Rocket Report: Pentagon needs more missile interceptors; Artemis II clears review

SpaceX has started commissioning a second launch pad at the company's Starbase facility in Texas.

See full article...

 

[EllPeaTea]

Good staging.

 

[EllPeaTea]

And a nice landing.

 

[EllPeaTea]

"Nominal orbit insertion"

 

[EllPeaTea]

We might get some Gateway news next week.

At the ESA press briefing this morning, DG Aschbacher said NASA is bringing the international community together here in DC next week. He's looking fwd to learning about the new Artemis architecture incl Gateway. "A welcome opportunity" to see what the proposal is.

 

[EllPeaTea]

ESA council meeting this morning. Summary of the meeting:
https://www.esa.int/Newsroom/Press_Releases/Key_outcomes_of_the_345th_ESA_Council_meeting

Main highlight - ESA will be purchasing a Dragon flight to the ISS in 2028 - classed as a "medium-duration mission".
JAXA will be contributing to the Ramses mission to Apophis.

 

[Statistical]

ESA council meeting this morning. Summary of the meeting:
https://www.esa.int/Newsroom/Press_Releases/Key_outcomes_of_the_345th_ESA_Council_meeting

Main highlight - ESA will be purchasing a Dragon flight to the ISS in 2028 - classed as a "medium-duration mission".
JAXA will be contributing to the Ramses mission to Apophis.

Was about to post that. Quite significant. Also while this one is going to ISS, it is a potential good sign for future commercial space stations.

 

[EllPeaTea]

Mission success:

Deployment of 29 @Starlink satellites confirmed

 

[1Zach1]

China has identified potential Lunar landing sites for their 2030 landing site.

A China-led international research team has identified four potential landing sites for China’s first crewed lunar landing, targeted by 2030, in the Rimae Bode region at the mare–highlands boundary of the moon.

Using orbital data, the team found these sites could yield diverse geological samples, revealing insights into the region’s evolution and improving understanding of the Moon’s mantle and volcanic activity. The study appeared in Nature Astronomy.

Spoiler: Bluesky Link with Maps

View: https://bsky.app/profile/chinaspace.bsky.social/post/3mhga5nkyq22y

 

[SkyeFire]

During V1/V2, they could install engines in a couple hours. They had a flat pad and would just drive under the rocket with lifts. The new pad does not support such operations. I thought they had installed rails for a removable work platform, but it turns out that's just for the test stands. There's no reason the work itself would need to be slower, but they at least need to lift it off the pad.

They need some kind of retractable work platform. I understand Roscosmos has one available and "lightly used".

 

[Statistical]

China has identified potential Lunar landing sites for their 2030 landing site.


Rimae Bode region

Interesting. Not at/near the southpole. Possible DeltaV limitations of their landers or simply walk before you run?

It is why all Apollo missions are between 8S and 26N and the first three within 4 degrees of equator. Bode crater is also near the equator about 6N, 2W. Rimae Bode is a bit north west of that. Flat open, unshadowed sunlight (during lunar day), and good comms without a relay.

On edit: map of bode crater and surrounding area. Rimae Bode is NW of the zigzg line to the NW of the crater.

https://planetarynames.wr.usgs.gov/Feature/790

 

[Statistical]

Unconfirmed reports but it looks like NASA is more seriously considering SpaceX proposal for an EOR architecture. Orion and HLS dock up in Earth Orbit. If this goes ahead it relegates SLS to just lifting Orion into LEO something that with a bit of funding New Glenn could also do possibly paving the way for SLS to be phased out.

With the new proposal, SLS would no longer be used to boost Orion close to the moon — previously a key task for the rocket. Instead, Starship and Orion would dock in Earth orbit, giving Starship the pivotal role of propelling the capsule to the moon’s orbit, before taking astronauts down to the surface.

...

NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman plans to meet on Tuesday with the companies working on Artemis and human landing system program (HLS), including Blue Origin LLC, Boeing and SpaceX, to discuss their progress and the latest plans at the agency. Any changes to the mission could face Congressional scrutiny, and the agency could reverse and alter its plans, said the people, who asked not to be identified as the matter is confidential.

...

The original roadmap would have called for Orion to get into an extremely stretched orbit around the moon known as near-rectilinear halo orbit, or NRHO. Instead, the revisions would call for Starship to propel Orion into a much tighter, circular orbit known as low-lunar orbit.

The reworked SpaceX flight plan is designed to leverage Starship’s potential capability of putting Orion in low-lunar orbit, something that SLS and Orion could not quite achieve together.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...er-spacex-moon-mission-role-in-blow-to-boeing

Sorry for paywalled link but I haven't seen it reported elsewhere.

I know some people want to see Orion killed as well or think NASA would approve a mission of duct taping a LEO Dragon to the hood of HLS but I think this is a smart way to divide and conquer. Once the fourth Orion is built LM has said they can support a six month cadence in terms of refurbishing Orion for future missions. If Orion is only lifted to LEO that breaks the Boeing & LM alliance. Orion isn't tied to the success of SLS. That alone frees up a ton of money. Orion is about a billion a pop but SLS is more than two billion a pop. LM may even favor this shakeup as it may mean more Orion missions and less chance it gets axed completely.

Around 2031 we could be supporting twice a year crewed missions and phasing out SLS. If EOR becomes the accepted architecture then future commercial deep space vehicles are easier to procure. New Glenn, Vulcan and F9 could all lift hypothetical future 20 to 25t DSCV to LEO. Entirely possible LM submits a commercial Orion as an option. SpaceX likely would propose a Lunar Dragon. BO may propose a third DSCV or maybe is content with being the launch provider for Orion. Would Boeing submit a lunar Starliner or are they done with losing fortunes designing spacecraft that don't work?

There is an interesting irony that Orion began life as the crew land and return vehicle for an EOR architecture (Constellation) 20 years later it may return to that original role.

 

[wagnerrp]

Unconfirmed reports but it looks like NASA is more seriously considering SpaceX proposal for an EOR architecture. Orion and HLS dock up in Earth Orbit. If this goes ahead it relegates SLS to just lifting Orion into LEO something that with a bit of funding New Glenn could also do possibly paving the way for SLS to be phased out.

With even less work, Vulcan could carry Orion, considering all the work to mate Centaur with Orion will already be done, and it will keep work flowing to ULA even if SLS is canceled.

 

[Statistical]

With even less work, Vulcan could carry Orion, considering all the work to mate Centaur with Orion will already be done, and it will keep work flowing to ULA even if SLS is canceled.

Without a performance upgrade to Vulcan or reducing the weight of Orion it is too porky for even VC6 variant of Vulcan to lift her.

Now that being said Orion does have a stupidly powerful LAS because it originally was needed to outrun a solid rocket booster (in the Ares I nonsense) and throw Orion far enough down range that burning SRB fragments wouldn't ignite its parachutes. This is not needed for New Glenn or Vulcan and probably not even for SLS but to save time and money they just used the massive (>7t) LAS that was already designed for Ares I when Orion moved over to SLS. So you probably could redesign to meet the needs of rockets that aren't a suicide mission and save some mass.

In a longer timeline it would probably be worth it to design a new SM that uses a pusher abort system like Starliner and Dragon and use some of the weight savings to increase the propellant mass. That means in any missions without an abort you have a higher DeltaV budget.

 

[wagnerrp]

Without a performance upgrade to Vulcan or reducing the weight of Orion it is too porky for even VC6 variant of Vulcan to lift her.

Now that being said Orion does have a stupidly powerful LAS because it originally was needed to outrun a solid rocket booster (in the Ares I nonsense) and throw Orion far enough down range that burning SRB fragments wouldn't ignite its parachutes. This is not needed for New Glenn or Vulcan and probably not even for SLS but to save time and money they just used the massive (>7t) LAS that was already designed for Ares I when Orion moved over to SLS. So you probably could redesign to meet the needs of rockets that aren't a suicide mission and save some mass.

In a longer timeline it would probably be worth it to design a new SM that uses a pusher abort system like Starliner and Dragon. That means in any missions without an abort you have more propellant and thus higher DeltaV budget.

The LAS is jettisoned shortly after the SRBs, and it stands to reason it could be jettisoned even earlier on a Vulcan with smaller GEMs. Carrying that extra 5t for the first 100s of flight would be a modest performance loss, and could be recovered by using excess propellant in the ESM to complete orbit.

 

[Statistical]

The LAS is jettisoned shortly after the SRBs, and it stands to reason it could be jettisoned even earlier on a Vulcan with smaller GEMs. Carrying that extra 5t for the first 100s of flight would be a modest performance loss, and could be recovered by using excess propellant in the ESM to complete orbit.

Maybe. Even without the LAS Orion is very heavy. It would be close.


Orion on orbit mass: 26.5t
Orion on pad mass: 33.5t

Vulcan performance to LEO
VC6: 25.6t
VC6 w/ RL10E upgrade: 26.9t

I am not sure if they completed the RL10E upgrade or not but I guess they will by 2030+ either way. How much loss of payload to orbit is inflicted by carrying that 7 extra tons for the first 90 seconds? I don't know. If it is by more than 0.4t VC6 starts coming up a bit short. GEM63XL burn for 90 seconds. I can't imagine NASA would approve LAS jettison util after successful SRB separation. Still the numbers are close it may be possible.

On edit:
The numbers above were LEO to ISS orbit (407km x 407 km @ 51 deg)

NASA LSP website shows payload to nominal 200km x 200km @ 28.5 deg orbit as 28t so VC6 should probably be enough. Also that 28t is I believe with the exiting RL10C engines. Moving to RL10E should add at least another ton which would give a bit more margin.

 

[EllPeaTea]

Blue Origin are looking to jump onto the data centres in space train.
https://pub-92a1d770e9be416e8558d475b4b5b847.r2.dev/6586011b-2cf6-49a5-857d-bdf1333f63b6.pdf

Blue Origin - FCC Docket SAT-LOA-20260310-00118

Blue Origin has filed an application with the Federal Communications Commission seeking authority to launch and operate a large satellite constellation known as Project Sunrise. This system is designed to host orbital data centers to support the increasing demand for artificial intelligence and cloud computing. By placing compute infrastructure in space, Blue Origin aims to provide a sustainable alternative to terrestrial data centers that face physical scaling limits.

The proposed constellation includes up to 51,600 satellites operating in sun-synchronous orbits at altitudes ranging from 500 to 1,800 kilometers. To manage data traffic, the system will primarily use optical links and mesh backhaul networks, supplemented by Ka-band spectrum for telemetry, tracking, and command operations. The spacecraft will utilize multiple antenna variations to maintain efficient coverage across various orbital planes.

In its filing, Blue Origin requests several regulatory waivers, including exemptions from standard processing round procedures and certain milestone or bond requirements. The company asserts that the project will enhance global compute accessibility and ensure efficient spectrum use. Approval would allow Blue Origin to expand its space infrastructure capabilities to include high-capacity orbital data processing.

 

[hark]

NASA is proposing a sharp increase in the rate of robotic lunar lander missions.

https://spacenews.com/nasa-considering-sharp-increase-in-robotic-lunar-landings/

 

[hark]

ESA calls for European-Led Space Station Studies

https://europeanspaceflight.com/esa-to-open-call-for-european-led-space-station-studies/

In addition to planning own space station (with JAXA and Canada), ESA explores utilizing commercial space stations. ESA has signed memoranda of understanding with three separate CLD companies to explore potential utilization - Axiom Space (October 2023), Starlab (Airbus and Voyager Space, November 2023), Vast (June 2024).

 

[BrangdonJ]

China has identified potential Lunar landing sites for their 2030 landing site.

Spoiler: Bluesky Link with Maps

View: https://bsky.app/profile/chinaspace.bsky.social/post/3mhga5nkyq22y

Those don't seem to be prime real estate. There wouldn't be a long-term disadvantage to the US if China claimed them, as compared to them claiming areas near the south pole.

 

[DDopson]

Your last point is the challenge. CIWS would make short work of suicide drones. We had them guarding our FOB in Iraq and they can swat a falling mortar shell out of the sky so a slow flying drone in level flight would be child's play.

The limited range though would mean you need hundreds of them especially if trying to protect infrastructure spread out across a country. They do provide good terminal defense against high value targets.

Ideally you want something relatively cheap but which can engage over a larger area. That likely requires missiles on the ground, missiles in the air, or guns in the air. On the last one the only platform we have in high numbers is high performance jets and their cannons are optimized for blistering high rate of fire to take down other high performance jets.

It isn't an unsolvable problem it just a problem that hasn't been solved. The AF will pushback but drones could destroy enemy drones in large numbers. A subsonic drone large enough to carry an auto cannon and have a long loiter could wipe out entire fleets of long range suicide drones. Likewise putting a missile track radar on a drone would allow your ground based interceptors to reach out further against drones flying close to the ground. Not even saying those are the ideal options or how we will solve this just that our current arsenal is pretty poorly structured for taking out large numbers of low cost long range suicide drones especially at range. You would want to take them out of range. Even if you have CIWS and/or lasers to provide terminal defense you want to thin the numbers to give those terminal defense options better odds. An F35 is $80M a Shahed is $50k. An F35 could take out multiple of them with very little risk until it ran out of munitions but you can build 1500 of the later for the price of one of the former.

The main problem with using CIWS to defend against Shahed drones is that a CIWS unit is $8 million to $18 million per unit, and I'm not clear whether that price includes the radar or not. Combined with limited engagement range, that means it's prohibitively expensive to cover a large area or a long border. Even though missiles are prohibitively expensive per shot, they are paradoxically cheaper per square mile of coverage area, due to their long engagement ranges.

The benefit of the Ukraine's low cost interceptor drones is that they are hundreds to low thousands per shot, and only minimal infrastructure is needed per firing location. They are also portable, such that a team with a pickup truck can reposition to get itself into the anticipated flight path for a Shahed detected some distance away. Ukraine has also made good use of audio-based detection pickets. Microphones are much cheaper than radar arrays, and complementary in the sense that if a Shahed is is flying low enough to duck under the radar horizon, it's definitely low enough for its moped motor to be not just audible, but very loud for anyone on the ground with any kind of sound detection capability, including the human ear. It's not a fancy tech problem, just a matter of deploying enough sensors and / or sentries to cover all lines of ingress.

The caveat of the interceptor drones is that they are currently human piloted. Thus, there's a scalability challenge getting enough human labor in enough places. There's at least two ways to address that. Shorter term, it's possible to use Starlink or any other comms system to remote the control all the way back to a centralized facility, with expendable munitions distributed in many locations, controlled centrally. To increase mobility, the interceptor drones could be carried to their firing location by a simple UGV, essentially an autonomous quad-bike that carries the interceptor drones on the back along with the Starlink terminal. Having a speedy UGV system for interceptor deployment means that they don't have to sit in the field 24/7, where they might be at risk of being discovered by children and / or tampered with. The quad-bike UGVs can be concentrated in a smaller number of locked / guarded regional facilities, and deployed to rapidly fan out into the oncoming path of incoming Shahed munitions. Being mobile also makes it harder for the enemy to concentrate enough munitions along one route to overwhelm the local supply of interceptors. Quad bikes are inexpensive, support a lot of cargo weight, and can "loiter" for a long time due to not needing to burn much fuel while parked. They also have a lot of range if their fuel tank is enlarged. Still, their big disadvantage is that they are slower than flying platforms and are limited to the passable routes through the terrain, so they could be complimented by an aerial carrier that's faster and more flexible at responding on demand. Longer term, it seems quite feasible to design an autonomous piloting system -- this is way easier than designing a dogfighting AI for an F-35, and that's already been done -- but true autonomy isn't needed to make the system effective, just to scale the instantaneous engagement rate independent of the number of human pilots on duty. These systems are already piloted remotely, so compute for piloting doesn't necessarily need to be limited to what's on the expendable munition. For example, terminal guidance can be split from the recognition and decision making systems that try to prevent the munition from locking onto a recreational Cessna pilot (airliners are already safe due to altitude and speed).

 

[EllPeaTea]

Confirmation that the Progress Kurs system is still offline.

Roskosmos announced that cosmonaut Sergei Kud'-Sverchkov aboard the ISS will be guiding Progress MS-33 cargo ship to its docking with the station under manual control. It implies that the attempts to deploy the automated rendezvous antenna on Progress did not succeed.

 

[NetMage]

Confirmation that the Progress Kurs system is still offline.

Perhaps they will do a spacewalk to take a look? Does Progress land on Earth when it leaves so they can investigate on the ground?

 

[wagnerrp]

Perhaps they will do a spacewalk to take a look? Does Progress land on Earth when it leaves so they can investigate on the ground?

Progress is basically a Soyuz, but with the re-entry module replaced by a fuel tank. It does not return to the ground, and the docking hardware is on the orbital module that would have been discarded and burned up anyway.

 

[EllPeaTea]

Isar launch slips again:

Due to ongoing strong winds in the launch area, launch window for Mission ‘Onward and Upward’ opens NET 25 March, subject to weather, safety and range infrastructure. We’ll provide more updates as they come available.

I'm beginning to think that a launchpad in the Artic won't be the most reliable.

 

[Cthel]

Isar launch slips again:


I'm beginning to think that a launchpad in the Artic won't be the most reliable.

It's okay, climate change will open up the Northwest passage launch corridor...