The 38-page document, released Wednesday, paints the manufacturer’s quality control practices as inadequate and its workforce as insufficiently trained, blaming it for cost increases and schedule delays in the development of NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) Block 1B. Yet the space agency has neglected to punish Boeing financially for these flaws, arguing that doing so would run contrary to the terms of its contract.

The heavy-lift rocket, a more powerful configuration of NASA’s existing SLS Block 1, is intended to make its maiden voyage in 2028 on the Artemis IV mission, a crewed lunar landing. It has been under development since 2014. Boeing is under contract to build Block 1B’s Exploration Upper Stage (EUS)—which will increase the SLS’ cargo capacity by about 40 percent—as well as the core stages for Block 1 on Artemis I and the upcoming Artemis II. Other SLS contractors include Aerojet Rocketdyne and Northrop Grumman.

A Day Late, A Dollar Short

Originally, the EUS was allocated a budget of $962 million and intended to fly on Artemis II, which in January was pushed to no earlier than September 2025. But by the OIG’s estimate, EUS costs are expected to balloon to $2 billion through 2025 and reach $2.8 billion by the time Artemis IV lifts off in 2028.

The office projects total SLS Block 1B costs will hit $5.7 billion before then—that’s more than $700 million over the Agency Baseline Commitment (ABC) NASA made last year. The EUS, at nearly triple its original budget, would account for close to half of those costs.

Add to that an expected six-year delay in the delivery of the system, and the OIG predicts Artemis IV’s launch could be postponed.

“NASA’s fiscal year 2024 SLS Program budget projections do not account for the additional funds needed for EUS development in fiscal years 2024 through 2027,” the report says. “Without additional funding, scheduled work will continue to be pushed into subsequent years as has been the case for the EUS over the last decade, leading to further cost increases and schedule delays.”

For example, the OIG says, NASA is evaluating potential risks to the EUS stage controller and avionics that could delay its delivery by another 14 months. NASA officials disagreed with the analysis.

Mismanaged and Inexperienced

The OIG interviewed officials at NASA headquarters, Marshall Space Flight Center, Michoud Assembly Facility, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and Boeing. It also reviewed NASA and its contractors’ budgets, contract obligations, and quality control documents, among other materials.

In short, the office found that Boeing’s quality management system at Michoud does not adhere to NASA or international standards.

For example, Boeing Defense’s Earned Value Management System (EVMS)—which NASA uses to measure contract cost and schedule progress and is required on all projects with a lifecycle cost greater than $250M—has been disapproved by the Department of Defense since 2020. Officials claim this precludes Boeing from reliably predicting an EUS delivery date.

“Boeing’s process for addressing contractual noncompliance has been ineffective, and the company has generally been nonresponsive in taking corrective actions when the same quality control issues reoccur,” the OIG says.

The DCMA has issued several corrective action requests (CARs), handed down when quality control issues are identified, for the EVMS. Between September 2021 and September 2023, the agency issued Boeing a whopping 71 CARs after identifying quality control issues in the manufacturing of core and upper stages at Michoud. According to officials, that’s a massive number for a system that has been in development for so long.

“Boeing officials incorrectly approved hardware processing under unacceptable environmental conditions, accepted and presented damaged seals to NASA for inspection, and used outdated versions of work orders,” the report says. “DCMA also found that Boeing personnel made numerous administrative errors through changes to certified work order data without proper documentation.”

According to Safety and Mission Assurance officials at NASA and DCMA officials at Michoud, Boeing’s quality control issues stem from a workforce that is, by and large, unqualified.

During a visit to Michoud in 2023, for example, inspectors discovered that welding on a component of the SLS Core Stage 3 did not meet NASA standards. Per the report, unsatisfactory welding performed on a set of fuel tanks led directly to a seven-month delay in EUS completion.

“According to NASA officials, the welding issues arose due to Boeing’s inexperienced technicians and inadequate work order planning and supervision,” the OIG says. “The lack of a trained and qualified workforce increases the risk that Boeing will continue to manufacture parts and components that do not adhere to NASA requirements and industry standards.”

Complicating matters further is the relocation of SLS core stage production for Artemis III from Michoud to Kennedy, which will require Boeing to transition a decade of production processes developed at the former site to the latter.

The OIG said the manufacturer is developing a more robust, hands-on training program that could revamp its workforce but is long overdue.

“Some technicians reported they had to hunt through layers of documentation to identify required instructions and documentation of work history and key decisions related to the hardware,” the report says.

Further, maintaining that workforce may be difficult—the OIG predicts Boeing will spend an average of $26 million per month on EUS personnel through 2027. That was the norm for the company from February to August 2023.

Boeing management has also dropped the ball at higher levels. For instance, in the leadup to Artemis I, Boeing underestimated the complexity of building the SLS core stage, and EUS funding had to be redirected to that project.

“This ultimately led to a nearly one-year delay in EUS work and an additional $4 billion in funding to Boeing to cover the costs for the core stage development work,” according to the OIG.

In addition, NASA officials believe Boeing’s supply chain woes are of its own making, stemming from late negotiations and contract agreements.

Next Steps for NASA

The OIG report paints the picture of a company in disarray from top to bottom.

The office did not pin the blame entirely on Boeing. It criticized NASA, for example, for spending more than $3 billion over ten years without submitting an ABC to Congress and the Office of Budget and Management. The ABC is the only official cost and schedule baseline used to measure project performance against expectations.

The office’s four recommendations, however, center around the manufacturer.

First, the OIG calls on the associate administrator of NASA’s Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate (ESDMD), alongside the agency’s assistant administrator for procurement and chief of safety and mission assurance, to collaborate with Boeing on a more robust, NASA-approved quality management system. It also recommends officials penalize the company financially for its previous violations.

The OIG further directs the ESDMD to conduct a cost overrun analysis of Boeing’s EUS contract to minimize the impact to Artemis missions. Finally, it asks the associate administrator to coordinate with the DCMA to ensure Boeing’s compliance with EVMS requirements.

NASA agreed with three of the four recommendations and proposed actions to take. Interestingly, though, it rejected the suggestion of fining Boeing.

“NASA interprets this recommendation to be directing NASA to institute penalties outside the bounds of the contract,” said Catherine Koerner, deputy associate administrator of the ESDMD, in NASA’s response to the report. “There are already authorities in the contract, such as award fee provisions, which enable financial ramifications for noncompliance with quality control standards.”

Essentially, the agency believes it can keep Boeing in check by rewarding good behavior rather than penalizing mismanagement. The OIG, predictably, disagrees, characterizing NASA as “unresponsive” to what it considers significant safety concerns.

“In the end, failure to address these issues may not only hinder the Block 1B’s readiness for Artemis IV but also have a cascading impact on the overall sustainability of the Artemis campaign and NASA’s deep space human exploration efforts,” the report says.

Boeing will look to improve some of its quality control issues under the leadership of new CEO Kelly Ortberg, the ex-boss of Rockwell Collins who took over after the ousting of former CEO Dave Calhoun.

Calhoun’s departure this month comes as the company continues to be grilled over the loss of a door plug on a Boeing 737 Max 9 in January as well as persistent issues with Starliner, its semireusable spacecraft under contract with NASA for astronaut rotation missions to the  International Space Station. Astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams may end up spending eight months on the orbital laboratory, rather than eight days as intended.

Like this story? We think you’ll also like the Future of FLYING newsletter sent every Thursday afternoon. Sign up now.

The post NASA Investigation Finds Boeing Hindering Americans’ Return to Moon appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

SpaceX this week quietly added a “Human Spaceflight” tab to its website, listing four destinations to which customers can book flights: Earth orbit, the ISS, lunar orbit, and Mars. It is unclear when the new offerings were added.

Pricing information for the missions does not appear to be available. But the webpage directs customers to an email address, humanspaceflight@spacex.com, where they can inquire to book a flight. Missions will begin later this year, the page says, starting with flights to Earth orbit.

FLYING reached out to that email and SpaceX’s press email but did not receive an immediate response.

SpaceX describes its Earth orbit missions as offering a view of the planet from 300 kilometers up. The missions, seating two to four passengers, will last three to six days, offering 360-degree views.

According to the webpage, seats and “on-orbit research opportunities” will be available in late 2024. Regarding the latter offering, SpaceX says it is seeking “exceptional science and research ideas” to study ways to make life in space and on other planets a possibility.

The in-orbit research missions would be facilitated by the company’s Dragon capsule, which since 2012 has ferried more than 1,000 research experiments to low-Earth orbit and the ISS. Customers can submit a research proposal, which SpaceX will either accept or decline. If accepted, the applicant will put together a detailed plan, working with the company to finalize a mission profile, train crews, certify hardware, and collect data.

Two human spaceflight research opportunities are listed on SpaceX’s website: fitness-focused and exploration-focused research. The latter centers largely on the development of medical capabilities for long-duration missions—perhaps to Mars, for example. Mental and physical health and virtual or augmented reality are listed as areas of research interest.

“All Dragon and Starship missions have the ability to conduct scientific research to improve life back on Earth as well as raise awareness to a global audience,” the page reads.

Ten-day commercial missions to the ISS, according to SpaceX, will be available as early as 2025. These would transport up to four people or 192 kilograms of cargo to the orbital laboratory, where passengers could conduct research or simply pay a visit.

Missions to lunar orbit and Mars do not have listed timelines. But the webpage advertises seven-day trips around the moon with up to 12 passengers, with private quarters included. A mission profile for flights to Mars simply lists the Red Planet’s day length, force of gravity, and average distance from Earth.

For all missions, passengers will don a 3D-printed helmet “with customized padding [that] houses microphones for communication and valves that regulate the suit’s pressure systems,” per SpaceX’s description.

The vehicles listed under the Human Spaceflight tab are the Dragon capsule, which is already in use by NASA, and Starship, the reusable upper stage of the company’s massive spacecraft.

Starship and SpaceX’s Super Heavy launcher combined form the largest and most powerful rocket ever constructed, standing close to 400 feet tall when stacked. However, the gargantuan vehicle has been grounded after each of its three uncrewed orbital test flights.

Interestingly, the addition of human spaceflight offerings to SpaceX’s website suggests that the company expects to build on Starship’s most recent flight, and quickly—fast enough to offer missions to lunar orbit in the not-so-distant future. The jumbo rocket is also a key component of NASA’s Artemis II and Artemis III missions to the moon’s orbit and surface, respectively.

SpaceX is not the only company to offer cosmic tourism for paying customers, nor will it be the first to actually deliver on that offering.

Blue Origin in 2021 was the first to fly humans beyond the atmosphere, ferrying CEO Jeff Bezos and Star Trek icon William Shatner to the edge of space. Virgin Galactic followed in June 2023 with its inaugural commercial launch and is now offering monthly suborbital flights for a few hundred thousand dollars per ticket.

Musk and SpaceX’s ambitions, however, are grander than those of their rivals, culminating in the establishment of human colonies on the moon and other planets. But first the company will need to prove it can safely fly humans around the Earth.

Like this story? We think you’ll also like the Future of FLYING newsletter sent every Thursday afternoon. Sign up now.

The post SpaceX Adds Cosmic Tourism Offering to Website appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

“Today, [former Air Force] general Tom Stafford went to the eternal heavens, which he so courageously explored as a Gemini and Apollo astronaut as well as a peacemaker in Apollo Soyuz,” NASA Administrator Bill Nelson said on X, formerly known as Twitter. “Those of us privileged to know him are very sad but grateful we knew a giant.”

Stafford was born in Weatherford,  Oklahoma, in 1930 during the so-called “golden age of aviation.” Enamored with flight from childhood, he wanted to fly airplanes and later announced ambitions to be a fighter pilot. Going into space, he told journalists later in life, was the next logical step.

Military Career

In high school, Stafford served in the Oklahoma National Guard in a nonaviation role. He was athletic and earned a football scholarship to the U.S. Naval Academy, although he did not play in college due to a career-ending injury sustained during practice. After graduation in 1952, he entered the Air Force, training to be a pilot. Eventually he would fly a F-86 Sabre jet, and subsequently became a test pilot.  He flew more than 120 types of aircraft during his career.

Space Career

In 1962, Stafford was selected for astronaut training and flew aboard Gemini 6 in 1965 and Gemini 9 in 1’66. In ’69, he was named commander for Apollo 10, which was the second crewed mission that orbited the moon. Accompanied by Gene Cernan, they became the first crew to fly the Apollo Lunar Module in lunar orbit.

In the 1970s Stafford, now a brigadier general, was named commander of the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, the first joint U.S.-Soviet space mission. Preparation included traveling to Moscow to learn Russian. The 1975 rendezvous between the Soyuz capsule and the Apollo spacecraft was commemorated by a photograph of Stafford shaking hands with cosmonaut Alexei Leonov.

Stafford flew three types of spacecraft for NASA and logged more than 500 hours of space flight.

After the Apollo-Soyuz mission, Stafford resigned from NASA and returned to the Air Force, where he became the commanding general of Edwards Air Force Base, California, and oversaw the development of new aircraft and pilot training. His expertise was also in demand during the development of NASA’s space shuttle program. 

According to information from the Stafford Air & Space Museum in Weatherford, Stafford also served as the commanding general of Area 51, the common name for the top-secret military facility that may or may not be in the Nevada desert.

Founded in 1993, the Stafford Air & Space Museum is a Smithsonian affiliate. Among the exhibits are test-fired engines used during the development of the U.S. space program. The museum is also the home of the Gemini 6 spacecraft that Stafford and astronaut Wally Schirra flew in a rendezvous with Gemini 7. 

The post NASA Astronaut Thomas Stafford Dies at 93 appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

After a journey of around 600,000 miles, Odysseus softly landed in the South Pole region around 6:23 p.m. EST Thursday. 

It did not, however, land upright, controllers believe.

• READ MORE: The ‘Odysseus’ Has Landed

“Odysseus is alive and well,” the company said in its first update Friday after the landing. “Flight controllers are communicating and commanding the vehicle to download science data. The lander has good telemetry and solar charging. We continue to learn more about the vehicle’s specific information (Lat/Lon), overall health, and attitude (orientation).”

“It was quite a spicy 7-day mission to get to the moon,” Steve Altemus, CEO of Intuitive Machines, said Friday. “The vehicle is stable near or at our intended landing site. We do have communications with the lander.” 

The sun is impinging on the solar rays, charging its batteries. “We’re at a 100 percent state of charge. That’s fantastic,” he added.

During a press conference, the company released a photo from about 10 km above the surface of the Schomberger Crater in the South Pole region, about 200 km up-range of the target landing site. The image shows the deep shadows and undulating surface, which makes landing challenging, Altemus said.

• READ MORE: ‘Odysseus’ Transmits New Photos Ahead of Lunar Landing Attempt

Flight controllers believe that as the lander came down, a foot was caught in the surface, “and the lander has tipped,” he said.

It will likely take several days, however, for the company to confirm the lander’s orientation through data reconstruction and images. While the company believes the lander is lying on its side, it continues to to receive solar rays and the majority of its payloads are all in view, Altemus said. 

On board the Nova-C lunar lander are six NASA payloads conducting research and collecting data to better understand the lunar environment prior to human exploration. 

According to Altemus, the company believes that the lander is elevated off the surface, that most of the payloads are exposed, and above the panel believed to be now facing the surface. 

“That panel only had a single payload on it and it’s not an operational payload. It’s a static payload. We’re still going to try to take a picture of that payload if we can and that would meet those objectives,” he said.

From NASA’s perspective, the landing was a success.

“We’ve already gotten data along the way,” Prasun Desai, associate administrator of space technology at NASA. “A lot of the payloads have already been successfully demonstrated.”

• READ MORE:  IM-1 Private Lunar Lander Mission Transmits First Space Images

According to another NASA official, the soft landing validated the space agency’s commercial lunar payload services (CLPS) initiative.

“Intuitive Machines, in doing a soft touch down on the moon, has provided the first real evidence that this is possible to do. It’s possible with today’s technology, with dedicated engineering, and appropriate financial management to have a private company actually design a spacecraft, develop a mission, buy a rocket, and fly all the way to the moon and soft land on the surface of the moon,” said Joel Kearns, deputy associate administrator of exploration at NASA. “This is a gigantic accomplishment.”

The post ‘Odysseus’ Lunar Lander Alive, Well… But Likely Not Upright appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

“This is the first time an American commercial lunar lander has made it to orbit around the moon,” NASA said on X, formerly known as Twitter.

The uncrewed robotic lunar lander touched down on the moon’s surface at 6:23 p.m. EST. 

• READ MORE: ‘Odysseus’ Transmits New Photos Ahead of Lunar Landing Attempt

The mission, known as IM-1, launched on SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket February 15 at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida, as part of NASA’s commercial lunar payload services (CLPS) initiative and Artemis campaign. On board are six NASA payloads that will conduct research and collect data to better understand the lunar environment to prepare for human exploration under Artemis. 

Your order was delivered… to the Moon! @Int_Machines' uncrewed lunar lander landed at 6:23pm ET (2323 UTC), bringing NASA science to the Moon's surface. These instruments will prepare us for future human exploration of the Moon under #Artemis. pic.twitter.com/sS0poiWxrU

— NASA (@NASA) February 22, 2024

“On the eighth day of a quarter-million mile voyage—a voyage along the great cosmic bridge from the launch pad of the Kennedy Space Center, to the target of the South Pole of the moon, a commercial lander named Odysseus powered by a company called Intuitive Machines [of Houston] launched upon a SpaceX rocket, carrying a bounty of NASA scientific instruments and bearing the dream of a new adventure,”  NASA Administrator Bill Nelson said in a video message immediately following the landing.

• READ MORE: IM-1 Private Lunar Lander Mission Transmits First Space Images

“Today for the first time in a half century, the U.S. has returned to the moon,” Nelson said. “Today for the first time in the history of humanity, a commercial company—an American company—launched and led the voyage up there. And today is a day that shows the power and promise of NASA’s commercial partnerships.”

This is a developing story and will be updated.

The post The ‘Odysseus’ Has Landed appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Intuitive Machines released two new photos transmitted by its voyaging Nova-C robotic lunar lander Odysseus, which will attempt to reach the moon’s South Pole surface Thursday.

The mission, known as IM-1, is set to be the first U.S. moon landing in more than 50 years. Launched on SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket February 15 at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida, it is part of NASA’s commercial lunar payload services (CLPS) initiative and Artemis campaign. On board are six NASA payloads that will conduct research and collect data to better understand the lunar environment. 

• READ MORE: IM-1 Private Lunar Lander Mission Transmits First Space Images

Thursday afternoon, the Houston-based private aerospace company updated its projection for Odysseus’ expected landing time. 

“Flight controllers chose to exercise an additional orbit before starting the IM-1 mission landing sequence. The new anticipated landing time is 1724 CST [6:24 p.m. EST],” Intuitive Machines said in a mission update.

• READ MORE: Here’s When ‘Odysseus’ is Expected to Land on the Moon

Earlier projections had Odysseus landing around 5:30 p.m. EST, however, such forecasts are approximate and subject to change, Intuitive Machines said.

• READ MORE: How to Watch ‘Odysseus’ Attempt First U.S. Moon Landing Since 1972

“The landing opportunity will be Odysseus’ hardest challenge yet,” the company said. “The lander continues to be in excellent health, orbiting approximately 92 kilometers [57 miles] above the lunar surface.”

Thursday’s anticipated lunar landing will be livestreamed here.

The post ‘Odysseus’ Transmits New Photos Ahead of Lunar Landing Attempt appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

In a matter of hours, Intuitive Machines’ private lunar lander Odysseus will attempt the first U.S. moon landing in more than half a century.

On Wednesday, the voyaging Nova-C robotic moon lander had successfully traversed what the company called the mission’s “largest challenge to date,” reaching lunar orbit as planned ahead of its landing anticipated at around 4:24 p.m. EST Thursday.

“After traveling over [1 million kilometers], Odysseus is now closer to the moon than the end-to-end distance driving across ‘Space City,’ Houston, Texas,” Intuitive Machines said Wednesday, alluding to the site of its company headquarters.

The update followed a scheduled engine burn of nearly seven minutes that inserted Odysseus into circular orbit about 57 miles above the moon’s surface.

“Odysseus continues to be in excellent health,” the company said. 

• READ MORE: Here’s When ‘Odysseus’ Is Expected to Land on the Moon

When Odysseus touches down on the moon’s surface near Malapert A in the South Pole region of the moon Thursday, it will be the first U.S. lunar landing since NASA’s Apollo 17 crew in 1972.

The private IM-1 mission, which launched on SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket February 15 at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida, is headed to the South Pole region as part of NASA’s commercial lunar payload services (CLPS) initiative and Artemis campaign. On board are six NASA payloads that will conduct research and collect data to better understand the lunar environment. 

• READ MORE: Do You Have What It Takes to Be a Martian?

“Through the Artemis campaign, commercial robotic deliveries will perform science experiments, test technologies, and demonstrate capabilities to help NASA explore the moon in advance of Artemis Generation astronaut missions to the lunar surface, and ultimately crewed missions to Mars,” NASA said.

How to Watch

There will be ample opportunity to tune in to the lunar landing Thursday. Intuitive Machines will livestream the event here.

NASA will also provide live landing coverage on NASA+, NASA Television, the NASA app, and the agency’s website. 

The space agency said its coverage will begin at 4:15 p.m. EST, as the landing milestones occur. 

“Upon successful landing, Intuitive Machines and NASA will host a news conference to discuss the mission and science opportunities that lie ahead as the company begins lunar surface operations,” NASA said.

WATCH: IM-1 Mission Flightpath Overview

The post How to Watch ‘Odysseus’ Attempt First U.S. Moon Landing Since 1972 appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Peregrine Mission One, an expedition to the moon as part of NASA’s Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) initiative, lifted off Monday morning and appeared to be progressing as planned. But a few hours into the spaceflight, Pittsburgh-based Astrobotic, whose Peregrine lander was destined for the lunar surface, released a series of updates on X (formerly Twitter) that cast doubt on the mission’s aims.

Peregrine—which is carrying a total of 20 payloads, five of them from NASA—was expected to attempt a lunar landing on February 23, but that will no longer be the case. The lander would have become the first built by a private company to land on the moon.

Peregrine lifted off Monday morning at 2:18 a.m. EST from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida aboard the Vulcan Centaur V, a heavy-lift launch vehicle built by United Launch Alliance and a 50-50 joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed Martin.

After climbing to about 310 miles, the lander successfully separated from the rocket and powered on. Astrobotic made contact and began receiving telemetry from Peregrine, which is now flying solo toward the moon. In other words, all appeared to be in order.

But in the following hours, Astrobotic issued a string of updates, each more deflating than the last.

The company’s engineers discovered an issue with Peregrine’s propulsion system that is causing a “critical loss of propellant,” which affects the spacecraft’s ability to orient its solar panels toward the sun. Interestingly, the system is not considered novel.

“The Peregrine lander’s propulsion system uses a hypergolic propellant mixture, combining hydrazine fuel and a solution of nitric oxide and nitrogen tetroxide as the oxidizer,” wrote Stephen Clark of the website Ars Technica. “This is a tried-and-true architecture because hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide immediately combust upon contact with one another, meaning the propulsion system doesn’t need an ignition source.”

On Monday afternoon, the firm posted the first image from Peregrine in space on X, depicting the warped Multi-Layer Insulation (MLI) meant to protect it. Astrobotic called this the “first visual clue” confirming its hunch that the propulsion system is the root of the problem. It later hypothesized that a valve between the spacecraft’s helium pressurant and oxidizer failed to reseal after actuation, though this was not because of the launch.

According to Astrobotic, the propellant leak is causing Peregrine’s altitude control system (ACS) thrusters to burn “well beyond their expected service life cycles” in order to stop the lander from tumbling into space. An update posted Tuesday afternoon announced the final blow.

“Given the propellant leak, there is, unfortunately, no chance of a soft landing on the moon,” Astrobotic said.

However, the mission was not a complete bust. As of Thursday morning, Peregrine continues to fly toward lunar orbit, and the company said all of the ship’s payloads are communicating or powering up as intended. It also confirmed that a crescent shape in a photo the lander snapped on Tuesday is, indeed, Earth.

Peregrine is carrying scientific payloads from NASA and other space agencies, universities, companies, and individuals. The cargo comes from seven nations, including the first lunar or lunar surface payloads from the Mexican, German, English, and Hungarian space agencies.

The mission was intended to search for water, measure radiation and lunar surface conditions, and prepare NASA for Artemis, a series of launches that will attempt to return American astronauts to the moon as soon as 2025.

But although they shot for the moon and missed, Astrobotic and NASA still have the opportunity to land among the stars, so to speak.

Shooting for the Moon

Outside observers, aware of Peregrine Mission One’s aim to reach the lunar surface, may consider the mission’s result a failure. But that certainly isn’t the view of Astrobotic.

“Obviously, if we don’t achieve that final goal—the soft landing and all of our payloads being activated—there’ll be huge disappointment across the team and our partners and suppliers, who worked tirelessly and tremendously to get to this point,” Andrew Jones, director of landers and spacecraft for Astrobotic, told FLYING before Peregrine took flight. “But we’ve learned so much up to here, and I think we’ve played a huge part in paving the way for our ambitions of making space accessible.”

Landing on the moon is an essential piece of Astrobotic’s mission. The company envisions a democratized space, one where private firms and individuals could easily—and cheaply—move people and goods to the lunar surface and back using Peregrine and its variants. Manifesting that will require proof of concept in the form of a moon landing.

Jones and his team began developing the lander in 2019, using a combination of built-in-house components and parts manufactured by hundreds of suppliers across the U.S. The project was bolstered by $108 million in funding from NASA, which awarded Peregrine the first CLPS contract to put a lander on the moon as a service.

Jones told FLYING Astrobotic conducted “thousands of hours” of analysis on the lander and its mission profile prior to Monday’s launch. These included hundreds of tests of its components, materials, avionics, propulsion, communications, power system, and other features. A full-size structural test model and thousands of lines of code helped prepare the team for potential failure scenarios.

Despite this, the mission did not quite go as planned. Astrobotic is one of 14 vendors eligible to carry NASA payloads to the moon through the CLPS, and it had hoped to be the first to do so.

“To be the first commercial company to land on the moon, it shows that anything’s possible,” Jones told FLYING. “Up until now, it’s always been the purview of governments and large entities to do this. To be able to say that a commercial company like us—that’s not huge, that’s not got millions in the bank—that we can actually do it says a lot for the industry.”

But while Peregrine stopped short of its goal, Jones balked at calling that outcome a failure.

“No matter the outcome of this mission, it’s important that we continue to strive for regular, routine access to the lunar surface,” he said. “There’s always going to be roadblocks. There’s always going to be hiccups along the way. But I think every mission that we do, every lesson that we learn, makes the objective closer and easier to achieve.”

Fortunately for Jones, Astrobotic will have another shot at that objective later this year. The company was also picked by NASA to launch the space agency’s 1-ton VIPER (Volatiles Investigating Polar Exploration Rover) to the lunar south pole aboard its Griffin lander. The mission, which will search for water, will cost NASA an estimated $500 million—far more than it invested in the Peregrine mission.

Beyond that, Astrobotic will send a lander tethered to a lunar rover to the moon as early as 2026 to demonstrate LunaGrid-Lite, a proprietary power transmission system. The mission is part of a $35 million NASA tipping point partnership. It will also provide a cargo accommodation system to the Blue Origin National Team, which is developing a lunar lander for humans and large cargo to be used on the Artemis missions.

“I think we’ll have to [establish a presence on the moon], partly because of what we want to do beyond the moon…I think there’s going to be a larger presence on the moon from a scientific [standpoint], as well as just commercial people wanting to experience and live there,” Jones said.

‘Shots on Goal’

NASA researchers were well aware of the risks going into Monday’s launch, the first in its manifest of CLPS missions. CLPS aims to establish a commercial marketplace for science, exploration, and “technology development investigations” on the moon’s surface and in lunar orbit, as well as to expand the lunar economy to support crewed Artemis moon missions.

The CLPS marked a shift in emphasis for the space agency, looping private companies into an industry historically dominated by government agencies and programs. Thomas Zurbuchen, a former associate administrator for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate and key architect of the program, characterized the CLPS strategy as “taking shots on goal.”

But as the saying goes, you miss 100 percent of the shots you don’t take. Zurbuchen and NASA Administrator Bill Nelson were among those who applauded Peregrine Mission One, despite it not quite reaching its goal.

Joel Kearns, deputy associate administrator for exploration for the Science Mission Directorate, added: “Each success and setback are opportunities to learn and grow. We will use this lesson to propel our efforts to advance science, exploration, and commercial development of the moon.”

To Kearns’ point, the success rate for lunar landings is estimated to be at or below 50 percent, and Astrobotic’s attempt was America’s first in half a century. India in 2019 smashed its Vikram rover into the lunar surface before successfully landing the spacecraft in August, while Russia had a failed moonshot—its first in 47 years—that same month.

NASA researchers had hoped Peregrine’s findings would help them understand how solar radiation affects the lunar surface, as well as provide data to its Lunar-VISE (Lunar Vulkan Imaging and Spectroscopy Explorer), which is expected to arrive at Peregrine’s planned lunar landing site in 2026. Those goals will go unmet, but the agency has plenty more opportunities to learn.

Astrobotic isn’t the only private U.S. company shooting for the moon. In fact, Monday’s launch kicked off one of six planned CLPS missions to the moon in 2024. 

Three of the remaining five journeys will use the Nova-C private lander from Houston-based Intuitive Machines, which could achieve the first commercial soft landing in March should Astrobotic fall short. A fourth will be flown by another Texas-based startup, Firefly Aerospace. Rounding out the manifest is Astrobotic’s VIPER mission. Two additional CLPS missions are scheduled for 2025 and 2026.

NASA officials have tempered expectations for the first batch of landers, given that no private firm has soft landed on the moon. But if delays—which plagued Monday’s launch and others—and unmet expectations become the norm, the future of the Artemis program could be murky.

Like this story? We think you’ll also like the Future of FLYING newsletter sent every Thursday afternoon. Sign up now.

The post First U.S. Moonshot in Decades Will Fall Short—What It Means appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

During a press conference Tuesday afternoon, NASA officials announced that the Artemis II and Artemis III moon missions—planned for this year and next, respectively—will be pushed to September 2025 and September 2026. Artemis II is expected to put NASA astronauts in lunar orbit, while Artemis III aims to land them on the moon, where they would become the first humans to visit the lunar south pole.

The Artemis program is effectively the descendant of the Apollo missions, which concluded decades earlier. But unlike Apollo, it represents a shift toward leveraging private sector companies, such as SpaceX and Blue Origin, for key vehicle components.

Despite speculation that the Artemis lunar landing could be pushed to Artemis IV—which NASA affirmed is still on track for 2028—the space agency said no changes will be made to the flight plan of either mission, and no flights will be added. However, for a variety of reasons, many related to safety, both Artemis II and III will fly later than initially planned.

As Jim Free, associate administrator of NASA, put it: “We’ll launch when we’re ready.”

Safety First

Attending Tuesday’s press conference were Free, NASA Administrator Bill Nelson, Deputy Associate Administrator of the Moon to Mars program Amit Kshatriya, and Associate Administrator of the Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate Catherine Koerner. The four officials—plus representatives from NASA industry partners such as SpaceX and Lockheed Martin—fielded questions from media about why the missions were delayed.

According to NASA, several issues discovered during Artemis I, which carried the agency’s reusable Orion capsule around the moon in 2022, are causing delays to Artemis II. These center around the spacecraft’s heat shield, abort capabilities, and electrical systems and could pose threats its occupants.

Kshatriya said heat shield erosion during Artemis I caused pieces of the thermal cover to fly off—an outcome not predicted by NASA. The agency said it discovered the issue while rewatching the watershed flight and has spent “the bulk of 2023” working to understand its root cause.

Orion is also dealing with a design flaw in the motor valve circuitry for its life support system, which was tested and approved for Artemis II but not the subsequent mission. The spacecraft’s digital motor controllers are hampering its carbon dioxide scrubber, which absorbs the gas to provide breathable air for astronauts. Artemis I did not test any life support systems, but they will be added to Artemis II along with a new abort system.

Further, NASA found a deficiency in Orion’s batteries. The issue won’t hinder the spacecraft’s ability to separate from the booster in an emergency, but the agency said it could cause unexpected effects.

“We’re still very early in that investigation,” said Kshatriya.

The effort to replace and retest the faulty components will be tremendous, NASA said, but essential for Orion to fly on Artemis II and beyond. Nelson said the revised mission timeline will “give Artemis teams more time to work through the challenges.”

Even more work will need to be done for Artemis III, which NASA said will introduce several new components and systems: a human landing system (HLS), docking module, propellant transfer system, and spacesuits to name a few. Kshatriya said the timeline for that mission remains “very aggressive.”

Free said NASA expects the development of SpaceX’s Starship HLS and Axiom’s next-generation spacesuits will take additional time. The agency has also yet to solve the issue of propellant transfer, or in-flight refilling, which involves a spacecraft drawing fuel from another spacecraft or stationary outpost.

A SpaceX representative attending the media briefing estimated the company will need to complete ten refueling missions before Starship HLS lands on the moon, which the company hopes will happen in 2025. 

The representative added that SpaceX’s Starship—the largest and most powerful rocket ever built—is working toward a NASA tipping point demo to explore propellant transfer between tanks. The company does not consider this a propellant test mission, but the maneuver will be studied during Starship’s third orbital test flight, expected in February.

When asked, the representative did not provide a minimum number of Starship orbital test flights needed before a lunar landing. But the propellant transfer flight, whenever that happens, will be the one that matters most.

“We’ve been building the machine to build the machine,” the representative said.

Free added that development of NASA’s Gateway space station—which is expected to fly on a future Artemis mission—and the Block 1B variant of its Space Launch System (SLS) also necessitated delays. 

But NASA officials said the larger gaps between the missions will allow the agency to incorporate more lessons from previous flights into each increasingly complex Artemis project. SpaceX and Blue Origin, for example, will be required to develop cargo variants of their human lunar landers as part of their obligations for Artemis IV, NASA said Tuesday.

A Clearer Outlook?

When one questioner mentioned the space industry’s doubts about the new timeline—arising from previous Artemis delays—Free explained what makes NASA so confident.

He said the agency now has a better understanding of Orion and other Artemis vehicles. The bigger reassurance, however, is the industry’s support: Free said 11 industry and contractor partners attended Tuesday’s press conference, and all of them contributed to the revised mission schedule.

Kshatriya pointed to the SLS core stage delivery to NASA’s Michoud Assembly Facility as a sign of readiness, adding that the spacecraft’s booster segments are ready to stack and the upper stage is “ready to go.” Further, NASA’s European Space Agency (ESA) partners will ship a service model to the agency in a few months, he said.

Nelson, meanwhile, dispelled fears that China could beat the U.S. to a moon landing. He expressed confidence that the rival superpower would not reach the lunar surface before Artemis III. But with the delay, the two competitors’ schedules are undoubtedly more aligned.

Nelson also pointed to the agency’s recent progress, most notably a partnership with the United Arab Emirates to build the airlock for Gateway and the launch of Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) missions.

The NASA administrator emphasized that Artemis will only be the beginning of the new era of American spaceflight. The agency is also developing its Moon to Mars program, which Nelson said will rely on international partners to land an American on Mars. Reaching the moon, he said, will be the first step toward missions to the red planet in the future.

Like this story? We think you’ll also like the Future of FLYING newsletter sent every Thursday afternoon. Sign up now.

The post NASA Delays First Crewed U.S. Moon Landing in Half a Century to 2026 appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

SpaceX’s massive Starship rocket and Super Heavy booster flew for the second time on Saturday, and the results were a mixed bag. Stage separation—the point at which the spaceship’s maiden voyage in April went off the rails—was a success. But like last time, both the rocket and booster exploded and were lost, prompting another mishap investigation by the FAA. Starship will not be able to fly again until the investigation and a launch license evaluation are concluded.

The 400-foot-tall spacecraft took off from Starbase—SpaceX’s launch pad in Boca Chica, Texas, just off the coast of the Gulf of Mexico—Saturday morning after the launch was postponed from Friday. All 33 Raptor engines on the Super Heavy booster fired this time, unlike in April, when a handful of them failed.

Starship’s second test flight successfully debuted a hot-stage separation system, one of “well over 1,000” changes SpaceX made to the design, according to CEO Elon Musk. In hot-stage separation, the upper stage engines are ignited while the booster’s engines are still firing and the two stages remain attached. Previously, the company turned off the booster engines first.

According to SpaceX, Saturday was the first time a vehicle as large as Starship successfully pulled off the technique.

Although the new system achieved its goal, the booster promptly exploded—or experienced a “rapid unscheduled disassembly,” in SpaceX parlance—over the Gulf of Mexico, where it was meant to splash down intact. A few minutes later, after the Starship upper stage reached space, SpaceX engineer and livestream host John Insprucker said mission control lost contact with the spacecraft.

“We think we may have lost the second stage,” Insprucker said on the broadcast.

About 47 minutes into SpaceX’s livestream and eight minutes into the flight, as a camera follows the upper stage, an explosion is visible. Insprucker said engineers believed an automated flight termination plan was initiated, though the reason is still unclear. 

Starship had reached about 91 miles in altitude—well past the widely accepted boundary between the atmosphere and space—but was expected to fly more than halfway around the Earth before splashing down off the coast of Hawaii.

“With a test like this, success comes from what we learn, and [Saturday’s] test will help us improve Starship’s reliability as SpaceX seeks to make life multiplanetary,” the company said on Musk’s social media platform X, formerly Twitter.

Starship’s second voyage lasted twice as long as its first, and SpaceX appears to be getting close to nailing stage separation. However, both of the spacecraft’s reusable components were lost. And the behemoth of a rocket is now out of commission while the FAA investigates—again.

“A mishap occurred during the SpaceX Starship OFT-2 launch from Boca Chica, Texas, on Saturday, November 18,” the agency said in a statement. “The anomaly resulted in a loss of the vehicle. No injuries or public property damage have been reported. The FAA will oversee the SpaceX-led mishap investigation to ensure SpaceX complies with its FAA-approved mishap investigation plan and other regulatory requirements.”

A mishap investigation—which had grounded Starship since April—is standard when a launch does not go as planned. SpaceX will now need to compile a report on what went wrong, as well as actions it can take to ensure the next launch goes smoothly, both of which must be approved by the FAA.

The company will also need to apply for a second license modification in order to add more Starship launches to its manifest, which can involve coordination with other federal agencies such as NASA. 

There is no timeline for either process, but the FAA’s initial mishap investigation opened in April and was closed in September. A modified launch license followed in mid-November.

However, unlike the previous test, a water-cooled steel plate installed beneath Starbase prevented ash and debris from being flung for miles. And having been through the investigation and license evaluation process already, it’s possible SpaceX is able to get through a second round of inquiries more quickly.

Fly Me to the Moon

SpaceX’s “iterative design” or “fail fast, but learn faster” philosophy has allowed the company to make steady progress on its Starlink satellites and Crew Dragon capsules, both of which are launching routinely. It could be argued that’s been the case for Starship so far as well, given the successes the company achieved with Saturday’s launch. 

Still, SpaceX may need to pick up the pace. Musk’s ultimate goal is for Starship to eventually ferry hundreds of humans at a time to the moon, Mars, and beyond. The SpaceX CEO has claimed it will land astronauts on Mars by 2029. Those early arrivals are expected to build a base that could one day support a colony of 1 million on the “Red Planet.” But before Musk turns to other planets, there are projects on Earth riding on his company’s success.

In 2021, NASA picked SpaceX to land humans on the moon for the first time in half a century, contracting it to develop a variant of Starship capable of putting astronauts on the lunar surface. That mission, Artemis III, will be preceded by an uncrewed Starship demonstration flight to the moon and back. It will be followed by the Artemis IV mission, for which SpaceX has already been enlisted.

Simply put, NASA won’t be able to get the U.S. back in the space race without Starship. Already, agency officials are “concerned” about SpaceX’s progress, with one top manager predicting Artemis III will “probably” slide from 2025 to 2026.

Musk and Co. are left with a conundrum. To keep Artemis on schedule, SpaceX will need to conduct more Starship test flights, and fast. But moving too quickly can create outcomes such as Saturday’s, which, despite building on the first flight, caused the FAA to intervene. Then again, there’s little time to waste, and the company won’t be able to learn much about the largest rocket ever built without flying it.

As SpaceX continues to iterate on Starship, the company is also contending with a lawsuit against the FAA, which it joined as a co-defendant in May. The suit, filed by five environmental groups, alleges the regulator wasn’t thorough enough in its assessment of the rocket’s potential impacts on the surrounding wildlife.

Jared Margolis, senior attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, a plaintiff in the case, told FLYING the lawsuit is still ongoing. Margolis criticized the FAA’s written reevaluation of Starship’s environmental impact, arguing the agency should have required more of SpaceX before green lighting both test flights. He said the center is considering adding more claims to its suit for the FAA’s failure to fully analyze the impact of April’s launch.

More recently, SpaceX has come under fire for its workplace safety culture, which a special report from Reuters earlier this month characterized as “lax.” According to the report, investigators used government records and interviews to determine there were 600 previously unreported injuries suffered on the job by SpaceX workers—including one death—since 2014. Several U.S. lawmakers have expressed concern about the report’s findings.

While the lawsuit and Reuters investigation did not impact Saturday’s launch, they present more obstacles for SpaceX to overcome before Starship flies to the moon. Another setback could have a ripple effect on America’s space exploration goals.

Like this story? We think you’ll also like the Future of FLYING newsletter sent every Thursday afternoon. Sign up now.

The post The Implications of SpaceX’s Second Starship Test Flight appeared first on FLYING Magazine.