NASA's Artemis 1 Orion Spacecraft Aced Moon Mission Despite Heat Shield Issue (space.com) 53
NASA's Orion spacecraft performed better than expected on its first deep-space flight despite experiencing unpredicted loss of its heat shield material. Space.com reports: During Tuesday's call, NASA program managers revealed that Orion's heat shield did not perform as expected, losing more material than the agency had planned for. Nevertheless, NASA leadership is confident that everything will be ready for the crewed around-the-moon flight of Artemis 2, which is planned for next year. Howard Hu, manager of NASA's Orion Program, lauded the crew module's performance during the test flight, noting that NASA was able to accomplish 161 overall test objectives planned for the mission, even adding an additional 21 during the flight based on the spacecraft's performance.
"We also accomplished what our number one objective was, which is returning the crew module back to Earth safely from 24,500 miles per hour to a landing about 16 miles per hour when it touched down, and we were able to land within 2.4 miles of our target," Hu said during Tuesday's teleconference. "Our requirement was 6.2 miles. So, really great performance as we were able to return back from the moon." "Some of the expected char material that we would expect coming back home ablated away differently than what our computer models and what our ground testing predicted," Hu said. "So we had more liberation of the charred material during reentry before we landed than we had expected."
Hu explained that NASA teams are investigating a wide range of data related to the performance of Orion's heat shield, including images and videos of reentry, onboard sensor readings, and even X-ray images of sample materials taken from the shield. "Overall, there's a lot of work to be done in this investigation going forward," Hu said. "We are just starting that effort because we've just gotten together all those pieces of information. Those samples, the videos, images, and the data from the spacecraft itself and correlated them together. And now we're assessing that data and moving forward with that assessment." Despite the heat shield issue, NASA says they feel confident that the crewed Artemis 2 mission will be able to launch on schedule in 2024.
"NASA is currently aiming to launch Artemis 2 in November 2024," adds Space.com. "The mission will send a crew of astronauts on an eight-day mission around the moon and back to test Orion's performance, crew interfaces, and guidance and navigation systems."
"We also accomplished what our number one objective was, which is returning the crew module back to Earth safely from 24,500 miles per hour to a landing about 16 miles per hour when it touched down, and we were able to land within 2.4 miles of our target," Hu said during Tuesday's teleconference. "Our requirement was 6.2 miles. So, really great performance as we were able to return back from the moon." "Some of the expected char material that we would expect coming back home ablated away differently than what our computer models and what our ground testing predicted," Hu said. "So we had more liberation of the charred material during reentry before we landed than we had expected."
Hu explained that NASA teams are investigating a wide range of data related to the performance of Orion's heat shield, including images and videos of reentry, onboard sensor readings, and even X-ray images of sample materials taken from the shield. "Overall, there's a lot of work to be done in this investigation going forward," Hu said. "We are just starting that effort because we've just gotten together all those pieces of information. Those samples, the videos, images, and the data from the spacecraft itself and correlated them together. And now we're assessing that data and moving forward with that assessment." Despite the heat shield issue, NASA says they feel confident that the crewed Artemis 2 mission will be able to launch on schedule in 2024.
"NASA is currently aiming to launch Artemis 2 in November 2024," adds Space.com. "The mission will send a crew of astronauts on an eight-day mission around the moon and back to test Orion's performance, crew interfaces, and guidance and navigation systems."
Re:Almost doesn't count. Need Another Seven Analys (Score:5, Informative)
2.4 miles from target? When SpaceX is 2.4ft off from that X on the drone ship ...
Apples and oranges. Artemis uses parachutes to slow/land the capsule, while SpaceX uses grid fins to steer and engines for a controlled, powered descent/landing of the first stage. Complain when Artemis can steer the capsule's parachute descent.
Re: Almost doesn't count. Need Another Seven Analy (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The speed difference is a bit irrelevant to where the craft lands though, since both systems brake atmospherically to around the same rate of descent first. While the GP does object a little too much (for example 16 mph is a perfectly survivable landing speed), it would be nice to see a capsule drop that has a little more control.
Re: Almost doesn't count. Need Another Seven Anal (Score:2)
Re: Almost doesn't count. Need Another Seven Ana (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, for the moon you are definitely required to use retropropulsion to land. For Mars, the actual density of the atmosphere is a lot more variable than Earth, so I think it's likely that the predictability is worse too.
Re: (Score:2)
The moon capsule is not really a glide vehicle though. You could design it that way if a nice landing on Earth is the primary target.
That was sort of the point. Once you've killed all your momentum and you're in the approximate target area, you should be able to glide to a desired landing point. The landing vehicle itself does not need to be a glider, but it definitely is possible to use parachutes to glide to a destination.
Re: (Score:2)
Ask SpaceX how that went with their fairings....
Re: (Score:2)
Ask SpaceX how that went with their fairings....
Are you talking about the successful SpaceX fairing recovery program?
Re: (Score:2)
What successful fairing recovery program?
They ditched the "lets catch fairings before they hit the water" ships in 2020, and instead turned to "recover from the sea" ships because they could not consistently catch the fairings...
So, exactly my point - SpaceX did not succeed in what people are saying they did, they do not catch fairings because their fairings do not descend with the pinpoint accuracy people are suggesting.
Re: (Score:2)
They ditched the "lets catch fairings before they hit the water" ships in 2020, and instead turned to "recover from the sea" ships because they could not consistently catch the fairings..
The ships actually were catching the fairings, but it turned out that, when they failed to, the fairings were just fine to use anyway. So they dropped the idea of catching them in motion because it was a lot of work for essentially no benefit. They still regularly recover and re-use the fairings. Hence "successful fairing recovery program".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hey moron, here is a video https://youtu.be/p91bGgGHf90 [youtu.be] of the SPACEX Dragon capsule returning to Earth. Please point out exactly where in the video this capsule is doing a nice slow landing on a ship. Oh wait, you can't because SpaceX HAS NEVER DONE THAT.
Re: Almost doesn't count. Need Another Seven Analy (Score:5, Informative)
Thanks for sharing this.
One key point in the video (4:45-4:52) notes that Dragon splashdown is at about.... 16mph. So both NASA and SpaceX seem to think that a splashdown landing at 16mph is valid.
Soyuz, which shares a parachute-based landing, has a landing zone area of about 25 miles in width [nasa.gov]. The same page notes that minimum speed under parachute is 24 feet per second... which translates to 16.4mph. Soyuz, with a hard landing (not water), has retrorockets to reduce speed further at the last moment; Dragon and Orion use the water to soften that landing.
Soyuz spends about 15 minutes under parachute; that's a 4-mile vertical travel window with zero horizontal control. In the video linked by bws111, Dragon was under main chutes for about 3 minutes prior to touchdown; about 0.8 mile vertical drop. With a crosswind of just 10 mph, Soyuz would have a ~2.5 mile variance in landing from the direct fall; Dragon would be down to about 0.5mile with the same crosswind.
Neither is remotely close to "pinpoint" landings, as seen with a glide-entry vehicle like the STS, the Dragon boosters, or what SpaceX is trying with Starship.
Orion apparently pops chutes at about 24000 feet, or about 4.5 miles up. That means accuracy from that stage can only be similar to Soyuz -- about 2.5miles with a 10mph crosswind -- and presumes that the capsule was dead on course at the moment the chutes opened.
Take into account that wind speeds at 24000 feet can routinely be 150+mph, typically decreasing with altitude. At 100mph average over the descent, we're now at a +/-25 mile radius from where the parachutes deploy to where the capsule comes to rest.
Suddenly a ~6mile radius as a target is actually really, really tight plotting, at least in my mind.
Re:Almost doesn't count. Need Another Seven Analys (Score:4, Informative)
You have a decent point that NASA's results are not exactly all that impressive. You do have some issues though. 16 mph is slower than a decent sprint. People fall over or run into obstacles (or ski into trees) at speeds even higher than that all the time without injury, so landing in a padded, shock absorbent chair should not be too much of a problem. For another perspective, that's how fast you would be going if you fell from about 2.615 meters, or about 8.5 feet. That's pretty typical of landing using a parachute. I for one would like to see retrorepulsive landing rockets on the capsule, at least as an emergency backup and also a steerable parachute setup. It's not as if it's new technology. This is the 21st century, they really should be able to land the capsule where they want.
Re:Almost doesn't count. Need Another Seven Analys (Score:4, Informative)
It's all about mass. If you want powered landing you need to carry more fuel. The rockets you use need to operate in the vacuum of space as well as at sea level, making them more complex and heavier. They also need to be steerable and/or you have other control surfaces, which adds yet more mass you need to cart around for the whole mission.
Re: (Score:2)
It's all about mass. If you want powered landing you need to carry more fuel. The rockets you use need to operate in the vacuum of space as well as at sea level, making them more complex and heavier. They also need to be steerable and/or you have other control surfaces, which adds yet more mass you need to cart around for the whole mission.
Part of the point of giant rockets for moon missions is so that you can carry around that kind of mass. Also, to be clear, I was talking about retro propulsion only for the ground landing _after_ slowing down in the atmosphere _and_ parachuting. Maybe to also save the occupants if the chutes fail. So, they just have to be enough to stop the capsule at terminal velocity, they don't have to operate in vacuum and they probably don't have to be throttleable as long as they are steerable. As it is, I am pretty s
Re: (Score:3)
You want to take mass to the moon, not carry it around just to give the option of landing on land if you don't need it.
Collecting the capsule and boosters from the ocean for reuse is a viable strategy. What turns out to be best option is still an open question, it might be that ocean recovery is the cheapest option and/or allows the most mass to be taken to the moon.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think that is the point of giant rockets for moon missions. The rockets are big because they need to be in order to get the mass required launched. They don't just say 'lets build a giant rocket and see how much stuff we can cram in it'. So if you are adding ANY mass you need more fuel, and that fuel itself has mass, so you need even more fuel. And adding space for more fuel means the rocket itself must be larger, again adding mass, and so on.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that is the point of giant rockets for moon missions. The rockets are big because they need to be in order to get the mass required launched.
I am not sure how this is different from what I said. I suppose it's just some nuance over what is considered required or not. What I was pointing out is that all the stuff you need to land back on Earth is _not_ required, but they send it anyway. Which is where the big rockets are useful to get all the payload to to the moon. Not because all of it is _required_ per se, because they definitely include stuff that isn't, but because it is _required to keep the mission simple_. Otherwise, they have to do some
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody skies into a tree at 16 mph and comes away without injury, unless you were talking about thin branches.
Nonsense. Maybe if they're a drunk moron playing football down the side of a mountain without a helmet. If you have half a brain though, you are wearing a helmet, goggles and numerous padded layers of clothing. You might as well say that no-one walks away from an eight foot fall without injury. I have most certainly both hit trees at around 16 mph and fallen eight feet without injury. I also once broke my arm falling a little less than eight feet from a wooden beam, but I landed with that arm behind my back
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, if you come towards a solid object and manage to reduce the speed your body hits it with, by means of your limbs and perhaps other gear. Actually, Danny Macaskill does just that on his bike, jumping down from platforms over 3m high, check him out on YouTube if you haven't seen him. But I was talking about taking the hit on your body...
Well, sure, if you take that kind of impact on a delicate part of your body like your head, or a sharp rock hits your ribcage or something, sure. People die from falling simply from a standing position all the time. My friends father died that way. He was not elderly. Not in great health, but not decrepit, but he fell over while drunk and hit his head on concrete. In general though, impacts at 16 mph are completely survivable with no more damage than a little standard wear and tear. That may vary from indiv
Re: (Score:2)
You make excellent points regarding reporting about Schumacher, pointy rocks injuries, badly ending trivial falls, etcetera. I took your 16mph out of the astronaut's context when I commented initially. We should probably continue this discussion over a drink at some point. Thanks again ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
No one actually seems to be wrong in this discussion about the 16 mph really. Not you, not me, not the original poster who complained about its survivability even. It is survivable, like I'm saying, but it can certainly kill you in the right circumstances, like you're saying. The original poster also has a point that it's uncomfortably fast, even if it technically falls into the range of survivable. There is a tendency of online discussions to firehose and end up being disagreements based on slight axiomati
Re: (Score:2)
So, how much is Elon paying you to post crap?
Re: (Score:2)
Sad thing is, he has many sycophants who happily do it for free.
Re: (Score:2)
Complain when skateboards can do as well as ceramic drilled discs.
I'm not the one complaining so, again, your case makes no sense.
Also, not sure what/why you're so cranked up about, but I'm guessing you've hit your coffee limit for the month. :-)
Thank you again for educating me,
You're welcome; anytime.
Re: (Score:2)
Complain when Artemis can steer the capsule's parachute descent.
Why not complain that it can't, instead of shaking pom-poms for the MIC?
Re: (Score:2)
Apples and oranges. Artemis is a submarine program, and SpaceX flies rocket ships. Not comparable.
Re: (Score:2)
Steerable parachutes have been a thing since World War 2, maybe even just before.
So why NASA can't figure that out...
Landing accuracy was not a problem back in the days of Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo missions...but now it is? GEEZ
Re: (Score:2)
About SpaceX and Soyuz/Russia - neither of them have demonstrated the ability to send a human rated craft with life support etc. to the Moon and back. Well, Russia did back in the early 70s, but with a different craft.
So while there are things that Orion needs to develop, right now they are the front runner for the next Moon landing.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong comparison. The SpaceX crew capsule does a splashdown at sea just like the Orion capsule does. Originally SpaceX wanted to use retro propulsion on dragon(crew+cargo) to set down on land but NASA were not happy with that so it was switched to a splashdown.
SpaceX will use retro propulsion for Starship but we will have to wait to see how that works out.
No way Artemis 2 happens in '24. (Score:1)
Meh. (Score:4, Insightful)
I acknowledge and accept that the Artemis mission is more complex, more challenging, and with more at stake than the various Space X missions. I also acknowledge that NASA is virtually re-inventing everything for this mission, but...
Space X has raised the bar. Reasonable or not, the bar is now dramatically higher that what NASA seems to be able to deliver. Dramatically higher. They need to accelerate this project, tighten their tolerances, and deliver with very high reliability.
Everything less is just excuses for inadequacies. Space X has demonstrated that it's perfectly possible to very rapidly execute, with high precision and reliability, for less money. Space X currently launches every four days!
The Space X Starship program, intended for interplanetary manned flight, is on track to reach the moon before Artemis.
Taking a decade or more to refactor Apollo is unimpressive by the new standard and is begging to have your budget cut.
Re: (Score:3)
How many rockets (and some payloads) did SpaceX blow up to get to that point? Starship has yet to attempt a launch, and even the "successful" test had multiple engines fail.
The problem at NASA is they're supposed to be pushing boundaries, but basically are not allowed failures. If NASA blows up a test rocket or loses a space probe, it turns into a Congressional investigation, mocking in the press (and places like /.), calls for project cancellation and budget cuts, etc. That creates a risk-averse environmen
Re: (Score:2)
NASA can probably deliver anything that SpaceX can deliver. They have plenty of talented people. The problem is that it takes NASA about 5-10 times longer and costs 5-10 times as much.
Cost effective (Score:3)
SpaceX making NASA look stupid. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The parachute works at 24,000 mph?
Re: (Score:2)
170ft x 300ft.
No, a spaceX landing ship is not three thousand feet long.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that SpaceX doesn't actually do that with capsules, they parachute them into the ocean.. Here is Dragon returning from space https://youtu.be/p91bGgGHf90 [youtu.be] Look familiar?
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
I remember reading (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Moon and Mars have no profit potential for the private sector. The federal government needs to redo Moon because it will look bad when China gets there first and takes the place over. Manned Mars is pure vanity. Exciting, but so is the latest Star Wars movie. Hmm, well, no, maybe the first Star Wars movie.