Category: International

Rogozin Disputes Stories of Improperly Installed Sensors on Proton

Rogozin Disputes Stories of Improperly Installed Sensors on Proton

Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin is disputing stories published in the Russian media that the recent Proton rocket failure was caused by incorrectly installed sensors.

Russia’s Interfax news service reported earlier this week that the rocket’s angular velocity sensors were installed upside down.  Rogozin, who was put in charge of Russia’s space sector in December 2011, is quoted today by Russia’s Itar-Tass news service as calling that theory a “red herring.”  Explaining that the wires are color coded and of different lengths, he said the system is “meant for fools” — presumably meaning that installation is virtually foolproof. 

Russia’s space agency, Roscosmos, has established a commission to investigate the accident.  The Proton rocket crashed to Earth 17 seconds after launch on July 1, 2013 Eastern Daylight Time (July 2 local time at the launch site).  Several videos of the crash are available on YouTube.

Incorrectly Installed Sensors May Have Caused Proton Rocket Crash

Incorrectly Installed Sensors May Have Caused Proton Rocket Crash

Russian news sources are reporting that incorrectly installed angular velocity sensors may have caused the dramatic launch failure of a Proton rocket on July 1 Eastern Daylight Time.

The crash 17 seconds after launch, shown in many videos available on YouTube, did not result in any injuries, but three GLONASS navigation satellites were lost.

Russia Today cites Russia’s Interfax news service as reporting that the angular velocity sensors were connected upside down, although the official commission investigating the accident has not issued any formal results yet.

Meanwhile, RIA Novosti says that Russia will launch two replacement GLONASS satellites later this year using Soyuz rockets launched from the Plesetsk launch site.   GLONASS satellites are either launched three-at-a-time on Proton rockets from Baikonur, like the failed attempt on July 1 (July 2 local time at the launch site), or singly on Soyuz rockets from Plesetsk.

NASA IG Makes Case for Commercial Cargo, Crew, CASIS Success

NASA IG Makes Case for Commercial Cargo, Crew, CASIS Success

In a report today, NASA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) stressed that two factors will determine NASA’s ultimate success in maximizing utilization of the International Space Station (ISS): attracting non-government users and reliable crew and cargo transportation.

Noting that the United States paid $60 billion to build the ISS and currently spends $3 billion a year to operate it, the OIG report concludes that “it is essential that NASA make a concerted effort to maximize the research capabilities” of the space-based laboratory.  

The OIG gives NASA credit for utilization to date, saying that the agency is exceeding its goal of spending an average of 35 hours per week on scientific investigations, is performing over 100 investigations annually, and expects to increase the use of both internal and external research space in FY2013.  The focus of the report is how to increase utilization beyond what has been achieved already.

The Center for the Advancement of Science in Space (CASIS) was created to bring in non-NASA users.  NASA provides $15 million a year and CASIS is expected to bring in additional funds and users.   The OIG report says that NASA and CASIS have not yet established precise metrics that would reveal how successful CASIS has been so far.

A major focus of the report, however, is on the need for reliable crew and cargo transportation to and from the ISS to support research.  It traces the price increases for NASA purchases of “seats” on Russian Soyuz spacecraft from $22 million in 2006, to $25 million in 2010, to $28 million in the first half of 2011, to $43 million in the second half of 2011, to $55.6 million and $60 million for launches in 2014 and 2015, respectively, and $71 million for 2016-2017.   NASA is relying on its commercial crew program to develop U.S. crew space transportation capabilities by 2017, but the OIG report points out that Congress has not provided the agency with the level of funding needed to meet that date. 

Not only is it costly to purchase Russian seats, but relying on Soyuz means only six instead of seven crew members can live and work aboard the ISS, further limiting the amount of research that be conducted, the report continues. 

The OIG did not make any recommendations about commercial crew or cargo, however, only stressing the need for reliable transportation in order to maximize ISS utilization.   Its only recommended action was for NASA to develop metrics to determine CASIS’s success; NASA agreed to do that. 

 

Space Policy Events for the Week of July 8-12, 2013

Space Policy Events for the Week of July 8-12, 2013

The following space policy-related events may be of interest in the week ahead.  The House and Senate both are in session this week.

During the Week

Near Earth Objects (NEOs) — particularly asteroids — are a major topic of debate in Washington space policy circles this week.  From the Secure World Foundation/American Association for the Advancement of Science (SWF/AAAS) panel discussion on Monday, to the day-long Target NEO 2 Workshop on Tuesday, to the markup of the NASA authorization and appropriations bills on Wednesday, to the two-day SBAG meeting on Wednesday and Thursday, what to do about asteroids will be on many minds.   Part of the discussion concerns searching for NEOs either for scientific study or to “find them before they find us” planetary defense scenarios, while another is whether to approve the Obama Administration’s latest human spaceflight goal — ARM (the Asteroid Retrieval Mission or Asteroid Return Mission or Asteroid Redirection Mission).  The FY2014 budget request for NASA includes $105 million to augment NASA’s NEO searches ($20 million in addition to an existing $20 million), develop technology to send a robotic probe to capture an asteroid ($45 million) and nudge it into lunar orbit, and perform studies ($40 million) on how astronauts could use the Orion spacecraft and Space Launch System to visit that asteroid and return a sample.

ARM is a tiny part of NASA’s overall FY2014 budget request of $17.715 billion.   How much the agency will get for FY2014 is expected to be highly controversial in the House authorization and appropriation bill markups by the Space Subcommittee of the House Science, Space and Technology (SS&T) Committee, and the Commerce-Justice-Science (CJS) subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, respectively.  The CJS subcommittee also will be marking up NOAA’s FY2014 budget, which is in the same bill as NASA.  The House committees are working under budget numbers in the House Budget Resolution that passed in March that generally protect defense spending by taking larger cuts from non-defense spending, like NASA and NOAA.  The draft House NASA authorization bill would give the agency $16.865 billion for FY2014 and FY2015, a significant cut from the request that would affect many NASA programs.  The draft House bill particularly singles out NASA’s earth science program for cuts.

Meanwhile, another House SS&T subcommittee will markup up the Weather Forecasting Improvement Act on Tuesday.  It is broadly focused on weather forecasting at NOAA, not specifically weather satellites, although it does include language that clarifies what the government can do in terms of commercial data buys and hosted payloads.

Monday, July 8

Tuesday, July 9

Wednesday, July 10

Wednesday-Thursday, July 10-11

Friday, July 12

 

Criminal Proceedings Opened in Proton Crash, Premature Liftoff Possible Cause

Criminal Proceedings Opened in Proton Crash, Premature Liftoff Possible Cause

Russia has opened a criminal proceeding regarding the crash of the Proton-M rocket earlier this week.  Premature liftoff appears to have been the cause. 

Citing an Investigative Committee official, Russia’s ITAR-TASS news agency reports that “Criminal proceedings were initiated over signs of crime envisioned by Article 216, Part of Russia’s penal code/violation of safety rules in mining, construction, or other kinds of work which caused large damages.”  The case will be supervised by the Baikonur prosecutor’s office, which “will also check compliance with the legislation concerning ‘pre-launch preparations and launches of rocket equipment’.”  Baikonur is a city in Kazakhstan that serves the Baikonur Cosmodrome, from which the Proton rocket (and many other Russian rockets) are launched.  Russia leases the Baikonur complex from Kazakhstan.

Russia’s space agency, Roskosmos, established a commission to investigate the failure. The Interfax news agency quotes an unnamed source close the investigation as saying that the rocket lifted off “nearly half a second ahead of time. Hence the engines had not reached the necessary thrust capacity” and an automated emergency system, detecting the problem, directed the rocket away from the pad.  

The Proton-M rocket, carrying three Russian GLONASS navigation satellites, crashed dramatically 17 seconds after liftoff on July 1 Eastern Daylight Time (July 2 local time at the launch site).  It crashed about 2.5 kilometers from the launch pad.   No one was injured.

Russian news sources report that the rocket was insured for about $200 million, but that the satellites were not insured, a loss of $75 million.

This launch was for the Russian government, but many Proton launches are for commercial customers sold through International Launch Services (ILS).  ILS has established its own Failure Review Oversight Board that will review the findings of the Roskosmos commission.    The impact of the failure on the schedule for Proton launches remains unclear.  The next Proton launch, of the SES Astra 2-T satellite, was scheduled for July 20.  

Bob Christy: What's Next for China in Space?

Bob Christy: What's Next for China in Space?

The completion of the Shenzhou-10 mission and crew visits to the Tiangong-1 space station naturally raises the question of what’s next for China’s human spaceflight program.   Robert (Bob) Christy, founder and editor of zarya.info, offers his analysis of China’s program to date and what may be in store for the future in this guest column for SpacePolicyOnline.com.

Christy, FBIS, started observing space events in the mid-1960s as a student at Kettering Grammar School in Kettering, England.  The team eventually evolved into the internationally-renowned Kettering Group of amateur observers and analysts led by the late Geoffrey Perry that focused on tracking Soviet satellites and analyzing the Soviet space program.  Christy is the author of the zarya.info website, dedicated to recording and analyzing space events.   Follow him on Twitter (@zarya_info) or Facebook.

 

China in Space – What Next?

By Robert Christy, FBIS

With the successful wrap-up of the Shenzhou 10 mission, China has completed another step in its march to a long-term, permanently-crewed space station.

Shenzhou 10 was the third “production” spacecraft in the series where the first seven all represented development stages.  Shenzhou 1 was kitted out with test equipment and had no life support system.  By the time of Shenzhou 5, the life support system had been tested to the point it could be trusted to support a human being and Yang Liwei set off on a one day mission to prove it.  On successive missions, China tested Shenzhou up to its maximum crew of three and, on Shenzhou 7, two astronauts depressurized the orbital module and stepped briefly outside.

Shenzhou 8 was flown unpiloted to prove the docking unit by joining up with Tiangong 1. It tested the whole system using “crash test dummy” astronauts and a package of biological experiments provided by DLR, Germany’s space agency.  Shenzhou 9 repeated the experience, but with a crew that spent time aboard Tiangong 1.

One by one, the flights pointed to a structured approach toward the goal of keeping crews in space for extended periods, and being able to handle the logistics of piloted missions to China’s future 60-tonne modular space station.  Alongside, work was going on to develop a new range of launch vehicles for the station and future support vehicles.

China was also building up its tracking and support infrastructure with ground stations in Chile, Namibia, Pakistan and Australia and construction of the Tianlian data relay satellite constellation.  Locations of the ground stations were carefully chosen to support launch and landing of missions using the Shenzhou/Tiangong 42.8° inclination orbit. For Shenzhou 10, China was confident enough in the network’s capabilities to see no need for any of the Yuan Wang ships to back them up.  For the first time, all ships remained within the confines of the Pacific Ocean to support only the most critical stages of the mission.

Taken together, all these jigsaw pieces point to China having a clear goal and that it is working patiently towards it.  Unlike the Space Race of the 1960s, China is not in competition so it can afford to take steadily-paced, careful steps towards its ultimate goal.  It is doing the same with its other space programs, witness the well laid out lunar exploration program currently en-route from a lunar orbiter to a soil-sampling mission.

Shenzhou has flown ten times with no obvious major problems.  There will have been some issues, but none seems to have delayed or deflected the program.  By the time Soyuz had flown ten times it had lost two test vehicles on re-entry, killed Vladimir Komarov with a parachute failure on Soyuz 1, narrowly avoided losing the crew of the intended Soyuz 2 to the same problem, and had a near-disaster with the Soyuz 5 re-entry.  In a similar time frame, Apollo killed three astronauts on the ground and, but for the ingenuity of NASA’s engineers, would have had a full-on disaster in Apollo 13.

China has clearly learned from the mistakes of others.

Shenzhou

On the ground at mission end, Shenzhou looks remarkably like Soyuz, but it would be a mistake to suggest that the resemblance goes any further.  By buying the Soyuz aerodynamic design from Russia, China showed great shrewdness and avoided the effort of starting from.  Beyond the visual similarity and some borrowed mechanical systems there is no comparison between the two. Shenzhou is almost pure Chinese.  It has its own, versatile, Orbital Module and the Service Module is home-grown. The avionics, computers, communications systems and rendezvous system are Chinese in origin.

With completion of the Shenzhou 10 mission, the vehicle is a proven, tested and mature spacecraft ready to serve as a crew carrier for any mission China might want to perform in low Earth orbit.

Orbital Operations

One feature of both the Shenzhou 9 and 10 flights is the lack of detailed information on crew activities while aboard Tiangong 1. Shenzhou 9 was probably a pathfinder with its goals more on the technical side.  We know that the Shenzhou 10 visitors brought with them lightweight, rigid floor panels to replace the original flexible floor of Tiangong in order to make moving around easier.  Then we had the broadcast space physics lecture to school/college students by Wang Yaping.  It was three quarters of an hour of digital TV transmission from space with no interruptions.  The event was carried via the Tianlian 1A communications relay in geosynchronous orbit over the Indian Ocean.  For some reason, possibly technical, it switched seamlessly to a ground station for about five minutes while over China.

China has tended to focus on the fact that the crews were working aboard Tiangong 1, but the lab has very little in the way of internal equipment to be tended or operated so they may have had tasks aboard Shenzhou 10.

The Shenzhou 2 through Shenzhou 6 flights carried OMs that were actually autonomous spacecraft. Left in orbit at the end of the main mission, they used thrusters to move to higher orbits, maneuvered in orbit and stayed in space for up to half a year.  Little is known of their purposes although some independent analysis has been done, like this piece by Sven Grahn, on the external equipment that suggests Earth observation and surveillance missions.  Apart from the possibility of them carrying out long duration tests of equipment, their missions do not seem to be related directly to the piloted program.  They probably represented platforms of opportunity.

It does raise the possibility of the Shenzhou 9 and 10 Orbital Modules containing equipment that needed attention by the crew, providing some of the workload while docked with Tiangong 1.

Tiangong 1

Tiangong 1 is an 8.5 tonne test-bed.  Unlike Shenzhou, it does not represent the finalized design of a vehicle to be used with China’s future space station.  It is a rendezvous and docking target, providing basic accommodation and a means for crew to transfer to/from a transport vehicle.  Its expected usable life is two years, the end of which is approaching. The docking unit was rated for six uses and it has reached the limit.  That is not to say that it has suddenly become unusable, but China’s space engineers know that wear and tear from repeated operation now makes the risk of a mechanical or electrical malfunction significant enough to result in a potentially aborted mission.

That aside, Tiangong 1 has outlived its usefulness as there are very few, if any, new tasks it can perform.  Its rudimentary life support system, that can only function fully when Shenzhou is attached, is contaminated with bacteria introduced through human habitation. China’s engineers have speculated that it will eventually become a health risk.  It will be kept in orbit until the two-year point.  About then a decision will be made whether to fire its thrusters and initiate a destructive re-entry above the “international spacecraft graveyard” of the southern Pacific Ocean. There is talk of it being kept in orbit and that it may still be there when Tiangong 2 is launched, although the two will not dock with each other.

Public Relations

China has been variable in the amount of information released about the Shenzhou missions.  A lot of information was relayed real-time during Shenzhou 9, but only of the mission high points like launch, docking and return to Earth.  It looked good, but reports on other parts of the mission were thin on substance.  Although stories appeared on many Chinese websites, there was much repetition of content and duplication of words, indicating that there was only one real source. There was little independent reporting from mission control and only Chinese national media were allowed inside.

For Shenzhou 10, there was a tight clamp down on information with some major events being reported after the fact.  Some days there was nothing at all.  When the crew returned to Earth, reporters from China’s main TV channels broadcast from the car park in front of the building. The Soviet Union used to provide at least a daily bulletin during its space station missions, maybe about communications sessions or the occasional personal touch like “….they breakfasted with gusto”.  A steady drip of information, however inconsequential, gives an “all is well” feeling.  Silence leads to thoughts of something having gone wrong although the true reason may simply be that China did not want to reveal what the crew was doing.

Maybe China was trying to portray a “business as usual” and “nothing here to interest you” attitude, but stereotypical Chinese inscrutability fails to recognize the enormous worldwide interest in spaceflight, the well being of the crew and the facts and figures that define the mission.  It is probably a forlorn hope that China will change its approach for the next mission.

Where Next?

Presently, the target launch date for the first of the three 20-tonne modules that will comprise China’s space station is 2020.  Before then, there is more engineering development and testing work to be done.

Tiangong 2 will be another test-bed and seems set to experiment with cargo transport and transfer of propellant between space vehicles, both of which are necessary to sustain long-term habitation of a space station.  It will also test a regenerative life support system, an advance on the one aboard Tiangong 1 that has no mechanism for recycling waste products.  No firm dates have been mentioned and it could be at least two years before we see it in space.

China may not yet be ready to have crews aboard while more-dangerous operations, like fuel pumping, are going on.  Tiangong 1’s thrusters, for example, have never been fired for a significant maneuver with a crew inside.  It raises the possibility that it may be a long time before we next see a Chinese crew in orbit.

A possible goal for the next Chinese space crew is a significant extension to mission duration, but it would require re-supply missions to Tiangong 2 to do it.  It will need a step change like the one from the Soviet Union’s Salyut 4 to Salyut 6 in the 1970s — where a second docking port with re-fuelling capabilities was introduced.  It also may need one of China’s new line of Long March rockets to loft it.

Space Station

Depictions of the three-module, T-shaped, 60-tonne outpost planned for 2020 show that crews will arrive in the production line version of Shenzhou. They also show a Cargo Spaceship that looks exactly like Tiangong 1.  It is an equivalent to a Cygnus/ATV/HTV cargo delivery vehicle with Progress-style refueling capability.  Omitting the systems that make Tiangong 1 habitable, its mass will be seven tonnes and it will be able to carry six tonnes of supplies.

What seems to be lacking in China’s plans is a vehicle that can bring material back to Earth — equivalent to Dragon.  But is it?  Long term, Shenzhou could follow a reverse evolutionary path when compared with Dragon where crew support systems are stripped out to provide a cargo return craft.

What Will Happen?

Only China has an insight to this and its plans may yet not be set in stone, but their foundations are in a five year space plan published in 2011.  It talks of launching space laboratories, “manned” spaceships and space freighters, and developing technologies such as a regenerative life support system and propellant refueling to support medium-term stays in orbit.

What is written here is based mainly on the 2011 plan.  It shows that we will see a steady evolution from where China is now to the space station.  There will be no gigantic surprises and certainly no step change as the one seen between Gemini and Apollo that would permit China to send a crew to the Moon within the next decade.

The 2011 document does mention the Moon, but only in terms of conducting studies on a preliminary plan for a human landing.  With its financial resources directed into establishing the space station, it may take several more five-year plans to bring a lunar landing to fruition.

ILS Relatively Upbeat Despite Proton Failure

ILS Relatively Upbeat Despite Proton Failure

International Launch Services (ILS), which markets the Proton-M rocket for commercial space launches, issued a relatively upbeat statement today following the dramatic Proton launch failure last night Eastern Daylight Time (EDT).

In a remarkable understatement considering the spectacular disintegration and explosion, ILS said that the Proton “veered off its flight path and returned to Earth.”  It added that no one appeared to be hurt, there was no damage to the launch pad and only minor damage to buildings.

ILS has set up its own Failure Review Oversight Board (FROB) in addition to the special commission established by Russia’s space agency, Roskosmos, to determine what went wrong and why.  The ILS FROB will review the commission’s findings and corrective action plan, and include representatives from customers, insurance underwriters, and technical experts from industry.

This particular launch was for the Russian government, not a commercial entity, but commercial customers undoubtedly are concerned about the rocket’s reliability.  The next Proton launch was scheduled for July 20 for SES’s Astra 2-T satellite.  

An unidentified industry source quoted by Russia’s RIA Novosti estimated the cost of yesterday’s failure at “no less than 6 billion rubles ($200 million).”  It adds that the rocket was insured for that amount by the Russian Insurance Center.

Proton Crash May Delay Other Launches, Including ISS Cargo Craft

Proton Crash May Delay Other Launches, Including ISS Cargo Craft

The crash and explosion of a Proton-M rocket at the Baikonur Cosmodrome last night (Eastern Daylight Time) may delay other launches, including the Progress M-20M cargo spacecraft scheduled for launch to the International Space Station (ISS) later this month.

The repercussions of the dramatic launch failure, shown in this footage on YouTube, are still being assessed, but Russia’s RIA Novosti reported the possible delay to the Progress M-20M launch today.  The launch is currently scheduled for July 27.  RIA Novosti said work at the Cosmodrome might be “suspended for the next two to three months because of contamination,” though it was unclear how much of the sprawling facility would be affected.

The Proton-M carried 600 tons of heptyl, amyl and kerosene rocket fuel, which ignited in a spectacular blaze as the rocket wobbled, rolled and broke apart during its 17 second flight, crashing about 1 kilometer (0.6 mile) from its launch pad.  The launch took place at 10:38 pm EDT last night (8:38 am local time today, July 2, at Baikonur).

Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev ordered Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin to set up an investigation board and “demanded a list of the guilty persons, including high-ranking Roskosmos officials,” according to Russia’s official ITAR-TASS news agency.  Roskosmos is Russia’s space agency, headed by Vladimir Popovkin.  

Rogozin was put in charge of the Russian space sector in December 2011 after a Soyuz rocket became the sixth in what continues to be an increasingly long list of Russian launch failures since December 2010.   Popovkin replaced Anatoly Perminov in 2011.  Perminov reportedly was fired in the aftermath of the December 2010 Proton launch failure that similarly doomed a set of three GLONASS satellites. 

The GLONASS system, similar to the U.S. GPS system, is a top priority of Russian President Vladimir Putin, but more generally the series of failures in a variety of Russian rockets is a blow to Russia’s reputation as a commercial space launch services provider.  Russian officials have ordered reviews of what is going in the Russian aerospace sector and demanded changes, but the failures continue.

Proton is Russia’s largest launch vehicle and is used to launch a variety of payloads, including commercial communications satellites to geostationary orbit.  Commercial launches are marketed by International Launch Services (ILS).  Proton has been in service since 1965, with many upgrades over those decades.  The Proton-M version was first launched in 2000, and has a capacity of about 21,000 kilograms (46,000 pounds) to low Earth orbit or 5,500 kilograms (12,000 pounds) to geostationary transfer orbit, slightly less than the U.S. Delta IV Heavy.

Russia is the world leader in market share for commercial launches over the past 5 years (2008-2012), with 51 percent of the market for all of its rockets, but not including launches by the multinational Sea Launch AG.  Russia’s Energia RSC is a 95 percent owner of Sea Launch.  It had another 13 percent of the market over those 5 years according to the FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation’s 2012 annual report.  Sea Launch suffered a launch failure of its own earlier this year.

Editor’s Note:  The scheduled launch date for Progress M-20M is shown as July 27 in the RIA Novosti article, but NASA’s ISS website says July 24 (NASA calls it “ISS Progress 52” because it would be the 52nd Progress dispatched to the ISS, but there have been many more Progress launches in the history of that program).

Russian Proton Rocket Crashes Moments After Launch

Russian Proton Rocket Crashes Moments After Launch

UPDATE 2:  Russian media sources have confirmed the failure.   A link to a SpacePolicyOnline.com fact sheet with a list of all the Russian space launch failures since December 2010 has been added.

UPDATE:  We’ve added a link to a dramatic video of the failure posted by NASASpaceflight.com

Russia suffered a serious launch failure tonight when a Proton rocket crashed moments after launch.  It was carrying three GLONASS navigation satellites.

Anatoly Zak of RussianSpaceWeb.com has published photos that he reports are of the Proton as it nosedived into the ground near the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazkahstan and exploded.  The launch took place at 10:38 pm Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) July 1, which was 8:38 am July 2 local time at the Cosmodrome. 

NASASpaceflight.com has posted dramatic video of the failure.

Russia’s ITAR-TASS and RIA Novosti websites confirm the failure, but provide few details.

Russia has been suffering a surprising number of launch failures in recent years.   (Link to a SpacePolicyOnline.com fact sheet with a list of Russia’s space launch failures since December 2010.)  Many have been upper stage failures.  It is less common to have a failure moments after liftoff and this one evokes the images of the 2007 spectacular Sea Launch failure of a Zenit-3SL rocket.  That launch was from a mobile ocean platform and the debris mostly landed in the water.   Tonight’s failure was on land and damage to the launch site is a distinct possibility.   Zak tweeted (@RussianSpaceWeb), however, that the “launch team in the underground bunker [is] reportedly unharmed.”

Check back here for more news as the story develops.

 

Space Policy Events for the Weeks of July 1-12, 2013

Space Policy Events for the Weeks of July 1-12, 2013

Things are pretty quiet in the upcoming week because of the July 4th holiday (the House and Senate are both in recess and lots of people are on vacation), so we are combining the next two weeks for this edition of “events of interest.”

July 3-5, Wednesday-Friday

July 8, Monday

July 9, Tuesday

July 10, Wednesday

July 10-11, Wednesday-Thursday

July 12, Friday