According to company officials, the first suborbital test launch of PLD Miura-1 rocket was aborted today just prior to launch because some of the umbilical fuel and power lines failed to disconnect as planned.
The launch was from PLD’s launch site in Spain. No word when the company will try again. Before it can build its orbital Miura-5 rocket it needs the test data from this suborbital launch.
An evening pause: From a series called “The coolest thing I’ve ever made.”
Hat tip Cotour.
Rocket Lab is gearing up to launch a rocket from Wallops sometime between June 15th and June 20th but it will provide no live stream and no press access.
The article at the link then speculates that this launch might be the first military hypersonic test flight using a suborbital version of Rocket Lab’s Electron rocket.
That launcher is called HASTE, short for “Hypersonic Accelerator Suborbital Test Electron.” As that name suggests, HASTE is derived from the workhorse Electron and is designed to help test technologies for hypersonic craft — highly maneuverable vehicles capable of flying at least five times the speed of sound.
HASTE can haul up to 1,540 pounds (700 kilograms) of payload aloft, whereas Electron can deliver a maximum of 660 pounds (300 kg) to low Earth orbit. The suborbital rocket also features a modified version of Electron’s “kick stage” specialized for the deployment of hypersonic payloads, Rocket Lab said in an April 17 statement that announced HASTE’s existence.
The suborbital rocket is scheduled to make its debut right about now, on a mission whose details are hard to come by, according to that statement.
If so, we will only find out some limited details after launch, based on what the military decides to release publicly.
Regardless, the HASTE project demonstrates the ability of Rocket Lab to quickly improvise in order to find new ways to make money from its existing assets. For its stockholders, it is another piece of evidence that the company is a good investment.
Buried in a Space.com article today about Axiom was the important revelation that the company has now officially delayed the launch of its first space station module that will be attached to ISS from 2024 to 2026, with the rest of its follow-up modules delayed as well.
In January 2020, Axiom won NASA’s contract to construct the first commercially manufactured module for the ISS. “Our first module is going to be in 2026,” David Zuniga, senior director of in-space solutions at Axiom, told Space.com. This is an update to the company’s previously stated target of 2024.
Axiom’s first station component will attach to the forward port of the ISS’ Harmony module and serve as the springboard for the remaining pieces of the company’s planned space station architecture. Axiom is planning to attach a second module in 2027 and a third module a year later. Finally, a thermal power module, scheduled for sometime before 2030, will allow Axiom’s space station to detach from the ISS and become a free-flying, commercially run low Earth orbit (LEO) destination.
This schedule puts Axiom at some risk. ISS is likely going to be retired in 2030. Axiom has to therefore be able to detach its space station before that happens. It seems however with this new schedule that it might not be ready. And if it can’t, it will then need to arrange some deal with NASA and ISS’s international partners to either take over operations of ISS temporarily or convince these nations to operate it a little longer.
Arianespace officials today cancelled tomorrow’s final launch of its Ariane-5 rocket — supposedly to be replaced by the not-yet-flown Ariane-6, citing issues with “three pyrotechnical transmission lines that are associated with the Ariane 5’s solid rocket boosters.”
No new launch date has been set. There is the possibility that to resolve this issue the rocket will have to be rolled back to its assembly building and destacked. If so, the launch will be delayed months.
At the moment, Europe has only managed one launch in 2023, a far cry from the seven to twelve launches it used to do annually, before SpaceX came along and offered a cheaper rocket that could launch more frequently and quicker.
Hat tip to BtB’s stringer Jay.
Falcon 9 first stage hauled back to the cape after launch
Last week BtB’s intrepid stringer Jay was unable to send me any “Quick Space links” because he was working at Cape Canaveral at the Kennedy Space Center, involved in a project involving, as he noted, “infrastructure,” giving him only a limited access to the center.
He did however have time to drive around and take pictures. For example, we have the picture on the right. On his way to lunch on his second day there he “had to pull over for a semi carrying something large. At first I thought it was a fuel tank, but it was the first stage of a Falcon-9 that lifted off on June 4th.”
This picture alone illustrates how things have changed at Kennedy since the retirement of the shuttle in 2011. Then, local officials and NASA managers all thought the sky was falling in, and that the economy of Cape Canaveral was about to die forever with that retirement.
Instead, it is now entirely routine for a private rocket company to drive its used first stages back and forth in between launches. Cape Canaveral hasn’t died, it has been reborn.
More pictures by Jay are below, all of which illustrate the resurgence of space activity that private enterprise is bringing to America’s first spaceport. To quote Jay,
» Read more
Proposed Republican budget changes
Before even beginning this story, it is critical for my readers to understand that the worst any of these possible cuts could do to NASA’s budget in 2024 would be to bring it back to budgetary levels from most of the last decade, levels that hardly crippled the agency in the slightest.
The graph to the right, posted initially by Roll Call, outlines in detail the required cuts the Republicans in the House are demanding in the federal budget for the 2024 fiscal year. The percentages in the last column list the amount each of these twelve appropriation subcommittees must cut from their area of focus. NASA is part of the Commerce-Justice-Science category, which requires a total cut of 28.8%.
NASA’s budget in 2023 was $25.4 billion. If the House imposes that percentage cut to NASA, it would lower its 2024 budget to about $18 billion.
O my! We are all going to starve!
» Read more
The city of Paso Robles in California has now received an official letter of intent from the Taiwan cubesat company Gran Systems, describing its desire to build spaceport there.
The CEO of Gran Systems recently toured the proposed Paso Robles Spaceport and tech corridor area and met with Paso Robles Airport Manager Mark Scandalis to discuss opportunities for establishing its California facility in Paso Robles.
Though the news article refers to this as a “spaceport,” I don’t think this has anything to do with launching rockets. Instead, this spaceport is part of Paso Robles’ effort to establish an industrial park at its airport, including space companies such as satellite builders, and Gran Systems has decided to rent space there, probably to widen its market in the U.S.
Following up with its agreement with the UK rocket startup Orbex, Arianespace yesterday also signed a deal with the Spanish rocket startup PLD to study using that company’s as-yet-unflown Miura-5 rocket.
Like the Orbex deal, this agreement makes it possible for Arianespace to arrange launches using PLD’s rocket. It also tells us that Arianespace and the European Space Agency are shifting from designing and building their own rockets — a process that has failed to produce any profit and had presently left Europe with no launch capability — to acting simply as a customer buying that capability from independent competing private companies.
For this to work however both Orbex and PLD will have to get their rockets off the ground.
We’re the government and we’re here to help you! The World Economic Forum (WEF) yesterday released its proposed new set of guidelines for mitigating space junk in orbit, even though some of the most important commercial satellite operators (SpaceX and Viasat) have not signed on.
The Space Industry Debris Mitigation Recommendations document, released by the WEF June 13, outlines recommendations to avoid collisions that can create debris by limiting the lifetime of satellites in orbit after they have completed their missions and improving coordination among satellite operators.
Among those recommendations is to establish a success rate for “post-mission disposal,” or removal of satellites from orbit after the end of their missions, to 95% to 99%. That disposal should be completed no more than five years after the end of each satellite’s mission.
You can read the guidelines here [pdf], which the WEF is pushing governments worldwide to adopt. Though SpaceX and Viasat have not signed on, 27 companies have endorsed the guidelines, including OneWeb, Airbus, Axiom, and a host of orbital tug and space junk removal startups, the latter of which all benefit from these guidelines.
While the proposals makes some sense, everyone in the space industry should remain skeptical, and resist the call for more government regulation. Once this power is given to government it will never be recanted, and will only grow with time. Moreover, all signs indicate that such interference by law by government is unnecessary. Both satellite operators and most rocket companies (the exception mostly China) have been making strong efforts to deal with the issue of space junk, for profit. The fact that there are a host of orbital tug and space junk startups right now illustrates this. Investors have realized there is money to be made removing satellites and space junk. They don’t need government telling them what to do.
In its effort to reduce fossil fuel use and thus save us from being burned to death by global warming in only a decade, NASA has now awarded Boeing a contract to develop new airplane wing design that it predicts will lower fuel use by up to 30%.
The X-66A is the X-plane specifically aimed at helping the United States achieve the goal of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. To build the X-66A, Boeing will work with NASA to modify an MD-90 aircraft, shortening the fuselage and replacing its wings and engines. The resulting demonstrator aircraft will have long, thin wings with engines mounted underneath and a set of aerodynamic trusses for support. The design, which Boeing submitted for NASA’s Sustainable Flight Demonstrator project, is known as a Transonic Truss-Braced Wing.
While developing a more efficient wing design is certainly worthwhile, having skepticism about this project is certainly reasonable. First of all, it seems somewhat strange to award Boeing such a contract at this time, considering NASA own experience with the company with Starliner, as well as that company’s problems with other government contracts for the military.
Secondly, the press release makes a big deal about the project getting an X-plane designation, an entirely superficial and PR related title that if anything suggests there is very little steak to this sizzle.
Third, it is unclear the nature of this contract. Is is cost-plus, or fixed price? The press release says NASA will “invest $425 million over seven years, while the company and its partners will contribute the remainder of the funding, estimated at about $725 million.” If cost-plus, this means nothing. Boeing will use any excuse to go over budget in order to get more money from NASA.
Finally, half a billion dollars to develop and test a new airplane wing design, using an already existing airplane, seems incredibly exorbitant. And to require seven years to build it seems ridiculously long.
All in all, I suspect the real goal of this project is to funnel tax dollars to Boeing to help keep it afloat, not to build a new green airplane.
An evening pause: The air rifle that Lewis & Clark took on their expedition to impress the American Indians they met. When I recently read their memoirs, I was baffled that an air gun existed in the early 1800s. This video shows it in detail, noting that it was actually invented in 1780 for the Austrian Army.
Hat tip Judd Clark.
