ARTEMIS; NOW GOING TO DO IT RIGHT

 

By Wes Oleszewski- Aero-News Network Spaceflight Analyst

My model LEM with Rusty on the porch

On Friday, February 27, NASA announced a fundamental change in the plan for the Space Launch System (SLS) and the Artemis Program. Beginning immediately the cadence of SLS launches will be changed from the previous one launch every two or three years. Instead, the flight rate and profile will be closer to that of the Apollo missions in the late 1960s. This change injects a great deal of positive energy into the Artemis Program.

Artemis II’s mission will remain as a deep space lunar fly-by to check out a crewed Orion spacecraft at lunar distance. Artemis III, however, will not be a lunar landing mission. Rather, Artemis III will be an Earth Orbital mission to test the Orion along with the lunar landing vehicles as well at the new lunar EVA spacesuit. This is similar to the Apollo 9 mission where a Saturn V launched a crew of three astronauts, Commander (CDR) Jim McDivitt, Lunar Module Pilot (LMP) Rusty Schweickart and Command Module Pilot (CMP) Dave Scott, into Earth orbit where they exercised the Lunar Module (LM). Prior to the undocking and flight of both the Command Module (CM,) and the LM, the LMP suited up in the Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) and exited the LM. He stood on the front porch testing the EMU before astronauts attempted to do so on the lunar surface. Later he and the CDR undocked and flew the LM out away from the CM, tested the LM decent engine, staged and tested its ascent engine. They then used the rendezvous system to rejoin the CM. The Artemis III crew will do the same and conduct similar testing. If all goes well, thereafter, Artemis IV will likely be the lunar landing mission.

The critical difference here is that the long-held cadence of one SLS mission every two to three years no longer exists. The flights will be spaced much closer together and if there is a problem on one flight it will no longer cause great delays in upcoming missions. This rapid cadence has a number of advantages. The primary being what Administrator Jared Isaacman termed “muscle memory.” That is, the human factor of  ground crews doing the job often in a short time, leads to instinctive responses and correct procedures. A symptom of this could be seen in the Artemis II close-out crew taking more time than expected during the first wet dress rehearsal. It had been more than three years between their doing that activity on a live SLS.

During the press conference on February 27, NASA officials said several times,

“We brought our history books with us.”

They also directly referenced Apollo and showed how the cadence of that program in the late 1960s and early 1970s had led to achieving what was once thought to be impossible. There is no reason to think that such cannot be done again in this era. NASA has the hardware in the works to make it happen. The Trump administration has provided the funding to make it happen. All that is lacking is the people-power, and NASA will now be hiring many more men and women to do the job. NASA will also be going far beyond these first four Artemis missions with launches taking place on a regular basis. The SLS is about to become a space work-horse.

For the aerospace industry and the peaceful advancement of human civilization, this is a very good thing.

ARTEMIS II; ROLL BACK

 By Wes Oleszewski- Aero-News Network Spaceflight Analyst

America’s new Moon rocket will be headed “back to the barn” for some unscheduled maintenance. Following its second “Wet Dress Rehearsal” (WDR) on Thursday, February 19, during which all the launch vehicle’s tanks were filled and pressurized. Everything seemed to go well and the WDR was completed. The tanks were then drained, but when technicians attempted to cycle helium in the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS) they were unable to do so. Trouble shooting and recycling did not clear the problem. The only way for them to access that part of the launch vehicle is to roll the entire stack back into the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB). So, it was decided on Saturday, February 21, to delay the Moon launch, scheduled for early March, and roll the Space Launch System (SLS) vehicle from Launch Complex 39B back into the VAB. That process took place on Wednesday, February 25.

Helium, although thought of as the lighter than air gas that makes kid’s balloons fly, is critical for starting and restarting liquid fueled rocket engines in space. It has been used in that function since the early 1960s and was used on ever Apollo lunar mission. Because it is inert, it is used for purging tanks and lines as well as pressurizing propellant tanks. Being inert, it will not react with any residual propellants. In the case of the SLS vehicle’s ICPS, the helium is stored in a series of small round tanks at the base of the stage. Since the ICPS is mostly enclosed within the upper fairings of the booster, once the SLS was rolled out of the VAB there was no way for technicians to physically reach the stage’s plumbing when the fault showed up.

Rollbacks of launch vehicles to the VAB for issues have taken place before. In the first week of January 1972, a helium pressure test ruptured a Teflon bladder in one of the Apollo 16 command module’s reaction control system fuel tanks. On January 7th NASA announced that the problem would require a rollback to the VAB which would delay the launch for at least a month. Exactly 20 days after that announcement a fully flight-rated Saturn V was rolled back to the VAB for the first time.

Repair of the fuel tank required that the command module had to be trucked to the MSO building, de-mated from the stack, and opened to separate the heat shield from the upper command module and permit access to the fuel tank. 

Decades later the Space Shuttle was rolled back to the VAB 19 times in that program’s history. Weather caused five roll-backs and twice roll-backs were due to hail damage. There were also two roll-backs due to hydrogen leaks. The rest were caused by assorted issues with the orbiter, payloads and external tank problems. Also, Artemis I was rolled back to the VAB on April 26, 2022, for an ICPS helium check valve issue. After repairs the vehicle was returned to LC-39B. However, on July 2, the Artemis I vehicle was rolled back to the VAB once again to fix a hydrogen leak on the SLS quick disconnect. Following that the Artemis I was successfully launched on November 16, 2022 having rolled back twice.

Currently there is a lot of social media finger pointing and mis-information directed toward the Artemis II because of recent delays and this roll-back. First there was the delay of the first WDR. It’s been said that it was due to the cold conditions and then implied a similarity to the Challenger accident. In fact, the cold had nothing at all to do with that delay. NASA had placed a forecast wind limitation of 37.5 knots on the WDR due to safety concerns for the closeout crew. The forecast was for winds over 40 knots, yet it actually went higher than 50 knots. Later the hydrogen leak caused the WDR to be scrubbed. This was not an issue with the launch vehicle. Rather it was a ground service equipment issue- and was cured at the pad. Thus, this helium issue is the first and only glitch with the Artemis II, SLS vehicle itself. 

After Artemis I, and a very similar issue, NASA thought they had cured the problem with the helium check valve. Now they will roll-back the SLS and find out if or not that is the case.

HOW I GOT MY ORION

 

On July 8, 2011, I was at the Kennedy Space Center covering the final Space Shuttle launch, STS-135, for the Aero-News Network. By that time, president Obama’s cancellation of all NASA human spaceflight, had been over-ridden by the Congress and spaceflight engineers had begun to develop the Space Launch System, or SLS, in spite of Obama’s poison pen effort. I’d seen that coming and as the owner of a model rocket manufacturing company, Dr. Zooch Rockets, and thus designed a concept version of the SLS. It was slated to go into sales in just a few months. For that reason, I’d already constructed two prototypes and even test-flew one. The second prototype I packed up and took with me to STS-135 for display at my spot in the press building at KSC.

 Considering that STS-135 was end of the Shuttle program and the beginning of a “gap” between U.S. astronauts being launched aboard U.S. rockets- the event drew plenty of attention. In those days the press was always divided between the “hardcores” who actually know spaceflight and the “meatpuppets” who are simply reporters that some network assigned to cover the event. The meatpuppets normally just stand in front of a camera and read from a piece of paper. Arriving at STS-135 I was only in the press room long enough to say hello to some of the hardcores, plant my model of the SLS at the spot I claimed as mine, and head out to have a look around. Soon the meatpuppet storm began. In short order media from all over the world were squeezing into the press room or setting up shop, some doing so in assorted EZ-up tents outside. One of the hardcores looked around the room and she quietly said,

“I wish they’d all go away and just let us, who cover these things, cover it.”

Then she pointed with her finger toward individuals standing nearby, as if she were able to select people and said,

“You can stay, you can stay, you can stay…”

She pointed at me and paused for a second.

“Hey,” I quipped, “I was at X-Prize with you… I have cred’.”

“Yeah,” she smirked, “you can stay.”

Whew.

There was a carnival atmosphere around the open ground beyond the press building. NASA contractors large and small had set up display tents also large and small. One of the largest belonged to Lockheed Martin which was contracted to build the Orion spacecraft. I went in a chatted briefly about Orion with one of their people. I mentioned my model rocket company, and he said that his son was just getting into model rocketry.

 “I have something you may wanna see,” I said in the hope of perhaps gaining a new model rocket customer.

Dashing back to press building I fetched my SLS model and returned to the LockMart tent. He looked at it,

“I have someone who would be interested in this,” he said as he walked a short distance away and tapped on the shoulder of a man in a gray business suit.

 The two of them returned and I handed the model SLS to the man. He examined it carefully.

 “This is it!” he half whispered never taking his eyes off the model, “This is the SLS, they’ve never given us a model of it.”

 He asked if he could borrow it for a while? He told me that he had several network TV interviews to do and he’s like to use it.

 “Sure!” I replied gleefully.

 With that he and his group of minions left as he carefully carried the model.

 "Who was that?” I asked the guy from LockMart.

 “That,” he replied with a wide smile, “is John Karas, the Vice President and General Manager of Human Space Flight for Lockheed Martin.”

 Holy shit.

 It turned out that STS-135 took place so close to the Obama rift that no one had yet produced a model of the SLS… but me. So, Mr. Karas arrived at KSC nearly empty handed, but really wanting to talk about the SLS.

 “Anyone who makes Mr. Karas smile like that,” the fellow from LockMart said happily, “gets some swag.”

I ended up with a ball cap, some pens and a few trinkets to take home and give to my kids. We stood there for a long time and talked model rockets, and I explained that I’d started my company to keep busy while I raised my two daughters. Although I’m a successful author, it was tough to write books when you cannot sit and focus quietly for hours on end. Because as a parent, you never get to do that. 

After about 40 minutes Mr. Karas and his minions returned.

“Thank you so much,” he said as he extended his arms to return to model to me, “I love this rocket.”

 “Well,” I replied, now knowing who I was actually speaking to, “you can have it.”

 “Really?” he exclaimed.

 “Yeah, it’s one of two identical prototypes. I have another one just like it on my work bench at home.”

 Pulling back the model he admired it again, took a deep breath, turned to his minions and ordered, “Let’s get this man something!”

 Suggestions came popping up- a pass to a test firing- an invitation to a dinner event, and on and on.

 “Let’s give him an Orion model!” someone shouted.

 “That’s it!” Mr. Karas ordered as he pointed to the minions, “Get him one of those Orion models!”

 Less than a minute lapsed before one of the minions showed up carrying a square cardboard box. Packed in custom foam rubber was one of the newest, museum quality, 2011 Orion models. I took it back to the press room and got the attention of the other hardcores.

 “Guess what I just got from John Karas?” I said as I held the box above my head.

 “You dog! You got a model!” several of them guessed before I opened the box and showed it off.

 Indeed. It flew home with me, never out of my reach, destine for display in my office.

 Today, the flight version of the Orion is very different from my model. But I see it in the same light of the early Apollo era photos where NASA people as shown posed with a Lunar Module or Command Service Module that always looks nothing like the final product. I pondered those models when I was a kid. Now those models are worth thousands of dollars. Yet to me, this one not only connects me with my childhood ponderings, but it reminds me of the day I made John Karas very happy.

ARTEMIS SRBs: THE POWER AND HISTORY

 

By Wes Oleszewski; Aero-News Network Spaceflight Analyst

Propelling the Artemis II launch vehicle will be two types of rockets. At its core the Space Launch System (SLS) booster has four liquid fuel RS-25 engines. But most prominent are the two Solid Rocket Boosters (SRB) strapped to each side of the core. When the Artemis II launches toward the Moon, it will do so by way of these incredibly powerful and fairly historic SRBs.

Developed for the Space Shuttle program the Artemis SRBs are longer. Each stands 177 feet tall and weighs in at 1.6 million pounds. Burning a polybutadiene acrylonitrile (PBAN) propellant, the combination of the two SRBs produces 7.2 million pounds of thrust at liftoff. To put that in historic perspective, the Apollo 17 Saturn V that sent the last crew to the Moon produced 7.7 million pounds of thrust at liftoff. So, when combined with the Artemis II core stage of the SLS booster lifts off with 8.8 million pounds of thrust. The total burn time is just two minutes and six seconds before the SRBs are jettisoned into the Atlantic Ocean. Unlike the Space Shuttle, the Artemis SRBs are not recovered for reuse.

Additionally, the unusually cold weather in Florida this week has drawn a number of myopic and uninformed questions as well as countless social media posts citing the Challenger disaster and comparing that to now. Challenger was destroyed by one factor. Engineers were ordered by managers to “Take off their engineer’s hat and put on their management hats” in order to push for the launch to take place outside of the test data temperature envelope. That caused the burn through of the SRB segment joints which triggered the disaster. Artemis is NOT Challenger. The current SRBs have been specifically re-engineered to assure such will not happen again.

A foundational element of the SLS booster is that it was developed to leverage Space Shuttle technology. In its earliest concepts the Shuttle did not have SRBs but instead was composed of two huge airplane-like vehicles. By the end of 1971 there was only one aircraft in the system which was boosted by two SRBs and three liquid propellant orbiter engines fueled by an external tank. This configuration was first shown in model form to President Richard Nixon on January 3, 1972. Nixon was fascinated by the model and two days later released a statement where he gave it, not only his approval, but also the name “Space Shuttle.”

Large Solid Rocket Motors (SRM) were nothing new in 1972. Because on June 8, 1965, the largest SRMs in the world boosted the first Titan IIIC from Cape Canaveral Launch Complex 40 for the U.S. Air Force. Those 120-inch diameter, five segment boosters combined to produce 2.647 million pounds of thrust making the Titan IIIC the most powerful launch vehicle in the world at that time. Thus, in the early 1970s NASA elected to use two SEBs consisting of four segment each to boost the Shuttle. Those SRBs were 147 inches in diameter and the combination of the two produced 5.6 million pounds of thrust at liftoff. Over 135 launches only one of those boosters failed and that was due to it being fired at temperatures outside of its published performance limitation. Most of the other SRBs were recovered and reused.

Thus, Artemis SRBs are assembled from former Shuttle SRBs. One adaptation is the SLS will fly on five segment SRBs rather than the Shuttle’s four segment boosters. As a result of all this, Artemis II SRBs are composed of an assortment of sections with an amazing Space Shuttle history. As an example, a combined 84 different Shuttle missions total will fly on Artemis II. The left SRB has portions with a history of being used in nine ground test firings and 47 Shuttle missions. As an example, that SRB’s forward skirt has flow 14 times. Meanwhile, the right-hand booster has also been used on nine ground test firings, and its forward skirt has also been flown on 14 missions. But that SRB has an accumulated record of an amazing 64 missions overall. Additionally, the same SRB’s upper most segment, cylinder 86, is the oldest of the segments on Artemis II and dates all the way back to STS-5 when it boosted the orbiter Columbia on November 11, 1982.

In the Artemis program the SRBs are no longer recovered for re-use. This is because the cost of recovering, refurbishing, transporting and reloading a single SRBs has, over the history of their use, added up to a good bit more than simply making a new SRB. The same rule applies to the RS-25 engines on the SLS core stage.

Yet, when you see Artemis II launch, you now know the both the power and the history.

ARTEMIS- ABOUT THAT B.W.M.

 

By Wes Oleszewski- Aero-News Network Spaceflight Analyst

We were riding aboard the NASA press-bus headed out on Wednesday, December 8, 2010, to witness SpaceX launch their Falcon 9 and Dragon combination for the first demonstration mission under NASA’s Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program (COTS 1) from Space Launch Complex 40 (SLC-40) at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida. The press had a special area on the causeway for launch coverage. As we left the main press site near the huge Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) we got a clear view of the parking site where the Space Shuttle Crawler/Transporters were standing idle. Located nearby them was the mobile launcher for the Ares I. It was in the advanced stages of its construction which had now been halted due to Obama defunding its parent program called Constellation.

At that moment, a well-known spaceflight reporter elbowed me.

“So, what do you think about that B.W.M.?” he asked as he thumbed toward the huge gray launch tower.

“Pardon me?” I replied, having no idea what he meant.

“That B.W.M.,” he retorted with a sneer, “Big Waste of Money.”

The launch tower was a key part of a NASA’s Constellation program. That program, had been ordered by President George W. Bush in 2004. It was intended to be a replacement for the Space Shuttle and included a return of astronauts to the Moon. By 2010, however, President Obama was in office and he simply de-funded Constellation. That action myopically ignored the fact that NASA had already invested more than $11 Billion in the program. Thus, it was a fairly dark time, as humanity’s return to the lunar surface had been deleted by nothing more than political hubris. That launch tower appeared to have no future other than scrapping.

After taking a good look at the incomplete launch tower, I turned to the reporter and said,

“It’s not a waste until they break out the scraper’s torches.”

He simply snickered and shook his head.

For more than a half dozen years that reporter’s “BWM” resided quietly in place with work slowly continuing as pro-spaceflight members of congress pushed back against Obama in the effort to preserve NASA’s human spaceflight. All the while his administration and their comrades in congress did their best to drag their feet when it came to the heavy lift launch vehicle that their opposition on Capitol Hill had approved and funded. That launch vehicle became the Space Launch System (SLS). At the end of the Obama’s rein President Trump ordered the effort to return to the Moon fully restored. The program was now called Artemis and its heavy lift booster, the SLS would use the former Ares I launch tower.

On January 17, 2026 we all watched as the SLS rolled out of the VAB for its second trip to the Moon. Unlike its first un-crewed flight, this time it will carry a crew of four astronauts. The scrapper’s torches never got to it, and thus that “BWM,” wasn’t a “big waste of money." In fact all Obama accomplished was a BTW... Big Waste of Time.

 

ARTEMIS II; THE MISSION

 

By Wes Oleszewski- Aero-News Network spaceflight analyst

Not long from now NASA will launch a mission to the Moon called Artemis II. Yet, there seems to be some lack of general understanding as to what that mission is all about. Here, I will do my best to make that clear.

First off, although it is flying to the moon, Artemis II is not a mission of exploration. Instead, it is a mission of flight test. The purpose is to test critical hardware of all sorts; everything from life support systems to the onboard toilet. It all needs to function perfectly for 10 days and at lunar distance.

Additionally, the mission is equipped with computers and software that is tens of thousands of times more powerful and complex than anything used in Apollo. Often you hear the reasoning that Apollo went to the moon with computer equipment that had less capability than a modern-day kid’s toy calculator. Thus, your own home office may have more computing power than that used during an entire Apollo lunar mission. Yet, a single lightning strike across the street from your home can knock that office of yours off-line. The point is that NASA must be able to test this modern technology and computing power in deep space. And that is where assorted cosmic interference can do nasty things.

Another issue is the systems have to be exercised in flight. Just sending an uncrewed Orion to the moon and back only demonstrates reliability to a certain point. In a 10-day mission the four astronauts will be living, working and generally bumping around inside the vehicle. That level of human factors alone will generate a laundry list of changes in procedures and hardware use.

Both the Orion crew module and its service module need to operate without question. An example of that not happening, recently took place with the Boeing CST-100 Starliner spacecraft. That vehicle while flying up to dock with the International Space Station (ISS) suffered a series of cascading thruster failures. Due to that, NASA decided to hold the crew aboard the ISS and have them return aboard a Dragon spacecraft.

The one thing which must be the same as Apollo is dependability. The Block II Apollo Command Modules never let their crews down. If there is anything in the Artemis program that must be the same as Apollo, it is that level of dependability. The crew of Artemis II are ready to ring out their vehicle in a deep space test flight.

So, when you see Artemis II flying, think more of test piloting rather than a grand exploration. They will be proving the hardware and software which will make a foundation for the explorers who will follow them.

I SEE SOMETHING AT 12 O’CLOCK

Gemini VI performed the rendezvous from below because orbital mechanics allow the spacecraft in the lower orbit to catch up to its target in the higher orbit simply because the lower orbit provided less distance to travel.

 

Although the NASA documentary made on the Gemini VI rendezvous has a soundtrack where an obviously re-recorded voice of Stafford is portrayed as being the first person to sight Gemini VII. A careful reading of the transcript shows that it was Schirra who first spotted the target.

 

“I see something at 12 o’clock,” Schirra stated at 05:04:32 mission elapsed time.

 

At that moment Stafford was actually blinded by the sun reflecting off the nose of the spacecraft. He couldn’t see anything including the stars, but at 05:05:05 Stafford excitedly reported,

 

“Hey, I think I got it! That’s Seven, Wally!”

 

Controllers at the Ascension ground station disagreed considering that spacecraft 7 was 51 miles ahead of Gemini VI at that moment. For several minutes the crew debated as to whether or not the bright object in the sky they were seeing was Gemini VII or the star Sirius. As it turned out they were in fact seeing spacecraft 7.

 Aboard spacecraft 7 Borman and Lovell soon caught sight of spacecraft 6 as it originally appeared looking like a bright star but then rapidly drew near them from below.

 

Just 31 minutes after the initial sighting Gemini VI was 7.7 miles from Gemini VII. All of Stafford’s calculations and computer readings were coming together perfectly. Schirra was making precision burns at absolutely the correct times and using minimum fuel to accomplish rendezvous. By 05:56:01 Gemini VI was at 120 feet and station keeping with Gemini VII; rendezvous had been successfully accomplished for the first time in space.

 It was an exciting moment, so much so that even Frank Borman got a little humorous when asking what attitude Schirra wanted him to maintain.

 

“I'm going to go ahead and put it on Inertial -Neutral here and stay right on the horizon,” Borman said, “if that's what Precious wants.” 

By the term “precious” he was the facetiously referring to Schirra.

 

Flying in formation that more than 17,000 miles per hour the astronauts of both spacecraft finally got a chance to see what another spacecraft in flight looked like. One of the first things that they noticed were long, gold foil coated wires or cables protruding from the back of one another’s spacecraft. Borman had initially commented about this but the crew of spacecraft 6 didn’t hear the message.

“You guys are really showing a…” Schirra began, “of droop on those wires hanging there.”

 

“… On me?” Borman replied, “Where they hanging from?”

“Well,” Schirra described, “Frank, it looks like it comes out at the separation between… It might be fiberglass. It’s approximately… oh… 10 to 15 feet long.”

 

“The separation came from the booster,” Borman reckoned, “right?”

 

“Affirmative,” Schirra replied.

 

“That’s exactly where you have one too,” Borman stated with satisfaction, “it really belted around there when you were firing your thrusters.”

 

“Looks like about eight or 9 feet long and double wire,” Schirra observed.

 

“Right,” Borman agreed.

 

For just over six hours the two spacecraft flew in close formation as Schirra maneuvered spacecraft 6 around spacecraft 7. Borman and Lovell were conserving fuel and essentially remained in a near drifting flight attitude. Both crews, however, had plenty of film and took scores of photos and a library of movies during the exercise. At one point Tom Stafford held a sign up in his window that read, “BEAT ARMY” which was a reference to the upcoming Army-Navy football game. Stafford, Schirra and Lovell were all graduates of the United States Naval Academy while Borman was a graduate of West Point.