Small Space News Story Roundup 58

Two stories:  one on the positive side, one on the negative.

On the positive side, Atmos Space Cargo's First Test 

Back in the April 22nd followup to the first launch of their PHOENIX 1 reentry vehicle, while everything Atmos  publicly stated about the mission was positive, we were left with the fact that they weren't able to photograph and document that everything survived.  All of that came down to being because the main payload of the Bandwagon 3 mission, a Korean Synthetic Aperture Radar sat caused what they called a last minute change to where the PHOENIX 1 would splashdown.  About 1/4 of the globe west of the original splashdown point; from Reunion Island off the SE coast of Africa to 1200 miles off the SE coast of Brazil.  

Space.com reports today that the initial somewhat optimistic views that the mission had been a success are actually correct.  

Phoenix 1 was tasked with demonstrating some key reentry tech, such as the capsule's inflatable heat shield. Atmos also aimed to collect information about the flight and record scientific data from the customer experiments that flew aboard Phoenix 1 as well. All of these objectives were indeed met during the flight, according to Atmos.

I was drawn to the article by the title, "See photos snapped in space by Europe's 1st private reentry capsule" there's only two in the article, and the one that I think is more important is a victim of the terrible lighting that happens pretty often in space missions.  I tweaked the mid-range brightness values up a bit in a photo editor.

Phoenix 1 (left) separates from the upper stage of its Falcon 9 during the Bandwagon-3 mission. (Image credit: Atmos Space Cargo)

"Phoenix 1 was a milestone mission that showcased the incredible capabilities of our team," Marta Oliveira, Atmos' co-founder and chief operating officer, said in an April 23 update. "This mission proves that we’re not only solving the technical challenge of re-entry — we're laying the groundwork for a future where space is accessible, testable and impactful for innovation here on Earth."

On the negative side, Firefly's Alpha rocket had a very rarely seen failure on its mission today

The 6th launch of Firefly's Alpha rocket had a failure just about two and a half minutes into the flight, just after the first stage shut down and dropped away from the upper stage.  This left the upper stage unable to complete the mission of putting an experimental satellite into orbit for Lockheed Martin.  The payload never made orbit.

Alpha suffered an anomaly shortly after its two stages separated, which led to the loss of the nozzle extension for the upper stage's single Lightning engine. This significantly reduced the engine's thrust, dooming the mission, Firefly said in an update several hours after launch.

"Initial indications showed Alpha's upper stage reached 320 km [199 miles] in altitude. However, upon further assessment, the team learned the upper stage did not reach orbital velocity, and the stage and payload have now safely impacted the Pacific Ocean in a cleared zone north of Antarctica," the update reads.

I've watched two videos of the mission, focusing mostly on the view after the stage separation, and it's very clear that something took out the bell-shaped nozzle on the upper stage but there never seemed to be video showing it.  The upper stage engine continued to burn but with no nozzle to concentrate the thrust in the proper direction, it didn't have enough thrust to get to the proper orbit.   Strangely, the videos featured someone from Firefly explaining what we were seeing and I never heard her say a word about the nozzle (which Firefly's statement called a nozzle extension) not looking right.  

Firefly is one of just a handful of active US launch companies with rockets that have reached low-Earth orbit, but its Alpha rocket hasn't established a reliable track record. In six flights, Alpha has amassed just two unqualified successes. Two prior Alpha launches deployed their payloads in lower-than-planned orbits, and the rocket's debut test flight in 2021 failed soon after liftoff.

Now, Alpha has again missed its aim and didn't reach orbit at all.

Firefly argues that their Alpha has a payload capacity in a niche that's ideal for satellites too large to fly with Rocket Lab or too small to merit a dedicated flight with SpaceX.  They seem to have the contracts to back that up.

NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Reconnaissance Office, the US Space Force, and several more commercial customers have also reserved slots on Firefly's launch schedule. With these contracts, Firefly has the fourth-largest launch confirmed backlog of any US launch company, following SpaceX, United Launch Alliance, and Rocket Lab.

I think that last sentence should contain, "Firefly has the fourth-largest confirmed launch backlog of any US launch company," but more importantly, if they keep losing 2/3 of what they launch, that "fourth-largest confirmed launch backlog" won't be there much longer.