https://www.foxbusiness.com/te...g-lunar-mission-risk

A U.S. lunar lander that launched from Florida on Monday in hopes of becoming the first American craft to touch down on the moon in more than 50 years is now suffering from a "critical loss of propellant," putting its mission in jeopardy, its maker says.

Astrobotic Technology says its Peregrine Lunar Lander began the day lifting off on a United Launch Alliance Vulcan rocket from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station at 2:18 a.m. before separating approximately 310 miles above Earth about 50 minutes later.

"Astrobotic-built avionics systems, including the primary command and data handling unit, as well as the thermal, propulsion, and power controllers, all powered on and performed as expected," the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania-based company said.

"Unfortunately, an anomaly then occurred, which prevented Astrobotic from achieving a stable sun-pointing orientation," according to the company. Astrobotic says the lander is designed to have an onboard solar panel facing the sun for "maximum power generation" while traveling in orbit.

Following a known communication blackout with the Peregrine Lunar Lander, Astrobotic said an improvised maneuver from its team "was successful in reorienting Peregrine’s solar array towards the Sun" and that "We are now charging the battery.

"The Mission Anomaly Board continues to evaluate the data we’re receiving and is assessing the status of what we believe to be the root of the anomaly: a failure within the propulsion system," Astrobotic continued. "Unfortunately, it appears the failure within the propulsion system is causing a critical loss of propellant. 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."

NASA has paid Astrobotic $108 million to carry five scientific instruments to the moon, according to Sky News.

Prior to the announcement of the "anomaly," Astrobotic said the Peregrine craft would attempt a landing on the moon on Feb. 23.

"Peregrine could become the first commercial lander, and first American lander in over 50 years, to land on the moon," it said.

The last U.S. mission to the moon was Apollo 17 in 1972.

Why is it taking seven weeks to reach the moon?

https://arstechnica.com/space/...wont-reach-the-moon/

An unmitigated propellant leak would certainly prevent Peregrine from achieving Astrobotic's goal of landing on the Moon. If the mission went according to plan, the Peregrine lander would complete two long phasing loops around Earth before intercepting the Moon and entering lunar orbit in late January. Then, the Peregrine spacecraft would have ignited its main engines for a powered descent to the lunar surface around February 23.

The Peregrine lander's propulsion system uses a hypergolic propellant mixture, combining hydrazine fuel and a solution of nitric oxide and nitrogen tetroxide as the oxidizer. This is a tried-and-true architecture because hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide immediately combust upon contact with one another, meaning the propulsion system doesn't need an ignition source.

Tried and true chemistry, check. But someone still used (^*$&()^&$& o-rings from china.

I say “Саботаж”!

Mind you, I have nothing to based that statement upon.

If just sounded right.

quote:

Originally posted by MRMATT:
Why is it taking seven weeks to reach the moon?

They have to time it just right so it will get there at night. If they're off by 8-12 hours it'll land on the sun!

quote:

Originally posted by MRMATT:
Why is it taking seven weeks to reach the moon?

I might add, 50 years to go back?
We should OWN the Moon!

quote:

Originally posted by armored:

quote:

Originally posted by MRMATT:
Why is it taking seven weeks to reach the moon?

I might add, 50 years to go back?
We should OWN the Moon!

China sent a rover there not too long ago.

quote:

Originally posted by cas:

quote:

Originally posted by MRMATT:
Why is it taking seven weeks to reach the moon?

They have to time it just right so it will get there at night. If they're off by 8-12 hours it'll land on the sun!

^^^At first I was like, huh? It’ll burn up well before it gets anywhere near the surface of the Sun. Then, I was like, oh snap, you got me.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
^^^At first I was like, huh? It’ll burn up well before it gets anywhere near the surface of the Sun. Then, I was like, oh snap, you got me.

The post was confusing. You can land on the moon day or night. You can't land on the sun unless it's night.

quote:

The Peregrine lander's propulsion system uses a hypergolic propellant mixture, combining hydrazine fuel and a solution of nitric oxide and nitrogen tetroxide as the oxidizer. This is a tried-and-true architecture because hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide immediately combust upon contact with one another, meaning the propulsion system doesn't need an ignition source.

Also highly toxic and highly corrosive.

quote:

Originally posted by 229DAK:

Also highly toxic and highly corrosive.[/QUOTE]

You mean that if things get tough, you can't drink it? I think I prefer alcohol fuel. You can run your car with it, or drink the good stuff. Makes more sense to me.

quote:

Originally posted by MRMATT:
Why is it taking seven weeks to reach the moon?

Traffic?

https://www.breitbart.com/scie...-back-towards-earth/

The NASA-backed Peregrine One moon lander is now hurtling back towards Earth after last week failing on its historic journey.

Astrobotic, which had been hoping to hoping to land the first American-made spacecraft on the Moon in more than 50 years, predicts its spacecraft will likely burn up in the atmosphere in the next few days, the BBC reports.

Experts had been working with NASA and other space companies to find the most safe and responsible way of ending Peregrine’s mission.

“The team is currently assessing options and we will update as soon as we are able,” the company noted in a social media post.

The Peregrine Mission One (PM1), built by private U.S. space company Astrobotic, blasted into space on 8 January,

quote:

Astrobotic, which had been hoping to hoping to land the first American-made spacecraft on the Moon in more than 50 years, predicts its spacecraft will likely burn up in the atmosphere in the next few days, the BBC reports.

This somehow feels like a metaphor for how far we have fallen...
50 years ago we could land a manned spacecraft on the Moon, now we can't even land an un-manned spacecraft?

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

Astrobotic, which had been hoping to hoping to land the first American-made spacecraft on the Moon in more than 50 years, predicts its spacecraft will likely burn up in the atmosphere in the next few days, the BBC reports.

This somehow feels like a metaphor for how far we have fallen...
50 years ago we could land a manned spacecraft on the Moon, now we can't even land an un-manned spacecraft?

Our stuff works on Mars, though.

quote:

Our stuff works on Mars, though.

Once we got that metric system figured out.

Mars Climate Observer
"An investigation indicated that the failure resulted from a navigational error due to commands from Earth being sent in English units (in this case, pound-seconds) without being converted into the metric standard (Newton-seconds)."

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:

quote:

Our stuff works on Mars, though.

Once we got that metric system figured out.

Mars Climate Observer
"An investigation indicated that the failure resulted from a navigational error due to commands from Earth being sent in English units (in this case, pound-seconds) without being converted into the metric standard (Newton-seconds)."

Damn dude, I forgot about that. I didn't know what you were implying and then this old feeble mind remembered.

I hears it on Fox, it must be true.