Italian Space Agency Shifts Satellite Launch From Vega-C to SpaceX Falcon 9
by Douglas Messier
Managing Editor
Citing delays with Europe’s new Vega-C rocket, two Vega booster failures and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the Italian Space Agency (ASI) has shifted the launch of the second COSMO-SkyMed Second Generation (CSG-2) Earth observation satellite to SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket.
“The delays, postponing the Vega-C Maiden Flight to Q1 2022, with a consequent tight schedule of launches in 2022, made the launch period of CSG-2 no longer compatible with the needs of the COSMO Mission. Since Arianespace backlog was already full on Soyuz and Ariane systems in 2021, it was not possible to have a European back-up solution compliant with the CSG-2 schedule, thus an alternative solution with the US provider SpaceX has been adopted allowing to keep the CSG-2 launch within the current year,” ASI said on its website.
Wikipedia indicates that SpaceX will launch the satellite on Nov. 18 from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station. The first of the four second generation satellites was launched aboard a Russian Soyuz rocket from French Guiana on Dec. 18, 2019. Four first-generation CSG spacecraft remain operational in Earth orbit, ASI said.
“COSMO-SkyMed is the first Earth observation mission designed for dual purposes, both civil and military. Its first and second-generation satellites are ‘eyes’ which are capable of observing Earth from space, meter by meter, day and night, in any weather conditions, to help predict landslides and floods, coordinate relief efforts in case of earthquakes or fires, check crisis areas from uphill,” the Italian space agency said.
COSMO-SkyMed satellites are equipped with synthetic aperture radars (SARs) that operate in the X-band range, enabling them to image the Earth’s surface through clouds and without sunlight. ASI and Italy’s Ministry of Defense developed the spacecraft.
ASI sought to reassure its European partners that the decision to launch the CSG-2 satellite aboard a SpaceX rocket was not part of a trend.
“In line with its long-lasting support ensured to the European launch industry, ASI confirmed its trust in Arianespace and Vega-C capabilities by contracting the launch of the CSG-3 satellite, planned for 2024. Moreover, other future launch opportunities for ASI missions with Vega-C are under discussion, confirming Arianespace as a key partner for the Agency,” ASI said.
Vega-C is an upgraded variant of the Vega booster that will be capable of placing payloads weighing up to 2,200 kg into a 700 km polar orbit. The Vega rocket can place 1,430 kg into the same orbit.
Vega’s launch schedule has been disrupted by two failures over the past two years. In July 2019, the Falcon Eye 1 reconnaissance satellite was lost when a Vega rocket failed. The accident was attributed to a thermal protection design flaw on the second stage’s forward dome area.
In November 2020, another Vega rocket failed due to an assembly error involved inverted control cable in the rocket’s AVUM upper stage. The resulting deviation in the stage’s trajectory destroyed Spain’s SEOSat-Ingenio Earth observation satellite and France’s TARANIS spacecraft, which was designed to study Earth’s atmosphere.
Vega has a record of 17 successes and two failures since its maiden flight in February 2012.
33 responses to “Italian Space Agency Shifts Satellite Launch From Vega-C to SpaceX Falcon 9”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
So now we know many licks it takes to transition from a state sponsored LV to a largely market driven solution.
So the Italians, who build the Vega, are canning it for a Falcon 9 for this launch. How am I not surprised?
good news…to shift subjects slightly
I dont know what this has taken me this long to figure it out (OK my life is in transition) but the lunar program as it is now is doomed. the only likely outcome of all this is 1) spend a lot of money and 2) the gateway…but actually landing on the moon …not so much
forget the space suits, SLS or even Starship issues. the plan makes no sense
OK follow the ball (or maybe I have it wrong)
the theory is that SLS is going to launch an Orion which then goes to the Moon and rendezvous with a Starship that is set up for a lunar landing. the starship having launched from Boca C…needs 8 or 15 or some number of tankers depending on who you ask. these are now scheduled to be launched 12 days apart.
This requires the starship to orbit the earth either 26 weeks, half a year or 13 weeks (1/4th of a year) then head to the Moon…empty of people
why? thats the first question. the starship has to be human rated its going to keep people alive on the Moon…so why cannot the astronauts get on the starship and go to the Moon. plus it has to somehow get back into earth orbit…so they could ride it back
answer? well we need to fly Orion/SLS.
but ok who thinks that this will be ready by 24?
take SLS. at the rate of flights. it wont be to three…where this is going to happen well until 25…and I guess this will be the first time it will dock with a Starship
Now Starship. Lets face it folks. there is near zero chance BN20/4 flies this year and its looking more and more like Feb. assuming its a complete success its unclear that at this development rate Musk can get the tanker starship working, the lunar starship working and a flight rate of one every two weeks by 24.
this dog is having a hard time hunting
where have I got my information wrong?
My 2 cents: The 2024 date isn’t critical in and of itself – it’s just a self-imposed deadline.
I do agree that a 2024 landing date has become quite unlikely given funding uncertainty, SLS delays and, well, a number of other issues we’re all familiar with. But the date has been in doubt ever since it was announced.
The benefit of a tight but conceivably achievable deadline is that it serves as an organizing principle and imparts a sense of urgency. Arguably, it’s better to set realistic schedules. I once worked for a boss who always set unrealistically ambitious schedules and it led to a lot of upset in numerous ways. In some cases, lives were literally disrupted, and working for him led to employee burnout. However, he did develop the most successful business in his field locally.
My point? The 2024 date was widely considered unrealistic from Day 1, but Jim Bridenstine fully embracing it lead to the whole manned exploration effort getting a big boot in the pants. No more “Moon first or Mars first” debate, no more fighting over architectures, no more dramatic change in program direction with a change in Administration, etc. It became, “We have a goal and a lot of work to do, let’s go!”. The momentum resultingly generated carried over through a change in Administrations and party in power.
Hopefully a concrete reason can be found for delaying the program by a concrete amount of time, a revised plan will be made and sufficient funding to get to the new finish line will be appropriated. For example, “Due to funding levels and the Blue Origin protest + lawsuit, the program has been delayed to 2025. Here’s the funding we need going forward to achieve our goal”, Congress approves the funding, and we’re back to he races. If, as is almost inevitable, the program then ends up slipping into 2026 or 2027, okay, all will be well that ends well.
What I don’t want to hear is setting a vague date like “the late 2020s” or an unambitious date like 2027
I think you put just a bit too much importance on the role of funding in missing the 2024 date. Complicated engineering endeavors take time. It is unclear to me that all that had to be done by 2024 could have been done even with unlimited funding to all parties involved. There are, after all, only so many people on earth qualified to work on these projects. Of those, only a fraction are interested in doing so. Not to mention time’s wingéd chariot. Funding can help with the first, but can’t do anything about the second.
Funding with milestone payments is the secret sauce.
Yes, but as I said above, no amount of funding can compensate for an unrealistically short time frame. I don’t think Musk is being held up by funding issues, but I also don’t think he’ll make 2024 to the moon, or Dear Moon in 2023. I think he wants to, I just don’t see how he can.
Those dates have always been considered aspirational. But I imagine that if Musk had a larger funding stream, he would have more teams working on more projects. And I wouldn’t be surprised if a bunch of those new workers came over from Blue Origin.
That’s what I meant when I wriote, “… a number of other issues we’re all familiar with” — I found myself starting to write a long list of issues and, well, we all already know them. So, I stopped after “funding uncertainties, SLS delays, and…”
Basically, I fully agree with your points concerning complicated engineering endeavors taking time. That’s what I was referring to when I wrote, “… If, as is almost inevitable, the program then ends up slipping into 2026 or 2027…”
so why cannot the astronauts get on the starship and go to the Moon. plus it has to somehow get back into earth orbit…so they could ride it back
The numbers don’t add up for what you propose.
The HLS can not hold enough propellant for travel from LEO to the lunar surface, and then return to LEO. At best HLS can go from LEO to the lunar surface, then barely return to a High Earth Orbit.
Remember that the HLS has no aerodynamic heat-shield. So the alternative mission you are proposing would require a fully propulsive maneuver of the HLS in order to descend into LEO during the return leg. The HLS ends up short 2 km/s delta-V.
In addition, a manned trip from LEO to the Moon via HLS has much more limited abort options compared to SLS/Orion. Orion can abort back to Earth using free-return and aerodynamic reentry, HLS would just burn up and everyone dies.
SLS delenda est
then I dont understand…how does the lunar starship refuel after its first lunar landing. ie it launches, refuels in earth orbit. flies to the Moon, rendezvous with Orion, lands on Moon, returns to lunar orbit…
then what?
Any reuse of HLS would presumably require refueling in lunar NRHO. This means a tanker flight from LEO to lunar NRHO. Each one of those lunar tanker flights will require refueling in LEO too.
Previously, I’ve worked out the logistics of HLS lunar operations. Much depends on the details of the dry mass and payload carried by the HLS and the Starships. But ideally it works out to: a total of 10 Starship sorties to support each HLS lunar sortie. The Artemis 3 mission might only require 8 Starship sorties in support.
(in case anyone reading this is confused by my use of the HLS acronym, I mean the lunar landing version of Starship that NASA selected as the winner of the HLS program. Since there is no other official HLS besides Starship, using HLS as shorthand designation of the lunar Starship seems appropriate)
SLS delenda est
A casual observer may conclude that all NASA needs to do is include a few strategically placed propellant depots (e.g. LLO, LEO or GEO) to achieve a fully reusable Earth-Moon transportation infrastructure?
That observer might also consider the possibility that the proposed lander is so large that it can leave considerable equipment behind on the surface for subsequent landings. A fairly rapid base build out perhaps starting with a hardened pad for dust mitigation and a buried habitat.
Sure, but with such a massive infrastructure you have to look at opportunity costs. Just for the sake of getting four guys riding HLS to the lunar surface and back again, a daisy-chain of Starship fuel-depots is pretty wasteful.
Just as an example, the same number of Starship sorties necessary to support the first HLS lunar landing with the Artemis 3 mission, could instead support 2 Starship flights to Mars each carrying 150 MT of payload!
The most productive way to use Starship for any lunar mission would be one-way unmanned cargo flights to the lunar surface, or to lunar orbit. That method could provide an instant lunar surface base or an instant ISS-scale lunar orbiting space-station.
SLS delenda est
Okay, but the casual observer may then conclude this architecture is so obviously hamstrung by the SLS/Orion components they should be rapidly replaced by the obvious alternates… ideally, well before the first mission!
The casual observer would be correct. SLS is too expensive and Orion is too heavy. The primary benefit they have going for them, is availability in time for the 2024 lunar landing goal. But every delay cuts against that.
My personal opinion is that Orion is hardly ideal, but still salvageable. SLS on the other hand is a slow rolling disaster, an ‘Emperors New Clothes’ situation, where everyone in power pretends that everything is just fine and dandy, while anyone who pays attention knows that SLS is a dead rocket walking.
I think the basic architecture that NASA selected for Project Artemis in 2018 is fine, that of using Gateway space-station and the modified L-2 orbit for lunar rendezvous and cacheing. I think the goal of landing in the South Polar region by 2024 is good too. My primary gripe is the cost and delays of SLS.
My personal advice is NASA should add Falcon Heavy to the manned launch aspect of Project Artemis, either as a backup to SLS or an outright replacement of SLS. NASA should also expand the ISS supporting Commercial Crew program to also transfer of manned crew to the lunar Gateway space station.
SLS delenda est
Only the tanker has to stay in Earth orbit during refueling flights. The Lunar Starship can fly up, refuel and TLI burn within a day or two of launch.
how? it needs either 8 or 15 refuelings?
Ummm, the tanker is storing the fuel from all those flights. Then it transfers that fuel to the lunar Starship.
but ok who thinks that this will be ready by 24?
Of course Project Artemis is likely to be delayed, because every key element which is now officially part of the mission architecture was originally sized for a goal of Mars missions rather than the lunar mission goal of Project Artemis.
The Orion capsule is sized for a Mars mission crew of 6. So it it bigger and heavier than necessary for the Project Artemis crew of 4. The SLS is sized for a LEO payload of 130 MT, for LEO assembly of huge Mars mission spacecraft. So the SLS is overkill for launching a manned capsule to the Moon, even one as oversized the Orion. As for the SpaceX HLS, well, need I describe that too?
But those elements are what NASA is forced to play with for Project Artemis, since NASA is squeezed between budgetary and political limitations, so there you go.
It’s not as if other solutions for Project Artemis are unavailable technology. Falcon Heavy and Dragon are plenty adequate for a manned lunar spacecraft. Falcon Heavy also has plenty of capacity for delivering elements of a lunar lander to lunar orbit too.
The main gap for NASA is a manned lunar lander. I’m dubious about something as big as Starship for the NASA lunar lander. It’s awfully convenient for SpaceX to be able to work out the bugs of their 100 crew sized Mars colonization Starship by going to the Moon first, but for NASA a smaller lander should be an easier and safer alternative considering the job is for a 4-crew-sized lunar exploration lander.
SLS delenda est
ISTM that you are too pessimistic about SpaceX getting the Starship system operational. There will likely to be schedule slippage, but nothing like the SLS/Orion fiasco.
We will have a much better idea of the schedule for the Artemis-3 mission once SpaceX announce a firm date for the #dearMoon Lunar flyby exclusion, Maezawa-san going to the ISS as space tourists this year seems to indicate that the original 2023 flight date is still possible.
“Maezawa-san going to the ISS as space tourists this year seems to indicate that the original 2023 flight date is still possible.“
Please explain how Maezawa going to ISS on a Soyuz has anything whatsoever to do with the Dear Moon schedule?
Maezawa-san going to the ISS is basically a training mission for #dearMoon. So if the Starship program is behind schedule than Maezawa-san will booked a later ISS tourist flight. IMO.
Unless you have direct personal knowledge of this, you’re just making wild guesses. The only thing the two things have in common is they are both in space. One does not train you how to do the other.
when do you predict the first Tanker/lunar starship launch and refuel..?
I am guessing that the inaugural Starship stack might go up this December if everything is in alignment. More likely in early 2022.
In theory after inaugural Starship orbital flight. SpaceX could test orbital refueling with their next 2 orbital attempts before trying to reenter. There is hardware showing up for Booster 5 and Booster 6 at Starbase TX for assembly. More realistic is Q3 2022 for a series of orbital refueling tests.
IMO the first batch of Starships being build after the inaugural orbital flight are tankers with limited payload capacity. There is no reason for SpaceX not to test both reentry and orbital refueling concurrently. Especially with many one mission Starships and Super Heavies being available for said testing.
It will be clearer after the initial Super Heavy static fire.
First, Musk has tweeted that it’s 4 tanker flights feeding a Storage Starship (read: depot). This could fit with his stating at the Humans to Mars Virtual Summit there would be a Starship with a tank stretch (1200 –> 2000 tonnes), and more recently Super Heavy getting 33 engines (photoed by NSF: 20 in the outer ring, with a thrust puck having 10 middle ring and 3 center engines).
ISTM SLS & Orion could be eliminated by having Starship HLS dock with Crew Dragon in LEO, but that’d make the SLS people mad
so the theory “now” is that three vehicles need to be developed…1) a lunar starship 2) a starship which can store the fuel in LEO so I guess it just goes up and thats it…(and this makes sense) and 3) the tanker starships.
so 4 tanks are enough to get lunar starship from Leo to the lunar surface, lunar surface back to LEO?
Terry takes a couple of offhand remarks from Musk too far in creating Terry’s hypothetical lunar transportation infrastructure. IOW Terry is making extremely optimistic assumptions as to the potential development path of Starship.
The key sticking point in Starship is: just how much payload to LEO is practical with Starship? The truth is no one can say with any certainty at this point, not even Musk. What that LEO payload actually turns out to be will drive every other aspect of lunar logistics. There is a hell of difference between an architecture that only gets 50 MT of propellant per Starship sortie to LEO, vs one that gets 200 MT!
SpaceX seems to be hoping for 150 MT of payload to LEO. Most of SpaceX public statements only go as far as saying >100 MT to LEO. Terry is assuming something like >200 MT
SLS delenda est
thank you. I geet that there is a lot fluid…but I am trying to nail down a couple of points
1. after a lunar mission the lunarstar 🙂 comes back to earth orbit to refuel?
2. so then the cycle is an undetermined amount of tankering but somewhere between 4 and 15?
3. with this kind of flight profile…what is the expected mass to the lunar surface in payload and return mass?
+1 for “LunarStar”. “Human Landing System” is so astringent it could use some dressing up!
Because we are seeing such dramatic differences between the various mission applications of Starship, I think it is useful to have such designations to easily distinguish them from each other. I use “Starship” just for the one now flying, which is aimed at reusable LEO flight. For the Mars lander, I invented “Mars-Ship”. Not nearly as poetic as your “LunarStar”, but serviceable.
As for your numbered questions, first off are we talking about some imaginary reuse of LunarStar such as Terry is talking about? Or the most probable reuse of LunarStar? A reuse that closely fits into the NASA architecture of Project Artemis? I’m going to presume the latter.
1. No LunarStar return to LEO for refueling. As the astronauts finish their lunar surface mission during Artemis-3, they leave whatever cargo on the lunar surface, pack up their scientific samples, then fly the LunarStar back up to lunar near-rectilinear-halo-orbit, and rendezvous with the Orion spacecraft. The LunarStar would remain parked in NRHO, with practically empty propellant tanks. Any refueling of LunarStar would happen in lunar NRHO.
2. Presuming a dry mass of 120 MT for Starship and LunarStar, R-Vac ISP of 378 seconds, and Starship LEO payload of 150 MT, then: Artemis 3 mission requires one LunarStar launch plus 8 Starship tanker missions, Artemis-4 reuse of LunarStar requires 9 Starship tanker missions.
3. Manned LunarStar has 8 MT cargo downmass to lunar surface plus 8 MT cargo upmass from the lunar surface to NRHO. And this is a big reason why refueling takes place in NRHO and not LEO, trying to return to Earth orbit eats up all the cargo capacity of LunarStar.
Just how heavy will the LunarStar be in comparison to Starship? Most of my calculations assume a LunarStar dry mass of 120 MT (equal to the dry mass most often presented for Starship) but that includes the entire lunar mission specific changes such as the landing gear the cargo elevator the human habitat the docking system and the dual air-locks. So my numbers could be overly optimistic.
SLS delenda est
Here’s the thing about possible refueling and reflight of LunarStar, no matter which way you cut it, it is grossly wasteful with large opportunity costs. There are better ways to skin that cat.
Musk invented an elegant and efficient concept with Starship to achieve Mars colonization. It’s a very clever expansion of the Zubrin “Mars Direct” concept for Mars exploration. But Starship is intended for and sized for Mars colonization, not for lunar exploration.
There are ways LunarStar can be extremely useful for lunar exploration, but reflight of LunarStar by orbital refueling is clumsy compared to alternatives. The best case scenario for reflight of LunarStar is refueling with lunar derived propellant while on the lunar surface (probably with permanent basing of LunarStar on the lunar surface rather than in lunar orbit). But if you have lunar propellant production of that scale then using a more conventional derivative of Starship is superior to the vacuum specialized LunarStar.
My own opinion, is that for the NASA goals of lunar exploration, the most efficient use of LunarStar is not reflight but heavily loaded one-way cargo missions instead. If you combine LunarStar with a small reusable manned lunar lander, you get a much cheaper and faster means of lunar exploration. The small lander could feed off of the LunarStar propellant for multiple lunar orbital or sub-orbital operations.
Think of it this way, LunarStar needs a lot of propellant to take off from the lunar surface up to lunar orbit. But what if LunarStar just stays on the lunar surface instead? It effectively is a large permanent lunar base with large living space, power production, storage tanks, and multiple airlocks. The remaining LunarStar propellant that would only be enough for one lunar ascent of LunarStar, could provide enough propellant for at least 6 two-way flights to lunar orbit of a small lunar lander.
SLS delenda est