this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024
61 points (96.9% liked)

science

14767 readers
66 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

rule #1: be kind

<--- rules currently under construction, see current pinned post.

2024-11-11

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
m3t00@lemmy.world
Joleee@lemmy.world
laverabe@lemmy.world
DeadPand@midwest.social
61
US Moon mission has no chance of soft lunar landing (www.bbc.com)
submitted 10 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/science@lemmy.world
9 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

A US lunar lander has "no chance" of making a soft landing on the Moon due to a fuel leak, the company behind the mission says.

Pittsburgh-based Astrobotic said there was enough propellant to operate its Peregrine lander as a spacecraft.

The lander is expected to run out of fuel in about 40 hours, the firm said shortly after 17:00 GMT on Tuesday.

Peregrine ran into trouble almost as soon as it came off the top of its launch rocket on Monday.

"Given the propellant leak, there is, unfortunately, no chance of a soft landing on the Moon," Astrobotic said in a statement posted on X, formerly Twitter.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SkybreakerEngineer@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago (4 children)

Truly the innovation offered only by the private sector

[–] PoopingCough@lemmy.world 17 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Private companies are allowed to have many failures before they succeed, unlike NASA who lose public goodwill and therefore potentially lose funding when they fail. SpaceX blew up a ton of rockets before they succeeded in having the first reusable rocket. It's much faster to iterate this way but also more expensive, so NASA cant really operate this way. Although on the other hand all the private aerospace companies seem to rely on government subsidies so it's pretty crappy we cant just fund NASA more.

[–] NMBA@mstdn.ca 1 points 10 months ago

@PoopingCough @SkybreakerEngineer
How about a different model where multiple governments fund a project so NASA is just one member, and give the project a name separate from nasa. Then when the natural fails occur they aren’t owned by nasa. Keeps the oligarchs out of the mix…

load more comments (2 replies)