Private Lunar Lander Mission Suffers Major Setback After Successful Launch
1st photo from Peregrine moon lander holds clue to propulsion system problem.
As I noted in my first story on the private lunar lander mission, United Launch Alliance’s Vulcan Centaur rocket launched successfully from Kennedy Space Center in Florida carrying Astrobotic’s Peregrine lunar lander and the Celestis and Elysium memorial payloads containing human remains and DNA.
Unfortunately, it suffered a significant setback.
Just hours after launching from Florida toward the moon early Monday morning, the company announced the spacecraft was in jeopardy. The lunar lander, dubbed Peregrine, was unable to place itself in a position facing the sun, likely because of a propulsion issue, according to the company. The wayward orientation prevented the spacecraft from charging its batteries.
The battery issue was later resolved, but Astrobotic was not able to correct the apparent issue with the Peregrine lander’s propulsion system.
“Unfortunately, it appears the failure within the propulsion system is causing a critical loss of propellant,” Astrobotic said in a mission update posted just after 1 p.m. ET. “The team is working to try and stabilize this loss, but given the situation, we have prioritized maximizing the science and data we can capture. We are currently assessing what alternative mission profiles may be feasible at this time.”
The third time will not be the charm for this private mission.
The Peregrine lander is the first American spacecraft bound for the surface of the moon in more than 50 years and only the third developed as a non-government commercial venture. Two previous commercial attempts, one launched by an Israeli group and the other by a Japanese company, crash landed in 2019 and 2023 respectively.
“Flying to the surface of the moon and operating lunar missions is a very, very challenging business,” Astrobotic CEO John Thornton said before launch. “Only about half of those missions have been successful, and most of those have been funded by superpowers. … So that’s a really, really big challenge, and we recognize that. Eyes wide open.
“In the event that we have a bad day somewhere along the mission, we’re going to be gathering all of the data that we received up to that point, and we’re going to learn from it … and we’re going to get smarter and we’re going to be ready for the next one.”
The first photo taken by the instruments aboard the spacecraft offers clues as to the problem with the propulsion system.
Update #5 for Peregrine Mission One: pic.twitter.com/94wy2J0GyA
— Astrobotic (@astrobotic) January 8, 2024
“The camera utilized is mounted atop a payload deck and shows Multi-Layer Insulation (MLI) in the foreground,” Astrobotic wrote in the X post that featured the photo. “The disturbance of the MLI is the first visual clue that aligns with our telemetry data pointing to a propulsion system anomaly.”
..There is some good news, however: The mission team has managed to get the lander’s battery fully charged, “and we are using Peregrine’s existing power to perform as many payload and spacecraft operations as possible,” Pittsburgh-based Astrobotic wrote in that same X post.
I hope for as much success as possible on this mission and that the next private actually lands on the Moon. It looks like I will not have to wait long, either.
Intuitive Machines Nova-C is slated to launch mid-February.
Like Astrobotic, Intuitive Machines—founded in 2013—cut its teeth as a competitor for the Google Lunar XPRIZE and then pivoted into commercial deliveries. Present plans call for Intuitive Machines’ Nova-C lander to launch atop a SpaceX Falcon 9 from Cape Canaveral, Fla in mid-February, although an associated date for the subsequent lunar landing attempt remains undisclosed. “It is behaving beautifully, and we’re really excited and on target,” says Steve Altemus, CEO of Intuitive Machines.—founded in 2013—cut its teeth as a competitor for the Google Lunar XPRIZE and then pivoted into commercial deliveries. Present plans call for Intuitive Machines’ Nova-C lander to launch atop a SpaceX Falcon 9 from Cape Canaveral, Fla in mid-February, although an associated date for the subsequent lunar landing attempt remains undisclosed. “It is behaving beautifully, and we’re really excited and on target,” says Steve Altemus, CEO of Intuitive Machines.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
That last paragraph could literally have been generated by the Dissociated Press algorithm!
Didn’t we land a man on the moon in the 1960’s?
How about using those blueprints?
‘Mostly using slide rules, I still have a K&E 20″, an adult friend gave it to me. It is a fine piece of craftmanship.
‘
gonzotx: July 20, 1969 to be precise.
JohnSmith100: I still have mine, the 6″ sits on my desk as a reminder of days past and what can be done with “3 significant digits”. The original was a gift in 1959 (high school).
I wonder if the lander problem is the result of a Navajo curse.
I keep mine waxed. I’m just biding my time.
lol a down vote
That’ll buff out… 🙂
It really gives you a lot of confidence when they can’t replicate 1960’s technology that ran on less voltage than a toaster and had a small fraction of the computing power of an early flip phone…
I know, it makes no sense unless it really never happened
I’ve never bought into the conspiracy theories but
WTF
What makes you think that they are trying to replicate the same technology?
Arguably, even the goals from the 1960’s versus today are different. The Apollo missions were designed to send men to the moon. The ULA’s Vulcan rocket are multi-purposed in that the Vulcan is designed to carry men and cargo to the moon in order to build a habitat to stay on the moon – not just visit.
The Vulcan also has the capability of launching other payloads / satellites into orbit, something the Apollo Saturn 5 never did. That is a technological difference.
The Saturn 5 was taller than the Vulcan, but no part of it was reusable as are the fairings and the BE-5 engines of the Vulcan. The Vulcan engines can be configured in number for the type of mission, something the Saturn 5 could not do. That’s a demonstrable difference in technology.
The Vulcan’s BE-5 engines produce more thrust with less fuel than the engines of the Saturn 5. Less fuel means less weight which means more payload. If you think the launch of a Saturn 5 was always successful, you don’t know the history of the craft. Delays in launches due to technical issues were common with the Saturn 5. Not only that, but you may remember Apollo 1 burned up on the pad, killing 3 astronauts. If you think that the Apollo missions were always a success, for God’s sake go read a book:
https://www.amazon.com/Apollo-13-Jim-Lovell/dp/0618619585/
The technology is not the same today as it was in the 1960’s. Even the fuels on on the vehicles are different.
No one is trying to “replicate” anything. Companies are taking advantage of previous technology and designs, redesigning them, improving them and making them more efficient.
Your statement is akin to saying a 1939 Packard could travel across the country, so a 2023 Ford should never break down.
https://youtu.be/zrWoG8IckyE
Dude, you got to get there first. They can’t even manage that part
And as I said, Apollo fried on the pad. Men were killed. You may not have been around, but there where plenty of problems with the Saturn 5 itself. There were issues with the extraction of the LEM, and deployment of its legs.
No one said then “we can’t do this.”
Following rocket after rocket blew up one the pad or just after launch that “gee,,,,the Germans launched rockets. We can’t so we should stop trying.”
Saying we should use 1960’s technology is a cute meme, but it is totally ridiculous and really shows ignorance in what is going on here.
Accuracy is important.
1) Saturn V launched Skylab to orbit in addition to 12 Apollo launches. It had been considered as the launcher for the Voyager mission to Mars, later renamed Viking (and the Voyager name being reused for outer solar system exploration)
2) BE-4 engine, not BE-5, producing 550,000lbf at sea level, compared to the F-1 of the Saturn V at 1,522,000lbf.
Your larger point stands, the technology and mission goals are different.
Also, Vulcan-Centaur did not experience issues, the Peregine payload did.
How much you want to bet that while loading it into the capsule for launch, some guy couldn’t quite get the door closed and latched, so he pushed really hard until it clicked?
I bet I know where he worked before that.
What if it was a colonel?