As ESA science journalist during the spacecraft’s construction, present at ESOC for its launch and reporting on its science observations and discoveries for the first years, I would like to say hello to all former colleagues.
I have very strong memories of the suspense and dismay of course when we lost Beagle-2 (and tribute to Colin Pillinger) but remember also the startling images from HRSC camera provided by Free University of Berlin. Including the beautiful one of Olympus Mons
I still have a folder on my computer containing all my ESA work and videos during this mission. Twenty years later, it was great to follow this live transmission from Mars Express.
The world of space exploration is rapidly changing, and Europe simply cannot afford to be a passive bystander. The recent publication of Revolution Space: Europe’s Mission for Space Exploration, a report by a High-Level Advisory Group, emphasizes that countries and regions that do not secure independent access to space and its autonomous use will fall behind and suffer economic deprivation. Unfortunately, Europe is at risk of being one of those regions.
Europe’s traditional approach to space exploration has been one of collaboration as a partner, allowing for efficiency and success in the industry, but creating a dangerous dependency on others for human access to space. In today’s rapidly shifting geopolitical climate and competitive space exploration landscape, this approach is no longer viable. Cooperation is no longer enough when the possibility of space mining and other potentially lucrative markets arise. If Europe wishes to take advantage of these opportunities, it must be self-sufficient in terms of transport systems and technology.
ESA – Director of Space Transportation
Published on his LinkedIn page on 26th May 2023
It’s time for Europe to make a choice: will it lead the space revolution or be left behind?
The future of space exploration is uncertain, but one thing is clear: Europe must take control of its own destiny in this field. Failure to do so could leave Europe vulnerable to economic hardship and strategic dependence. The time for Europe to decide is now: will it ride the wave of the space revolution or be left behind on the sidelines?
The High-Level Advisory Group’s report makes a compelling case for Europe to step up its game in the space race. Now, it’s time to fill in the details and figure out the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of our plan. In my view, the ‘what’ is clear: we need to establish access to a human-rated destination in low-Earth orbit (LEO) as a first step towards creating a thriving space economy. LEO is where the International Space Station orbits and where we can lay the foundation for the production of goods and services in space.
But we cannot stop at LEO. We must continue to push the boundaries of space exploration, eventually venturing to the moon and beyond. However, we must be realistic and understand that
Rome wasn’t built in a day…
… and Europe’s space revolution won’t happen overnight. We must take a step-by-step approach and establish intermediate objectives along the way.
The first critical step is establishing human-rated transport services to LEO. We are exploring various launcher options, including adapting the Ariane 6 services. However, this is just the beginning. Whatever form our launchers take, they must ultimately be reusable if we want to embrace a wider space economy and engage in higher-intensity launch activities.
In short, we must take a strategic approach to space exploration, with a focus on establishing access to LEO and then expanding our reach into the vast expanse of space. This will not happen overnight, but with a step-by-step plan and a commitment to reusable technology, we can make the space revolution a reality for Europe.
How do we make it happen?
If Europe wants to compete in the space revolution, it needs a reusable launcher. But the real question is, how do we make it happen? The answer is straight: smart investment. ESA must become not only a New Space partner, but also a reliable customer, willing to share in the risks and even accept failure. As the saying goes, if you’re not failing every now and then, you’re not doing anything innovative!
Traditionally, ESA would give a company a list of specifications and access to a test bench for a new engine. If the engine failed to meet all requirements during testing, the company wouldn’t achieve the milestone and wouldn’t get paid. This approach discouraged risk-taking and limited competition and innovation. With ESA’s Boost! programme, we’re taking a step-by-step approach that allows companies to fail forward and learn from their mistakes. If a milestone isn’t met, the company can go back to the drawing board and try again until they achieve an innovative, potentially game-changing engine.
Another crucial aspect is the concept of being a customer. If we want private industry to invest in space exploration, we need to invest in them. We need to do more than just be an anchor customer. To incentivize risk-taking, we need to bet on our industry partners by agreeing to be an early customer and making upfront payment plans for multiple services. Of course, we must also exercise due diligence and thoroughly vet companies to ensure they can make their business case and are held accountable.
In short, to make the space revolution a reality for Europe, we must invest in innovation and be willing to take risks and accept failure. ESA must become a reliable customer and bet on our industry partners, holding them accountable for their actions. With these strategies in place, we can make Europe a leader in the space race and achieve groundbreaking advancements in space exploration.
Now it’s time to drive
Europe is a powerhouse in so many domains, from ground transportation to finance, and from groundbreaking research to space sciences. We have the knowledge and technological prowess to catch up and take the lead in the space revolution. But the question is, do we want to be drivers or mere passengers?
In the space revolution, those who are content with being passengers are left on the sidelines. But the drivers – the ones who compete and claim a share of the global space economy, which is projected to reach EUR 1 trillion by 2040 – keep talent and innovation here in Europe. They stimulate new areas of the economy that have a direct and positive impact on our people and planet. The drivers inspire young people and have the potential to unite the next generation of Europeans.
For me, the answer is clear – it’s time to drive. It’s time to invest in Europe and establish our autonomy in space exploration. It’s time to show the world that we are a global player and a reliable partner. We must build a low-Earth-orbit economy and drive Revolution Space forward.
Let’s not settle for being just another passenger in the space race. Let’s take the lead and drive towards a brighter future. The potential is limitless, and the benefits are immense. So, let’s harness our knowledge and technological prowess, become drivers in the space revolution, and pave the way for a better tomorrow.
MR comment : Two points : let us not write off previous ESA ambitions. Remember Ariane 5 initially was to be human rated, reusability of its boosters was envisaged, development of Hermes was well advanced before its demise. Which brings us to the second point, not evoked here: can this new European ambition proceed in ESA’s dependency on a multi-national framework? I have attended so many Council and ministerial meetings when varying opinions, lack of trust, even rivalry have forced ESA to cut back on its programs and ambitions? Is ESA’s status (which has achieved so much!) still fit for the future? I have doubts. And as already evoked are European populations ready to foot the bill?
SpaceX’s next-generation Starship spacecraft atop its powerful Super Heavy rocket lifts off from the company’s Boca Chica launchpad on an uncrewed test flight before exploding, near Brownsville, Texas, U.S. April 20, 2023. REUTERS/Joe Skipper
May 1, (Reuters) – Conservation groups sued the Federal Aviation Administration on Monday, challenging its approval of expanded rocket launch operations by Elon Musk’s SpaceX next to a national wildlife refuge in South Texas without requiring greater environmental study.
The lawsuit comes 11 days after SpaceX made good on a new FAA license to send its next-generation Starship rocket on its first test flight, ending with the vehicle exploding over the Gulf of Mexico after blasting the launchpad to ruins on liftoff.
The shattering force of the launch hurled chunks of reinforced concrete and metal shrapnel thousands of feet from the site, adjacent to the Lower Rio Grand Valley National Wildlife Refuge near Boca Chica State Park and Beach.
The blast also ignited a 3.5-acre (1.4-hectare) brush fire and sent a cloud of pulverized concrete drifting 6.5 miles (10.5 km) to the northwest and raining down over tidal flats and the nearby town of Port Isabel, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
SpaceX hailed the launch as a qualified success that will yield valuable data to advance development of its Starship and Super Heavy rocket, major components in NASA’s new Artemis program for returning astronauts to the moon.
But Monday’s lawsuit said the April 20 incident marked the latest in a series of at least nine explosive mishaps at Boca Chica, disrupting a haven for federally protected wildlife and vital habitat for migratory birds.
Noise, light pollution, construction and road traffic also degrade the area, home to endangered ocelots and jaguarundis, as well as nesting sites for endangered Kemp’s Ridley sea turtles and critical habitat for threatened shorebirds, the suit says.
The disturbances show the FAA violated federal law by permitting expanded operations at Musk’s Starbase in Boca Chica without mandating the full environmental impact study (EIS) normally required for major projects, the lawsuit asserts.
The 31-page complaint seeks to revoke the FAA license and require an EIS.
The FAA’s chief of staff for the Office of Commercial Space Transportation had stated in a June 2020 email that the agency planned to conduct an EIS, but the FAA « subsequently deferred to SpaceX » and performed a less rigorous review instead, according to the lawsuit.
An FAA spokesperson said the agency, as a matter of policy does not comment on active litigation. There was no immediate word on the case from SpaceX.
Musk, the billionaire founder and chief executive of the California-based company, addressed criticism from environmentalists in remarks during an event on Saturday, saying the debris scattered by last month’s launch amounted to « a human-made sandstorm. »
« It’s not toxic at all or anything, » he said. « It did scatter a lot of dust, but to the best of our knowledge, there has not been any meaningful damage to the environment that we’re aware of. »
SHORT-CUT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW?
SpaceX had vigorously opposed subjecting its Starbase to an EIS review, a process that typically takes years. An EIS involves extensive analysis of the project at stake and alternatives, along with mitigation plans to curb or offset harmful impacts. It also entails public review and comment and often re-evaluation and supplemental study.
The FAA granted its license following a far less thorough environmental assessment and a finding that SpaceX activities at Boca Chica pose « no significant impact » on the environment. The lawsuit challenges that finding as a violation of the National Environmental Policy Act, contending that the assessment and mitigation measures incorporated into the license fall short of the law’s requirements.
The case highlights a history of tension between environmentalists, who have sought to limit development at Boca Chica, and Musk, a hard-charging entrepreneur known for risk taking.
« It’s vital that we protect life on Earth even as we look to the stars in this modern era of spaceflight, » said Jared Margolis, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, one of several groups bringing the suit in federal court in the District of Columbia.
Musk has said SpaceX plans to install a water-cooling system and steel reinforcements for the launchpad to prevent a repeat of blastoff damage, and could be ready for another test flight of the rocket, the most powerful ever built, in the next couple of months.
For the time being, the Starship and the Super Heavy rocket are effectively grounded under a « mishap » investigation opened by the FAA immediately after the launch, as required by law.
Reporting by Steve Gorman in Los Angeles; editing by Diane Craft
Suite de la « mésangerie » avec, ce dimanche 7 mai, une vidéo un peu plus longue, de 5:20.
Dans laquelle, avant que la mère arrive, on remarque la vigueur de certains oisillons qui arrivent à grimper presque entièrement hors du trou du nid.
On peut voir des traits blancs sur leurs petites ailes bien développées alors que leurs corps rougeâtres sont encore dépouillés.
Quand la mère arrive, elle se met à faire le ménage dans le fond, apparemment sans grand souci pour ses petits. L’un profite d’être « squeezé » pour grimper.
Cet apm la famille a fait connaissance avec d’autres bruits: ceux de la tondeuse et débroussailleuse. Cela a peut-être énervé la mère qui (de peur?) a du rester tranquille – car le système vidéo n’a rien enregistré!
Continuing with our « bluetit house » series, on Sunday, May 7, there was a slightly longer video of 5:20.
In the video, before the mother arrives, one can notice the vigor of some chicks who manage to climb almost entirely out of the nest hole.
The video shows white markings on their well-developed small wings while their reddish bodies are still naked.
When the mother arrives, she starts cleaning the bottom of the nest, apparently without much concern for her young. One chick takes advantage of being « squished » to climb.
In the afternoon, the family heard other sounds, those of a lawnmower and trimmer. This may have upset the mother who (out of fear?) remained still – because the video system did not record anything! 😉
In a wide-ranging talk on Saturday night, SpaceX founder Elon Musk reviewed the debut launch of the Starship rocket on April 20. The bottom line, he said, is that the vehicle’s flight slightly exceeded his expectations and that damage to the launch site was not all that extensive. He expects Starship to fly again in as few as two or three months.
« Basically the outcome was roughly sort of what I expected and maybe slightly exceeded my expectations, » he said. « And I’m glad to report that the pad damage is actually quite small, and it looks like it can be repaired quite quickly. It was actually just good to get this vehicle off the ground because we’ve made so many improvements in Booster 9 and beyond. »
Musk spoke for about an hour during a Twitter spaces event, responding to questions from several journalists and spaceflight enthusiasts. For those unable to listen, what follows is a summary of what Musk said.
On the flight
When the rocket lifted off, there were three engines whose ignition was terminated because the flight software did not deem them « healthy enough » to bring to full thrust. That left 30 of the Super Heavy first stage’s 33 engines in good condition, which is the minimum allowable number for liftoff. Musk said he did not believe these three engines were damaged by the gravel and concrete kicked up by the immense thrust created by the rocket as it slowly lifted off from the pad.
« Weirdly, we did not see evidence of the rock tornado actually damaging engines or heat shields in a material way, » he said. « It may have been, but we have not yet seen evidence of that. »
At 27 seconds into the flight, engine 19 lost communications concurrent with some kind of “energetic event,” Musk said. This also liberated the outer heat shield from four nearby engines. SpaceX engineers are still assessing exactly what this energetic event was.
“So something bad happened at T-plus 27 seconds because the engine 19 lost all communications, and some kind of explosion happened to knock out the heat shields of engines 17, 18, 19, and 20, » Musk said. « There were visible fires seen from the aft end of the vehicle for the remainder of the flight, but the rocket kept going. At T-plus 62 seconds, we see additional aft heat shield damage near engine 30; however, the engine continues to run. And then T-plus 85 seconds is where things really hit the fan. »
At that point, the rocket started to lose its thrust vector control, or the ability to steer itself. This led to the initiation of the flight termination system.
Flight termination system
Just before a minute and a half into its mission, the rocket’s flight termination system was initiated to break up the vehicle before it veered too far off course. Essentially, the ordnance on board the rocket detonates to rupture its fuel tanks, leading to a breakup. However, in this case, there was about a 40-second delay in the initiation of the system and the rocket breaking apart.
This time lag posed no safety issues with the rocket safely offshore, but it is an unacceptable lag for a system that is supposed to terminate flight almost immediately.
Musk said the problem could be solved with a « longer detonation cord » to make sure the propellant tanks are fully unzipped rapidly. However, he acknowledged that working through this issue with the Federal Aviation Administration may take some time.
« The longest lead item is probably requalification of the flight termination system, » Musk said. « That’s obviously something that we want to make sure of before proceeding with the next flight. »
Hardening the launch site
Musk also addressed the damage observed at the launch site, including a large hole dug by the rocket’s thrust. The damage from what he described as the « world’s biggest cutting torch » ripped through a material called Fondag, which is one of the most heavy-duty concretes in the world.
« We’re going to be putting down a lot of steel, » Musk said of the area at the rocket’s base, which he characterized as a ‘mega-steel pancake.’ This would provide both strength below the rocket and a regenerative cooling system by pumping water upward to dampen exhaust from the rocket’s 33 engines.
« That is basically a water-jacketed sandwich that’s two layers of plate steel that are also perforated on the upper side, » Musk said. « So that is basically a massive, super-strong steel shower head pointing upward. »
This approach should reduce damage to the launch site and eliminate the propagation of concrete bits and dust that were observed during the initial test flight last month. « The debris is really just basically sand and rock, so it’s not toxic at all or anything, » he said. « It’s just like a sandstorm, essentially. Basically a human-made sandstorm. But we don’t want to do that again. »
Thrust vector control
Had the Super Heavy booster not lost thrust vector control, the vehicle may have made it to stage separation, Musk said. Ensuring the ability of the rocket to continue to steer itself, even with multiple engine failures, is key for the next flight attempt with Booster 9, the company’s next-in-line rocket.
« Booster 9 is a lot easier because we use electric motors to steer the engines as opposed to hydraulic actuators, where you’ve got a common manifold between the hydraulic actuators, » Musk said. « The electric actuated engines will be much more isolated. »
It will be key to ensure that any single engine failures are isolated, and the company has made the rocket more robust for this purpose, he said.
« If you have extremely good engine isolation and an engine fails, it does not cause a failure of neighboring engine or the stage itself, » Musk said. « Because then if you lose one of 33 engines, that’s a 3 percent thrust loss. It’s not a big deal. If you do not have good engine isolation, then an engine failure can domino to other engines or to parts of the stage, then you have an extremely unreliable design. »
Expectations for the next flight
Because of the rocket and launch pad upgrades, Musk said he anticipates SpaceX being ready for a second Starship launch attempt in six to eight weeks. However, he acknowledged that closing out work with the Federal Aviation Administration on the flight termination system and taking other measures necessary for a launch license may take longer.
He is cautiously optimistic about the next launch attempt, which will repeat the same mission profile—Super Heavy launches and lands in the Gulf of Mexico; Starship separates, nearly reaches orbital velocity, and then returns into the Pacific Ocean north of Hawaii.
« I think this time, we’ve got a better than 50 percent chance of reaching orbit, » he said. « I’m hopeful we can get four flights out this year, or maybe five. »
The goal of these initial flights is to continue to gather information about the performance of Super Heavy and Starship. After the launch system can reliably reach orbit, the next phase of the program will involve demonstrating in-space fuel transfer and beginning to land and reuse both the booster and upper stages.
« It’ll probably take us a few more years to achieve reusability on a regular basis, where we bring the booster back and bring the ship back, » he said. « It’ll take a few years to get to where Falcon 9 is today, where it is quite normal for the rocket to land. »
Musk estimated that SpaceX will spend about $2 billion on the Starship program in 2023 but that he does not anticipate needing to raise additional capital this year.
SOUTH PADRE ISLAND, Texas—It began with a bang, as big things often do.
On Thursday morning, with clearing skies overhead, SpaceX’s Starship rocket slowly began to climb away from its launch pad. Fully laden with about 5,000 metric tons of liquid oxygen and methane propellant, the largest rocket ever built needed about 10 seconds to begin clearing the launch pad.
From a nearby vantage point, the rocket rumbled and the smoke billowed outward—but it seemed like an eternity before Starship poked its head above the smoke and dust. And then it climbed skyward, a brilliant silvery and fiery streak in the sky.
What could not be immediately discerned from the ground is that a handful of the Super Heavy first stage’s 33 Raptor engines failed in the early moments of the flight. After about two minutes, more engines failed. Before the end, when the rocket reached a peak altitude just short of 40 km, as many as eight engines appeared to have gone out.
Understandably, this appears to have led to some control issues at around the moment when the Starship upper stage was supposed to separate from the first stage of the rocket. It’s also possible that a hydraulics problem contributed to an inability to control the direction of the remaining engines’ thrust. Regardless, the launch system began flipping and rolling.
And then, well, stuff blew up.
“But it exploded”
After Thursday’s test, the Internet was on fire. For many people, Elon Musk has done and said some hate-able things of late, and they were ready to hate on him and his rocket company for screwing the pooch. After all, how stupid could engineers be for celebrating a spectacular failure like this?
This is a totally understandable take. For a general audience who sees NASA at work, an agency that can’t afford to fail, this looks like failure. NASA failures often involve the loss of human life or billion-dollar satellites. So yeah, government explosions are bad.
But this was not that. For those who know a bit more about the launch industry and the iterative design methodology, getting the Super Heavy rocket and Starship upper stage off the launch pad was a huge success.
Why? Because one could sit in meetings for ages and discuss everything that could go wrong with a rocket like this, with an unprecedented number of first stage engines and its colossal size. The alternative is simply to get the rocket into a « good enough » configuration and go fly. Flying is the ultimate test, providing the best data. There is no more worrying about theoretical failures. The company’s engineers actually get to identify what is wrong and then go and fix it. But you have to accept some failure.
So SpaceX’s process is messier, but it is also much faster. Consider this: NASA spent billions of dollars and the better part of a decade constructing the Space Launch System rocket that had a nearly flawless debut flight—aside from damage to the launch tower—in late 2022. NASA followed a linear design method, complete with extensive and expensive analysis, because a failure of the SLS rocket would have raised serious questions about the agency’s competence.
Fortunately for SpaceX, the company can afford to « fail. » It can do so because it has already built three more Super Heavy rockets that are nearly ready to fly. In fact, SpaceX can build 10 Super Heavy first stages in the time it takes NASA to build a single SLS rocket. If the first five fail but the next five succeed, which is a better outcome? How about in two or three years, when SpaceX is launching and landing a dozen or more Super Heavy rockets while NASA’s method allows it a single launch a year?
So, yes, SpaceX’s rocket exploded on Thursday. The company will learn. And it will fly again, perhaps sometime later this fall or winter. Soon, it probably will be flying frequently.
The bad and the good
That’s not to say this flight test should raise no concerns. SpaceX has already rapidly iterated on the design of the Raptor rocket engine that powers both Super Heavy and the Starship upper stage. Clearly, it must continue to work on making these engines more reliable both at ignition and during the entire flight to space.
This seems likely given that SpaceX now has ample data on the performance of these engines in flight and the plumbing inside the Super Heavy vehicle’s engine section that feeds them liquid oxygen and methane. It helps that SpaceX can rapidly manufacture these engines at a rate of nearly one a day.
Another major concern is the ground infrastructure that fuels and supports the Super Heavy rocket prior to liftoff. Post-launch imagery showed a massive crater underneath the Orbital Launch Mount, and there were also concerns with the propellant « farm » that stores gases and liquids needed for the rocket.
SpaceX will have to make some hard decisions now about whether it needs to build a flame trench underneath the rocket to carry away exhaust and heat or whether an upgraded water deluge system can handle the immense amount of thrust from the vehicle. The company will probably end up constructing the former.
Solving these issues, particularly with the ground systems, is likely to be the biggest hurdle before the next test flight of Starship can take place.
On the plus side, the Federal Aviation Administration confirmed there were no injuries during the test. Moreover, one of the rocket’s biggest customers, NASA, was happy with the test.
« Every great achievement throughout history has demanded some level of calculated risk because with great risk comes great reward, » NASA Administrator Bill Nelson said in a statement after the test flight. « Looking forward to all that SpaceX learns, to the next flight test—and beyond. »
The Starship era begins
When SpaceX irons out all of these issues, we’ll be left with the world’s largest fully reusable rocket. This will forever change humanity’s relationship with the cosmos—for better (in terms of access) or potentially worse (in terms of space junk).
Time will tell.
I used to regret coming into this world mere months after the final Apollo mission, thinking I had missed the great age of exploration. But I no longer do. In just the last six months, I have seen the launch of the two most powerful rockets ever built, the Space Launch System and Starship. I have seen the naming of not one but two crews that will fly around the Moon, Artemis II and the dearMoon project. As NASA says, we are going.
Yet still more remarkably, during the last half-year, I have seen two dozen rockets land on a drone ship and fly again. We no longer treat this as remarkable, but we absolutely should. These now-routine Falcon 9 first stage landings at sea are a harbinger of the future. They are like the first fish to walk out of the sea 375 million years ago on Earth, beginning the extraordinary transformation of life on Earth. With these Falcon 9 landings—and now Starship—we are seeing the transformation of life off Earth.
I turned 50 years old yesterday. In those five decades, we have gone from flying a fully expendable Saturn V rocket to the beginnings of a fully reusable Starship rocket. Much remains to be done, and Starship is a work in progress. But this is historic. No one really knows what our planet, our orbit, or our Solar System will look like with low-cost launch, frequent access to space, and essentially no constraints on mass. We have never experienced anything like that before.
This is a far more wonderful and wild time in space than any that came before. There is incredible opportunity and peril. The future is unknowable but tantalizing.
So I no longer have any regrets about missing Apollo. I am thrilled to be alive at this very moment in human history.
Europe’s Ariane 6 rocket is turning into a space policy disaster
Now the Ariane 6 rocket is failing even its most basic task.
Arstechnica Eric Berger –
After much political wrangling among Germany, France, and Italy, the member governments of the European Space Agency formally decided to move ahead with development of the Ariane 6 rocket in December 2014.
A replacement rocket for the Ariane 5 was needed, European ministers decided, because of cost pressure from commercial upstarts like SpaceX and its Falcon 9 rocket. With the design of the Ariane 6, they envisioned a modernized version of the previous rocket, optimized for cost. Because Ariane 6 would use a modified Vulcain engine and other components from previous Ariane rockets, it was anticipated that the new rocket would debut in 2020.
European space policy, however, is every bit as political as that of the United States, if not more so. Member nations of Europe make financial allocations to the European Space Agency and expect roughly that amount of money in return in terms of space projects. So the development and production of Ariane 6 was spread across a number of nations under management of a large conglomerate, France-based ArianeGroup.
Parochial politics
This approach combined the worst of the parochial politics that guide NASA funding in the United States with the sluggish activity of a traditional aerospace company accustomed to guaranteed contracts. Naturally, therefore, development of the project has lagged and gone over budget. As of this writing, the public date for the debut launch of Ariane 6 remains « late 2023, » but the rocket’s first flight will certainly slip into 2024. And its development budget has nearly doubled, to $4.4 billion.
That is a lot of time—nearly a decade—and money for Europe to develop what is essentially a poorer version of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket. In the nine years since Europe began development of the Ariane 6 to compete with SpaceX, the Falcon 9 rocket has nearly doubled its payload capacity and become partially reusable, so it is now more capable and costs far less. It has also launched more than 215 times, which is nearly as many rockets as the Ariane program has launched since 1979. Because of this, the Falcon 9 is now extremely reliable and capable of launching on schedule.
So why is Europe developing a rocket that costs more than a Falcon 9 and is a decade late to the party? Because European nations desire independent access to space. This means that European nations can have their own way of putting their most valuable military and scientific satellites into space without having to rely on NASA, Russia, or the whims of American billionaires. This is a justifiable decision in light of geopolitical events that have cut off Europe’s access to the Russian Soyuz rocket.
But the Ariane 6 rocket is now failing even at this, its most basic and important task. Politico reports that the European Commission—the executive arm of the European Union—is looking to buy rides on the Falcon 9 rocket due to ongoing delays in readiness of the Ariane 6 rocket.
In a draft request to the European Union, the publication reports, the European Commission plans to ask for a green light to negotiate « an ad-hoc security agreement » with the United States for its rocket companies to « exceptionally launch Galileo satellites. » Galileo is a constellation of European satellites that provide global navigation services to Europe similar to the US Global Positioning System, or GPS. These are fairly large satellites, with a mass of about 700 kg, that are located in medium-Earth orbit.
Bad optics
Previously, the European Commission has booked six launches on the Ariane 6 rocket to launch Galileo satellites—two in 2017 and an additional four in 2020—each carrying two satellites. Under the current plan, three of these missions are supposed to launch in 2023. There is no chance of that, of course. The first of these Galileo flights will not take place until after the debut flight of the Ariane 6, so likely not before the second half of 2024 at the earliest.
Apparently, the European Commission has seen enough Ariane 6 delays. The two US rockets capable of picking up the slack from a technical standpoint are SpaceX’s Falcon 9 and United Launch Alliance’s Vulcan rocket. The problem for Europe is that Vulcan is also running well behind its development curve. The vehicle’s first launch is now planned for no earlier than this summer, and Vulcan has commitments to the US Department of Defense that will likely preclude taking on new commercial customers for a few years. That leaves only le Falcon Neuf.
For Europe, the optics of this are terrible, of course. Its commissioners created the Ariane 6 to compete with SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket. Now, a decade later, officials from the continent are going to have to negotiate with SpaceX for a ride to space for some of their most precious satellites—never mind that the cost is likely to be lower and that the Falcon 9 is the most reliable rocket in the world, with the lowest insurance costs. It’s a bitter pill to swallow.
While the launch of JUICE will certainly be an exciting and critical event in the mission timeline, what occurs after the launch is, perhaps, some of the most important events of the mission. Following the launch, JUICE will spend eight years traveling through the inner solar system, performing four gravity assists to raise its aphelion (the farthest point from the Sun in its orbit) to Jupiter’s orbital plane. What’s more, when at Jupiter itself, JUICE will perform several flybys of three Jovian icy moons — Ganymede, Callisto, and Europa — to uncover the secrets of these potentially habitable celestial bodies.
With JUICE’s launch and the start of the spacecraft’s eight-year coast phase quickly approaching, NASASpaceflight sat down with Cyril Cavel, JUICE project manager of Airbus Defence and Space, to learn more about the upcoming mission, its eight-year coast phase, and the science it will gather when at Jupiter.
JUICE’s Trajectory
When JUICE launches from French Guiana in April, it will be equipped with some of the latest and greatest planetary science instrumentation to investigate the characteristics of Ganymede, Callisto, and Europa. However, before it can use any of these instruments, the spacecraft has to fly out to Jupiter, doing so through the use of four flybys.
The first of these four flybys will see JUICE perform a first-of-its-kind flyby of the Earth-Moon system called a Lunar-Earth Gravity Assist (LEGA). The maneuver will take place in August 2024 and will have JUICE fly past both the Moon and Earth, utilizing the gravity of both celestial bodies in a single flyby maneuver. If successful, the LEGA flyby will save JUICE a significant amount of propellant, potentially providing mission teams with more opportunities for flybys at Jupiter or a mission extension.
Juice’s journey to Jupiter.
The second flyby, planned for August 2025, will see JUICE fly past Venus, utilizing the planet’s gravity to increase its aphelion height. The final two flybys, planned for September 2026 and January 2029, will be of Earth, with the fourth flyby increasing the spacecraft’s aphelion height to the orbital plane of Jupiter and placing the spacecraft on a trajectory to intercept the planet’s immense gravity well.
The four flybys are often referred to as “gravity assists.” During each flyby, JUICE will harness the gravity of either the Earth-Moon system, Venus, or Earth itself to increase its velocity around the Sun. When the spacecraft’s orbital velocity is increased, the height of its orbit is also increased. By performing multiple gravity assists rather than one, single burn that would place the spacecraft on a direct trajectory to the Jovian system, mission teams can reduce the amount of propellant on the spacecraft, reducing spacecraft mass and costs.
What’s more, following the fourth and final gravity assist flyby of Earth, JUICE could potentially perform a flyby of an asteroid while traveling out to Jupiter. If mission teams choose to perform the flyby of the asteroid, named 223 Rosa, the flyby will serve as a dress rehearsal for the spacecraft’s first flyby of Ganymede following its arrival at the Jovian system in July 2031.
“[The flyby of 223 Rosa] can effectively be used as a dress rehearsal for the very first flyby of Ganymede, which will take place just before Jupiter orbit insertion,” Cavel said. “We perform our first Ganymede flyby before performing the orbital insertion maneuver at Jupiter in order to do an initial reduction of the spacecraft’s energy and to reduce the amplitude of the maneuver that we have to do when arriving at Jupiter. And so a flyby of an asteroid on the way to Jupiter could be used as a rehearsal of this first Ganymede flyby that we do when arriving in the Jovian system,” Cavel said.
The decision to fly past the asteroid will be important for JUICE teams. However, as Cavel explained, they have plenty of time to assess their options and make the final decision to fly past the asteroid.
“The opportunities that flight dynamics and mission analysis at ESA have found for a flyby of an asteroid are typically after the last Earth gravity assist, so on the final trajectory arc to Jupiter. JUICE will be on that trajectory at least five to six years after launch. So there is some time to think about that, meaning the decision would need to be made in the first few years after launch. Then the trajectory would be fine-tuned at the expense of a few meters per second of additional delta-v, which we can accommodate, in order to really target these asteroids on the way to Jupiter.”
On Friday afternoon—after much angst and anxious waiting by the spaceflight community—the Federal Aviation Administration issued a launch license to SpaceX for the launch of its Starship rocket from South Texas.
« After a comprehensive license evaluation process, the FAA determined SpaceX met all safety, environmental, policy, payload, airspace integration and financial responsibility requirements, » the agency said in a statement. « The license is valid for five years. »
Receiving this federal safety approval is the final regulatory step the company needed to take before being cleared to fly the largest rocket ever built. Now, the only constraints to launch are technical issues with the rocket or its ground systems. SpaceX is expected to hold a final readiness review this weekend before deciding to proceed with a launch attempt.
This could occur as soon as Monday. The company has a slew of road closures, temporary flight restrictions, and notices to mariners set up for April 17. The launch window is expected to open at 7 am local time in Texas (12:00 UTC). Backup launch opportunities are available on Tuesday and Wednesday.
SpaceX has been seeking federal approval to launch the massive Super Heavy rocket, with its Starship upper stage, for several years from Texas. The launch site is located near the Gulf of Mexico, just north of the Rio Grande River, and surrounded by wetlands. After completing an environmental assessment in June 2022, the Federal Aviation Administration said the company must undertake more than 75 actions to protect the lands and wildlife around the Boca Chica facility.
This week an official at the FAA, speaking on background, said SpaceX has been cooperative on those measures. « So far, they’ve done what they need to do with regard to environmental impact, » the official said. The FAA has responsibility for safety around the launch site and during a vehicle’s flight. It has worked through its procedures carefully and accommodated SpaceX as the technical design of the Starship launch system has changed.
SpaceX is calling this Starship launch an « integrated flight test. » It is the first time that the massive Super Heavy rocket will have taken off and the first time both vehicles will fly together. Under the nominal flight plan, the Super Heavy rocket will boost Starship toward space and, after separation, attempt to make a controlled splash down into the Gulf of Mexico about 30 to 35 km off the coast of Texas. SpaceX will not attempt to recover the booster on this flight.
In the meantime, the Starship vehicle will attempt to ascend to an altitude of 235 km and become « nearly orbital. » Starship’s engines will shut down at 9 minutes and 20 seconds into the flight, after which the vehicle will coast for more than an hour before entering Earth’s atmosphere over the Pacific Ocean. It will not complete a full orbit and is expected to make a high-velocity splash down about 225 km north of the Hawaiian island of Oahu. On the nominal timeline, this will occur 90 minutes after liftoff.
Enlarge/ Overview of SpaceX’s flight plan for Starship’s integrated flight test.SpaceX
Because this is the first spaceflight for both vehicles, SpaceX is keeping the overall flight plan relatively simple. For example, Starship will not reignite its engines upon atmospheric reentry, nor attempt to make a controlled reentry into the ocean. Essentially, the goal for this flight is to gather data about the performance of both the first-stage booster and Starship upper stage in order to begin recovery attempts on future flights.
Super Heavy will be the largest and most powerful rocket to ever launch from Earth. However, SpaceX has taken an experimental approach toward developing this booster and Starship, so it is very far from a certainty that this flight will proceed without incident.
NASASpaceFlight
Starship ready for historic maiden flight, gains FAA launch license
With SpaceX confirming Starship is now ready for flight, all eyes were on the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to issue its launch license. That was finally granted on Friday evening.
Additionally, the company gave more details about the planned time frame for flight and the timeline for the launch. Ship 24 was also destacked from Booster 7 this week as teams are configuring the rocket’s flight termination system (FTS) before launch.
Starship Passes Review Ahead of Maiden Flight
After stacking Ship 24 on Booster 7 on April 5, SpaceX completed the final checkouts of the vehicles and proceeded into the final Flight Readiness Review (FRR) meeting ahead of Starship’s launch.
This FRR meeting was conducted on April 8, when teams cleared the rocket for flight. Some open items remained afterward that SpaceX has been working through ahead of the Launch Readiness Review (LRR) meeting expected to occur two days before launch.
Both Flight Readiness Reviews and Launch Readiness Reviews are common meetings that SpaceX usually carries out on its most important missions, such as demonstration flights and crew flights. These were also present for every Shuttle mission. Each saw several FRR meetings at different levels within NASA, with a final “Agency FRR” meeting occurring just a few weeks before the launch.
These meetings do not always come out with a positive result, and major outstanding work can prompt the call to not proceed with a launch; in these cases, a “delta-FRR” meeting is called at a later time. It is understood that this latest Flight Readiness Review was a Delta Flight Readiness Review, and teams had agreed not to proceed with the flight on an earlier FRR.
The launch site at Starbase. (Credit: Nic Ansuini for NSF)
Sometimes, it is also likely that an FRR meeting comes out with a call from teams to proceed with the launch, but with open work still left to be completed. Usually, this is because it is considered to be of lesser importance or deemed solvable before the launch.
Some of the remaining open items ahead of Starship’s LRR concern the readiness of the rocket’s software and engine interfaces, with final checks occurring over these last days to close out these issues. As of writing, it is understood that Starship’s flight software has been finalized, and SpaceX is proceeding with final checks ahead of launch.
Before the FRR, a preliminary plan called for a Wet Dress Rehearsal (WDR) to be performed on April 11. However, as part of the decisions taken during the meeting, SpaceX decided to forego this test and proceed directly with a launch. This option would give the teams time to close out issues while still keeping the opportunity to launch on April 17.
Ship 24 Destacked for FTS Setup
In preparation for the launch, SpaceX destacked Ship 24 from Booster 7 to set up its flight termination system ahead of the flight. This FTS usually consists of an explosive charge, a detonator, and a control box that is in charge of detecting when the rocket veers off course and needs to trigger its termination.
In order to prevent an accidental trigger of the system during the handling of the vehicles, there’s a physical safety barrier that needs to be removed before launch. The location of the FTS on both stages is near the weld line for the common dome that separates the liquid methane and liquid oxygen tanks.
This location is accessible via aerial work platforms (AWP) for the booster, and the removal of the safety system can be performed without removing it from its launch pad. For the ship, however, this location is unreachable in a stacked configuration as it sits well above the 100-meter height limit of the largest AWPs that SpaceX has at Starbase. Therefore, a destack of Ship 24 from Booster 7 was needed in order to work on this system.
Once the safety system is removed from the FTS, Ship 24 will be able to be lifted back into place atop Booster 7 for one final time ahead of launch.
SpaceX Targets Launch No Earlier Than April 17, Releases Countdown
In the last week, SpaceX has also released a tentative time frame for the launch of Starship. While on social media, the company mentions a more general target of the third week of April, the current earliest tentative launch date is April 17, with SpaceX’s own website citing this as well.
Nonetheless, the growing list of alerts and notices that needed to be published ahead of launch all point to this date as well. As of writing, there are already marine navigational hazard notices for launch and splashdown, Mexican airspace closure notices for launch, and even road closure notices for launch at Starbase.
The latter was confirmed through an amendment this week where the notice now shows that these closures for Highway 4, the main road to Starbase, are in order to conduct spaceflight activities.
The launch is also present on the FAA’s Current Operations Plan Advisory, which shows April 18 through April 22 as backup windows for this flight. According to the advisory, if SpaceX were to attempt a launch on Monday, it would happen within a 3-hour, 5-minute window that should open at 7 AM CDT (12:00 UTC).
On Friday, the FAA approved the monster rocket’s test flight.
SpaceX’s update also included the release of the launch timeline and plan for the mission. For this first flight of Starship, the booster will not attempt a landing back on “chopsticks” at the launch site. It will perform a boostback burn and land over the ocean several miles offshore in the Gulf of Mexico. It is understood that no recovery attempt will be performed for Booster 7.
Ship 24, on the other hand, will not attempt a soft touchdown and will instead impact the ocean at terminal velocity if it were to survive up until that point.
While SpaceX is now waiting on the launch license for Starship, it is expected to come out in time for a launch attempt on April 17 which would turn into a WDR were this regulatory approval not come by at the time.
With Starship ready and a potential license set to be granted soon, the stage will be set for the launch of the world’s most powerful rocket ever created in just a few days.
I have known Olivier on successive ESA science missions. From Cassini Huygens, Venus Express, Mars Express, I had the pleasure of meeting him many times, mainly at the Agency’s technical centre in Nordwijck, to gather information and material for my reports, both written for the ESA web site or in videos to be included in TV broadcasts.
Each time this extremely modest scientist would take time to explain in very simple terms the fascinating characteristics of the planet he was managing, and the spacecrafts that would be sent to explore them.
I took my retirement but continued, indirectly, to watch his work and was really glad to learn that he had become the lead Project scientist for the Juice mission.
I hadn’t spoken to him in years, but on the evening to the first aborted attempt to launch Juice I sent him a short message: « Cela m’a fait très plaisir de te voir sur vidéo VA260 et de savoir, sûrement heureux d’accompagner Juice. Oh que j’aimerais tant retrouver ce travail. La retraite c’est bien beau mais en fait j’ai quitté trop tot. Bon courage, amitiés Martin » – and I was sure he would respond : « Hello Martin merci de ton message:-) Je me souviens du lancement de VEX avec toi a l ESOC! Bonne continuation!«
Après une agrégation en Sciences Physiques, Olivier Witasse soutient en 2000 une thèse sur la » Modélisation des Ionosphères planétaires et de leur Rayonnement : la Terre et Mars » au laboratoire de Planétologie de Grenoble. Depuis 2003, Olivier Witasse travaille à l’Agence Spatiale Européenne à Noordwijk au Pays-Bas. Il est impliqué dans la gestion scientifique de missions planétaires. Il a successivement occupé la mission de « Project Scientist » pour les projets Huygens (2003-2005), Venus Express (2005-2009) et Mars Express (2007-2009) et de « Project Scientist » pour les projets Chandrayaan-1 (2005-2007), Mars Express (2009-2013), ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter (2010-2014) et JUICE (Jupiter Icy Moon Explorer) depuis 2015.
