Treasurers and state financial officers representing 14 states sent letters Monday to Costco, Walmart, Kroger, Albertsons, and McKesson calling on C-suite leaders to resist political pressure…

Sea ya later! Royal Caribbean’s nine-month Ultimate World Cruise that quickly went viral is finally coming back to port after what was the adventure of a lifetime for some 650-some travelers who paid…

Republican New York Rep. Elise Stefanik and former Democratic New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo got into a heated shouting match on Tuesday over Cuomo’s responsibility for nursing home deaths during the COVID-19…

Yesterday, Twitchy told our readers about how CNN's Andy Kaczynski was reporting the truth about Kamala Harris and her history of radical policy positions, including defunding ICE, decriminalizing drugs,…

We recently reported on the successful deployment of the solar sail of the Advanced Composite Solar Sail System (ACS3) technology demonstration mission. That huge achievement advances one of the most important technologies available to CubeSats – a different form of propulsion. But getting there wasn’t easy, and back in May, a team of engineers from NASA’s Langley Research Center who worked on ACS3 published a paper detailing the trials and tribulations they went through to prepare the mission for prime time. Let’s take a look at what they learned. ACS3 was only a technology demonstration mission—it had no science payload to deal with. And that’s a good thing, too, because fitting the solar sail into the housing of a CubeSat was a challenge even without any scientific equipment. The technology demonstrated was the deployable boom system that created an 81 square meter surface of solar sail to catch the photon particles used to propel the mission forward. That sounds much easier than it was, as is evident from the descriptions of the problems the team had to overcome. Fraser describes how useful solar sails are. Eventually, the mission launched in a 12U CubeSat configuration, weighing about 16 kg (36 lbs) in total mass. However, the mission was initially prototyped to fit into a 6U configuration—about half the size and weight of the 12U. With the amount of deployable material and the necessary motors to drive their deployment, the engineers couldn’t fit other essential components, like reaction wheels, to steady the CubeSat’s orientation. However, the 12U design “came with several technical challenges,” according to the paper. One was whether to use four independent spools of material, each tied to an independent boom or one central hub spool with all four booms coiled around a central axis. As was the case with almost all engineering projects, the team’s decision wasn’t based on what was technically best. They decided to use the four independent spools since that required the least modification from the original 6U design. Another lesson described in the paper was the timing of the launch coordination. Both the “dispenser” (i.e., the system that sends the CubeSats out into space after a successful launch) and the launch contract weren’t submitted until ACS3 was already in testing. By then, modifications had been made to the design, which made it difficult to integrate into an existing dispenser, as the team had modified the edges of the satellite to fit the sails better. But doing so messed up one of the critical touchpoints for standard CubeSat dispensers. Here’s Fraser’s overview of what a solar sail is. To make matters worse, without a known launch date and inclination, the team had to overengineer many of the CubeSat systems. They had to meet a much wider range of temperatures and shock/vibration environments. But when they finally got their launch date of April 23rd on an Electron rocket from New Zealand, the system had been engineered for an environment much harsher than what it was subjected to, causing increased cost and delays in the delivery. To meet these challenges, the team took the approach of rapidly prototyping, including developing several different 3D-printed prototypes before finally making the full system out of metal. At one point, a management decision was made not to replace any insert fasteners that were never intended to be used on the final flight but ended up being included anyway because of the cost of replacing them. Again, these kinds of management decisions are commonplace to anyone involved in an engineering project. However, it’s nice to see that, in this case, it didn’t affect the project’s overall success. Despite some indications that it might be either tumbling or wobbling, ACS3 undoubtedly achieved its primary objective of deploying its solar sail. So, after all the effort and compromises that the team at Langley and elsewhere at NASA put into it, now you just need to look up into the night sky, and you might see the fruits of their labor streaking across it. Learn More:Schneider et al. – Advanced Composite Solar Sail System (ACS3): Mechanisms and Lessons Learned from a CubeSat Solar Sail DeployerUT – NASA’s New Solar Sail Extends Its Booms and Sets SailUT – NASA’s Next Solar Sail is About to Go to SpaceUT – NASA’s Putting its Solar Sail Through its Paces Lead Image:CAD image of the ACS3 spacecraft.Credit – Schneider et al The post What Did We Learn From Manufacturing the ACS3 Solar Sail Mission? appeared first on Universe Today.

The Boeing Starliner module has been plagued with issues despite what seemed to be the dawning of a new commercial space giant. The module detached from the International Space Station on 7 September but without its crew! Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams journeyed to the ISS in June this year in what was supposed to be a mission lasting just a week. They are still there! Just a few days ago, their module returned under remote control while they stay in orbit until February!  I think the two astronauts stuck up in the ISS (although NASA and Boeing try and contain the use of the term ‘stuck’) would agree, space exploration is unpredictable! We are only just scraping the surface of the physics of the cosmos and the extreme conditions beyond the safe confines of Earth’s atmosphere. NASA’s Boeing Crew Flight Test astronauts (from top) Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams pose on June 13, 2024 for a portrait inside the vestibule between the forward port on the International Space Station’s Harmony module and Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft. Credit: NASA Spacecraft like the Boeing Starliner must protect the crew from the hostile environment that includes high levels of radiation, and micrometeoroids to name just tow of them. Even with the extreme levels of planning that go into space missions, sometimes things go wrong! Human error, equipment malfunction and even cosmic events can all transpire to make space exploration one of the trickiest endeavours our species has undertaken.  The Starliner module was developed by Boeing as one of a new generation of spacecraft designed to transport astronauts to the ISS. It was developed as part of NASAs Commercial Crew Program as an independent, re-usable module. The module is equipped with touch screen controls to give it a real ‘Star-Trek’ appeal, a streamlined suite of instruments that enable it to be either manually or automatically controlled. It has been designed for land-based recoveries like most others that splash down on their return to Earth. The Starliner spacecraft is pictured docked with the Harmony module at the International Space Station high above the Mediterranean Sea. Credit: NASA The Boeing contract with NASA was secured in September 2014 and, after a few test failures, finally launched its first crew to the ISS on 5 June 2024. The intention was for them to stay on board for a week but as history shows, that hasn’t quite gone to plan. Before they had even left a helium leak had been identified in the propulsion system but was considered to be isolated. During the flight, another four leaks were identified.  What do these dates have in common; 14 June, 18 June and 24 August? They are all dates that NASA and Boeing a delay for the return of Willliams and Wilmore. Now it looks likely that their return won’t be until February next year hitching a ride on board the SpaceX Dragon module instead.  Crew Dragon docking with ISS The decision was taken to return the Starliner module to Earth autonomously for safety concerns. Now it is back on Earth teams of engineers will begin work to understand what has been plaguing the propulsion system. It touched down on 7 September landing at the White Sands Space Harbour in New Mexico in what has been described as a text book landing, unfortunately Williams and Wilmore had to watch from the comfort of the ISS! Source : Starliner Lands in New Mexico The post Starliner Comes Home Empty appeared first on Universe Today.