Spacecraft Launches Toward Asteroid Knocked Off Course By NASA (bbc.com) 28
The Hera spacecraft, launched by the European Space Agency on Monday, is on a mission to study the aftermath of NASA's 2022 test that successfully knocked the Dimorphos asteroid off course by intentionally crashing a probe into it. It's scheduled to arrive in December 2026. The BBC reports: The Hera craft launched from Cape Canaveral in Florida at 10:52 local time (15:52BST) on Monday. [...] The Hera mission, which is run by the European Space Agency, is a follow-on from Nasa's Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) project. Dimorphos is a small moon 160m-wide that orbits an asteroid close to Earth called Didymos in something called a binary asteroid system. In 2022 Nasa said it successfully changed Dimorphos's course by crashing a probe into it. It altered the rock's path by a few meters, according to Nasa's scientists. The asteroid was not on course to hit Earth, but it was a test to see whether space agencies could do it when there is genuine risk. When it arrives in two years, the Hera craft will look at the size and depth of the impact crater created on Dimorphos. Two cube-shaped probes will also study the make-up of the asteroid and its mass.
They want to put it back to original orbit? (Score:4, Funny)
ESA is doing clean-up work for NASA, and EU is demoted to a role of a space janitor.
Re: (Score:2)
Hardly. It is ESA and NASA working together to leverage each other's strengths.
Re: (Score:2)
Hardly. It is ESA and NASA working together to leverage each other's strengths.
ESA does the sums, NASA forgets to convert them.
Relax fella, like the GP, this is a joke.
So Falcon 9 got un-grounded? (Score:2)
Wikipedia says this launched on Falcon 9. Falcon 9 got grounded a few days ago due to issues with the second stage on the last ISS launch. I'm guessing that got resolved? Any further issues this launch?
Re:So Falcon 9 got un-grounded? (Score:5, Informative)
Reading, the launch was through NASA, technically a NASA mission. The FAA, the grounding authority, turns out to not have the power to ground the missions of other government departments.
So a commercial satellite launch would have to wait on the FAA ungrounding the rocket system, but NASA and the DoD can go 'we accept the risk' and launch anyways.
I personally think the FAA has been told to mess with SpaceX and slow them down. Not a good idea with China breathing down our necks.
Re: (Score:2)
We saw how well that worked out the last time this was said.
Re: (Score:3)
It worked out fine, as 'last time' would technically be this launch.
That said, I figure you are referring to the shuttle launch, but that wasn't telling the FAA off for a non mission impacting anomaly, that was ignoring their own engineers. Also, 13 years ago at this point, they've probably ignored the FAA at least once since then.
Also, SpaceX voluntarily paused operations before the FAA came down with their decision, as they didn't like the malfunction either. But, like I said, I think the FAA has been t
Re:So Falcon 9 got un-grounded? (Score:4, Informative)
Reading, the launch was through NASA, technically a NASA mission. The FAA, the grounding authority, turns out to not have the power to ground the missions of other government departments.
So a commercial satellite launch would have to wait on the FAA ungrounding the rocket system, but NASA and the DoD can go 'we accept the risk' and launch anyways.
I personally think the FAA has been told to mess with SpaceX and slow them down. Not a good idea with China breathing down our necks.
In this case, the safety issue wasn't in play because the second stage was being disposed of in deep space, rather than performing a re-entry burn. As such, there was no safety issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, no, we're trying to not clutter up space any more than we have to, disposal being deep sea, not deep space. It was an expending flight for the 2nd stage to get the extra delta-v, but there was still a re-entry burn to drop the stage into a specific bit of ocean. This didn't go as planned, so the stage dropped into a different but nearly identical bit of water.
As the dragon module was already detached, the main mission was fine.
Re: (Score:3)
Not exactly.
The FAA grounded the Falcon-9 until they resolve the second stage de-orbit burn anomaly, but since the Hera mission does not de-orbit the second stage, the FAA gave approval to launch.
--source: https://spacenews.com/faa-clea... [spacenews.com]
>I personally think the FAA has been told to
Re: (Score:2)
Reading, the launch was through NASA, technically a NASA mission.
I do not think so, Hera is the ESA mission and SpaceX is doing a taxi service, ergo a commercial launch, ergo the FAA authority.
The issue is with FAA giving exception due to the second stage not going through reentry (as many already posted here).
Re: (Score:2)
The most recent grounding of the Falcon 9 was not due to the FAA. It was a self-imposed grounding by SpaceX.
Re: (Score:2)
That's actually the grounding I'm talking about. SpaceX came out and said "we're pausing launches until we figure this out" then the FAA came out about a day later saying that they're grounding the Falcon 9 pending investigation.
The problem being, it's a lot faster for SpaceX to unground itself than to get the FAA to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I think SpaceX grounded the 9 for a couple of days, not the FAA.
Re: (Score:2)
The 'grounding' is for Falcon 9 second stage not properly landing. This particular launch's second stage is going to Heliocentric orbit, not going anywhere near Earth.
Re: (Score:2)
To clarify, the 2nd stage that caused the grounding is that it came back outside of the agreed upon location. Hera Mission's second stage is not going to be anywhere near Earth.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, however FAA gave exception for Hera because: Falcon 9 anomaly was in the second stage reentry procedure and the launch of Hera requires so high dV that all the power of Falcon 9 is being used, i.e. Falcon 9 booster is not recovered and the second stage gets escape velocity - no reentry.
Regarding the anomaly, SpaceX has already submitted required documentation - the cause is known and mitigated, however I get more and more convinced that FAA has some grudge against SpaceX, as e.g. the recent Vulcan anom
Vulcan [Re:So Falcon 9 got un-grounded?] (Score:3)
I get more and more convinced that FAA has some grudge against SpaceX, as e.g. the recent Vulcan anomaly (blown side solid booster nozzle) seemed perfectly OK for FAA.
As far as I know, ULA hasn't yet filed for a commercial space launch license for any of the future Vulcan launches, so whether the FAA will ask for further information before issuing a launch license for the vehicle is yet to be seen.
Info on FAA commercial launch licenses can be found here, if you want more details: https://www.faa.gov/space/lice... [faa.gov]
(Note that DoD missions aren't regulated by FAA. It is up to the Space Force to approve the vehicle, and they are currently still in the process of investigating
Re: (Score:2)
I get more and more convinced that FAA has some grudge against SpaceX, as e.g. the recent Vulcan anomaly (blown side solid booster nozzle) seemed perfectly OK for FAA.
As far as I know, ULA hasn't yet filed for a commercial space launch license for any of the future Vulcan launches
Could you provide some evidence, because AFAIK any launch has to have a license and only if the launch is for DoD or NASA it doesn't require FAA approval (though historically they have never been in conflict), and the second Vulcan launch was with ULA as a customer ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] ), so it was a certification launch but not with DoD as a customer, hence would automatically fall for FAA jurisdiction.
... so whether the FAA will ask for further information before issuing a launch license for the vehicle is yet to be seen.
Info on FAA commercial launch licenses can be found here, if you want more details: https://www.faa.gov/space/lice... [faa.gov]
I followed the link, and I found (as I expected) that the ULA second Vulcan launch was lic
Re: (Score:2)
I followed the link, and I found (as I expected) that the ULA second Vulcan launch was licensed by FAA, how about that?
https://www.faa.gov/data_resea... [faa.gov]
The link is interactive, so to see licenses one has to select the year (2024) and click on "launch licenses" - the Vulcan license number: LLO 23-128 [faa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Nice. I hadn't realized the site had that functionality. Thanks for pointing it out.
Kilimanjaro (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Cover your eye.
Why NASA knocked spacecraft off course? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
I suggest inserting the world "intentionally".
Ambulance Chasers (Score:2)
"Have you been bitten by a dog? Slipped in a supermarket? Hit by a NASA Space Probe? IF SO contact Great Space Legal and Associates! We'll be right out to assess the damage and get you what you the damages you are entitled to!"