Here’s how orbital dynamics wizardry helped save NASA’s next Mars mission
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Repost from the Rocket Report comments:
Livestreams for New Glenn flight 2, sending the Escapade mission on a lazy loop to Mars.
Blue Origin:
No stream posted yet, check https://www.blueorigin.com/missions/ng-2 for updates.
Spaceflight Now:
NASA Spaceflight:
Everyday Astronaut:
Space Affairs:
Livestreams for New Glenn flight 2, sending the Escapade mission on a lazy loop to Mars.
Blue Origin:
No stream posted yet, check https://www.blueorigin.com/missions/ng-2 for updates.
Spaceflight Now:
NASA Spaceflight:
Everyday Astronaut:
Space Affairs:
Upvote
58
(58
/
0)
Upvote
19
(24
/
-5)
For the uninitiated, does the size of this orbit change based on the amount of delay, or does the spacecraft just make more orbits, or a combination thereof?
Upvote
51
(51
/
0)
So, we launching now just because of a good deal? A need to move cargo off the floor? Preventing another gorram cancellation (or who's to say they won't anyway once they're in orbit)?
Why go now instead of November 2026 after an extra year of rocket engineering/optimization?
Why go now instead of November 2026 after an extra year of rocket engineering/optimization?
Upvote
42
(55
/
-13)
Upvote
39
(46
/
-7)
IIUC this is just a way to park the spacecraft in space near earth until a normal Hohmann transfer November 2026.
But I don’t see much upside from any technical perspective over simply launching in November 2026. Is the Blue Origin contract so inflexible that that is not an option? Or is the technical risk seen as smaller than the risk of mission cancellation?
Edit: ninja’ed for Q and almost A too
But I don’t see much upside from any technical perspective over simply launching in November 2026. Is the Blue Origin contract so inflexible that that is not an option? Or is the technical risk seen as smaller than the risk of mission cancellation?
Edit: ninja’ed for Q and almost A too
Last edited:
Upvote
71
(72
/
-1)
If they waited until a later launch, NG launch price would increase. They're only getting this very large price break because they are accepting risk. If they had declined and waited for a less risky launch, someone else would have taken that launch or Blue would have absorbed that risk entirely and launched a mass simulator.
Upvote
124
(124
/
0)
Every mission carries risk. It's important to proportion operational risk with financial risk.
In this case, you could fly >10 of these higher risk missions for the cost of one big budget mission. Let's say a big budget mission gets you twice the "science" (for lack of a better measure), then you could potentially accept an 70% failure rate and still come out ahead. Granted, we all know quality and quantity are not so easily measured.
This is the big promise of decreasing launch prices. When launch is 50% of the program cost, you really need to focus on success. As launch becomes a smaller proportion of total cost, you can take chances.
It's really public perception of "never accept risk because my tax dollars" that you have to balance. Because the public doesn't understand actuarial tables.
Upvote
139
(139
/
0)
I would assume part of the risk assessment is funding for long-term storage of the spacecraft vice an active operational mission, as well. Get them in space now, so there’s less chance of termination.
Upvote
85
(85
/
0)
Parking it in some sort of 'awaiting launch window' would put age and strain on the satellites, including exposure to an extra year's worth of space. Also, you would be giving up the delta v that launching directly from Earth would supply. Even if they came through the waiting period, we would have to find a way to launch (effectively) again from orbit to Mars.
Detaching and storing on Earth for the 2026 windows was an option, but the problem then is one of cost-- likely, the satellites would need to be stored in a clean room. Also (as others mentioned), the launch cost might substantially increase, or the entire program might have been scrapped.
Numbers were juggled, coins flipped, and launch approved. Little left but to cross fingers for luck!
Edit: ninja'd so many times!
Upvote
66
(67
/
-1)
Just a small correction, the first stage of New Glenn is fueled with LNG (liquid natural gas), not methane. They're similar, but not precisely the same
Upvote
24
(26
/
-2)
So the second stage and fairing is expended after boosting it to the kidney bean orbit? 
Upvote
6
(8
/
-2)
It's not stated in the article but the main science mission won't begin until mid-to-late 2028 after the spacecraft have achieved their optimal orbit. By coincidence, this is around the same time that the current anti-science regime in Washington will hopefully be voted out of office. Of course, there's no guarantee that the spacecraft or democracy will survive till then.
Last edited:
Upvote
21
(39
/
-18)
No. The payloads will separate from the upper stage today. They have their own propulsion for the Mars insertion burn next year.
Upvote
63
(63
/
0)
Klive Aleksaander
Ars Scholae Palatinae
Ah, of course. Hence the reduced fuel/propellant available for Mars related activities mentioned in the article.
Upvote
21
(21
/
0)
While not directly ordering it, it’s directly tied to his crusade to reduce the federal government and inject general dysfunction. So yeah, I’m Ok with paying it at his feet.
And this is news to me, no political talk on ArsTechnica? Someone needs to let the staff know!
Upvote
46
(63
/
-17)
for "So, we traverse that kidney been and at the very end there’s a final little loop-the-loop that brings us down to Earth."
Not a typo. Note that it's in the context of the orbit ending. At that point, it'll be in the past tense, and "been" is in the past tense.
As I write this before the launch, the spacecraft are in a "kidney gonna orbit" or "kidney fixin' to orbit". Then they'll go into a "kidney bean orbit", then they'll be in a "kidney been orbit" or a "kidney usta orbit".
(Sorry, I'm in a silly mood.)
Upvote
19
(24
/
-5)
20 millions sounds really cheap for a launch to mars! A Falcon 9 launch is 60 millions IIRC.
Upvote
7
(8
/
-1)
The US spends about $4,600,000,000,000 per year (based on the FY2025 budget). That works out to be roughly $9,000,000 per minute.
So $80,000,000 is equivalent to nine minutes of government spending, or about the amount of time it took me to look up these numbers and run the calculations.
Yes, it sounds like a lot. But compared to the government budget, it isn't even a rounding error.
ETC: Too little coffee => too many zeroes.
Last edited:
Upvote
63
(63
/
0)
If we’re spending 9 billion a minute then 80 million is less than than one minute’s worth. Right around 6 seconds is what my sleepy brain says. Waking up a hair n it’d actually be under a second.
Edit to add last sentence
Last edited:
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
5.6 seconds of hold down?
I can't remember such long hold downs for recent rockets anymore -- as that can destroy launchpads and waste fuel.
The Saturn V and the Shuttle did very long hold down. Even the Starship seems to have a shorter hold down than that. Falcon hold down is less than 3 seconds (2.7s).
Fortunately, it's not wasted here for testing... they can have a luxurious hold down for this situation for the delicious engineering data.
I can't remember such long hold downs for recent rockets anymore -- as that can destroy launchpads and waste fuel.
The Saturn V and the Shuttle did very long hold down. Even the Starship seems to have a shorter hold down than that. Falcon hold down is less than 3 seconds (2.7s).
Fortunately, it's not wasted here for testing... they can have a luxurious hold down for this situation for the delicious engineering data.
Last edited:
Upvote
10
(11
/
-1)
Thanks for catching that - too many zeroes. (And that, children, is why scientists prefer scientific notation!)
$4,600,000,000,000 per year -> $12,602,739,726 per day
$12,602,739,726 per day -> $525,114,155 per hour
$525,114,155 per hour -> $8,751,903 per minute
Upvote
24
(24
/
0)
He meant 9 million per minute. His final calculation is correct.
Upvote
16
(16
/
0)
It changes the size of the orbit: "What happens is that kidney bean just grows and shrinks based on how much time you need to spend in that orbit."
Upvote
20
(20
/
0)
Upvote
13
(13
/
0)
Might want to correct Wikipedia then, since the first paragraph on BE-4 states "liquid methane"
Upvote
13
(14
/
-1)
He's just pointing out the policy as set forth by the admins of the site.
Unless the article is political, use the ARS comment boards where political discussions can bore you. We're here for the techie stuff.
And as much as most of us agree with the "Orange Buffoon" part, it's skating the posting guidelines.
Last edited:
Upvote
-5
(18
/
-23)
Seems like they didn’t launch yet, but I couldn’t find any info on delays. Probably not today then
Upvote
0
(2
/
-2)