The thread for space cadets!

[Broken_Erika]

Nasa chooses SpaceX to build Moon lander

Nasa has chosen Elon Musk's company SpaceX to build a lander that will return humans to the Moon this decade.

This vehicle will carry the next man and the first woman down to the lunar surface under the space agency's Artemis programme.

Another goal of the programme will be to land the first person of colour on the Moon.

The lander is based on SpaceX's Starship craft, which is being tested at a site in southern Texas.

SpaceX was competing against a joint bid from traditional aerospace giants and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, as well as Alabama-based Dynetics. The total value of the contract awarded to Musk's company is $2.89bn.

"With this award, Nasa and our partners will complete the first crewed demonstration mission to the surface of the Moon in the 21st century as the agency takes a step forward for women's equality and long-term deep space exploration," said Kathy Lueders, the organisation's head of human exploration.

"This critical step puts humanity on a path to sustainable lunar exploration and keeps our eyes on missions farther into the Solar System, including Mars."

The Artemis programme, initiated under the Trump administration, had targeted a return to the lunar surface in 2024. But a shortfall in funding of the landing system has made that goal unattainable.

• Biden administration backs US Moon shot
• Nasa outlines plan for first woman on Moon by 2024
• What is Elon Musk's Starship?

Elon Musk has been developing the Starship design for years. Resembling the rocketships from the golden age of science fiction, Starship is a crucial component of the entrepreneur's long-term plans for settling humans on Mars.

For now, though, it will serve as the lander that ferries astronauts from lunar orbit to the surface.

With a spacious cabin and two airlocks, allowing astronauts to exit the craft for moonwalks, it's a far cry from the cramped, spindly lunar module (LM) that carried 12 men to the surface under the US Apollo programme between 1969 and 1972.

The new vehicle will be known as the Human Landing System (HLS).

In recent times, Nasa has chosen more than one company when procuring space transport services, giving it options if one of them fails to deliver.

But Nasa has received only $850m of the $3.3bn it requested from Congress to build the Moon lander. In a statement, Ms Lueders said that "while it remains the agency's desire to preserve a competitive environment at this stage of the HLS program", its current budget precluded it from selecting two companies, as it was expected to do.

Cost is believed to have been a major factor; SpaceX's bid was the lowest of the three competitors "by a wide margin".

Ms Lueders explained: "I made a determination that it would be in the agency's best interests to make an initial, conditional selection of SpaceX."

The decision has caused a stir. Nasa is undergoing a transition of power following Joe Biden's election as President. It is being run by an interim administrator, and Mr Biden's pick to run the agency - former senator and astronaut Bill Nelson - will appear at his confirmation hearing next week.

"I am disappointed that the acting Nasa leadership decided to make such a consequential award prior to the arrival of a new permanent Nasa administrator and deputy administrator," said congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson, the democrat chair of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.

"The decision to make the award today also comes despite the obvious need for a re-baselining of Nasa's lunar exploration program, which has no realistic chance of returning US astronauts to the Moon by 2024."

Nasa is targeting the Moon's South Polar region for the first landing with astronauts since 1972. This area holds abundant deposits of water-ice. But it also presents challenges, because long shadows obscure surface features as the craft comes down to land.

Nasa and SpaceX will need to navigate the problem as they refine their plans for the first Artemis landing.

Elon Musk's company had been in a run-off against the National Team - consisting of Blue Origin (founded by Bezos), Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Draper - and Dynetics.

"This is an exciting time for Nasa and especially the Artemis team," said Lisa Watson-Morgan, programme manager for the Human Landing System at the agency's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville.

"During the Apollo programme, we proved that it is possible to do the seemingly impossible: land humans on the Moon. By taking a collaborative approach in working with industry while leveraging Nasa's proven technical expertise and capabilities, we will return American astronauts to the Moon's surface once again, this time to explore new areas for longer periods of time."

The Artemis programme aims to establish a long-term presence on the Moon, including the establishment of a lunar base.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56781556

 

[Imaus]

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56781556

Just like in the old days, I don't blame them.

Like it or not but NASA has sort of always reached out to corpos for this stuff, and the USGov is sort of bad with inhouse stuff these days. And SpaceX is doing a lot of work. If we want to really land on the Moon, they're the ones to get the ride there. Just let NASA doublecheck it first.

 

[Cutlass]

The real question is: How well can you do a barbecue on the moon?

First you have to build a habitat. And then you need to have an air purifying system about 8x stronger than is needed just for the people.

 

[Buster's Uncle]

Has the Mars helicopter flown yet?

 

[Samson]

First you have to build a habitat. And then you need to have an air purifying system about 8x stronger than is needed just for the people.

It is much easier when you just film it all in Nevada.

 

[red_elk]

The Moon has low gravity, convection will probably won't work as required, even if you get the right athmosphere.

 

[Cutlass]

The Moon has low gravity, convection will probably won't work as required, even if you get the right athmosphere.

You can solve that with a fan.

 

[Michkov]

Has the Mars helicopter flown yet?

No, tomorrow morning is the next attempt.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56781556

This was a huge upset, and the news was leaked before it was meant to go out which resulted in this weird, rushed press conference that SpaceX wasn't even present for.

The 'national team' lead by Blue Origin (with Lockheed, Draper and Northrop Grumman) was considered the heavy favorite. In the end, NASA's constrained budget was the deciding factor - NASA was given only a fraction of the funds for this that they requested so they could only pick one contender. They had asked all of the bidders to prolong the period of performance of the contract to make the per-year budget smaller (even if the total budget rose) and the only bid that came anywhere close to the mark was SpaceX. Before this, not only was the national team favored to win, but NASA was expected to pick 2 companies and it looked like Dynetic's bid was going to beat out SpaceX for that second spot.

So yeah, big upset. Also worth pointing out while the budget was the deciding factor, SpaceX was also rated higher on the technical considerations and it doesn't hurt that SpaceX is flying (and blowing up) prototypes while the other companies were producing nothing more than mock-ups.

Some members of congress are pissed at this announcement - both because the companies in their districts lost but also because NASA went forward with this pick before a new administrator has been installed. I do tend to agree that was bad form on NASA's part, but hey at the end of the day if you want more companies to win then they should give NASA the money it asked for.

 

[Samson]

No, tomorrow morning is the next attempt.

Flown now:

The American space agency has successfully flown a small helicopter on Mars.
The drone, called Ingenuity, was airborne for less than a minute, but Nasa is celebrating what represents the first powered, controlled flight by an aircraft on another world.
​

I am not sure how the landing was not a "powered, controlled flight", but very cool.

 

[CKS]

The landing doesn't count because it wasn't by an aircraft; it was a spacecraft.

 

[r16]

ı would say more "impressive" thing is the apparent NASA thing that "restricts" airspace in Mars because they are flying a drone , ı think . Seeing some acronym while going through some blog , next claiming they have a right to Mars . Yeah , boring days , not allowed to blow up astreoids even .

 

[r16]

still boring , so ı have time to daily check stuff , especially reading the comments sections , which can be even more instructive than any general article ... Say , people in the US trying to get an Hollywood actor as the next President (to prevent the professional politician class to break their country) is still far from a critical mass , with a guy used to walking the dog without getting into a fight with passers by could be really useful ...

though it is stuff elsewhere . They are still not cleared to break out the mysterious mass drone operations in Colorado in 2019 or so broke the training efforts of the Trump militia ... and causing some little discomfort and doubt ...

and ı wasn't that much surprised to see ı have been right in 2012 or whatever . With reports that lsraelis are not patrolling with very smart and latest heat seekers alongside with older types fit for 1980s or 90s , to hit a Klingon Bird of Prey ... But Americans do the same , re-introducing Aim-9Ms after an X failed to hit the cockpit of a Syrian Su-22 and kill the heinous person with an unknown father or whatever who attempted to bomb some heroic Kurds on the ground ... So much that the USN F-18 had to resort to an Amraam whose fusing must be limited and probably would be less precise in the exact locations relevant to its target to explode ... With some silly post TV commentators could make no sense of , about the Phantom sent to Syria to be shot down to cause Article V of NATO and invasion ... With reports that Syrians were torturing the pilots because each seat ejection causing a very short signal which was immediately absorbed or something . Even if the American deep sea research ship would bring them out still inside the plane . Even if their boots had floated out to the surface during the first days , completely intact as reported in the media , even if the same media also reported the rudder pedals which would be the place where these boots would be in contact with the plane had melted due to extreme heat ... You see , modern radars being emitters that can cause a bubble around the target and keep it on . So much that it would be just opaque for a very smart seeker ... Must have been in reports in how Americans can create tic tacs in the air to fool their enemies who are still cave dwelling apes ... Accordingly some reminders to both sides in Ukraine that whoever uses a blinding laser , you know this time with an s , instead of an actual lazer , might be the first to go blind ...


edit: As a reference point , today was the day when an lndonesian submarine sank in an exercise and there are already those who will want you to believe it was torpedoed by the Chinese and more funds are required to save Freedom and Liberty .

 

[Broken_Erika]

Nasa's rover makes breathable oxygen on Mars

An instrument on Nasa's Perseverance rover on Mars has made oxygen from the planet's carbon dioxide atmosphere.

It's the second successful technology demonstration on the mission, which flew a mini-helicopter on Monday.

The oxygen generation was performed by a toaster-sized unit in the rover called Moxie - the Mars Oxygen In-Situ Resource Utilization Experiment.

It made 5 grams of the gas - equivalent to what an astronaut at Mars would need to breathe for roughly 10 minutes.

Nasa's thinking is that future human missions would take scaled-up versions of Moxie with them to the Red Planet rather than try to carry from Earth all the oxygen needed to sustain them.

• Nasa successfully flies small helicopter on Mars
• Nasa shows dramatic video of Mars rover's landing
• Will Nasa's next rover discover life on Mars?

Oxygen (O₂) is also an integral part of the chemistry that propels a rocket. Thrust is achieved by burning a fuel in the presence of an oxidiser, which could be simple oxygen.

Mars' atmosphere is dominated by carbon dioxide (CO₂) at a concentration of 96%. Oxygen is only 0.13%, compared with 21% in Earth's atmosphere.

Moxie is able to strip oxygen atoms from CO₂ molecules, which are made up of one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms. The waste product is carbon monoxide, which is vented to the Martian atmosphere.

The Nasa team behind Moxie is running the unit in different modes to discover how well it works.

The expectation is that it can produce up to 10 grams of O₂ per hour.

“Moxie isn’t just the first instrument to produce oxygen on another world, it’s the first technology of its kind that will help future missions 'live off the land', using elements of another world’s environment, also known as in-situ resource utilisation,” said Trudy Kortes, director of technology demonstrations within Nasa’s Space Technology Mission Directorate.

"It’s taking regolith, the substance you find on the ground, and putting it through a processing plant, making it into a large structure, or taking carbon dioxide – the bulk of the atmosphere – and converting it into oxygen. This process allows us to convert these abundant materials into useable things: propellant, breathable air, or, combined with hydrogen, water."

Nasa will attempt to fly its Ingenuity helicopter again on Thursday.

The mini-chopper made history this week by performing the first powered, controlled flight by an aircraft on another world.

For its second sortie, the drone will raise itself to 5m above the ground, move sideways by 2m, swivel and take some pictures, before reversing back to the take-off spot to land.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56844601

 

[Buster's Uncle]

I watched a tape of the SpaceX launch to the ISS this morning.

How can people be so dead inside as to not care and not get a little thrill, still, from these things?

 

[Samson]

Nature on the helicopter flight, in 6 mins

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Interestingly (or rather, disappointingly), I read they will not use the helicopter for any scouting and in fact will abandon it shortly. The way the mission is designed is such that it take so much bandwidth to operate the drone that the rover would not be able to do any science whatsoever while they are flying it. Thus, they'll do all the test and demonstrations they want to do and then leave it. This is what happens when you slap a helicopter on a rover at the (relatively) last minute. Though to be fair, bandwidth challenges for deep space missions are no trivial matter - this would always be a challenge to fly concurrently with rover operations.

--------------

Russia is making more noise about ditching the ISS, though notably this time they are offering to basically abandon their segments in place rather than detach them and re-use them as the core of a new all-Russian station which has been their previous plan. All of the ISS partners I think are rightfully skeptical of maintaining the ISS into the 2030's - maintenance, part replacement and upkeep are becoming an even greater focus of the crews work than in the past, and it was never an easy station to run. There was recently an air leak from a new crack in one of the Russian modules which took them a while to track down and repair, and the station is soon due to have its solar panels replaced. They recently replaced batteries and have been doing a bunch of other piecemeal replacements like that regularly.

Russia also announced a joint Chinese-Russian lunar base to be built sometime in the future. I could definitely see this as something that China would follow through with, and if given the right terms, the Russians would contribute. I can also see it just as well being a tool to negotiate for a more lucrative piece of the Artemis plan.

--------------

Also worth pointing out while the budget was the deciding factor, SpaceX was also rated higher on the technical considerations

I was wrong about this, Blue was actually rated higher from a technical standpoint but SpaceX beat them on price and management. That's got to sting for the company that has 'step by step, ferociously' as their motto - they're too step by step even for NASA which is saying something.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Interestingly (or rather, disappointingly), I read they will not use the helicopter for any scouting and in fact will abandon it shortly. The way the mission is designed is such that it take so much bandwidth to operate the drone that the rover would not be able to do any science whatsoever while they are flying it. Thus, they'll do all the test and demonstrations they want to do and then leave it. This is what happens when you slap a helicopter on a rover at the (relatively) last minute. Though to be fair, bandwidth challenges for deep space missions are no trivial matter - this would always be a challenge to fly concurrently with rover operations.

Why? I mean, 5G does not work at Mars?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

There are very few radio dishes capable of supporting these missions and they're all overtaxed. The orbiters around Mars often act as relays which actually helps relieve some of the congestion (as they open up new opportunities to talk to the ground assets which might otherwise be out of view of the Earth) but they are also overtaxed as well. Mars saw a big pulse of probe infrastructure build-out from the late 90's to today but that pulse is winding down now and everything is showing its age.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

There are very few radio dishes capable of supporting these missions and they're all overtaxed. The orbiters around Mars often act as relays which actually helps relieve some of the congestion (as they open up new opportunities to talk to the ground assets which might otherwise be out of view of the Earth) but they are also overtaxed as well. Mars saw a big pulse of probe infrastructure build-out from the late 90's to today but that pulse is winding down now and everything is showing its age.

To tie this back - this rundown of equipment that was built up from the 90's to today is the same thing that we're seeing with the ISS and no one really knows what to do with it (except the Russians who have consistently made the case that the ISS should soon die one way or another). No one wants to walk away from an asset as big and prestigious as the ISS, but the upkeep costs are proving burdensome and the science return arguably has never been there. I think the ISS alone eats up half of NASA's budget and if they let it go right now they could likely easily get to a manned Lunar mission in 3-5 years but as it is, they'll be lucky to hit 2028.

The Chinese are set to launch the first module of their new modular, small space station next week. They have made overtures to allow international participation but no firm offers that I'm aware of.