It was a day with a pair of important missions to follow. First, was the attempt to land the second US-built lander on the moon, Intuitive Machines IM-2 or Athena. It's worth pointing out this is the second lunar landing in this week alone. (It's also trivia worth mentioning that both Firefly Aerospace, the makers of Blue Ghost, and Intuitive Machines are located in Texas). Second was SpaceX's Starship Test Flight, TF-8.
In the overall big picture sense, both of them were better than their previous milestones but neither one was perfect or even far better than the previous. More like a replay than a big improvement. In the first case, that would be Intuitive Machines' IM-1 last year. In the second, the comparison would be to January's Test Flight 7.
To borrow a phrase, today's missions weren't exactly the same as the comparison missions but they rhymed.
In the first case, IM-2, like IM-1 (Odysseus) last year, apparently landed
awkwardly. Watching the
NASA/IM video coverage
in real time, the mission controllers didn't seem to know that the probe had
landed when it was supposed to have. By the time they terminated the
coverage, a half hour after the scheduled landing time, we had a mixed bag of
information. Things like the engine is running (after it was supposed to
have landed) then it wasn't running. The fuel wasn't where they expected
it in the tank.
Beyond that, Crain and the rest of the company, including its chief executive Steve Altemus, could not precisely say what happened. After Athena landed, the engineers in mission control could talk to the spacecraft, and they were able to generate some power from its solar arrays. But precisely where it was, or how it lay on the ground, they could not say a few hours later.
Mission controllers could communicate with the payloads and it sounded like it was all working pretty well, they just didn't know if it was standing up closer to vertical or if it was like Odysseus last year. Something never explained was keeping them from taking photos and sending them back to Earth. That can affect all operations, especially big payloads like NASA’s Polar Resource Ice Mining Experiment (PRIME) and the drill from Honeybee Robotics.
In the second case, today's Starship TF-8 started out like January's TF-7. In that mission, we saw the booster return to Boca Chica and be captured in mid-air, but at about the time that was happening, the Ship was exploding. Today we saw the booster return to the launch tower and be captured by the chopsticks, and I made note of the display of the status of the six engines on Starship. This was almost exactly seven minutes after liftoff. All six of them were in great shape while by that time in TF-7 they were shutting down.
Note the time in the bottom right panel 8:08, so essentially one minute after the booster capture. You can see the two vacuum Raptors (big circles) on the left side of the engine pattern are still on but the three, smaller diameter, ground Raptors have shut down. A few seconds after this screen capture, they were all off.
As the NASASpaceflight guys were going through the video, one of the guys noticed this. Look at the time in this view, 19 seconds before the one above.
There are more signs of things going seriously wrong in this view. Now
look at the red circle just left of the time. That bright spot isn't
there seconds before this. The NASA Spaceflight techy guy thinks this
the engine getting burned through from the inside.
There's more. It's hard to see well in this photo but there's an orange mist above the engine on the right with a light blueish-gray mist above that and above the curve that marks the edge of the Starship's body. He thinks this is raw open fire in the engine compartment. Which is pretty much what caused FT-7's RUD. Clearly, the work that SpaceX did to fix Starship wasn't enough. It delayed the RUD from around the same time as the booster capture, which is close to seven minutes, for around one more minute. Delaying it two or three minutes instead of one might have saved the mission.
Two missions like these in one day is unusual. They mostly underline the old
cliche that space is hard.
UPDATE 3/7 at 10:00 AM to add:
Intuitive Machines updated this morning to add that the mission is over:
Images downlinked from Athena on the lunar surface confirmed that Athena was on her side. After landing, mission controllers were able to accelerate several program and payload milestones, including NASA’s PRIME-1 suite, before the lander’s batteries depleted.
With the direction of the sun, the orientation of the solar panels, and extreme cold temperatures in the crater, Intuitive Machines does not expect Athena to recharge. The mission has concluded and teams are continuing to assess the data collected throughout the mission.
Sucks about IM-2. It's almost like all the Moon landers need a satellite constellation around the Moon to aid in retransmitting and control.
ReplyDeleteAs to Starship, dangit. That sucks. Welp, be interesting to see how quickly SpaceX identifies and implements changes. And to see if said changes work on the next launch.
Possibly bad luck in site selection. I've hiked the Sierra Nevada for example. There are areas above the treeline where you could not safely set down a lander for a mile in any direction. A 100m of crossrange, or even 200 or 300m wouldn"t be enough to find a spot.
ReplyDeleteIs Musk going to have to choose between saving the US or saving SpaceX?
ReplyDeleteNo.
DeleteWhy do think Elon is sitting at a FEA workstation doing an analysis or CAD changing the design? He is a cheerleader and coach, he has never been a hardware/software level engineer for SpaceX
DeleteI can't understand why the hell IM would design such a tall lander. They limited themselves to land on relatively flat ground. This seems like Stupid-Right-Out-Of-The-Box engineering design. There must have been a very good reason for it.
ReplyDeleteThat came up during the NASA/IM teleconference yesterday afternoon. The IM guy said something like, "it's lower than you think it is because the heavy parts of the hardware are on the bottom." Which is nice, but simply using shorter legs would get it lower.
DeleteI noticed while reading about Blue Ghost that they talked about how the design led to a lower, more stable center of gravity.
Are the legs adjustable to maintain a correct vertical orientation?
DeleteI've not heard that mentioned, so I'm guessing not. If they are adjustable, that requires motors, wiring, sensors to tell it vertical and software to run it all. Sounds like a big change.
DeleteShip looked like it had a major rapid ejection of something rearwards in a few frames the second before loosing engines began. It was rather sudden how ship began to spin out of control, maybe they experienced a tank rupture or main feed lines broken adding to the mix, and that was the source of ignition leading to the RUD.
ReplyDeleteCLIPs is not working as well as everyone had hopes for. Could be a sign its time for NASA to simply remove itself from funding privateering, and let privateering do its thing, law of economics will force things to sort themselves out rapidly. Or NASA switches to a rewards program that awards specified grants after levels of success are achieved. Reenforcing failures with more money is not exactly the most intelligent way I would say. Regardless all that, privateering really is the only realistic path into rapid lucrative sustainable space presence. Investors have the uncanny ability to choose winners with their investments. Its gonna have to go that way, the hindrances governmental interference naturally imposes will always inhibit private venture, specifically into space, due to the very nature of such expansion and all its unique characteristics. Just let it go. Get out of the funding and all its stipulations, its got to happen.
ReplyDeleteStimulate privately operated earth to orbit system, passenger and light cargo, to a holding station, the rest all hands off once out of atmosphere privateering, in this way NASA fills its public mission as a servant agency of US first interests. Lord knows there is enough funds which can be directed towards that, with revelations of trillions in stolen/laundered American wealth.
The Wikipedia page for the lander states that it has an all up mass of about 2,000kg, and a 10° tip over angle. That seems like a poor design for landing in rough territory. The clearance from the bottom of the engine bell to the ground seems about as small as you would want it to be, probably less than half a meter.
ReplyDeleteSuper heavy boosters are getting lined out. Thats good to see. Build a trusty workhorse that can have lots of uses. Lot of need of that.
ReplyDelete