NASA Surveyor Programme – 1966-68 – Laying the Foundations for Apollo

In the 1960s America's NASA undertook the Surveyor programme, a series of robotic missions to land on the Moon for the purposes of science and technology development to support the Apollo program. The very first mission of the programme, Surveyor 1, successfully achieved a soft landing in an equatorial mare region of the Moon (Oceanus Procellarum). That was the very first American propulsive Lander on another planetary body and came just three years before the first human landing. In total six of the seven Surveyor missions successfully achieved soft-landings, which gave the United States a very solid technological basis for later propulsive landing missions to the Moon, Mars and Venus.

Surveyor 3 Spacecraft, Credit NASA

A large part of the success of the Surveyor programme can be attributed to the selection of a simple and reliable mission architecture that had a pragmatic and incremental approach to solving the most critical engineering challenges of the time, namely the closed-loop terminal descent guidance and control system, throttleable engines, and the radar systems required for determining the Lander’s altitude and velocity. The Surveyor missions were the first time that NASA tested such systems in the challenging thermal and radiation environment near the Moon.

Key features of the missions were the choice of wide flat landing areas, a two-stage design (the first stage using a solid motor for braking), and the use of a 'direct-descent' trajectory that did not enter Moon orbit before landing. The main advantages of this approach were the relatively simple design of the engines for the landing stage, and the fact that a complex precision landing system was not needed. In the years following Surveyor, NASA developed more advanced landing technologies building upon Surveyor's critical systems and components, as well as the lessons learned during the programme.

Embedded below is a detailed PhotoSynth of the Surveyor spacecraft at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., created by one of the White Label Space team members in 2008.

NASA's Vision for Human Space Exploration

This excellent promotional video by NASA is a captivating and clear explanation of its vision for human space exploration in the coming decades, a vision embodied by the Constellation Program. The first phase of the program starts with utilization of the International Space Station in Earth orbit. That is followed by long duration missions to the Moon's surface then eventually human exploration of Mars.

The video does mention the troubled Ares-1 launch vehicle but it does explain the role of the Orion spacecraft which will carry four astronauts after the Space Shuttle is retired. The video also shows the critical role that education plays in promoting and developing future space activities.

Why NASA's Budget Can't be Reduced

When 10,000 jobs are at stake, lawmakers start to listen. As reported in this article in Parabolic Arc, the big 5 space primes in America have ganged together to point out that NASA needs to accelerate its development of the next generation of space exploration vehicles, otherwise a lot of skilled labor will be forced to find work in other industries.

It is nice to see the specific reference to the Altair lunar lander in the plans that industry wants to start working on. Interestingly however, they don't refer to the Ares-1 launch vehicle which has recently suffered a 6 month delay.

SpaceX Sends Message to US Taxpayers - Hire Us

In this update Elon Musk is sending a clear message to American taxpayer - supporting the SpaceX Falcon 9 human rated launcher is in your best interests!

(Image adapted from the SpaceX post)

Elon presents the undeniable logic of his plan as follows:

• it will save the taxpayer $2 billion
• it will bring 1000 high quality jobs
• it will help fill the gap between shuttle and the new manned launcher under development by NASA - the troubled Ares-1

.

NASA's Ares-1 "Stick" Broken in Two

This video shows the (intentional) separation of the first and second stages of NASA's planned Ares 1 launcher, which is currently under development as a man-rated replacement for the Space Shuttle.

The separation simulated by this test will take place after the first stage solid motor completes its burn and will be effected by a ring shaped explosive charge that cuts through the aluminium structure that joins the two stages together. Remember, this structure must be thick enough to transmit the high bending loads anticipated during the flight of this long slender rocket, called the "Stick" by some.

The test shown in this slow motion video was to check that the separation charge makes a clean break between the two stages. The shocks generated by the explosive charge were also measured during the test, and this will give important information enabling the engineers to design and layout the nearby equipment mounted in the launcher that must withstand the shock environment.



Earlier Post: When the Change the Ares-1 "Stick" into a Normal Rocket

In memory of the Challenger crew

On the 28th of January 1986, I remember watching the news on TV some hours after the liftoff the Challenger and the feeling of disbelief that struck me as the rockets malfunctioned causing Challenger to disintegrate in thin air. The most horrific part of the TV reports that day was not the explosion itself but the look on the spectators faces as it slowly dawned on them that something had gone dreadfully wrong. A sad day in space history but one that proves that even the best laid plans can go wrong & space travel is never an easy task. "Failure is not an option" may have been NASA's motto but sometimes the chips are stacked against us & we must live with the cards that we are dealt.

NASA Moon Rover Tire Recreated from Spare

Now 80 years old, Farence Pavlicks (apologies if the spelling is wrong), invented the Lunar Roving Vehicle tires used in the Apollo Program while working for General Motors' Defense Research Labs back in the 1950's. The tires were manufactured by Goodyear and consisted of zinc-coated woven steel wires in place of the rubber compounds normally used for tires on Earth.

After NASA lost all traces of information on the design and manufacturing of the lunar rover tires, they used his advice to recreate the original design in a project redeveloping new tires to support the NASA return to the Moon.

Follow this link to hear the complete story by NPR News.

Let's hope NASA is able to recover all the other knowledge gained during the Apollo program needed to for their return to the Moon. The need to re-capture that knowledge is surely a big driver for NASA to stick with its plans to return the Moon in the coming decade.

Is Space Exploration Expensive?

We are used to the concept of space exploration being a very expensive endevour, but this simple inflation-adjusted monetary comparison by Voltage shows that the complete budget history of NASA, including the entire Apollo Program, is only a fraction of the 2008 bailout of the US finacial sector.

Converting a "Moon-Impactor" to a "Moon-Lander"

As India's Chandryaan-1 mission showed this week, it's possible to use existing launch vehicles and conventional satellite design solutions to reach lunar orbit, and even to send a probe to the impact surface. The only remaining step in order to have a complete lunar surface transportation service is to master the technology of slowing down your lander to have a soft-landing, rather than the hard-landing (aka "impact") of the Indian probe.

In the 1960's, with its Surveyor program, NASA mastered the technology of using a solid rocket motor to decelarate a lander, removing over 90% of its speed to allow a relatively small liquid-fuel propulsion system to make the final descent and landing.

To help with the design of your solid rocket motor breaking stage, you might like to check out Rogers Aeroscience who has recently published some useful reference materials. The following articles are available from their website http://www.rasaero.com/;

• Performance Analysis of the Ideal Rocket Motor.
• Departures from Ideal Performance for Conical Nozzles and Bell Nozzles, Straight-Cut Throats and Rounded Throats.
• Erosive Burning Design Criteria for High Power and Experimental/Amateur Solid Rocket Motors.

Testimonial to the Mars Exploration Rovers

These National Geographic Channel pieces are testimonials to the upcoming 5 year anniversary of the landing of NASA's twoMars Exploration Rovers, Spirit and Opportunity.

Congratulations to the NASA team responsible for delivering humanity such a fantastic and successful mission, which is still ongoing!

More Problems with NASA's Ares 1

Space-Travel.com has reported that computer simulations now indicate that the long skinny shape of the Ares 1 rocket, currently under development to replace the Shuttle, could lead to problems with "liftoff drift" in which the forces due to its motor ignitition and wind loads could cause it to jump sideways at ignition far enough for its rocket plume to damage the launch tower.
Is the Ares 1 approaching a major redesign? See our previous related post and give your thoughts.

When They Change The Ares-1 "Stick" to a Normal Rocket

Budget concerns, timelines, and technology limitations have got NASA in a real tight spot for its future manned launch vehicle, the Ares-1. We at White Label Space, like many others around the world, have a feeling that this rocket might never fly in its current configuration with the long skinny shuttle-derived booster supporting the fat upper stage. No rocket like this has ever been launched into space so we made this poll to sample the public opinion on this design.

There are some good reasons why launch vehicles tend to have tapered shapes (where the base is thicker than the top and not the other way around!). At supersonic and hypersonic speeds, tapering gives additional aerodynamic static stability. Also, having a wider lower stage helps to support the higher structural loads that it must transmit. Last we heard, NASA is trying to implement electromagnetic mass absorbers to overcome the structural dynamics problems with the current design, although an active vibration control system of this size has never flown to space, let alone on a man-rated launch vehicle.

Perhaps NASA will give up the stick Ares-1 and define a more realistic baseline with a wider first stage, perhaps something more like the Gemini launcher.

Travelling through the Universe with Celestia Space Simulator

Are you interested in astronomy, the solar system, and space? Would you like to fly through the universe and observe our blue planet, the Moon, or the Milky Way from the outside? Then this free software application might be very interesting for you: Celestia is a 3D space simulator that runs on your Windows, Mac OS X, or Linux computer.



It contains almost 120,000 star positions collected by European Space Agency’s Hipparcos Space Astrometry Mission. It contains moons, asteroids, and even spacecraft, including their orbital paths, just to name a few. It can animate the constellations in real time as well as simulate object movements with much faster or slower velocity. Furthermore, additional information about these objects, craters, landing sites, observatories, etc. can also be displayed.



The software is open source, therefore many add-ons like high-detail textures for planets, satellites and their orbits, spacecraft, or animations are available. Anybody with programming skills can download the source code and further develop the software; even NASA and ESA use Celestia for creating animations, for Mars Express, for example.

So have a look at http://www.shatters.net/celestia, try out the software, and let us know what you think about it! And many thanks to the developers of this great simulator!

Rover Pimp-off, MER vs Lunakhod

We thought it would be interesting to compare two of the most pimped rover designs of all time.

NASA's two Mars Exploration Rovers (MER) Spirit and Opportunity landed on Mars in early 2004 and are still going strong, racking up impressive distances over the red planet. But way back in the 1970s the Soviet Union landed two equally impressive rovers of its own on the Moon in the Lunakhod programme.

Let's have a look at some key statistics:

Compared to MER, the Lunakhod is more than 4 times the weight, making it a veritable tank. But after almost half a century, NASA will finally catch up on that statistic with its upcoming Mars Science Laboratory rover mission, which will weigh even more than the Lunakhod rovers.

MER Opportunity started its explorations of Mars in January 2004 from its "hole in one" landing site in a martian crater, shown in the below photograph, which was taken from Mars orbit by the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO). Since then it has covered an impressive 11.7km of Martian surface, but that is still far short of the 37km achieved by Lunakhod 2. But with both MER rovers are still alive and moving that record may yet fall.

Driving rovers around the Moon is far quicker than on Mars. The round trip time communications delay to the Moon is only a couple of seconds, meaning that a driver on Earth can control a lunar rover in near real-time. The Lunakhod rovers were driven in this manner, controlled by a five-man team of controllers (pictured below) who used TV images taken by the rover's three low-rate TV cameras.

Unlike lunar rovers, Mars rovers have a far greater communications delay to Earth (many minutes) meaning that their route must be pre-programmed with navigation waypoints, hence the lower speed of the MER design.

The Google Lunar X PRIZE (GLXP) mission won't require rovers anywhere near as big as these two giants, but it may be able to re-use at least some aspects of their designs such as navigation software and communications hardware. GLXP teams will have some freedom to choose their rovers' speed since the 500m roving requirement is not very demanding. However, to make their missions more profitable, teams might consider using a relatively high speed rover in order to enable other commercial activities after the primary GLXP mission is completed but before the approximately two weeks of lunar daylight is exhausted.

Sources :

• JPL's Opportunity mission update page


• Timeline of Soviet Lunar Exploration


• http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f1/Oppland02a.jpg


• http://vsm.host.ru/e_lunhod.htm

Plant Experiment on Lunar Lander

NASA scientists have suggested conducting plant growth experiments on the moon's surface prior to future human missions.

This might be good secondary payload on a Google Lunar X PRIZE mission, being a first experiment at In-Situ Resource Utilisation (ISRU) approaches on the moon. Although, it would take a special plant to survive approximately 2 weeks of darkness during a lunar night.

Considering the high delta-V needed to soft land on the moon, it's clear that future lunar bases will benefit greatly from any reduction in the delivered mass. Lunar regolith, or some of its components, might even provide some of the nutrients for plant growth, thus eliminating even more mass that needs to be delivered to future lunar bases.

What if Falcon 1 was Reviewed by NASA?

I didn't see this video of the recent Falcon 1 launch attempt until today. If you watch from about 2 minutes and 40 seconds, you can clearly see the two stages springing apart after the separation command and then the separated first stage pushing slowly back up against the second stage!

Man... how frustrating that must be for them!

But I have to admit, this is a great example of the differences between private and government funded space programs. If a government space agency like NASA was doing a review of the updated Falcon 1 configuration used for this flight (evolved Merlin 1C engine), it probably would have noticed the problem prior to the flight, and might have saved the mission. But at what cost? Having to satisfy every demand of a customer like NASA must add a huge cost to the development.

I guess this reflects the risk of a fully private development of a launcher (or any space system). It might take an extra mission to iron out all the bugs, but if you can save costs elsewhere, you can hopefully complete your development program at a lower overall cost.

Note that Falcon 9 on the other hand seems to have complete NASA oversight (see this Press Release about the Critical Design Review (CDR) for the Falcon 9/Dragon Mission), so one might expect that the Falcon 9 will suffer less failures.

Finally, compliments must go to SpaceX for showing the public their development setbacks in such an open, honest manner. It is a fine example for other developers of launchers or space hardware. Could you imagine the traditional government agencies providing such transparency on all their failures?

7 Things NASA needs from Private Industry

After 50 years, NASA has quite the status within our common culture. They represent the pinnacle of technology and cutting edge research. And, for the most part, with good reason. They've put people on the Moon, they've helped build the International Space Station, an orbital laboratory 100 metres long in Space! But, how have they done this, you might ask? With enough phDs and slide-rules to sink the Titanic? Well, yes, but also with a very large wallet. And as you may have seen lately this is causing them some problems. With their current budget they've got to keep the Shuttle flying, support the ISS, develop a new rocket to get them back to the Moon and Mars. So, even with their deep wallets a pretty tall order, and that's where private industry can ride in on its white steed and save the day. So, here, we'd like to highlight the seven ways private industry can help NASA, the behemoth of the Space industry reach their noble goals of space exploration:

1. SpaceX (http://www.spacex.com/)
   Despite some recent problems, SpaceX and their Falcon rockets provide a breath of fresh air into the Launch Vehicle market. If they manage to get their heavy Falcon 9 rocket and their cool-sounding Dragon capsule working, then the world will have the first ever commercial human space flights to Orbit.
   
2. Scaled Composites (http://www.scaled.com/) and Virgin Galactic (http://www.virgingalactic.com/)
   They've just unveiled Eve, the mothership of SpaceShipTwo. So, they're on their way to sending anyone (even Madonna) with a few bob spare into space, albeit sub-orbital.
3. Servicing Telescopes
   The final Space Shuttle trip to Hubble launches this October. Then it's on its own. Which is really quite sad because Hubble represents one of the shining examples of how useful Human Spaceflight is. This could be a perfect example of a service a private company could give to NASA. If a company could send up a repair team to a satellite or a telescope for cheaper than launching a new one, the design of all future missions would be changed.
   
4. Orbtial Life Extension
   And if human repairmen are a bit off in the distance, how about sending robots up to old satellites. That's the idea behind SSC's SMART OLEV
   
5. Ground Stations
   And it's not just in space where NASA spends the big bucks. Keeping the huge antennas on earth operational costs too. That's where new networks like PrioraNET (http://www.prioranet.com/) come in to play. Using private industry on a service basis should lead to better bigger ground stations, which helps everyone.
6. Space Stations - Bigelo Aerospace (http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/)
   What is the one most expensive mission NASA's ever been involved with? The International Space Station. It's an amazing and massive orbital structure unlike we've ever seen before, but was it worth the cost? The guys at Bigelo are proving in orbit now that with inflatable structures they can do it for much cheaper and theoretically even bigger!
   
7. Payload to the Moon!
   And of course, there's getting payload to the Moon! That's where the Google Lunar X PRIZE comes in to play!
   

European Logistics for NASA Lunar Base

NASA’s project to go back to the moon: Project Constellation, initiated in 2004 by President Bush's “Vision for Space exploration”, clearly stated exploration ambitions for the 20 upcoming years including:

• Completion of the ISS by 2010
• Retire and replace the Space Shuttle by respectively 2010 and 2014
• Perform Lunar exploration mission both robotic (from 2008) and manned (from 2020)
• Perform robotic and manned solar system exploration mission such as Mars and Near Earth Objects (NEO) such as Asteroids or Comets – (unspecified deadline)

One of the aspects less known about this law (because the “Vision for Space exploration” is actually defined under US law) is that in order to achieve those objectives, it calls for international cooperation. In this frame, NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA) have been working jointly in order to develop an International Architecture for Lunar Exploration.

It is clear that NASA, with its capabilities, will be the only contributor on several segments of such an architecture, in particular the manned transportation segments. However, as the ESA-NASA study concluded, Europe could provide a Logistic Lander based on Europe's Ariane 5 Launch Vehicle.

The latest assessment shows that if such landers are produced by ESA with a frequency of 2 per year, it would double the available time for manned lunar surface operations in the first year of the plan (in comparison with from the 5th year with the existing plans).

This video produced by NASA shows how the cooperation could look:

It seems that the ESA-NASA joint work is still on going and that NASA is now also discussing possible cooperation with other international space agencies.