Was the Peregrine going to miss the moon entirely?

[Leftiris]

I've been keeping track of this mission and right out of the gate we started having issues. After reading this article a question came to mind.

Did they even miss the trajectory and would have missed the moon entirely; and is this a soft confession of it?

I may be missing something here, so I'll bring it to the groups attention and maybe one of you can tell me if I'm wrong, or if they would have missed the moon entirely..

Business Insider article:


Astrobotic's lunar lander could still make it far enough to reach the moon — but the moon will be in the wrong place when it arrives.

The spacecraft, called Peregrine, has already traveled 200,000 miles away from Earth, which is about 84% the distance to the moon, Astrobotic said Wednesday.
It suffered an accident when it launched Tuesday and started leaking fuel, scotching its chances of reaching the moon as planned.

It was due to run out of fuel on Thursday — but Astrobotic posted an update saying they had figured out how to make it last longer.

Per its estimate, the craft would have propellant until about 7 a.m. ET on Friday.

This means the lander could yet reach the lunar distance — the required number of miles to reach the moon.

But, though it didn't give precise details, Astrobotic was clear that the moon won't be there at the right time. (notice how they worded that. Like it was the moons fault)




As part of Peregrine's flight plan, the lander was due to reach as high as lunar distance. But the spacecraft is then due the circle back toward Earth so it can loop around our planet and slingshot back on to lunar orbit, Astrobotic said.

It would take another 10 days to reach the moon on this route, by which time the spacecraft is expected to have run out of fuel.

Astrobotic's leading theory for the leak is that a valve connecting two tanks failed, allowing pressurized helium to leak into a tank of oxidizer, causing it to burst.

Still, Astrobotic is trying to collect as much scientific information as possible from this attempt and has been racing to extend the spacecraft's operational lifespan as far as it can go.

This NASA-backed mission might ultimately fail to reach the moon, but that's not the end of the space agency's lunar ambitions.

Astrobotic's Peregrine was the first of NASA's Commercial Lunar Payload Service (CLPS) program, a plan aimed at helping private firms develop lunar landers by contracting them to deliver various payloads to the moon.

There are a slew of private lunar lander missions in the works. Another CLPS mission, operated by Houston-based firm Intuitive Machines, is due to launch in a few weeks.

NASA also aims to push forward its ambitions for a crewed lunar landing by the end of the decade. The agency announced Tuesday it aims to put boots on the moon by 2026 after delaying the mission launch by a year.
https://www.businessinsider.com/astrobot...ine-2024-1

I've given the article in its entirety. Well, Rogue-nation, was this an admission to failing in the trajectory as well as the fuel leak? What do you see here? ((notice the red letter sentence. the way they worded that. as if it were the moons fault))

[727Sky]

My first thought when I heard the news was evidently the engineers who worked on this project much have been part of a group who got a participation ribbon instead of a grade when attending school.

[Leftiris]

My first thought when I heard the news was evidently the engineers who worked on this project much have been part of a group who got a participation ribbon instead of a grade when attending school.

I was hoping you hit on this. It seems you have aviation experience. 

It looks they even miscalculated the trajectory, on top of everything else, doesn't it? 

That's a huge mistake to make. Actually makes us look really bad. As if we didn't look bad enough already.

And this just furthers my suspensions about previous moon landings...

Almost 60 years later, decades of advancement in technology, we were the big dogs with the moon landings (apparently), and yet they mess up this bad


Yeah, that's not embarrassing at all. 

[Ninurta]

Physics 101, from Sir Isaac Newton: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Regardless of what the initial trajectory calculations would have yielded, the valve failure and especially the tank burst will have changed that trajectory considerably. If a fuel or oxidant tank ruptured, then it would have ejected pressurized mass via the fissure in the tank - the "action" of Newton's physics. That would have caused the craft to veer off the trajectory in a direction opposite of the fuel mass ejection, and with equal force - the "reaction" Newton was talking about.

The tangetial vector of the combined forward momentum of the craft, modified by the lateral push of the vented material from the ruptured tank would combine to shove the space craft off course from it's intended trajectory.

To compound matters, venting either fuel or oxidant would reduce the craft's fuel capacity to correct course back to the original trajectory.

Honestly, if the failure was that critical, I'm not sure why they are even still running the spacecraft rather than abandoning it to the universe and getting to work on a new and improved version.

I'm also not too clear on why we are even trying to return to the moon. We've already been there several times, and found nothing there but lifeless lunar regolith. I suppose it might be an attempt at an area denial strategy to keep China from basing weapons on the moon aimed at Washington, D.C.

Failures of one sort or another are not uncommon in space exploration missions. As I recall, two of the Apollo missions were pretty spectacular failures, and something between 1/3 and 1/2 of ALL Mars missions, regardless of the launching nation, have been utter failures as well. I've often wondered if there is not something on Mars saying "not in MY back yard, bub!" and shooting them down.

Stuff happens. From the days of colonial exploration of the New World in wooden sailing ships right up to, through, and beyond the exploration of the solar system with metal robots, failures are to be expected and factored in. They won't stop us now, any more than a ship sinking in a storm stopped the waves of Europeans hell bent on raping the resources of a a new undiscovered country.

.

[EndtheMadnessNow]

The moon won't be there because we have 'All The Wrong Stuff'. Never under estimate today's climate of human mistakes. Too bad all those "slide rule" and JPL engineers from the 60s are long gone. Then again they too had their share of upsets & mega costly failures.

The recent failures kind of lends credence to the so-called 'secret space program' we been hearing about for past 50 years as being just a fantasy.

Recently failed moon missions:

1. 2024 US: Peregrine
2. 2023 Russia: Luna-25
3. 2023 Japan: Hakuto-R M1
4. 2019 Israel: Beresheet
5. 2019: India: Vikram lander
6. 2018 China: Longjiang-1

All those other countries crash landed. I think China's was a forced crash landing as they were unable to enter lunar orbit.

The US Space Force Guardians have plans for lunar interstate highways to & fro the moon so I'm sure they (Astrobotic) and host of other private space newcomer firms will press forward. Learning can be a bitch & very costly. As the old adage goes, shit happens.

Aside: I been watching the series, "For All Mankind" on HBO Max which is an alternate 1969 history take on getting to the moon and then onto Mars. It's entertaining with a few true history moments intertwined.

[Leftiris]

Physics 101, from Sir Isaac Newton: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Regardless of what the initial trajectory calculations would have yielded, the valve failure and especially the tank burst will have changed that trajectory considerably. If a fuel or oxidant tank ruptured, then it would have ejected pressurized mass via the fissure in the tank - the "action" of Newton's physics. That would have caused the craft to veer off the trajectory in a direction opposite of the fuel mass ejection, and with equal force - the "reaction" Newton was talking about.

The tangetial vector of the combined forward momentum of the craft, modified by the lateral push of the vented material from the ruptured tank would combine to shove the space craft off course from it's intended trajectory.

To compound matters, venting either fuel or oxidant would reduce the craft's fuel capacity to correct course back to the original trajectory.

Honestly, if the failure was that critical, I'm not sure why they are even still running the spacecraft rather than abandoning it to the universe and getting to work on a new and improved version.

I'm also not too clear on why we are even trying to return to the moon. We've already been there several times, and found nothing there but lifeless lunar regolith. I suppose it might be an attempt at an area denial strategy to keep China from basing weapons on the moon aimed at Washington, D.C.

Failures of one sort or another are not uncommon in space exploration missions. As I recall, two of the Apollo missions were pretty spectacular failures, and something between 1/3 and 1/2 of ALL Mars missions, regardless of the launching nation, have been utter failures as well. I've often wondered if there is not something on Mars saying "not in MY back yard, bub!" and shooting them down.

Stuff happens. From the days of colonial exploration of the New World in wooden sailing ships right up to, through, and beyond the exploration of the solar system with metal robots, failures are to be expected and factored in. They won't stop us now, any more than a ship sinking in a storm stopped the waves of Europeans hell bent on raping the resources of a a new undiscovered country.

.

Ah, I see now.
I wouldn't of that a leak coukd have pushed it off course like that.
Thanks, that was very thorough.

Here I'm thinking, they miscalculated. 

[Ninurta]

Ah, I see now.
I wouldn't of that a leak coukd have pushed it off course like that.
Thanks, that was very thorough.

Here I'm thinking, they miscalculated. 

Yup, it's the same principle as blowing up a balloon and then turning it loose. That's only air inside the balloon, but look what it can do when gravity is overcome by the force of a rapid release. Now imagine that gravity is a much weaker factor than it is here on Earth...

In all honesty, any rocket engine is just, at it's most basic, a "leak". It's a controlled leak to be sure, but a leak all the same. It's only necessary to burn it because the burning increases the release of propellant gasses, which increases their release pressure all other factors being the same.

In this case, a tank rupture is the same as putting an unwanted rocket nozzle in the wrong place, creating thrust in the wrong direction, an unanticipated direction.

.

[Leftiris]

Ah, I see now.
I wouldn't of that a leak coukd have pushed it off course like that.
Thanks, that was very thorough.

Here I'm thinking, they miscalculated. 

Yup, it's the same principle as blowing up a balloon and then turning it loose. That's only air inside the balloon, but look what it can do when gravity is overcome by the force of a rapid release. Now imagine that gravity is a much weaker factor than it is here on Earth...

In all honesty, any rocket engine is just, at it's most basic, a "leak". It's a controlled leak to be sure, but a leak all the same. It's only necessary to burn it because the burning increases the release of propellant gasses, which increases their release pressure all other factors being the same.

In this case, a tank rupture is the same as putting an unwanted rocket nozzle in the wrong place, creating thrust in the wrong direction, an unanticipated direction.

.

Oh yeah, it made total sense from the get.
I just never would have thought that one up. 
And with that spewing gas, pushing it of course, there wouldn't of been any way to counterbalance the trajectory at that point. 

I got learned'ed today.