Recently in SpaceX Category

In late May 2012, the non-profit-making organisation, Mars One Foundation announced plans to send humans colonists to Mars.  But there is a catch.  There is no way of return. In a lecture made in April 2013 at the British Interplanetary Society in London, Bas Lansdorp, Co-Founder of the Mars One project, detailed how far the project had gone answered questions on the plan to put a colony on Mars.  Lansdorp, an engineer and wind energy entrepreneur started the project using his own capital with technical support from his co-founder and ESA scientist Arno Wielders.   The idea is to make the project into a long term world television event.  The project would be thus funded from the revenues derived from advertising and media sales run by a commercial organisation called the Interplanetary Media Group. 

A $6 billion Plan - and that is just for starters

After raising sufficient capital, and having selected various subcontractors, Mars One outfit will formally award contracts to them.  Of the key suppliers, one is likely to be Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) which will scaled-up versions of a SpaceX vertical-landing Dragon capsule, crew planetary transfer and Mars landing technologies and a full launch service to the project.  It is estimated that $6 billion would be need to launch the initial crew of four with a further $4 billion being need for each crew thereafter.   No return capability is to be included. 

Lansdorp noted that initial plans have been discussed with SpaceX, though he cautioned that Mars One would have to provide funding before they would work in detail on the project.  Under the plan, a crew of four settlers would be drawn from a pool of astronaut settlers who themselves would have already been chosen via stringent acceptance tests.  Despite the one way nature of the trip, Landorp reported that some 10,000 people had already expressed an interest in applying for the adventure via e-mail.

The running order

While the technical details remain sketchy, Lansdorp detailed the basic timeline of the plan.  Before any manned launch takes place, there would be various precursor missions.  According to the plan in 2016 a demonstration mission would test the Martian approach and landing techniques.  In 2018, a Mars rover would be landed to find the best location for such a base. 

In 2020, a series of six missions would land cargo and a second rover vehicle.   The living quarters would include two living units and two life support systems for redundancy.   The rovers and trailers would be used to move modules and structures to the main base site. The use of inflatable structures would be employed, some of which would be covered with Martian soil to a depth of 2 meters to provide radiation protection.  Bas Lansdorp noted that that the Mars Curiosity Rover has confirmed that the surface radiation environment is relatively benign, being only equivalent to astronaut exposure in low Earth orbit (LEO).

The life support systems would include systems to create a breathable atmosphere by filtering nitrogen and argon from the Martian atmosphere and oxygen and water would be drawn from the planet's soil.  Power would be supplied using solar array technologies and food would be grown using greenhouse equipment.  It is realised that such a colony would still need periodic supplies from Earth.  Likewise, having to account for sand storms and solar degradation would mean that about 3,000 square meters of solar panels would be needed to satisfy the power demands of the initial colony.

Only once enough breathable air and drinkable water has been produced would the astronauts be launched to the planet in an initial crew of four.    

At this point, funding and successful missions to date permitting, the first crew of four settlers would be launched on their flight to Mars - probably around 2023.  The 210 day first manned flight in 2023 would be via a transfer vehicle that would carry all its own water (about 2500 litres without reuse) with the tankage being used to block radiation in space.   A second crew could be launched in 2025.

Artist's impression of Mars One base for settlers - Courtesy Mars One/Bryan Versteeg

Is it just the "beautiful people" that need apply?

While the James Bond movie Moonraker (1979) had a plot involving megalomaniac space villain Hugo Drax being intent on restarting the human race in space using "perfect" human specimens, Lansdorp was at pains to note that it would not just be perfect people that need apply.  This would be despite the discriminatory demands of television audiences. 

"Everybody will be able to apply for the missions." said Lansdorp.  "It won't just be beautiful people that go on this trip" he said.   

Having said that, Landorp then confirmed that genetic and health tests would sift out some of the weaker applicants.  The process of candidate selection is to start in the second quarter of this year - probably in May.  

On the subject of selection, some doubted good space crews and good television would be compatible.  Specifically, highly skilled and well balanced individuals that make ideal astronauts and crew mates, would probably actually make good television viewing.  For what is being planned is a reality TV style approach examples of which usually only make good viewing because of conflict between "difficult" personalities. 

On the implications of breeding on the planet had Landorp jested that "what settlers get up to in their own time is their own business," not realising that the salacious aspect of reality TV is what often drives viewer numbers. There was another serious aspect to this question.  Given that sterilisation from cosmic and solar radiation would hopefully be avoided during the journey using shielding, Lansdorp admitted such an eventuality would have to be considered.  He noted that conception and foetus growth under these conditions had not been tried yet, nor had the long term genetic and health consequences been tested.  Some suggest that over time, a whole new sub-species of human could be created. 

When asked whether human settlers would bring contamination to the planet, Landorp noted the chairman of the COSPAR Panel of Planetary Protection on the Mars One adisory board advising the organisation on its adherence to the Planetary Protection Protocol.

With respect to what laws would be applied for such a colony, Lansdorp said he expected that the settlers would, over time, set up their own nation with their own set of laws.  When questioned whether such a legal regime might include the "death penalty" for extreme crimes such as murder, as used to be prevalent in the early days of sea-faring exploration and colonisation, Lansdorp made the somewhat unrealistic and impractical suggestion that that a cell could be set up for long-term imprisonment.  Lansdorp noted that chance of such a serious criminal eventually would be very small.

What about the competition?

Earlier this year, the former space tourist and business entrepreneur, Dennis Tito, announced a plan to fly a couple around Mars on a round trip. Lansdorp said he admired Tito and his Inspiration Mars Foundation for their 2018 Mars flyby plan, adding that he was relieved that at least Tito was not planning to land on Mars.

Mars One hopes to benefit from Tito's development of technology which in effect shared many of the elements of Mars One project. For example, both organisations plan to use the US firm Paragon Space Development Corporation as a supplier to produce their human life support and space suit systems.  Lansdorp noted that he was to meet Tito shortly at a conference to see if there was any common ground for co-operation between their two organisations. Landorp did note one big difference between the Tito plan and the Mars One mission.  Mars One would be "as international as possible" while the Tito mission would be a mainly US-only mission.

Lansdorp admitted that if Tito's mission went well, and importantly, secured sufficient television and online audiences, then raising funds for their own operation would become significantly easier,   With respect to their own funding Landorp remain silent on the amount raised to date, save to note that his not-for-profit organisation was receiving large and small donations every week.

When asked whether SpaceX leader and originator, Elon Musk, might not want to take the glory of landing on Mars first, Lansdorp retorted: "Elon does not want to be the first man on Mars.  He wants to retire there."

So what are the chances of the MarsOne mission?

From a technological point of view, the plan has elements of success.  Lansdorp was at pains to point out that the plan would only require current technology to be achieved.  "No new inventions need to be done to make this mission possible," said Lansdorp. 

While there are possible legal issues in sending early settlers with not capability to return to Earth, not least if ever there resupply missions were halted, Lansdorp noted in not have to return to Earth considerably helped the technological chances of success.  It is the return to Earth capability from the Martian surface that had not yet been developed by mankind.

The weakness of the Mars One plan is the television/media model for raising funds.  For two settlement missions, $10 billion will be needed.  While Lansdorp noted that he thought that such revenues would be available, drawing on the parallel to the major television sporting event of 2012, the Olympics, which raised $4 billion, critics wonder whether the ennui of watching astronauts basically do not much day-after-day will be revenue generator that the Mars One organisation thinks.

On a lighter note: they may have missed a funding trick

For this Mars settlement plan, Mars One emphasises that all participants have to be volunteers.  In doing so, one cannot help thinking that perhaps the Mars One team has missed a trick.  If they had allowed nominations to be made for such one way trip on a paid for basis this really could have been a most excellent money spinner.  No doubt nominations for various politicians, bankers, school teachers etc would top the poles.

 

Dragon held on robotic arm awaiting release. Courtesy: NASA TV

After delays due to high seas in the landing area, the SpaceX Dragon CRS-2 cargo craft was finally splashed down in the Pacific on 26 March ready for recovery. Previously on the same day Dragon CRS 2 had unberthed/undocked with the International Space Station's (ISS) Harmony module at 0810 GMT and after being initially moved away using robotic arm it was fully released 1056 GMT.  After making a series of three burns to move away from the space statiov Dragon CRS-2 made a de-orbit burn which was completed at 1556 GMT.  Dragon CRS 2 re-entered at 1615 GMT and made splashdown at 1634 GMT in Pacific Ocean.

The Dragon CRS-2 craft nearly never made it to the International Space Station after a propulsion pressurisation blockage happened shortly after launch.  However, engineers were able to remove this blockage by cycling the pressurisation system and Dragon was able to rendezvous and dock with the space station.

Space Exploration Technologies' (SpaceX) has announced that its latest version of its Merlin first stage and booster engine, the Merlin 1, has achieved flight qualification,  follwing a 28 test qualification program.  The Merlin 1D accumulated 1,970 seconds of total test time, the equivalent run time of over 10 full mission durations. The program included four tests at or above the power (147,000lb of thrust) and duration (185 seconds) required for a Falcon 9 rocket launch. The Merlin 1D engine was also tested at propellant inlet and operating conditions that were well outside the bounds of expected flight conditions.

"The Merlin 1D successfully performed every test throughout this extremely rigorous qualification program," said Elon Musk, SpaceX CEO and chief designer in a news release. "With flight qualification now complete, we look forward to flying the first Merlin 1D engines on Falcon 9's Flight 6 this year."

With nine Merlin 1Ds on the first stage, the Falcon 9 rocket will produce nearly 1.5 million pounds of thrust in a vacuum. While the engine uses a simple if slightly less efficient gas-generator cycle, the Merlin 1D is noted by the firm as having a vacuum thrust-to-weight ratio exceeding 150, the best of any liquid rocket engine in history. The new engine is designed for improved manufacturability by using higher efficiency processes, increased robotic construction and reduced parts count.

Testing took place at SpaceX's rocket development facility in McGregor, Texas. Film of qualification test courtesy: SpaceX

Following a one day delay due to a fault with SpaceX Dragon CRS-2 thruster system, on 3 March, the Dragon CRS-2 unmanned cargo freighter was grappled by the robot arm at 1051GMT a linked up with the ISS's Harmony module at 1356 GMT. This fulfills the terms of its cargo delivery contract with NASA.  The thruster issue, which reported knocked out three out of four thruster pods on Dragon CRS 2, has now been fixed.   A blockage in helium pressurant line to the oxidiser tank had caused low pressure which only allowed one pod of thrusters (out of four) to be used.   The blockage was removed by cycling a valve to cycle the pressure.  This managed to clear the blockage. 

Dragon CRS-2 was successfully grappled on 3 March.  Two of the spacecraft's thruster pods are visible. Courtesy: NASA

The SpaceX Dragon CRS-2 cargo capsule was initially successfully launched by an Falcon 9 launch vehicle at 1510 GMT from Cape Canaveral on 1 March 2013.  The initial orbit achieved was 329 x 199km at an inclination of 51.66 degrees.  As part of its NASA funded commercial mission, the spacecraft was then to rendezvous with the International Space Station to be docked after being grappled by the station's robot arm. However, it has emerged that a thruser anomaly delayed the spacecraft opening its solar arrays and may hinder this rendezvous. 

Elon Musk revealed on his Twitter feed that there was an issue with Dragon thruster pods: The solar arrays have now been deployed but only one pod of thrusters (out of four) is working. 

Comment by David Todd: This is likely to impede orbit raising and rendezvous operations (a minimum of two pods is usually required) and may even prevent an accurate de-orbit burn.  

The news that Lockheed Martin has finally got back into commercial manned spaceflight transportation by joining the Sierra Nevada led team building the second Dreamchaser spaceplane will probably be a relief to its board.  For while Lockheed Martin beat its main rival Boeing to the glory of building the Orion space capule for NASA's long range manned exploration extravaganzas (to borrow from Neil Armstrong's quip: Orion was the one part of Project Constellation that could not be "executed") in truth, this victory was a slightly hollow one.

The Dreamchaser Spacecraft -  Courtesy: Sierra Nevada Corp 

For as Boeing licked its Orion wounds, it translated its non-selected design into a smaller capsule called CST-100; one that was less capable, but one would be perfect for launching humans to and from low Earth orbit several times a year.  This flight rate compared to the one or two missions per year (at best) that the Orion space capsule might fly. 

Boeing's "Orion loser" CST-100 design thus became one of the likely winners of NASA contracts for regular crew transportation, along with the SpaceX Dragon and the Sierra Nevada Dreamchaser.  As such, Lockheed Martin found itself iced-out of this potentially more lucrative business, albeit that it had a launch vehicle interest via its man-rated Atlas V expendable rocket which will probably be used by the CST-100 and by the Dreamchaser. 

Having realised that it was in danger of missing much of this "commercial transportation boat", Lockheed Martin initially allied itself with ATK's Liberty capsule/launch vehicle contender - a design that was so far behind the others that it was never seriously going to gain NASA funding.

Subsequently, in NASA's most recent commercial crew development move, a two and a half award style Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) contract was awarded to Boeing, SpaceX and Sierra Nevada respetively, albeit the latter got substantially less funding that the other two.   The decision to give it lower funding, officially due to Dreamchaser's higher technical risk. may have been good news for Lochkheed Martin asitd may have been the spur for Sierra Nevada to get Lockheed Martin's involvment. 

So Lockheed Martin finally finds itself riding on a realistic runner in the commercial transportation race, and on one that might even win most of the business.  For while winged/lifting body vehicles such as the NASA HL-20-derived Dreamchaser do have more technical risk, they have considerable advantages over capsule designs.  For example, they offer a much more benign "lower-g" re-entries and have better cross range capabilities. Dreamchaser, as a sort of "son of the Space Shuttle" will be returned to a launch site in a Shuttle style gentle touch down, will not have to make higher risk parachute descents or rocket powered touchdowns or ocean spashdowns as it returns to Earth. 

Blunt body capsules come into their own when used on lunar and interplanetary flights as they are better able to stand up to the aerothermodynamics of re-entry into Earth's atmosphere at superorbital speeds. Hence this is the reason that Orion and its Apollo space capsule forerunner have large radius blunt rear ends.

While NASA is already helping Boeing with its inquiry into how and why Boeing 787 aircraft batteries have been over heating recently, the rocket-to-electric car entrepreneur who leads both SpaceX and Tesla Motors, Elon Musk has given his opinion to Flightglobal about why, in his view, the lithium-ion batteries used on the Boeing 787 are fundementally unsafe.  Musk notes that the cells are too large and not protected enough to not get into runaway overheating state. 

The most recent update of NASA's Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) programme (and its CCiCap follow-on) had one interesting point: all three of the leading commercial firms involved, Boeing, Sierra Nevada and SpaceX, plan to have their own test-pilot astronauts fly the initial suborbial and later initial orbital manned launches of their spacecraft: the CST-100, the Dreamchaser and Dragon respectively.  These should take place in the 2015-16 time frame.

Artists impression of CST-100 approaching International Space Station. Courtesy:Boeing

Spaceflightnow reports that NASA complies with this strategy noting that a demonstration of the safety of the said crew delivery systems is the commercial firms' responsibility as part of their contracts,  NASA astronauts will apparently not be allowed to fly on initial orbital flights. 

If they are not aboard, gone will the days when NASA needed glamorously-brave test pilot school graduate astronauts with"The Right Stuff" to fly on these very dangerous test missions,  From now on, unlike Neil Armstrong and most of his Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and Shuttle-commander colleagues, NASA's space men and women will apparently just be fare-paying passengers.

Comment by David Todd:  No more heroes anymore.  Perhaps this heath-and-safety-first risk-reduction stance has been forced on NASA by its insurers and lawyers.  Schoolboys in the UK have been banned from playing conkers for the same reason.

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. 

Elon Musk, the billionaire Internet, clean energy and rocket entrepreneur who made his initial fortunes in the internet business, most noticeably via his interest in the sale of the Paypal business, has just added to his wealth via the public sale of the solar generation leasing firm, SolarCity, in which he had a shareholding.

After the Initial Public Offering (IPO) of stock the price of the shares on the first day closed at $11.79, up 47 per cent from the initial share sale price of $8.  As a result, the value of Musk's shares in the SolarCity firm where he also is Chairman, went up by $70 million from $150.8 million to circa $220 million.  Musk also used the sale to slightly increase his total shareholding in the firm.

Musk previously reached "billionaire" status as the result of his financial interest in the Tesla Motors electric car firm (where he is CEO) whose IPO in 2010 caused the valuation of Musk's own shares in Tesla to be counted as being in excess of $1 billion. 

Elon Musk has now declared that he is planning an IPO for Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) which could occur as early as the latter half of 2013. 

"SpaceX will go public at some point, as I think it should ultimately be owned primarily by the public." he reportedly said in a tweet to his fans.   Musk however remains fearful of going fully public with SpaceX stock as he noted that publically owned firms do not always survive well in the longer term.