we are presently awaiting the outcome of the Russian failure commission`s findings on what occrred on January 15, 2013." Said Peter Freeborn, Director of Marketing and Sales at Eurockot before adding: "Recent planning for Swarm entailed a launch in May or June  2013, so we do hope this may eventually be maintained." 

The launch of the three spacecraft Swarm mission could however actually be delayed until the late summer, partly because of the failure investigation,and partly because two Russian goverment launches have priority in the Rockot launch schedule. At least one of these Russian government/military launches is expected to take place before the Swarm mission can take place. 

The European Space Agency's Swarm mission is designed to study the Earth's magnetic field ideally as solar activity peaks during the so-called Solar Maximum this year.  The launch of the Swarm mission had previously already been delayed from its planned 2012 launch by an investigation Breeze-KM (Briz-KM) upper stage malfunction after a Rockot launch lost a Russian science satellite in February 2011.   

Concern over this apparently minor Breeze KM malfunction has been heightened over the fact that still partly-fuelled upper stage might one day explode adding to the space debris in oribt. There are also concerns that this event is yet another example of a Breeze upper stage going wrong.  Apart from the Rockot's Breeze KM problems, the Proton M launch vehicle has been beset by recent failures involving the Breeze M version of this upper stage.

As Canada loses its space agency head, the UK Space Agency gets a new one.Dr. David Parker has been appointed as the next Chief Executive of the UK Space Agency. He has been acting Chief Executive of the agency since December 2012, and will take up the role with immediate effect. 

Parker has been involved in the UK space sector since 1990 having completed a PhD in aeronautics and astronautics at Southampton University. Parker previously worked for British Aerospace Space Systems as a propulsion and guidance, navigation and control (GNC) engineer and later in management and business development roles in EADS Astrium. He was seconded to the UK Space Agency's predecessor, the British National Space Centre, between 1997 and 1999 to lead its space innovation projects. Between 2004 and 2010, he worked at the UK's science funding council for space science.

Now that the European Space Agency (ESA) is charged with building the new service module for NASA's Orion manned spacecraft (full story here), its solar arrays are now expected to use the X-configuration that the ATV vessel uses (ESA's ATV is being used as the basis of the service module) rather that the previously planned round/circular ones.

Out with the old and in with the new:  The original Lockheed Martin design configuration (top) with its definitive round/circular solar arrays has now been replaced by a service module based on ATV-heritage hardware which will thus use rectagular solar arrays in an X-shape configuration (bottom).  Images courtesy: Lockheed Martin and ESA respectively.

Just to give an idea of lead times in spaceflight: Arianespace has begun loading cargo into the European Space Agency's fourth Automated Transfer Vehicle robotic supply ship, named Albert Einstein - which launches via Ariane 5 rocket for the International Space Station in April.

According to the Flightglobal SpaceTrak database, at 78 orbital launch attempts in 2012, there were six less launches than in the previous year. With 139 spacecraft on these flights (Shenzhou 9's orbital module is counted as an autonomous spacecraft) there were two more launched in the year compared to 2011.This increase is mainly as a result of an increase in the number of small satellites of under 100kg (38 in 2012 compared to 23 in 2011) which were often launched as multiple payloads.  

Source: Flightglobal Space Review

There were six failures:two Russian Proton failures, two Iranian Safir failures (not acknowledged by Iran), one North Korean Unha 3 failure and one US Falcon 9 failure though this flight was partially successful. With respect to national flights,Russia took top position with 24 attempts (two failures) China maintaining the runner up spot. China matched its 19 launch attempt record in 2012 but went one better than the previous year by having no failures. USA was a distant third with 13 (1 partial failure).

Source: Flightglobal Space Review

Probably the most significant launch, in terms of international politics, was the first confirmed orbital success of North Korea's Uhna-3 rocket in December (after its April launch failure) - though the Kwangmyongsong 3-2 satellite payload showed no signs of working once it reached orbit. The implication of this first successful North Korean orbital launch is that a significant nuclear weapon payload could be launched by such a rocket onto nearby nations, even if its three-stage liquid fuel configuration makes quick and stealthy launches difficult to achieve. With warhead miniaturisation, even the USA could be theoretically be reached using a ballistic or fractional orbital bombardment technique.

Launch vehicle reliability year was characterised by some notable successes and also some embarrassing failures. Iran, using similar launch vehicle technology to North Korea, was unable to achieve success and had two unannounced failures of its Safir 2 launch vehicles in May and September respectively.

Source: Flightglobal Space Review

The Metop B launch by a Soyuz 2-1A Fregat rocket had a stage velocity shortfall which was rectified by its upper stage. The launch of GPS IIF-3 by a Delta IVM+ 4,2 had a similar escape when its upper stage RL-10 engine had less thrust than expected. Fortunately, the on-board flight control systems compensated for the lower thrust levels and the satellite reached the correct orbit.

Probably the "greatest escape" was that of the Dragon CRS-3 cargo mission to the International Space Station (ISS) which still made it to orbit despite an engine blow out during its Falcon 9 ascent. Luckily, the remaining eight Merlin 1C first stage engines had enough performance to get this prime payload into its correct orbit. Its lower priority Orbcomm OG2-01 communications satellite co-payload was not so lucky as there was not enough fuel to get it to its right orbit. Nevertheless, industry observers were impressed by the robustness of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle. While there were other issues with the lack of radiation hardness of some of  Dragon spacecraft's systems, NASA gained confidence that SpaceX would be able to move cargo to and from the ISS on a safe and regular basis giving it a lead over its Orbital Sciences competitor which has yet to launch its Antares rocket.

Less fortunate than SpaceX was Khrunichev and its International Launch Services marketing partner after an upper stage fault on their Proton M/Breeze M rocket stranded two communications satellites, Telkom 3 and Express-MD 2, in useless orbits.   Worse was to come for this derivative rocket from the 1960s. In November, the Proton M's Breeze M (Briz-M) upper stage underperformed again, this time stranding the Yamal 402 spacecraft. Fortunately, the Yamal 402 spacecfaft was able to use its own propulsion system to recover itself to its correct orbital location, albeit with some loss of lifespan. Nevertheless, questions are being asked about the Breeze M upper stage design and its quality control.  With its not improving failure rate and with its increasing cost base (caused by high Russian inflation) the Proton M launch vehicle's marketing firm, International Launch Services, is having its work cut out just trying to hold market share against its competitors.   Hopes are higher for its much delayed replacement, the Angara launch vehicle which is due to enter service in 2014.

Of the other main launch providers, Arianespace had a good year with a pretty full order book and seven successful flights of its main Ariane 5 ECA workhorse and the Ariane 5 has now had an impressive run of 53 flight successes to date. During the year, Arianespace also had further two good Soyuz launches and Vega's successful maiden flight. Arianespace finallly received the green light from the European Space Agency's formal council meeting in Naples to proceed with its Midlife Evolution upgrade to the Ariane 5 while also moving ahead with the preliminary design of the Ariane 6.

Ariane 5 has an unblemished record over 53 flights.  Courtesy: Arianespace

Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) continues to add to its bulging commercial order book with notable orders arriving from the US Air Force. While the Falcon 9 launch vehicle has a smaller payload than its main competitors, it benefited from a move to smaller "all electric" commercial communications satellites. However, while satellite operators are attracted to the new low-cost outfit, its overfull schedule has led some to take out back up reservations with other launch providers in case their launch is delayed. Sea Launch became a beneficiary of this.  

Sea Launch itself had some bad news after Intelsat 19's solar array damage was initially being blamed on its Zenit 3-SL (Sea Launch) flight in June. However, it all turned out well in the end as a formal investigation later found that the rocket was in the clear and that a design/manufacturing error by Space Systems/Loral that was the cause. Sea Launch managed two more successful flights.

With respect to larger rockets, as the Space Shuttle orbiters were retired to their museums, the NASA heavy-lift Space Launch System SLS), had its Space Shuttle main engine RS-25D/E configuration confirmed though the design of its advanced boosters has not yet been confirmed. NASA provided funding to retire some of the risk of the competing designs with a booster using a derivative Saturn V's F1 engine produced by the Dynetics/Rocketdyne team becoming the main liquid fuel contender against  ATK's advanced solid rocket booster.

The quest for reusability had a mixed year. While the US Air Force pulled out of its programme researching liquid reusable flyback boosters, Russia continues with its efforts concentrating on LOx (liquid Oxygen)/Methane engines for just such a purpose. That propellant combination figured again when Elon Musk, leader of SpaceX noted that his firm was pressing ahead with fully reusable launch vehicles and would use lox/methane burning engines to do so, with the hope of one day reaching Mars with such technology. To test the concept of reusable stages, SpaceX began test flights of its Grasshopper test vehicle.

Finally, in the United Kingdom, Reaction Engines whose slow-burn project to build a reusable space plane is now over 20 years old, finally announced that it had completed its ESA-sponsored test of its pre-cooler heat exchanger which it promises will revolutionise the aerospace and other industries. 

The writer of this article, David Todd, has a small shareholding in Reaction Engines. Phil Hylands contributed to this article. 

The seventh and last Ariane 5 ECA launch of this year occured at 2149 GMT on 19 December from Kourou in French Guiana.   The flight was also the 10th Arianespace-operated flight from the Guiana Space Centre this year with two Soyuz launches and a single Vega launch being the others.  Aboard the rocket were two communications satellites heading for Geostationary Earth Orbit (GEO) via a transfer orbit: the 4,800kg Skynet 5D communications satelllite wasbeing launched for Astrium who act as the operator for the UK Ministry of Defence; and the 2,935kg communications Mexsat 3 (Mexsat Bicentario) which being launched for the government of Mexico.

Ariane 5 ECA launches Skynet 5D and Mexsat 3.  Courtesy: Arianespace

Comment by David Todd: While its launch provider competitors are able to undercut its prices, when it comes to ensuring satellites actually get into the correct orbit, Arianespace's Ariane 5 remains well ahead of the rest. While its Ariane 5 rocket family registered its 53rd launch success in a row, both  Proton and the Falcon 9 had launch failures or partial launch failures this year.  More importantly for Arianespace, with seven Ariane 5 launches flown, its increased flight rate is likely to allow Arianespace to actually make a significant "profit" this year.  For several years, the Ariane 5's low flight rate has meant that Arianespace has required cash bailouts from the European Space Agency.  

 

Despite having just had its Echostar XVI (Echostar 16) communications satellite successfully launched by an ILS Proton M/Breeze M, on 20 November, nevertheless, EchoStar Corp has apparently lost faith with its "usual" launch provider and has now jumped ship to Arianespace.  On 26 Novermber, the major US commercial satellite operator, Echostar, announced that it had signed a deal for Arianespace to provide mulitple launches for Echostar satellites.  This multi-launch, multi-year deal shows that Arianespace can still compete for business despite its own cost issues.   The agreement was signed after an initial one-off contract allowed a Ariane 5 ECA to successfully launched the Echostar 17 satellite in July (along with Europe's weather satellite MSG 3).

 

Arianespace logo - Courtesy: Arianespace

 

"In July, EchoStar's wholly owned subsidiary, Hughes completed the successful launch of EchoStar XVII (Echostar 17) with Arianespace, giving us confidence in Arianespace's ability to execute on future launches," said Anders Johnson, president of EchoStar Satellite Services in a news release.. "The Ariane 5 vehicle has been a reliable, flight-proven launch system. We look forward to relying on Ariane 5 to deliver on-time success in the execution of our near term expansion programs."

For ILS (International Launch Services), the launch vehicle marketing firm which is majority owned by the Russian rocket manufacturing firm Khurnichev, the Echostar agreement with Arianespace is a blow.  While Arianespace's Ariane 5 is still more expensive to fly on than a Proton, importantly this divide is reducing as Russian inflation chips away at this ILS advantage.  More importantly,the Proton launch vehicle continues to have reliability issues.  While its failure rate is "steady" it cannot match the recent record of Ariane 5 which has not had a failure in ten years and 52 flights.  In other words, as it competes with Proton and new low cost contender SpaceX, Arianespace can at least compete of quality and its proven ability to "get your satellite there".  Before the deal was made public, it is noted that ILS decided to replace its President Frank McKenna with fellow ILS executive Phil Slack.

The news of this multi-launch agreement will also be seen as a boost for the new ESA policy of pursuing the Midlife Evolution (ME) upgrade of the Ariane 5 which will boost the ultimate Geostationary Transfer Orbit (GTO) payload of the launch vehicle from circa 10 tonnes to circa 12 tonnes.  This should allow more than two heavy communications satellites to be carried at one time and will thus avoid the scheduling difficulties that Arianespace is having in trying to match different sizes of satellites now that satellites are gaining in size at the larger end of the range..

 

At the recent European Space Agency ministerial meeting in Naples, Italy, the agency really had three choices with respect to its launch vehicle development:  it could built the Ariane 5 ME (Mid-Life Evolution) which might buy a little more time for Ariane 5;  or It could develop a new expendable (and cheaper-to-fly) modular Ariane 6 rocket; or it could go for a full scale reusable or partially reusable rocket design.   Each option had downsides.  

The first option would not necessarily make the Ariane 5 much more competitive, save for its ability to carry more than one very large communcations satellite at a time.  But it would be ready early. 

Developing the new Ariane 6 is probably the most logical choice given that SpaceX Falcon rockets are beginning to threaten Arianespace on price. Nevertheless,  in a way, even the Ariane 6 is behind the curve technologically as it remains an expendable rocket while SpaceX (Space Exploration Technogies) is already moving towards reusable technology.  Still, at least it would be cheaper to fly than an Ariane 5.  

The final option and probablly the best in the longer term is to develop a reusable  or partially reusable launch vehicle, possibly on the basis of the ESA-sponsored Reaction Engines Skylon technology programme (note that this writer is a small shareholder). The downside of this option is that it has more technical risk with a development that may be more expensive and take longer than the others.  

To counter the downsides of each of these options, it would have been the logical to combine two of them together so that the strengths of one might counter the weakness of another.  That is: either develop the Ariane 5 ME as a quick fix and go for a reusable option for the longer term;  or, even better, go for the Ariane 6 for nearer term competitiveness, while developing reusables as its successor.  

The final dual option, and probably the worst choice, was to do both the Ariane 5 ME and the Ariane 6.  This will inevitably mean that Arianespace will always be playing catch-up SpaceX.  Nevertheless, to appease Germany and France at the same time, this is what ESA's ministers have chosen to do, albeit that the formal decision to proceed with Ariane 6 will be made in 2014 after a full design review.  

As he views his firm's competitive leadership which he plots to maintain using reusable rockets,  Elon Musk, the billionaire rocket engineer leader of SpaceX said in a BBC interview, that upgraded versions of Ariane 5 would have "no chance" of staying competitive with his own firm's Falcon launch vehicles.  He further advised that the European Space Agency (ESA) should now move directly to building its new lower cost Ariane 6 expendable launch vehicle.  

in a subsequent press conference at the ESA Ministerial meeting in Naples, ESA's Director General, Jean-Jacques Dordain, jokingly reposted : ""Does this mean Elon Musk wants to contribute to Ariane 6?"  

The answer is of course "No" but polymath Musk will surely appreciate a stupid decision when he sees one being made. For when ESA makes myopic choices like this, SpaceX deserves all the success it can get.