How on Earth do you patch the software on a computer orbiting the Moon? Very carefully.

FRANK O’BRIEN - 1/30/2020, 12:30 PM

In the afternoon of January 31, 1971, the flight thundered away from the Kennedy Space Center on its Saturn V launch vehicle after only a brief 40 minute hold for weather. After restarting the S-IVB third stage for trans-lunar injection (TLI), the command module Kitty Hawk and her crew were on their way to the Moon. //

However, less than four hours before the scheduled landing, controllers noticed that according to the indications on their consoles in Mission Control, the LM's Abort pushbutton appeared to have been pressed. When asked via radio, Shepard confirmed that no one on board Antares had pressed the Abort button—which meant there was a short-circuit or other electrical issue somewhere inside the LM's complicated guts.

This was potentially a mission-ending problem: if the button was pressed and the engine was firing, the LM would immediately begin its abort procedure as soon as the lunar descent started, making a landing impossible.

Under hard time pressure, the ground had to quickly figure out what was wrong and devise a workaround. What they came up with was the most brilliant computer hack of the entire Apollo program, and possibly in the entire history of electronic computing.

To explain exactly what the hack was, how it functioned, and the issues facing the developers during its creation, we need to dig deep into how the Apollo Guidance Computer worked. Hold onto your hats, Ars readers—we're going in. //

Once again the LM’s orbit carried it behind the Moon and out of communications, leaving the crew with just a smattering of procedures and few options. The normal work of finishing the system configurations continued, and the crew maneuvered to the descent attitude, tidied up the cabin, and put on their helmets and gloves. In the meantime, Don Eyles’ team was feverishly working to find a better solution to the Abort bit issue.

Working the problem involved unraveling a complex, daisy-chained series of events. The main landing program, P63, does not perform all of the landing computations itself. Rather, it orchestrates a large number of Jobs and Waitlist Tasks, each performing a necessary part of the effort. Another Job running concurrently was the SERVICER, which sampled attitudes and accelerations that fed into the guidance equations. SERVICER, in turn, scheduled Routine R11 as a Waitlist Task, running every 0.25 seconds. R11 first checked whether aborts are enabled (via the LETABBIT flag), and if so, it then checked the status of the Abort bit. With aborts allowed, and the abort signal set (presumably because the crew pressed the Abort pushbutton), P63 is terminated, the AGC's Major Mode switches to P70, and the abort process begins. //

This was the breakthrough. If R11 could be spoofed into believing that an abort was already in progress, then it didn’t matter if the Abort button was pressed or not—the button's state would be ignored.

But how did R11 actually inform itself about whether or not an abort was executing? The answer was in plain sight on the DSKY: The Major Mode display, under the label “PROG”. //

In less than two minutes after the descent to the Moon had started, the Abort pushbutton had been successfully disabled and the computer was happily managing the descent. All indications were that the next lunar landing would be successfully accomplished in eight more minutes. //

As Antares passed through 32,000 feet (about 9,700 meters), Mitchell became concerned and informed controllers that the radar hadn’t locked on. Houston replied with a suggestion to pull the circuit breaker for the radar, and then power the system back on, which did the trick. Solid radar data began flowing into the computer, and the crew quickly agreed to accept it. Just a few minutes later, Shepard made a smooth and on-target touchdown at the Fra Mauro highlands.

After the mission, when asked if he would have attempted to land without the radar, the notoriously hard-charging Shepard reportedly replied, “You’ll never know.” In Gene Kranz’s Failure is Not an Option autobio, Kranz recounts that Flight Director Jerry Griffin was convinced that Shepard would indeed make an attempt to land without radar, and would just as certainly have had to abort when fuel ran out. //

The idea that a single errant switch could derail a lunar landing attempt was unacceptable. After the mission, a new variable in the AGC code was introduced that allowed the crew to "mask out" (that is, to ignore) the Abort and Abort Stage pushbuttons. The scenario assumed that a failing switch would be recognized well before the descent began, and commands could be entered in time to prevent an inadvertent abort. Like the fix used for Apollo 14, this would make initiating an abort through a pushbutton impossible, and any urgent situation would have to be performed on the Abort Guidance System. //

The recovery from Apollo 14’s Abort switch failure can only be described as brilliant and heroic. But the most important enabler of this effort was that the software, while fiendishly complex, could be understood by a small team of developers. Modern hardware and software, with its extensive protection schemes, virtualization and dynamic program management simply would make such a simple hack impossible. Faced with a comparable problem today, even if the fix were trivial, the solution likely would require large amounts of code to be recompiled, tested and uploaded to the spacecraft. This may not be possible given the short timeframe necessary to save the mission.

In the end, Apollo 14’s fix truly represented the “Spirit of Apollo," where talented teams made the impossible happen.

The same question could well be asked of the LM's descent engine and the main engine on the Apollo service module, however, which did both need to fire in free-fall. In those cases, the smaller RCS thrusters on the LM or CSM were fired first, to "settle" the tankage and separate the fuel from the helium. In the LM case, this "ullage burn" was about 7.5 seconds. The first couple of service module burns -- typically for mid-course correction while en route to the moon -- generally didn't need an ullage burn prior, as the tanks would be full of propellant with little or no volume of helium. SPS burns later in the mission did require ullage burns. The RCS thrusters produced about 100 lbs of thrust each, and four would be used for the ullage burn, yielding roughly 1/200 g acceleration.

The same RCS ullage burn technique would also apply to a situation where the descent engine failed and the ascent engine needed to be used for abort from free-fall, or in flight testing of the ascent engine.

That, in turn, raises the question of how helium ingestion was avoided in the RCS thrusters, since they were also helium pressurized. In those cases, the helium was separated from the propellants by a teflon bladder, so the helium didn't mix with the propellants. This was more practical to do on the smaller scale of the RCS propellant tanks than it would have been for the larger engines.

In 2019, a few weeks after Trump’s order, Bezos applauded it: “I love this,” he said. “It’s the right thing to do.” He was publicly unveiling Blue Origin’s lunar lander, Blue Moon. But, like Trump, Bezos was underestimating the technical challenges. And underestimating Musk. //

If all it took to succeed was a massive amount of money thrown at these projects, Bezos would have easily prevailed long before now. He amassed his many billions long before Musk. He set out a clear plan for Blue Origin in 2012, when Musk was still struggling with the trouble-plagued Tesla launch before he could apply himself to SpaceX. //

How has Musk so clearly surpassed Bezos?
It’s not simply about the hardware; it’s also about people. The differences in the two companies reflect the differences in the two men who own them. Recent revelations about a toxic and bureaucratically crippled workplace at Blue Origin offer some clues, but the cultural divide was baked in from the beginning. Blue Origin followed a conventional aerospace corporate model. SpaceX was far more like a Silicon Valley start-up driven by a charismatic leader. //

Some of the critiques were about contrasting technical choices made by the two companies, but the most consequential cultural differences were directly attributable to their leaders.

First, as was already well known, Musk is a tightwad. SpaceX “had a relentless focus on minimizing costs.” All purchase orders above $10,000 had been approved by Musk himself. Blue Origin, in contrast, was “riddled with poor cost estimating.”

Moreover, SpaceX was a relentless 24/7 operation with 80-hour workweeks, while “Blue is kind of lazy, a ghost town on weekends.” That didn’t mean that SpaceX engineers complained of working in a sweatshop. Quite the reverse: they were highly motivated to get results and, although they were generally paid less than they would have been at Blue Origin, they had Silicon Valley-type incentives like stock options that rewarded top performers. Musk annually culled the bottom 10 percent performers to keep standards high.

Masten Space Systems, which is developing a unique technology that could help spacecraft safely land on the lunar surface. //

To reduce the risk of getting pieces of sharp rock flying at such incredible speeds, Masten's in-Flight Alumina Spray Technique (FAST) landing pads will use ceramic particles injected into the rocket's plumes. That will produce a coating over the regolith as the lander descends toward the lunar surface. In turn, the particles collide with the surface and solidify to build up a secure landing pad.

This implies that spacecraft can land safely anywhere on the Moon without the requirement for a prior mission to build a landing pad.

Full-Scale Model of Apollo 11 12 13 14 Command Module Control Panel (CMCP)

All or nothing. This project will only be funded if it reaches its goal by Tue, September 21 2021 2:03 PM EDT.

Measuring a massive 82" wide, 33" tall, and 7" deep, all representing that same vision of teamwork, peaceful exploration, engineering accomplishment, and pioneering spirit.

"You can now take the controls of a historic NASA spacecraft — literally.

A team of Hollywood prop and visual artists are offering replicas of the Apollo command module control panel. The museum-quality reproduction features every switch, knob and indicator that was used on board the first three missions to land astronauts on the moon and to bring the Apollo 13 crew safely back to Earth.

"It is here where the impossible becomes possible," team leader Mark Lasoff, an Academy Award-winning artist whose credits include the 1995 feature film "Apollo 13," wrote about the control panel. "It is here where humans and machines interface. It is here where every vital operation, including navigation, propulsion, communication and life support is calculated, calibrated and controlled intricately."

"It is both an engineering feat and a work of art," Lasoff wrote of the flight deck." //

Measuring an expansive 82 inches wide, 33 inches tall, and 7 inches deep (208 by 84 by 18 cm), the replica control panel was designed using the original blueprints for the NASA spacecraft. Lasoff and his team also used 3D scans of the Apollo 11 command module produced by the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum to verify their details.

http://kck.st/36XvTlG

The Kickstarter campaign is offering the full-scale metal replica for $3,900.

Jeff Bezos, the billionaire founder of Blue Origin, is offering to knock up to $2 billion off the cost of developing a lunar lander and to self-fund a pathfinder mission in exchange for a NASA contract. //

The specific contract in question relates to developing a lunar lander for the Human Landing System program, which aims to return humans to the moon for the first time since the Apollo days. NASA announced in April 2020 that Blue Origin, SpaceX and Dynetics were chosen for the initial phase of the contract, and it was thought that the competition would likely be whittled down to two final companies to build lunar landers. //

But a year later, in a move that veered from historical practice, NASA announced it had selected just one company for the contract: SpaceX. That company, headed by Elon Musk, proposed a $2.89 billion plan for its lander – around half of Blue Origin’s $5.99 billion proposal. Bezos is now offering to cut that price tag by $2 billion. //

26 Jul

I think Elon Musk and SpaceX should indicate they would support the competition with Blue Origin if Jeff Bezos and Blue Origin accepts an HLS contract at the same $2.89B fixed price as was accepted by SpaceX. It was Blue Origin's choice to distribute their HLS development across multiple companies. SpaceX should not be short-changed for deciding to take it all on in-house while also exceeding the HLS requirements in many important future-looking ways. This would clearly show that SpaceX is not afraid of competition and is supportive of increasing the world's options in expanding access to space. It would also show that Blue Origin is not afraid of competition on a truly equal basis. //

Ben Wah
26 Jul

Just says alot how much they thought they could get away with taxpayer's money. ULA's playbook.

Edit: This is Bezos gameplan. When his proposal is rejected, get things stalled just like with the DOD’s JEDI program. It eventually got cancelled cause his complaint kept our warfighters in limbo for years to get ahead of our near-peer adversaries.

Blue Origin and Dynetics are still steaming over NASA’s decision to award only one contract — to SpaceX — to build a Human Landing System for the Artemis program. Their protest of the decision was recently rejected, and now the Government Accountability Office’s arguments, which Blue Origin publicly questioned, are available for all to read. Here are a few highlights from the point-by-point takedown of the losing companies’ complaints. //

Even had several of the decisions been successfully challenged, it wouldn’t have changed the outcome, the report explains.

SpaceX received the following evaluation totals:

• Technical: 3 significant strengths; 10 strengths; 6 weaknesses; and 1 significant weakness
• Management: 2 significant strengths; 3 strengths; and 2 weaknesses

While Blue Origin received the following:

• Technical: 13 strengths; 14 weaknesses; and 2 significant weaknesses
• Management: 1 significant strength; 2 strengths; and 6 weaknesses //

…Even allowing for the possibility that the protesters could prevail on some small subset of their challenges to NASA’s evaluation, the record reflects that NASA’s evaluation was largely reasonable, and the relative competitive standing of the offerors under the non-price factors would not materially change…

The protests are denied.

A Realistic Plan for World Peace
a.k.a
Nuke the Moon
by Frank J. (originally written August 15th, 2002)
View blog reactions
"Gotta nuke something."
-20th century philosopher Nelson Muntz

World peace cannot be achieved by sitting around on our duffs singing hippy songs to the moon. Peace can only be achieved through excessive acts of seemingly mindless violence. Who do bullies pick on in the playground? The giant, crazy looking guy who looks ready to snap and kill the person nearest or some harmless looking weenie who appears to do anything to avoid conflict? People pick on the weenie because people like to start fights they think they can win. In the same way, people will continue to attack America and our interests when they get the idea that they can piss off America without us immediately eradicating them and everyone around them in the most painful way possible. //

Now the world will be pretty convinced that America is frick'n nuts and just looking for a fight, but we need to really ingrain it into everyone's conscious so that no one will ever even contemplate crossing us. This requires making good use of our nukes. I know, nukes can kill millions of people, but they sure aren't doing anyone any good just sitting around. I mean, how many years has it been since we last dropped a bomb on someone? No one even thinks we'll actually use one now. Of course, using nukes shouldn't be done haphazardly; all uses have to be well planned out because the explosions are so cool looking that we'll want to give the press plenty of notice so they can get pictures of the mushroom cloud from all sorts of different angles. But what to nuke? Well, usually the idea is populated cities, but, by the beliefs of my morally superior religion, killing is wrong. So why can't we be more creative than nuking people. My idea is to nuke the moon; just say we thought we saw moon people or something. There is no one actually there to kill (unless we time it poorly) and everyone in the world could see the results. And all the other countries would exclaim, "Holy @$#%! They are nuking the moon! America has gone insane! I better go eat at McDonald's before they think I don't like them." //

So there you have it, a real peace plan that could actually work. Warmongering pacifists want us to act all nice such that countries think we're rational and won't kill everyone with a blind fury, thus making it possible they might actually attack us and draw us into a war. But, if America follows my idea and lashes out at the slightest provocation with unmeasured vengeance, there can be peace. So there's the choice: either be a homicidal maniac thus ensuring peace and love in the world, or be some pacifist hippy while the streets flow with the blood of the innocent.

A senior lawmaker proposed a controversial piece of legislation on Wednesday that directs NASA to pick a second company to build the agency’s next Moon landers — in addition to Elon Musk’s SpaceX, which was awarded a $2.9 billion NASA contract to build a lander earlier this year. The bill hasn’t passed the full Senate yet, but it marks a new front in an ongoing effort to overturn or rejig NASA’s decision. It also sets up the first political challenge for NASA’s new administrator, former Sen. Bill Nelson. //

Jeff Bezos’ space firm Blue Origin and Dynetics. Those companies lodged formal protests against NASA’s decision, triggering a procedural pause on SpaceX’s new contract. Among other things, the protests maintain that NASA should have picked two firms instead of one.

Amid a lobbying effort from Blue Origin, those calls have found their way into a NASA authorization bill, proposed as an amendment to the Endless Frontier Act by Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA), chair of the Senate Commerce Committee overseeing NASA. Cantwell represents Blue Origin’s home state of Washington. Under Cantwell’s language, NASA would be required to reopen the competition within 30 days and allow it to use $10 billion of its budget to pick a second lunar lander provider.

Before choosing SpaceX, NASA had been expected to pick two companies, a strategy that guaranteed a backup in case one lander fell behind. But the agency went only with SpaceX — its bid was half of Blue Origin’s — after funding shortfalls from Congress. “It was in NASA’s best interest, along with the budget that was there, for us to award to one,” NASA’s human spaceflight chief, Kathy Lueders, who led the decision to pick SpaceX, said last month.

With Collins' death, only 10 of the 24 humans who have flown into deep space remain alive: Collins' colleague on the Apollo 11 mission, Buzz Aldrin, as well as Bill Anders, Frank Borman, Charlie Duke, Fred Haise, Jim Lovell, Ken Mattingly, Harrison Schmitt, David Scott, and Tom Stafford.

When NASA astronauts return to the Moon in a few years, they will do so inside a lander that dwarfs that of the Apollo era. SpaceX's Starship vehicle measures 50 meters from its nose cone to landing legs. By contrast, the cramped Lunar Module that carried Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin down to the Moon in 1969 stood just 7 meters tall.

This is but one of many genuinely shocking aspects of NASA's decision a week ago to award SpaceX—and only SpaceX—a contract to develop, test, and fly two missions to the lunar surface. The second flight, which will carry astronauts to the Moon, could launch as early as 2024. //

NASA awarded SpaceX $2.89 billion for these two missions. But this contract would balloon in amount should NASA select SpaceX to fly recurring lunar missions later in the 2020s. And it has value to SpaceX and NASA in myriad other ways. Perhaps most significantly, with this contract NASA has bet on a bold future of exploration. Until now, the plans NASA had contemplated for human exploration in deep space all had echoes of the Apollo program. NASA talked about "sustainable" missions and plans in terms of cost, but they were sustainable in name only.

By betting on Starship, which entails a host of development risks, NASA is taking a chance on what would be a much brighter future. One in which not a handful of astronauts go to the Moon or Mars, but dozens and then hundreds. In this sense, Starship represents a radical departure for NASA and human exploration.

"If Starship meets the goals Elon Musk has set for it, Starship getting this contract is like the US government supporting the railroads in the old west here on Earth," said Rick Tumlinson, a proponent of human settlement of the Solar System. "It is transformational to degrees no one today can understand." //

"One of the hardest engineering problems known to man is making a reusable orbital rocket," SpaceX founder Elon Musk told me about a year ago. "It's stupidly difficult to have a fully reusable orbital system."

Because there are so many technological miracles needed to validate the Starship design, I felt that NASA would not fully commit to the SpaceX vehicle as a potential lander until it had flown. Perhaps launching Starship into orbit would be enough of a technology demonstration for NASA. Or maybe SpaceX would have to land one on the Moon. This perceived need to demonstrate the viability of Starship is one reason why Musk and SpaceX have built and launched Starships at such a frenetic pace in South Texas during the last year. Only by doing, the thinking went, would NASA believe in Starship.

Instead, NASA has committed to the ambitious program even before Starship has safely landed after a high-altitude flight test. In this sense, NASA's support for Starship has come ahead of schedule. //

Consider the status quo. The large Space Launch System rocket under development by NASA will be able to launch 95 metric tons into low Earth orbit. NASA and its contractors, led by Boeing, will be able to build one a year. The expendable vehicle will launch one payload, at a cost about $2 billion per mission, and then drop into the ocean.

In terms of lift capacity, the vehicles are similar. Starship and Super Heavy should be able to put about 100 tons into low Earth orbit. However, SpaceX is already capable of building one Starship a month, and the plan is to reuse each booster and spacecraft dozens of times. Imagine the kind of space program NASA could have with the capacity to launch 100 tons into orbit every two weeks—instead of a single annual mission—for $2 billion a year. Seriously, pause a moment and really think about that. //

"In picking the Starship architecture, NASA is helping enable a path toward a super heavy launch vehicle, in-space propellant storage, in-space refueling, and large up and down mass to planetary surfaces," said Tripathi, who has examined these problems from both NASA and SpaceX's perspective.

Put another way: if Starship is successful, NASA no longer needs to pick just one or two big things to do in space. The agency will be able to do many different things at the same time.

Starship SN15 is expected to undergo a Static Fire test as early as Tuesday to clear the path for a test flight no earlier than Wednesday as SpaceX’s rapidly reusable interplanetary launch and landing system gained a massive sign of NASA approval – and a ton of government cash to boot.

SpaceX was the sole winner of NASA’s initial Human Landing System (HLS) award worth in total more than $2.9 billion, meaning the human return to the Moon’s surface will be via Starship.

Fifty years ago this week, NASA astronaut Alan B. Shepard Jr. made space history when he took a few golf swings on the Moon during the Apollo 14 mission, successfully hitting two golf balls across the lunar surface. Space enthusiasts have debated for decades just how far that second ball traveled. It seems we now have an answer, thanks to the efforts of imaging specialist Andy Saunders, who digitally enhanced archival images from that mission and used them to estimate the final resting spots of the golf balls.

Saunders, who has been working with the United States Golf Association (USGA) to commemorate Shepard's historical feat, announced his findings in a Twitter thread. Saunders concluded that the first golf ball Shepard hit traveled roughly 24 yards, while the second golf ball traveled 40 yards. //

Saunders, whose forthcoming book is entitled Apollo Remastered, estimates that a professional US Open golfer like Bryson DeChambeau could, in theory, hit a ball as far as 3.41 miles on the Moon, with a hang time of 1 minute 22 seconds—much farther (and longer) than Shepard's feat. As he told the BBC:

Unfortunately, even the impressive second shot could hardly be described as "miles and miles and miles," but of course this has only ever been regarded as a light-hearted exaggeration. The Moon is effectively one giant, unraked, rock-strewn bunker. The pressurized suits severely restricted movement, and due to their helmet's visors they struggled to even see their feet. I would challenge any club golfer to go to their local course and try to hit a six-iron, one-handed, with a one-quarter swing out of an unraked bunker. Then imagine being fully suited, helmeted, and wearing thick gloves. Remember also that there was little gravity to pull the clubhead down toward the ball. The fact that Shepard even made contact and got the ball airborne is extremely impressive.

And of course, the astronaut's legacy as the first human to play golf on the Moon remains secure.

Two trips, a decade apart, spanned the most exciting era in space history.

Of the original seven astronauts chosen by NASA in 1959, only one, Alan Shepard, made it to the moon. And he almost didn’t. More than two years after his pioneering Mercury-Redstone flight in May 1961, Shepard was in training to command the first two-man Gemini mission. Progress to the moon was planned in three steps: Mercury to prove that space travel was feasible, Gemini to demonstrate rendezvous and long-term spaceflight, and Apollo to go all the way. In 1963, Shepard was a fair bet to fly all three.

It’s hard to care about bootprints sunk in soil 238,900 miles away as humanity suffers the combined burden of an unforgiving virus and a political unease. But how humans treat those bootprints and the historic lunar landing sites upon which they are found will speak volumes about who we humans are and who we seek to become.

On Dec. 31, the One Small Step to Protect Human Heritage in Space Act became law. As far as laws go, it’s pretty benign. It requires companies that are working with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration on lunar missions to agree to be bound by otherwise unenforceable guidelines intended to protect American landing sites on the Moon. That’s a pretty small pool of affected entities. However, it is also the first law enacted by any nation that recognizes the existence of human heritage in outer space. //

But what about a derelict spacecraft, like the Eagle, the Apollo 11 lunar lander? Do we really want to rely on “due regard” to prevent the intentional or inadvertent destruction of this inspiring piece of history? This object memorializes the work of the hundreds of thousands of individuals who worked to put a human on the Moon, the astronauts and cosmonauts who gave their lives in this quest to reach the stars, and the quiet heroes, like Katherine Johnson, who fueled the math that made it so.

The lunar landing sites – from Luna 2, the first human made object to impact the Moon, to each of the crewed Apollo missions, to Chang-e 4, which deployed the first rover on the far side of the Moon – in particular bear witness to humanity’s greatest technological achievement thus far. They symbolize all we have accomplished as a species, and hold such promise for the future. //

The One Small Step Act is true to its name. It’s a small step. It applies only to companies that are working with NASA; it pertains only to U.S. lunar landing sites; it implements outdated and untested recommendations to protect historic lunar sites implemented by NASA in 2011. However, it offers significant breakthroughs. It is the first legislation from any nation to recognize an off-Earth site as having “outstanding universal value” to humanity, language taken from the unanimously ratified World Heritage Convention.

Chang’e-5 promises new lunar science as well as more ambitious future missions
HELSINKI — China has recovered precious lunar samples after a successful reentry and landing of the Chang’e-5 return capsule.

The roughly 300-kilogram Chang’e-5 return capsule performed a ballistic skip reentry at 12:33 p.m. Eastern Dec. 16, effectively bouncing off the atmosphere over the Arabian Sea before reentry.

The capsule containing around 2 kilograms of drilled and scooped lunar material landed in the grasslands of Siziwang Banner at 12:59 p.m. Recovery vehicles located the capsule shortly after.

Chang'e 5 has collected the first fresh moon samples in decades.

For the first time ever, scientists have identified water on the moon's sunlit surface. They also found that water is more common on the moon than previously thought, with pockets of ice hiding in shadowy regions of "eternal darkness," some as small as a penny, new studies reveal.

Dozens of times over the last decade NASA scientists have launched laser beams at a reflector the size of a paperback novel about 240,000 miles (385,000 kilometers) away from Earth. They announced today, in collaboration with their French colleagues, that they received signal back for the first time