As we relayed in last Friday's post, Lunar Trailblazer had run into trouble soon after starting on its way to the moon. "The probe powered up and began transmitting data after launch, but its operators began noticing power issues and then lost communication with it some 12 hours after launch."
Today's news hasn't gotten any better. Probably worse.
In an update published on Tuesday evening, the space agency acknowledged that a mission operations team at the California Institute of Technology is continuing its efforts to reestablish contact with the 200-kg spacecraft intended to orbit the Moon.
"Based on telemetry before the loss of signal last week and ground-based radar data collected March 2, the team believes the spacecraft is spinning slowly in a low-power state," the space agency said. "They will continue to monitor for signals should the spacecraft orientation change to where the solar panels receive more sunlight, increasing their output to support higher-power operations and communication."
As a result of this, mission controllers were unable to command thrusters on the satellite to do a course correction that would enable it to attain its planned orbit around the Moon, a polar orbit 100 km above the surface. If communication could be restored, it's possible that the probe could do some sort of mission, but not the originally intended one to study the form, amount, and location of lunar ice in permanently shadowed craters.
Pulling a paragraph from last Friday's post:
Lunar Trailblazer was a selection of NASA’s SIMPLEx (Small Innovative Missions for Planetary Exploration) competition, which provides opportunities for low-cost science spacecraft to ride-share with selected primary missions. To maintain the lower overall cost, SIMPLEx missions have a higher risk posture and less-stringent requirements for oversight and management. This higher risk acceptance bolsters NASA’s portfolio of targeted science missions designed to test pioneering technologies.
Today's reference link paints a fairly awful picture about these missions. They list five of these low-cost science missions showing that not one of them succeeded and offered any science return on investment. Of the five, Trailblazer was a standout.
It was significantly larger than most of the other SIMPLEx spacecraft, and its cost exceeded the $55 million cap for such missions. Its cost as of late 2022 was $72 million. Due to this higher value, NASA allocated additional resources to ensure its success. Trailblazer's primary contractor was also swapped from Ball Aerospace to Lockheed Martin.
"Lock-mart?" I might just see your problem. Another Old Space / Space 1.0 company that needs to answer "so what have you done lately?" (Editor's note: That link is absolutely not a serious thing.)
In 2022,
the Planetary Society did a survey
of members to come up with priorities. They said NASA should increase
the cost cap of these missions to $80 million - 45% - to get a higher chance
of success.
Artist's depiction of Lunar Trailblazer at work around the moon. (Image
credit: Lockheed Martin Space/Lunar Trailblazer)
Thats really embarrassing. Whats going on inside with them, did that whole dee ee eye thing put a hurt on their operations or something equally idiotic?
ReplyDeleteSpace is hard.
ReplyDeleteCan we assume it is now a lunar lander?
I think it's more likely to be like that old Saturn V upper stage that just was spotted for the first time since about 1970. Orbiting chaotically and uncontrollable.
DeleteI see an opening for SpaceX or some non-legacy aerospace company to produce standardized satellite and probe systems. Make them in micro, small, medium, large and extra-large. Standardized solar panels, guidance systems, booster packs, communication modules and such. And leave a big enough module for mission-specific equipment.
ReplyDeleteGo to a satellite store, show them your needs and wants, and they tell you how big and how much and how long.
That would also simplify mounting on launchers.
This, above, what you commented on, is shameful. We've been building functioning satellites and probes since the 60's and to lose so many is shameful.
"I see an opening for SpaceX or some non-legacy aerospace company to produce standardized satellite and probe systems"
DeleteI'm pretty sure I've read that the Intelsat folks do that. They have standard payloads with well-defined interconnect buses and all. Their missions are all to geosynchronous orbit (AFAIK) so that narrows down the requirements but they seem to be pretty good at what they do.
Hindsight and all that, I know, but it's too bad the satellite's control software didn't include a way to autonomously control things upon detection of loss of communication. Or, at least from the story, it didn't seem to have any such capabilities. Such a thing would be kind of a last-ditch insurance policy to me.
ReplyDeleteThe war in Ukraine exposed the fact that most of the reactive armor on Soviet-era tanks was just filled with foam rubber rather than reactive explosives.
ReplyDelete80:20 a little DOGEing around Lock-Mart would expose that JPL just launched an old Maytag washer at the moon, wrapped in gold foil, and filled with clay bricks, rather than an actual satellite, knowing that once it left the launch pad, there was no way to prove anything.
$72M in exchange for a junkyard hulk is a lot of cheese to bunch of rats.
Change my mind.
"Change my mind." Not me.
DeleteLiving on the Space Coast, I've long heard them called them "Lock-Mart - your one stop defense shopping destination" and joked about blue light specials on bombs. They're "Space 1.0" which means obsolete around the time the space shuttles had a dozen flights or so.