Search Results

WHILE I WAS BUSY WITH THE WEEKEND’S BIGGEST STORY, I FORGOT TO COVER A COUPLE OF BAD SPACE ITEMS: SpaceX Falcon 9 rockets grounded by FAA, putting Space Coast missions on indefinite hold.

SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket fleet has been grounded by the Federal Aviation Administration after a Thursday launch from California produced an upper-stage failure that deployed a batch of Starlink satellites into an eccentric orbit.

The FAA grounding has immediate impact on the Space Coast’s launch schedule — which is off to a record-breaking pace this year. All told, 46 of the 50 missions thus far during 2024 have been Falcon 9 launches from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station and adjacent NASA’s Kennedy Space Center.

In a Friday statement, the FAA said, “an investigation is designed to further enhance public safety, determine the root cause of the event, and identify corrective actions to avoid it from happening again.”

“A return to flight is based on the FAA determining that any system, process, or procedure related to the mishap does not affect public safety. In addition, SpaceX may need to request and receive approval from the FAA to modify its license that incorporates any corrective actions and meet all other licensing requirements,” the statement said.

The Starlink satellites could not be salvaged and have since burned up on reentry.

And this: NASA’s $5 billion Europa Clipper mission may not be able to handle Jupiter’s radiation.

This past May, the mission team was told that parts similar to Europa Clipper’s transistors “were failing at lower radiation doses than expected,” NASA officials wrote in the Thursday update. Transistor testing is now underway at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California, which leads the mission, as well as the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory and NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, both of which are in Maryland.

The results aren’t exactly promising.

“Testing data obtained so far indicates some transistors are likely to fail in the high-radiation environment near Jupiter and its moon Europa because the parts are not as radiation-resistant as expected,” NASA officials wrote.

It’s been a rough few days for space launch and exploration fans.

SOME PARTS OF AMERICA STILL WORK:

THE NEW SPACE RACE:

I HOPE THIS PANS OUT: 1G Space Propulsion Would Revolutionize Transportation and Energy. However: “The energy aspect is one of the reasons that physicists do not believe this is possible. It would violate fundamental laws of physics.”

“Exodus Technologies wants to perform tests in orbit. Moving a satellite with the drive would eliminate claims of bad experiments and measurement error and fraud. The key next step will be an orbital cubesat and other space missions with the devices.”

If it works in practice, the theory will have to catch up.

DON’T HOLD YOUR BREATH ON INTER-STELLAR TRAVEL: Assume a modest-sized spacecraft carrying three crew members and everything they would need for a journey that would consume on their watches 5 years enroute to a nearby planet thought to be sufficiently like Earth to support life. How much energy would be required to make the journey?

Writing in Evolution News and Science Today, Retired Physics Professor Eric Hedin did the calculation and concluded that 140 quadrillion kWh would be required:

“Believe it or not, it’s equivalent to 4,800 times the total energy consumption of the United States in the year 2022. This means all the electricity, petroleum, natural gas, and any other form of energy used to power everything in the U.S. for one year would be 4,800 times too small to get our modest-sized spaceship to a relatively nearby star in a reasonable amount of time. I think it’s fair to say that interstellar space travel isn’t even remotely possible with our current understanding of physics and technology.”

I hope either Hedin is wrong or such a vast amount of energy becomes feasible at some point in the future, as I’d like very much to be part of a astronomical Lewis & Clark expedition.

WHEN YOU CAN’T COMPETE, COMPLAIN: SpaceX rivals raise concerns about Starship-Super Heavy coming to Florida.

SpaceX’s plan to launch its monstrous Starship-Super Heavy two-stage tandem from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center caught the attention — and concern — of two rival space companies that warn federal officials the up-to-492-foot-tall rocket will be too untested, too dangerous and too potentially disruptive for the nation’s busiest spaceport and the surrounding environment.

United Launch Alliance and Blue Origin — which both have significant footprints on the Space Coast and view SpaceX as direct competition — have submitted written concerns to the Federal Aviation Administration.

The FAA is preparing an environmental impact statement to evaluate potential impacts of Starships launching up to 44 times a year from pad 39A at KSC. SpaceX is also eyeing a potential second Starship launch pad on adjacent Cape Canaveral Space Force Station.

“As the largest rocket in existence, an accident would inflict serious or even catastrophic damage, while normal launch operations would have a cumulative impact on structures, launch vehicle hardware, and other critical launch support equipment,” ULA officials wrote in a 22-page letter to the FAA.

“The other guy’s rocket is too big and powerful” might not be as convincing as ULA and Blue Origin hope it is.