Posted on by Nancy Atkinson

NASA Weathers Hurricane; May Impact Hubble Mission

Trees down on a street in Houston, Texas. Credit: Houston Chronicle, DJ Sherm

[/caption]

NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston weathered Hurricane Ike fairly well, but damage to some buildings, including the roof of the Mission Control Center will need to be repaired before the facility is ready to open for normal operations. A space agency spokesman said it could be late this week or even sometime during the week of Sept. 21 before all the buildings would reopen. The 16,500 employees at JSC will also need to access and repair any damage to their own homes as well. JSC lost power, but essential systems were powered with generators. Controller for the International Space Station established a temporary control center at a hotel inland in Austin, Texas before Johnson was closed on Thursday. Working with another team at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, controllers are trying to fill in until Mission Control can re-open.

While there was some standing water, JSC was not affected by Ike’s Galveston Bay surge, but high winds caused roof damage and downed trees. Repairs and cleanup were under way on Sunday.
Meanwhile, the space agency has not assessed the impact of the storm on plans for the scheduled October 10 launch of the shuttle Atlantis on a mission to overhaul the Hubble Space Telescope and the November 12 date for launching shuttle Endeavour on a space station assembly mission, said David Waters, spokesman for United Space Alliance, NASA’s shuttle prime contractor.

Additionally, a resupply ship’s docking with the ISS was delayed, and it waits on orbit near the station. U.S. and Russian flight controllers hope to dock the unmanned Progress supply ship Wednesday at 2:43 p.m. EDT. The cargo craft was launched from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan last Wednesday and originally was scheduled to dock Friday.

Sources: Houston Chronicle, Spaceflightnow.com

Posted on by Nancy Atkinson

US Astronauts May Have to Leave Space Station in 2012

A Soyuz approaches the ISS. Credit: NASA

[/caption]

Because of stalled legislation that is needed to allow NASA to pay the Russian Space Agency to ferry US astronauts to the International Space Station on board the Soyuz spacecraft, the US section of the space station may have to go unmanned in at least part of 2012. In an interview with CBS’s Bill Harwood, NASA Administrator Mike Griffin said because of the of the three-year lead time needed to build Soyuz vehicles, contracts must be in place by early 2009. But because of Russia’s invasion of Georgia, Congress is unlikely to extend an exemption that allows money to be paid to Russia for high technology goods. Griffin said the problem is very serious, and new legislation would have to be approved within the next few weeks to prevent an interruption in NASA astronauts being on board the ISS.

With the exemption to the Iran-North Korea-Syria Non-Proliferation Act, NASA has been able to buy Soyuz seats for U.S. and international astronauts. While the exemption doesn’t expire until the end of 2011, Congress must approve an extension now in order for NASA to place contracts with the Russians by early next year.

Griffin said NASA has been working all year on getting the needed legislation passed. Congress has been aware of the need for a renewal of the exemption for quite some time, as Griffin talked about the importance of the exemption in his testimony during budget hearings last winter.

NASA also is counting on using the Soyuz to bridge the five-year gap between the end of shuttle operations in 2010 and the debut of the Constellation program in 2015. In addition, NASA still needs the Russian Soyuz for rescue capability for the ISS.

“Where it stands is right now,” Griffin said of the exemption, “it’s dead stalled. Because there’s no legislation which is going to come out of the Congress, other than the continuing resolution package, before they recess to go home for elections. And so right now, we’re just on dead stop. And of course, the invasion of Georgia didn’t help.”

“So here’s what will happen. The first and most obvious possibility is there won’t be any American or international partners on the space station after Dec. 31 of 2011. That’s a possibility. Another possibility is that we will be told to continue flying shuttle and we would be given extra money to do so, in which case our Ares and Orion could be kept on track and we would no longer have a dependence on Russia.

“A third possibility is we could be told to keep flying shuttle, not be given any extra money, in which case we don’t get Ares and Orion anytime soon and we still have a gap, it’s just further out in time.”

Asked if he has any optimism a waiver can be in place in time to avoid a gap in U.S. space station operations, Griffin said simply, “no.”

“My own guess is at this point we’re going to have some period in 2012 where there’s no American or international partner crew on station, that there’s only the Russians there,” he said. “That period always ends three years from when we have a contract with the Russians. So if we can get through all this by June of next year and have a contract with the Russians, then in the latter part of 2012 we can fly a Soyuz flight and restore things to normal.”

A transcript of the entire interview is available from CBS News here. In the interview, Griffin also talks about the upcoming mission to the Hubble Space Telescope and the recently announced delays for the Constellation Program.

Source: CBS News Space Place

Posted on by Ian O'Neill

NASA Reaches Out to Design Students to Confront Lunar Dust Problem

The RISD Moon Buggy concept (Kevin Hand)

[/caption]
Last year, students from Rhode Island School of Design (RISD) were set one of the best coursework projects I’ve ever heard of. The project title was called “Design for extreme environments” and it was sponsored by NASA. By extreme environments, we are talking about the Moon, and by design, we are talking about arriving at new concepts as to how to prevent lunar dust contamination inside future lunar habitats. Since the task was first set, the enthusiastic RSID team have arrived at a concept that NASA will be using in the planning of the 2020 return to the lunar surface…

The Moon is a dirty place. During the Apollo missions, dust from the lunar surface got everywhere. The biggest problem for astronauts came when the tiny, sharp shards of regolith (pulverized bits of rock from billions of years of meteorite impacts) was disturbed by the moon buggy as the lunar explorers travelled across the dusty surface. One event in particular stands out as the problems lunar dust can cause. In 1972, Apollo 17 astronauts Gene Cernan and Jack Schmitt had accidentally damaged the wheel arch of their moon buggy. The result was a dreaded “rooster tail” was they drove, kicking up dust into the vacuum, causing it to cover everything, including spacesuit visors. This would lead to vision impairment, scratches of the protective visor coating and ultimately respiratory problems when transported inside the lunar module (“LEM”). Fortunately Cernan and Schmitt managed to repair their moon buggy with a roll of duct tape, possibly saving the lunar surface mission.

Lunar dust contamination covering Apollo 17 astronaut Eugene Cernan inside the lunar module after an EVA (NASA)
Lunar dust contamination covering Apollo 17 astronaut Eugene Cernan inside the lunar module after an EVA (NASA)

Moon dust contamination was inevitable however, even inside the sealed LEM. So, with the possibility of extended manned exploration of the Moon and Mars from the year 2020, NASA is re-evaluating the challenges astronauts will face when combating this potentially dangerous foe. Many scientists are especially worried about the health of manned settlements should lunar dust be allowed into habitats. Breathing the stuff in could be as dangerous as breathing in asbestos. When working with the dusty cancer-causing material down here on Earth, specialist breathing apparatus must be worn at all times. If this were to be the case on the Moon, to fight the health risks associated with breathing in moon dust, short-term and long-term damage could be inflicted on the young colony.

This is where the RISD project comes in. In preparation for a possible manned return to the Moon in just over a decade, NASA decided to tap into the ingenuity of students from the design school to arrive at some novel ideas as to how eliminate the risk of letting lunar dust into a future moon buggy. Several design and engineering students and graduates from RISD’s Industrial Design Department took part in a RISD/NASA research internship focusing on elements of a future lunar module – the descent stage, habitat and ascent stage. The 2007 summer internship focused on the dust problem.

The RISD designers demonstrate their mock-up airlock concept (RISD)
The RISD designers demonstrate their mock-up airlock concept (RISD)

The students investigated a “suitlock” design, an airlock that uses the astronauts’ space suits as part of the operation to remove any contaminants. To make access to the lunar surface quick and routine, the research focused on using an existing rear-entry space suit that would be stored inside an air- and dust-tight seal, but the astronauts would be able to slide into the suit whilst keeping the suit itself separate from the habitat interior. To see how the RISD concept works, view the full-scale mock-up video of the demonstration session.

The RISD concept was taken from paper and consolidated into a full-scale rigid mock up. The design can now be evaluated by NASA for possible inclusion in the future exploration of the Moon. This project for the RISD interns is obviously a valuable experience for the students taking their vision and turning it into a “real-world” application, but NASA has the chance to learn from the fertile imaginations of design and engineering graduates, possibly taking the exploration of space in an unexpected but advantageous direction…

Sources: RISD, Popular Science

Posted on by Ian O'Neill

NASA is Making Preliminary Plans to Extend Shuttle Launches Beyond 2010

Could the Shuttle launch after 2010? (NASA)

[/caption]
According to an internal email, NASA staff have been instructed to initiate a study into extending the operational lifetime of the Shuttle to bridge the 5-year gap between planned Shuttle retirement and Constellation commencement. In an apparent U-turn in the US space agency’s policy, NASA Administrator Michael Griffin has ordered a feasibility study to assess whether the ageing space vehicle fleet, first launched in 1981, can operate until 2015. This news comes at a time when concern is mounting for the US dependence on the Soyuz system after 2010, especially since the recent political chill between the US and Russia…

This news may come as a surprise to many, especially since Michael Griffin’s remarks that to extend the life of the Shuttle fleet could put astronauts in danger and cripple the agency’s fledgling Constellation program. However, there has been mounting political pressure on NASA to find an alternative to depending on the Russian space agency’s Soyuz spacecraft to access the International Space Station in the five years before the brand new Constellation Program is scheduled to launch by 2015. The recent military action in the South Ossetia region of Georgia has helped to increase political tensions; this is possibly one of the main contributing factors to the initiation of this feasibility study. Both US Presidential candidates, Barack Obama (Dem) and John McCain (Rep), are also pushing for a solution to the problematic “5-year gap.”

NASA officials have confirmed the internal email’s authenticity received by the Orlando Sentinel, a Florida-based news agency, but were keen to point out that it was too soon to say what the study’s reach would be.

In the email sent out on Wednesday by John Coggeshall, manager of manifest and schedules at Johnson Space Center in Houston, he said, “We want to focus on helping bridge the gap of U.S. vehicles traveling to the ISS (International Space Station) as efficiently as possible.” However, NASA spokesman John Yembrick was keen to point out to an Associated Press journalist that although the email was sent out, it was premature and “…the parameters of the study have not yet been defined.”

Griffin has, until now, been opposed to extending the Shuttle program primarily due to financial reasons; the effort and funds required could hurt the Constellation Program. But it would seem that world events and politics could be forcing him to reconsider…

Sources: AP, Orlando Sentinel

Posted on by Nancy Atkinson

Still Mythbusting

Lunar Landing
Apollo 11 Lunar Module on it way to the moon. Credit: NASA

[/caption]
It seems fitting that today’s NASA “Image of the Day” is this wonderful image of the lunar lander from the Apollo 11 mission, the Eagle, on its way to land on the moon. Really, truthfully, can anyone really believe that a spectacular image like this can be fake? After last night’s “Mythbusters” show about the Apollo Moon Landing Hoax Myth, I’m cautiously hopeful that at least some people who believe(d) in this myth had their eyes opened and minds changed. Alas, there will always be folks out there who for some reason are set on not believing scientists, engineers or the government and won’t subscribe to any type of proof, be it scientific or television-ific. Perhaps the upcoming Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter mission will be able to take hi-resolution images of one of the Apollo sites.

But in the meantime, enjoy this great image, taken by the Columbia Command and Service Module Pilot for Apollo 11, Michael Collins. Inside the Eagle were Commander Neil A. Armstrong and Lunar Module Pilot Buzz Aldrin. The long rod-like protrusions under the landing pods are lunar surface sensing probes. Upon contact with the lunar surface, the probes sent a signal to the crew to shut down the descent engine. And then Armstrong said, “Houston, Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed.”

And that’s the truth.

For more great NASA images, visit the Image of the Day site

Posted on by Ian O'Neill

NASA Security Badges are a Health and Safety Risk

NASA Security Badge (Identity Stronghold)

[/caption]
Of all the things that could possibly go wrong for the US space agency, you wouldn’t expect the security ID badge holder of NASA employees to rank very high on the list of “risks.” Unfortunately, the new high-tech security badge holders recently issued to NASA employees have been identified as having a fairly problematic health and safety design flaw. Should the badges’ metal clasps be installed incorrectly, they could pose a projectile risk, possibly causing serious eye injuries…

Admittedly, this isn’t big news in the realms of the space exploration, but it is news nonetheless, proving that even NASA cannot escape from clerical design flaws. In an effort to fall in line with President Bush’s Homeland Security Presidential Directive-12, NASA employees have to carry a new type of badge which is protected against being read from a distance and also provides the wearer with some freedom as to when they want to show it. Unfortunately, there is a design flaw with the badge and on August 15th, NASA had to issue a warning to Kennedy Space Center employees stating that the new Identity Stronghold badge holder has the “potential to introduce dangerous Foreign Object Damage (FOD) to flight hardware areas and can cause personnel injury if the metal clips are installed improperly.”

According to new guidelines, when removing the badge, the employee must not aim the metal clips at a colleague as it could create a potential eye injury hazard, technically known as Foreign (or Flying) Object Damage (FOD). I’d imaging this being an acute problem during security checks, guards flinching as employees show their badges, fearful of a metal clasp flying at their faces. Not only that, employees are advised not to play with their badges around sensitive electronics:

“The badge holder may separate with little effort, allowing the clips, the front half of the holder and badge ID to separate creating a significant FOD hazard in controlled areas […] Personnel should ensure the badge holder is not worn, or is properly secured, in the vicinity of sensitive flight hardware, such as electronics, where FOD may be an issue […] When removing your badge, do not point [the] end with metal clips towards your face or another person.” – Randy Aden, Office of Protective Services, Jet Propulsion Lab.

Use of the badge holder, made by the Florida-based company Identity Stronghold, has now been suspended and a temporary clear plastic holder is being used in its place. The Stronghold design was chosen as it has an “electromagnetically opaque sleeve to prevent the card from being read at a distance and to give the user some control over when and where the card is exposed for reading,” according to the source Information Week article.

Interestingly, the Identity Stronghold website proudly states that its Secure Badgeholder “has been awarded the 2008 GOOD DESIGN award for product design.” I don’t think the “GOOD DESIGN” award was good enough.

Fortunately there have been no reports of serious card holder-related FOD injuries so far. Who would have thought an ID badge could be so dangerous?

Source: Information Week

Posted on by Nancy Atkinson

Videos of NASA/ATK Rocket Failure

NASA launch officials were forced to hit the “destruct” button on an experimental rocket that launched early Friday morning. The launch and subsequent explosion was captured on both amateur and NASA video, and shows the pieces falling back to Earth.

The countdown and initial takeoff Friday morning from a NASA launch facility on Wallops Island, Virginia, went smoothly, said former astronaut Kent Rominger, a vice president in ATK’s (Alliant Tech Systems) launch systems division. “Then (the rocket) appeared to veer south,” he said. To the naked eye the flight didn’t appear to be in trouble, he said, but it was moving off course.

The rocket was a little more than 2 miles high when it was destroyed. A team of officials from NASA and ATK are investigating the incident.

Here’s the amateur video:

Continue reading “Videos of NASA/ATK Rocket Failure”

Posted on by Ian O'Neill

Ares V Rocket Could Crush Kennedy’s Crawlerway: No Funding to Upgrade

Ares V: Heavy lift capability comes with a price (NASA)

[/caption]
There’s a big problem with Kennedy Space Center playing host to the Constellation Program: The heavy-lift rocket, Ares V, may be too heavy for the infrastructure to cope with. The crawlerway is a 40 year old road designed for the Saturn V (Apollo Program) crawler-transporters and is currently used to carry the Shuttle up to 6.8km (4.2 miles) from assembly building to launch pad. The crawlerway may be unable to withstand the weight of the fully-laden Ares V, transporter and mobile launch pad; a combined weight 33% heavier than anything the Kennedy crawlerway has ever supported. With the Constellation budget getting tighter every day that passes, the possibility of a multi-billion dollar crawlerway upgrade will only create more problems for NASA…

It seems the Good News:Bad News ratio for NASA’s Constellation Project is getting smaller with every news item that is posted. This week, the good news is: NASA may have solved the Ares vibration problem, but the bad news is: NASA has just released images of the failed Orion parachute test, the Constellation spacesuits will need to be produced by a different manufacturer and now we have concerns for the sub-standard infrastructure at Kennedy Space Center. So this week’s ratio so far is 1:3… not good. OK, that wasn’t a very scientific statistical analysis, but it is clear that the Constellation is off to a bumpy start. You could argue that bad news is more likely to make the headlines than good news, but the complications for NASA are becoming problematic and many are concerned that the gap between Shuttle decommissioning and Constellation launch could widen. This issue is now cropping up in the US Presidential race, with both frontrunning candidates (Obama and McCain) making promises for increased space agency funding.

Space Shuttle Discovery inching its way along the Crawlerway to pad 39B (NASA)
Space Shuttle Discovery inching its way along the Crawlerway to pad 39B (NASA)

So what is wrong with Kennedy’s crawlerway? The combined weight of NASA’s Ares V cargo launch vehicle, its mobile launcher and Constellation crawler-transporter may be too heavy for it to support. After all, the 6.8 km (4.2 mile) crawlerway was built with the Apollo program’s Saturn V in mind, 40 years ago. Fortunately it didn’t require an upgrade when transporting the Shuttle, but the difference in weight from the Shuttle to Ares V is stark. The fully-laden Shuttle (plus crawler and empty external tank) has a mass of 7.7 million kg (16.9 million lb); the fully-laden Ares V could weigh as much as 10.9 million kg (24 million lb). This mass increase could cause significant damage to the crawlerway and, ultimately, damage to Ares V should the existing road be used.

The crawlerway is designed as two 12 metre-wide lanes, separated by 15 metres. It has a surface of the road has 20 cm of river gravel on top of 90 cm of compacted limerock. Under that is two layers of “select fill” 1.1 metres deep.

“Given the projected weight of the Ares V vehicle, mobile launcher and transporter, the total weight is about 33% higher than the crawlerway has ever supported there is a possibility that the crawlerway could fail to support the load, resulting in severe impacts to the Constellation programme.” – Constellation vertical integration element risk assessment.

Unfortunately, in July, NASA administrator Michael Griffin stated that there was no Constellation money left for Kennedy upgrades. So what can be done? For now it looks like Ares V will have to stay inside the assembly building until NASA comes up with a plan (or roll it down the crawlerway and hope for the best! This is probably why I’m not a NASA employee…)

Source: Flightglobal

Posted on by Ian O'Neill

NASA Releases Images and Video of Orion Failed Parachute Test

The Orion parachute test drop didn't go so well... (NASA)

[/caption]
As previously reported on the Universe Today, recent parachute test-drops for the Constellation Project have brought mixed results. The Ares I drogue parachute test appeared to perform flawlessly on July 24th, but the July 31st Orion test drop was a different story. Very early on in the parachute test, the “programmer parachute” (the first small parachute to be deployed, righting the descending crew module, setting Orion up for drogue deployment) failed after not inflating in the turbulent wake of the vehicle. This event set in motion complete parachute failure, ultimately forcing a hard-landing (crash) into the Arizona desert. Now NASA has released a video and pictures of the test…

The Parachute Test Vehicle is slid out of the aircraft. So far, so good (NASA)
The Parachute Test Vehicle is slid out of the aircraft. So far, so good (NASA)

On July 31st, hopes were high for a successful parachute test drop above the U.S. Army’s Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona. The week before, the Ares I re-usable booster rocket drogue parachutes had proven themselves, so pressure was on for the Orion analogue – the Parachute Test Vehicle (PTV) – to perform as it should.

A re-entering crew module has a complicated series of parachute deployments before it can land safely (a.k.a. a “soft” landing). Unfortunately, the July 31st test drop was anything but soft. Although the parachute deployment system performed as it should (i.e. the 18 parachutes opened at the correct time and in the correct manner), but the problem came right at the start of the chain: when the very first “programmer parachute” was deployed. As with any descending space vehicle, a programmer parachute needs to be deployed to ensure the crew module is a) the correct way up and b) set up for the critical “drogue parachute” deployment. The drogue reduces the vehicle’s velocity very quickly, moments before the main parachutes are deployed.

Flapping in the turbulent wake; the programmer parachute fails to open (NASA)
Flapping in the turbulent wake; the programmer parachute fails to open (NASA)

Alas, the programmer parachute never opened fully in the turbulent air behind the PTV, forcing the vehicle to swing wildly out of control. The drogue parachute had little chance to slow the descent as the spinning vehicle cased the inflating drogues to be ripped away. So the PTV went into freefall…

After falling for several seconds, the main parachutes made an appearance. Looking more like a party popper than a crew module, two of the main parachutes were ripped away like streamers, only one of the three parachutes remained connected. So its fate was sealed, the PTV was going to make a bone crushing hard-landing.

See the NASA video of the whole test, from drop to crash »

Only one main parachute remained as the PTV tumbled through the sky (NASA)
Only one main parachute remained as the PTV tumbled through the sky (NASA)

Oh well. I hope NASA has better luck next time. According to officials, this does not indicate an Orion technology failure, it was a “test technique failure” that was bound to frustrate the engineers on the ground. After all, the parachutes did deploy, they just didn’t open…

Suddenly the April hard-landing of the Russian Soyuz vehicle doesn’t seem so bad…

Source: NASA

Posted on by Nancy Atkinson

NASA to Install “Shock Absorbers” to Mitigate Thrust Oscillation

Thrust Oscillation Actuators. Credit: NASA

[/caption]

NASA will add a system engineers equated to shock absorbers to Ares 1 rockets to reduce significant vibrations that could shake the Orion spacecraft and astronaut crews during early stages of the flight. Earlier, engineers had determined that at about 115 seconds into the flight, the Ares rocket would vibrate for about 5 seconds, enough to potentially make it difficult for crews to read console displays. To mitigate what’s called thrust oscillation, engineers have proposed an active tuned mass absorber that would detect the frequency and amplitude of the thrust oscillation with accelerometers and internal pressure sensors, and use battery-powered motors to move spring mounted weights up and down to damp the vibration out. A spring-and-damper ring will separate the first and second stages of the rocket, and 16 actuators that act like shock absorbers will be added to the bell-shaped aft skirt at the bottom of the rocket.

Engineers are also looking to use a passive “compliance structure” which is a spring-loaded ring that would detune the stack by softening the interface between the first and upper stages while preserving lateral stability in the Ares 1 design concept.

This concept is expected to reduce the G-forces on the astronauts from about 5 G’s to .25 G’s.
Computer modeling and early design analyses showed the Ares 1 rocket would shake near 105-115 seconds into the flight after liftoff, subjecting the Orion spacecraft and astronauts onboard to high G forces for only about 5 seconds. But NASA engineers were concerned that astronauts could be injured or critical systems could be damaged during that time of the flight.

The thrust oscillation occurs as solid fuel in the first stage depletes, leaving a long, empty shell that takes on the characteristics of an organ pipe, resonating, at frequencies between 12 and 14 hertz. The second stage of the rocket and the Orion spacecraft atop it will naturally dampen the resulting pressure pulses, which essentially would jackhammer the astronauts and make it difficult for them to read console displays and respond.

Source: NASA news conference.