Excors Ars Centurion
12y
365
Subscriptor++
Resistance said:
I thought the current trajectory has the spacecraft and everything near it returning to Earth?
Yes - NASA says the translunar injection burn was also the deorbit burn. It's a very long deorbit trajectory, and there's six opportunities for correction burns to ensure a safe reentry angle and splashdown location, but they're already on their way to Earth. And they've skipped the first two correction burns because the trajectory is close enough to optimal.

If I'm interpreting this paper right, the requirement is to reach the entry interface with a max downrange error of 25.6km (figure 4), with up to 20 m/s delta-v of corrections, so this is just about fine-tuning. I presume that means anything that's still floating near the spacecraft, and not flying off at many m/s, is close enough to the optimal trajectory that it's still going to impact the Earth.

One can get away with “roughing it” when using the bathroom during trips to the Moon. Going to Mars, requiring months in space, is a different matter. If the toilet breaks on the way to Mars, there is a non-zero chance the crew is dying. So it’s great to try out these systems now, on Orion. This really is the purpose of this test flight, to make sure life support systems work for the crew, to identify problems, and to implement fixes in the future.

In the big picture, the Artemis II mission continues to go splendidly. The deputy manager of the Orion program for NASA, Debbie Korth, said Saturday that the spacecraft is performing “remarkably well,” and that the vehicle’s overall performance has “pleasantly surprised” the engineers working on the program.

Everything is going so well, in fact, that much of the focus has been on frozen urine. And considering all of the things that could go wrong with a dangerous deep space journey like this, a wee problem like this seems like a big win. //

Zapfenzieher Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
15y
137
Go, Artemis, go!

Oh, wait ... 😋

As NASA prepares to send four astronauts around the moon for the 10-day Artemis II mission, a veteran space flier's unexplained illness in orbit is spotlighting one of the biggest risks of deep-space travel: the need for medical systems in case of emergencies.

NASA astronaut Michael Fincke said a sudden episode aboard the International Space Station (ISS) in January left him unable to speak and forced NASA's first-ever medical evacuation from the orbiting laboratory. Doctors have ruled out a heart attack, Fincke told the Associated Press, but they still don't know what caused the medical issue.

NASA was able to get Fincke (along with the three other members of the crew) back to Earth relatively quickly from the ISS. But that may not be the case for the longer lunar missions the agency envisions under the Artemis program.

Robert Goddard, a Massachusetts-born physicist, launched the world’s first liquid-fueled rocket on this date 100 years ago.

It was not an overly impressive flight. The rocket, fueled by gasoline and liquid oxygen, rose just 41 feet into the air, and the flight lasted 2.5 seconds before it struck ice and snow.

Nevertheless, this rocket, named “Nell,” represented a historic achievement that would help launch the modern age of spaceflight. Three decades later, the first objects would begin to ride liquid-fueled rockets into space, followed shortly by humans. A little more than 40 years would pass before humans walked on the Moon.

To mark this historic moment, a few Ars staffers are sharing some of their most memorable launches. Please add yours in the comments below.

Recorded during 2017, timelapse sequences from the International Space Station are compiled in this serene video of planet Earth at Night. Fans of low Earth orbit can start by enjoying the view as green and red aurora borealis slather up the sky. The night scene tracks from northwest to southeast across North America, toward the Gulf of Mexico and the Florida coast. A second sequence follows European city lights, crosses the Mediterranean Sea, and passes over a bright Nile river in northern Africa.

This page lists various fan-made tools that can help calculations related to the gameplay of Kerbal Space Program. Unlike addons, they do not directly influence the game, as they are run separately.

Performing a transfer from an orbit of one body directly to an orbit of another one seems like serious business. A few guides published on the forums have a lot of maths and stuff, you may think this is too complicated to figure out.

Well, it is rocket science, but: it's not complicated.

In the basic orbiting tutorial, you were introduced to the concept of orbiting, and basic orbit stabilization, as well as an orbital table to help you along. Now, what if you want an orbit that isn't on that table? What if you want to have an orbit with a specific period? That's where these formulae come in.

In the basic orbiting tutorial, you were introduced to the concept of orbiting, and basic orbit stabilization, as well as an orbital table to help you along. Now, what if you want an orbit that isn't on that table? What if you want to have an orbit with a specific period? That's where these formulae come in.

The blue circle is Kerbin itself, the light blue circle around it is the top of the atmosphere. You can click+drag on the left of Kerbin to set periapsis, or on the right of Kerbin for apoapsis. You can also use the text boxes to enter altitudes and velocities numerically.

You need to specify two values in all: either altitudes of periapsis and apoapsis, velocities at periapsis and apoapsis, or both altitude and velocity at either periapsis or apoapsis. You select the values you want to enter with the Parameters menu, the remainder of the information will be computed from the values you put in. If you enter altitude and a velocity above escape velocity, it'll give you excess velocity at infinity. The apoapsis and periapsis textboxes are altitudes above mean sea level (AMSL), the text report below has both altitudes AMSL and distances from the center of Kerbin. Note that if you specify values that lead to an apoapsis lower than periapsis, the plotted orbit and contents of the text fields will be swapped automatically.

This online tool calculates delta-v and CommNet requirements in KSP (a video game, Kerbal Space Program). It helps KSP players plan and solve complex missions. Just like the game, these calculators are made to be interactive and visual to help new players quickly grasp the mechanics of rocket science.

How to Use: Simply select the body you wish to perform orbital synchronization calculations on from the drop-down list, then pick the resonance you wish to place your craft in. Example: If you wanted a 2:3 resonance, enter 2 into Numerator and 3 into Denominator.

Launch Window Planner for Kerbal Space Program

On September 26, 2022, NASA’s Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) spacecraft crashed into a binary asteroid system. By intentionally ramming a probe into the 160-meter-wide moonlet named Dimorphos, the smaller of the two asteroids, humanity demonstrated that the kinetic impact method of planetary defense actually works. The immediate result was that Dimorphos’ orbital period around Didymos, its larger parent body, was slashed by 33 minutes.

Of course, altering a moonlet’s local orbit doesn’t seem like enough to safeguard Earth from civilization-ending impacts. But now, as long-term observational data has come in, it seems we accomplished more than that. DART actually changed the trajectory of the entire Didymos binary system, altering its orbit around the Sun. //

Because Dimorphos orbits Didymos, some of the ejecta remained trapped in the system, where it altered the mutual orbit between the two rocks. But a crucial fraction of the ejecta achieved escape velocity from the entire binary system. The momentum carried away by the system-escaping debris is what ultimately contributed to shoving the center of mass of the whole Didymos-Dimorphos pair. “In our case, we found that the beta parameter due to DART impact was around two,” Makadia explained.

The debris blasted completely out of the Didymos system gave the asteroids a push roughly equal to the initial impact of the spacecraft itself. //

The goal of DART was primarily to take our planetary defense out of the realm of computer models and get us some hands-on, practical experience, and Makadia thinks we succeeded in doing that. “Our work proves that hitting the secondary asteroid is a viable path for deflecting a binary system away as long as the push is large enough,” he said. “This wasn’t the goal of DART, but we can always design a bigger spacecraft.”

Statistical Ars Legatus Legionis
15y
54,490
pseudonomous said:
I will presume that both you and the NASA guys got the math right and that for a polar landing NRHO makes sense. But if they are really going to "question all requirements", we have to admit the possibility that they might fly Artemis IV or V as an equatorial region landing, do we not?

For Orion as a crew vehicle it doesn't matter. Orion has 1,300 m/s of DeltaV of which 300 m/s is allocated for docking, station keeping, and course corrections. So it is limited to orbits which require <1000 m/s to enter AND exit (NRHO is about 900 m/s). Even equatorial LLO with a 3.5 day loiter (13 days + surface time for total mission time) is a minimum of 835 m/s * 2= 1670 m/s. Loiters improve the worst case scenario but only make a small impact on the best case ones. Even if you could modify the Centaur V to have 3 day endurance and cryocoolers and use it for part of LOI (which we shouldn't that will end up being a $5B 10 year boondoggle) it has in the ballpark of 500 m/s excess DeltaV so you are likely still short unless you dip into your reserves.

Longer term with a better crew vehicle you might have the option to go to LLO Direct via fast insertion but it still isn't a slam dunk option with reusable landers as your example bring up. If you have reusable crew landers LLO as a staging point is made worse if you change landing locations. There isn't one LLO and as such to move between LLOs you need to do a plane change. The only cost effective way to make a plane change is to burn to a highly elliptical orbit you know like how NRHO is highly elipitcal. Every mission requires more prop, has more boiloff, and when changing landing sites you also pay a plane change tax. One feature of NRHO is due to its high perilune you can reach every spot on the moon with a consistent DeltaV cost. This makes mission planning a lot easier. You could land near Apollo 11 on the 70th anniversary if you wanted to. It is no harder (or easier) from NRHO than the poles or any other landing site.

To be clear these nuanced challenges mostly apply to the staging point for a crewed mission. If you are fine with adding 15+ day loiter time you can drop heavy cargo on the south pole by going LLO quite cheaply. If it is an expendable cargo lander efficiency doesn't really matter because it is a one way trip so Direct LLO without a loiter becomes viable.

The reality though is it is complicated and it depends on exactly what mission, to exactly where, how long you are willing to loiter, is the lander reusable and is it crewed. Another wrinkle is if it is crewed are the crew in their own vehicle or pushed there by the tanker. If the crew is riding on the tanker than fast insertion is required which means your crew made the thousands of tons of prop more expensive as well. Likely to the dismay of people in NASA doing this kind of analysis the public discourse though has largely been "NRHO is stupid derp derp derp".

Ajax81611 Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
5y
166
Subscriptor
NASA missed a huge soft drink sponsorship opportunity here by not naming it the Perfect Elliptical Polar Stable Insertion with Coplanar Line of Apsides.

Regarding NASA’s support for the development of commercial space stations, the bill mandates the following, within specified periods, of passage of the law:

• Within 60 days, publicly release the requirements for commercial space stations in low-Earth orbit
• Within 90 days, release the final “request for proposals” to solicit industry responses
• Within 180 days, enter into contracts with “two or more” commercial providers for such stations
  Cruz is trying to inject urgency into NASA as several private companies—including Axiom Space, Blue Origin, Vast, and Voyager—are finalizing designs for space stations. All have expressed a desire for clarity from NASA on how long the space agency would like its astronauts to stay on board, the types of scientific equipment needed, and much more. These are known as “requirements” in NASA parlance.

SPACE JELLYFISH PREDICTOR

NASA shall evaluate the “viability of transferring the ISS to a safe orbital harbor” after retirement. //

The most recent NASA authorization act, passed in 2022, extended the US government’s support for the ISS program until 2030. The amendment tacked onto this year’s bill would not change the timeline for ending operations on the ISS, but it asks NASA to reconsider its decision about what to do with the complex after retirement.

The amendment would direct NASA to “carry out an engineering analysis to evaluate the technical, operational, and logistical viability of transferring the ISS to a safe orbital harbor and storing the ISS in such harbor after the end of the operational low-Earth orbit lifetime of the ISS to preserve the ISS for potential reuse and satisfy the objectives of NASA.” //

In 2024, NASA awarded SpaceX a nearly $1 billion contract to develop a souped-up version of its Dragon spacecraft, which would be equipped with additional thrusters and propellant tanks to provide the impulse required to steer the space station toward a targeted reentry. The deorbit maneuvers will slow the station’s velocity enough for Earth’s gravity to pull it back into the atmosphere. //

Artist’s illustration of SpaceX’s deorbit vehicle, based on the design of the company’s Dragon spacecraft. The modified spacecraft will have 46 Draco thrusters—30 for the deorbit maneuvers and 16 for attitude control. Credit: SpaceX //

The deorbit vehicle needs to slow the station’s speed by about 127 mph (57 meters per second), a tiny fraction of the spacecraft’s orbital velocity of more than 17,000 mph (7.7 kilometers per second). But the station mass is around 450 tons (400 metric tons), equivalent to two freight train locomotives, and measures about the length of a football field. Changing its speed by just 127 mph will consume about 10 tons (9 metric tons) of propellant, according to a NASA analysis released in 2024.

The analysis document shows that NASA considered alternatives to discarding the space station through reentry. One option NASA studied involved moving the station into a higher orbit. At its current altitude, roughly 260 miles (420 kilometers) above the Earth, the ISS would take one to two years to reenter the atmosphere due to aerodynamic drag if reboosts weren’t performed. NASA does not want the space station to make an uncontrolled reentry because of the risk of fatalities, injuries, and property damage from debris reaching the ground.

Boosting the space station’s orbit to somewhere between 400 and 420 miles (640 to 680 kilometers) would require a little more than twice the propellant (18.9 to 22.3 metric tons) needed for deorbit maneuvers, according to NASA’s analysis. At that altitude, without any additional boosts, NASA says the space station would likely remain in orbit for 100 years before succumbing to atmospheric drag and burning up. Going higher still, the space station could be placed in a 1,200-mile-high (2,000-kilometer) orbit, stable for more than 10,000 years, with about 146 tons (133 metric tons) of propellant.

There are two problems with sending the ISS to higher altitudes. One is that it would require the development of new propulsive and tanker vehicles that do not currently exist, according to NASA. //

BobDole11 Ars Centurion
4y
290
I think everyone would love to see the ISS saved for posterity. I would imagine the grand kids of today's generation, when space flight may perhaps be common, visiting and touring a monument ISS and learning how primitive it was (compared to a +50'ish years future) and the bravery of the souls that ventured forth for the expansion of humanity's knowledge, science, exploration, cooperation, and greatness.

I've had those feelings and thoughts myself when viewing Apollo era hardware long ago. Standing by a Saturn 5 dwarfing my 8yr old stature filled me with inspiration to learn about spaceflight, science, and engineering.

But - the ramifications of a collision (or collisions) with space junk yielding 450 tons of more space junk, yielding further collisions and more and smaller junk, and on and on is just too great. The debris at a higher orbit takes too long to deorbit. The thought of our orbitals becoming impassable for centuries is terrifying. //

Veritas super omens Ars Legatus Legionis
13y
26,080
Subscriptor++
What would it take? Based on the history of the SLS I would predict it would take an order of magnitude more money than whatever NASA says and 20 to 30 years longer. There are many laudable goals for space missions, this isn't one of them!. //

fl4Ksh Ars Tribunus Militum
8y
1,518
Subscriptor
NASA is paying SpaceX $2.9B to develop a Starship lunar lander. That work has been ongoing since late 2021 and is scheduled to launch in late 2028.

That lunar lander design could be a pattern for a Starship LEO space station, which would have 1000 cubic meters of pressurized volume (ISS has 913), would support a crew of 10 (ISS supports 7), would be deployed to LEO in a single Starship launch (ISS required 12 years [1999 to 2011] and 35 launches), and would cost ~$10B (ISS cost $150B to build and deploy to LEO and $3B to $4B per year to operate, in today's money). Like the ISS, that Starship LEO space station would use cargo Dragon and crew Dragon spacecraft for resupply of consumables and for crew rotation.

That Starship LEO space station could be built in 36 months and launched in 2030.

jack1983 Smack-Fu Master, in training
12y
93

The Lurker Beneath said:
Do it on a windy day?
There are risks with too high wind speeds as well. High airflow causes static buildup and turbulence. Hydrogen requires very little ignition energy (well below 1mJ at stoichiometric conditions). So even a gust of wind can set off a combustible mixture.

Cryogenic hydrogen is an absolute nightmare to work with.

paulfdietz Ars Scholae Palatinae
7y
1,168
Using hydrogen as the fuel in the first stage was never a good idea. The density is just terrible, making the first stage much larger. Because the first stage is disposed of so quickly, Isp is less important; what's more important is "density impulse" (density x Isp), and LoX/LH2 is inferior to LOX/hydrocarbon by that metric.

Low density also makes the engines more expensive, as more pumping power is needed for a given thrust. //

paulfdietz Ars Scholae Palatinae
7y
1,168

pokrface said:
Right, but the "first stage" of SLS (and STS) is properly the SRBs.
It's more like the first "half stage". What matters for the argument is the velocity at which a stage is done. Even with the SRBs there, that's not that high (although higher than say the Falcon 9, which ends the stage 1 burn at an unusually low velocity so it can be recovered.)

The SRBs do allow the thrust of those LH2 engines to be somewhat lower, since they don't have to lift the fully fueled stack off the pad themselves. By the time the SRBs drop some propellant is gone. This ameliorates to some extent the relatively poor thrust/weight ratio of the engines (73.1 vs 184 for the Merlin 1D.)