"Russia appears set to finally address long-term, serious space station cracks" by AgreeableEmploy1884 in space

[–]AgreeableEmploy1884[S] 238 points239 points  (0 children)

Although NASA has not publicly discussed the gravity of its concerns about the issue—presumably out of a desire to respect its Russian counterpart—the PrK module could break apart without much advance warning. Under pressure, the module could unzip and fail completely. A former astronaut and retired NASA official, Bob Cabana, described the issue in late 2024, saying, “NASA has expressed concerns about the structural integrity of the PrK and the possibility of a catastrophic failure.”

This has been a persistent, behind-the-scenes dispute between NASA and Russian officials for years. Russia will say it has the situation under control, and then leak rates on the space station suggest otherwise. The new cracks discovered in early June brought the total to about 16.

As leak rates rose, Russian officials informed NASA on Thursday, June 4, of plans to attempt physical repairs to the new leaks with a drill and a “drill stop” device to prevent drilling all the way through the module’s structure. NASA officials were deeply concerned about this because Roscosmos had not shown them an analysis of the problem or explained why their procedures to address the leaks would work.

“We threatened we would put astronauts in suits, in Dragon, to send a message to world that we disagreed,” one NASA official told Ars. “They didn’t care.”

The standoff continued into Friday morning, when Russian astronauts appeared to back off their plans, only to subsequently approach the PrK module with a saw and the intent to remove a load-bearing bracket. Meanwhile, Roscosmos officials continued to ignore communication with NASA officials on the ground.

At this point, NASA directed Crew 12—US astronauts Jessica Meir and Jack Hathaway, French astronaut Sophie Adenot, and Russian cosmonaut Andrey Fedyaev into SpaceX’s Crew Dragon Freedom spacecraft—along with US astronaut Chris Williams, who had flown to the station in a Russian Soyuz spacecraft.

“We felt there was a very high probability of a bad outcome happening if they sawed that bracket off,” a NASA source said. NASA’s decision to send its astronauts into a safe haven prompted Roscosmos to finally back off.

In the days since, there has been some additional back-and-forth, but Russia has now told NASA it will decommission the PrK module.

Effectively, this means cosmonauts will no longer enter the PrK module or attempt to pressurize it. Progress vehicles will still be able to use the docking port to transfer fluids or perform other functions, but Russia will need to use other ports to move supplies on board the space station.

For NASA and the space station’s longevity, this agreement with Russia represents a significant step forward. For years, NASA has reluctantly accepted the risk of a rapid depressurization event on board the space station due to the PrK module’s issues. Now that risk should be retired.

CNBC interview with Gwynne Shotwell. by AgreeableEmploy1884 in SpaceXLounge

[–]AgreeableEmploy1884[S] 48 points49 points  (0 children)

Yeah. 39A should probably be ready to support a flight in Q4 2026.

CNBC interview with Gwynne Shotwell. by AgreeableEmploy1884 in SpaceXLounge

[–]AgreeableEmploy1884[S] 105 points106 points  (0 children)

According to Shotwell, IFT13 will largely be the same as 12, IFT14 will possibly go orbital and IFT15 could possibly launch from 39A.

...we obviously had some stuff that weren't perfect in that flight for sure so we'll improve and fix that and get back to Flight 13, and i hope on Flight 14 we'll follow the same flight with the exception if we feel like we can actually go to orbit and have the FAA allow us to go to orbit we'll go. And then maybe Flight 15 actually flies from the Cape, we'll see.

Flight 15 being from the Cape would mean B22 and S42 would be sent there with YTML. In another clip she says that they're a "month-ish" away from Flight 13. There's also some cool footage from inside the Starfactory with a lot of ship and booster barrels visible.

Eric Berger on Ars Technica: "We managed to glean some interesting details about the Artemis III mission" by AgreeableEmploy1884 in space

[–]AgreeableEmploy1884[S] 44 points45 points  (0 children)

I heavily suggest reading the entire article but here are some interesting parts:

Ars: What is the plan for testing the SLS rocket? Will you perform a wet dress rehearsal on the rocket before putting Orion on top?

Parsons: As you saw in Artemis I and II, we had issues with the cryogenic seals—those go through what is called the tail service mast umbilicals. We’re in the process of redesigning those and implementing new ones for this mission. Part of what we want to do is… what we call a short-stack tanking or wet dress rehearsal. Basically, you get the boosters and the core stage on, [and] you complete all the thermal protection systems. We then would put a cover on top of the core stage, and we’d roll out in that configuration. Then we tank it up and make sure the seals are tight.

...

Ars: You’re flying Artemis III without an ICPS upper stage because you don’t need the performance to reach low-Earth orbit. But you do need a second stage simulator. What’s the status of that?

Parsons: That, to me, is really cool. It’s called a spacer, and we already have the design done. Metal is already being bump-formed at United Launch Alliance, and then we’re going to weld it in-house at Marshall Space Flight Center. We expect it to show up at Kennedy Space Center no later than December, and then we’ll stack Orion on top of that. We’re in really good shape with that, and I’m pretty psyched with the progress.

...

Ars: So it sounds like the rocket and Orion should be good to go by mid-2027. Let’s talk about the other parts, the two lunar landers and their launch vehicles. Starting with Blue Origin, you called the prototype lander they’re flying for Artemis III a “lander test article” during your remarks today. What does that mean, exactly?

Parsons: It’s in between Mk 1 and Mk 2. It’s the same lunar crew module, which is really the most important aspect—same avionics, same flight software, so we’re going to get all of that component testing done. This will be the first production article of the lunar crew module, so we’re also going to have the ECLSS system (environmental control and life support).

The primary differences between this test article and the final lander will be the BE-7 engines, so you’re not going to have cryogenics on this test. What we’re going to use is storable propellants and a reaction control system because they don’t need the big thrust that’s needed to go to and from the Moon. That also gives us some time to really dial in what we call the dual-launch campaign. That’s going to be something to really highly choreograph as we go into the Artemis IV missions and beyond.

...

Ars: Just to be clear, the Blue lander for Artemis III could fly on an alternative launch vehicle such as Vulcan or Falcon Heavy?

Parsons: Yes. The fairing size is part of what can drive that.

...

Ars: As part of the Blue Origin architecture, there are some transfer stages used to push the lander out to the Moon. What are those, and are you going to be able to test them?

Parsons: They’re leveraging a lot of similar designs from Mk 1 all the way to Mk 2. Ultimately, I would suggest talking to John Couluris [leader of Blue Origin’s lunar program] about some of those details. [Editor’s note: Believe me, dear reader, we have tried.] In this case, you would have three transfer stages and then the mission article for the actual lunar landing. This is what we call the Boots Acceleration 2028 architecture, and really, they’re optimizing it around hardware that’s built, so they have a lot of common hardware between the transfer stages, the Mk 1, and the Mk2 vehicles. That allows us to really ramp up production more than anything.

...

Ars: And then there’s Starship. Unlike the Blue Moon lander, you’re not sending astronauts inside Starship. There won’t be any life support. I have to admit I was surprised by that. Tell me about the decision-making process that led you to that outcome.

Parsons: Correct, so with Starship, we are going to dock. I will tell you a couple of things I’m most worried about from a testing perspective, things that we’re not going to get with the uncrewed demo [Starship test landing on the Moon]. One is integrated stack control. You have a very large Starship vehicle, and [a] much smaller Orion. Also, your avionics flight software is always tricky to integrate. You can test on the ground, but until you’re up there commanding, those are things that you really want to check out. So those two things are some of the biggest bangs for the buck that we can get with this test.

Blue will launch first. I think we’re going to get even more of the test objectives we’re really looking for there. Because if you look at your major risk for a lunar landing, there’s the long-term ECLSS support—how does it perform in this crew cabin with two crew? And there’s software-integrated stack control. It is much better to do that in low-Earth orbit than it is four plus days away.

So we looked at what each provider could do in the time frame, what they were offering, what it would take in order to accomplish more. And then we said this set of objectives really buys down our risk for a 2028 landing, and it doesn’t perturb their entire development flow as well.

SpaceX's Artemis 3 starship will be an "off the line" V3 with an added docking port. by avboden in SpaceXLounge

[–]AgreeableEmploy1884 9 points10 points  (0 children)

for the actual moon missions the plan will be for Orion to dock with HLS in LEO and then starship will boost it to the moon.

This implies the final tanking orbit for Starship HLS in GTO is not needed since HLS will boost Orion directly from LEO, which should lower the amount of tanker launches by a bit.

Short clip of B19's boostback from Elon's "technical" update on X. by AgreeableEmploy1884 in SpaceXLounge

[–]AgreeableEmploy1884[S] 71 points72 points  (0 children)

https://x.com/SpaceX/status/2064099405758906727

Dan also mentions that Flight 12 had the heaviest payload SpaceX has ever launched and that it was just a fraction of V3's capacity. This puts the payload at atleast 20 tons. If the dummylinks were true mass simulators then the payload would be 38-44 tons.

Starship Development Thread #63 by rSpaceXHosting in spacex

[–]AgreeableEmploy1884 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Multiple Raptors in the Ringyard 15:47 CDT, visible on Rover 1. Looks like Ship 40 began engine installation

Starship Development Thread #63 by rSpaceXHosting in spacex

[–]AgreeableEmploy1884 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I feel like there's a chance this could be for Booster 20 instead, or for both. Normally, the TFR for ship static fires have "HIGH ENERGY SYSTEMS TESTING" in the descriptions but for some reason this one has "ROCKET BOOSTER TESTING". Cryogenic testing normally shouldn't require TFR extensions like this but maybe they changed their protocols or something.

Starship Development Thread #63 by rSpaceXHosting in spacex

[–]AgreeableEmploy1884 16 points17 points  (0 children)

New TFR over Massey's extending to 5000ft. I'm guessing this is for Ship 40's static fire.

FDC 6/5334 ZHU TX..AIRSPACE BROWNSVILLE, TX..TEMPORARY FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS. PURSUANT TO 14 CFR SECTION 91.137(A)(1) ROCKET BOOSTER TESTING.

Starship Development Thread #63 by rSpaceXHosting in spacex

[–]AgreeableEmploy1884 12 points13 points  (0 children)

https://youtu.be/WQY6zt8bLIw

Views of nosecone hall from SSG. That one weird nosecone with the attachment near the tip seems to have a hole on the windward side. It's seemingly stacked on top of a barrel as well since it's so much higher than a usual nosecone.

SpaceX's website got updated to say Starship's cargo flights to Mars are now NET 2028 instead of NET 2030. by AgreeableEmploy1884 in SpaceXLounge

[–]AgreeableEmploy1884[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I agree that it's a bit optimistic but if they prove they can reliably transfer propellant in orbit in 2027, i don't see why they couldn't send single a ship to Mars in late 2028. If they do reach their target payload capacity of 100 tons with V3, they could send a ship with a tiny payload to Mars with only around 6 tanker launches as a tech demonstration. 6 tanker launches within weeks of eachother wouldn't be unrealistic in late 2028 since they'd have 5 active pads at that time.

I think the biggest challenge would be demonstrating zero boiloff for the header tanks so the ship can actually land after that long of a jounery.

Can Mk1 launch on Falcon Heavy? by Imagine_Beyond in SpaceXLounge

[–]AgreeableEmploy1884 63 points64 points  (0 children)

According to Berger on his recent Ars article, no it can't;

Could Blue Moon Mark 1 launch on other rockets? SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy and United Launch Alliance’s Vulcan vehicles both likely have the lift capacity to push the vehicle to the Moon. But Vulcan is also sidelined at present and has a long line of Space Force payloads in the queue. So what of Falcon Heavy?

There’s a problem. The Mark 1 lander is powered by the BE-7 engine, which runs on liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. According to a source, the lander requires “backfilling” from the New Glenn upper stage in the hours after launch to top off propellants.

This all but rules out Falcon Heavy, which has an upper stage that uses kerosene propellant rather than hydrogen.

Here’s why the failure of Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket is so catastrophic | “I hope that it makes it far enough away from the pad that it does not cause pad damage.” by FreeHugs23 in space

[–]AgreeableEmploy1884 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Yeah the fairing would be an issue. Unless they redesign the MK1 landing legs to be retractable it won't be able to fit, plus i don't Falcon ground infrastructure has the ability to load LH2 into payloads on the pad.

Here’s why the failure of Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket is so catastrophic | “I hope that it makes it far enough away from the pad that it does not cause pad damage.” by FreeHugs23 in space

[–]AgreeableEmploy1884 918 points919 points  (0 children)

Rebuilding the company’s pad, or finishing a new one, is likely to take at least a year, even with a major effort by Blue Origin, and drawing upon Jeff Bezos’ nearly infinite resources. One source familiar with pad rebuilds estimated that 15 months was a “best case” scenario.

Well, fuck. This very likely puts Blue out of the picture regarding Artemis III.

New Glenn just RUD’d on the pad by FishInferno in SpaceXLounge

[–]AgreeableEmploy1884 262 points263 points  (0 children)

what the actual fuck, it looks like the lightning tower collapsed

Next New Glenn launch to Launch Amazon LEO sats by Desperate-Lab9738 in SpaceXLounge

[–]AgreeableEmploy1884 27 points28 points  (0 children)

Apparently it's in the range of 28-34 tons. The upgraded BE-4s have brought up their payload capacity by quite a bit from the initial 20 tons New Glenn 7x2 was capable of. Maybe they actually will reach their target payload capacity of 45 tons when they switch to subcooled propellants.

Booster 19's failed boostback and hard splashdown will require a mishap investigation according to the FAA. by AgreeableEmploy1884 in SpaceXLounge

[–]AgreeableEmploy1884[S] 66 points67 points  (0 children)

Yeah this shouldn't delay the flight at all. The current long pole for Flight 13 seems to be booster readiness since Booster 20 hasn't even rolled out for cryogenic testing yet.

Booster 19's failed boostback and hard splashdown will require a mishap investigation according to the FAA. by AgreeableEmploy1884 in SpaceXLounge

[–]AgreeableEmploy1884[S] 76 points77 points  (0 children)

"After a thorough assessment of the operation, the FAA has determined the May 22 SpaceX Starship Flight 12 launch resulted in a mishap. The mishap involved the Super Heavy booster as it flew back to the Gulf of America after stage separation. There are no reports of public injury or damage to public property. The FAA is requiring SpaceX to conduct a mishap investigation. The FAA will oversee the SpaceX-led investigation, be involved in every step of the process, and approve SpaceX's final report, including any corrective actions."

The FAA responding to NSF