Hacker News Reader

Comment by eagerpace | Hacker News Reader

It's important to remember that this was the first launch of ULA's new rocket, the first launch BO's new engine, and the first launch of anything for Astrobotic. This was a very experimental launch with a payload only slightly more serious than when SpaceX launched a car on Falcon Heavy's inaugural launch. They will all learn a lot and try again.

View on HN

>this was the first launch of ULA's new rocket, the first launch BO's new engine, and the first launch of anything for Astrobotic.

It's also important to note that the first two of those went off without a hitch. The issues with the payload seem to be overshadowing ULA and BO's accomplishments, and I hope this result does not make companies shy away from interesting test payloads.

As far as I can tell, the Vulcan (rocket), and the engines, all performed flawlessly. The Astrobotic Peregrine has a uncontrollable propellant leak (not sure if it's best characterized as a leak or something else but the net result is the same) and will not be able to complete its primary mission (moon landing).

I was following various live coverage (just as an interested observer) and it sounded like there were orientation issues with the Peregrine lander after separation. It seems possible tgat it could have used so much fuel trying to get solar panels and antenna aligned right, or even just doing unintended maneuvering, that it now cannot complete the lunar orbit maneuver, but is still otherwise working nominally.

A stuck open valve would explain all this. Not saying that is what happened, just that it's a theory that also fits.

One of the maneuvering engines gets stuck on while trying orient the solar panel at mission start. Loss attitude authority until it runs out of propellant. Now that it's done, control is restored, so power positive on the panels, but the fuel situation is beyond recovery.

Does Astrobotic have the cash to try again? This is their first mission, and most of their money has been contracts from NASA, and such.

Has any space company done it right first time around? I'd hope that the business planning wasn't so poor to put all the eggs in one basket.

> this was the first launch of ULA's new rocket, the first launch BO's new engine, and the first launch of anything for Astrobotic.

Is this company headed by SW developers ? Is NASA quality department dead ? Too many "firsts" thrown together and expected to work.

NASA QA is hardly involved. This is a feature of the CLPS process. We're trying to get to a point where "basic" space services like moon landings are a commercial off the shelf product we can buy.

Maybe it's cheaper to blow up a few rockets and iterate, than paying the cost of trying to perfect it on the first try?

I reckon there were a lot more "firsts" involved in Apollo 11 or the JWT mission.

Which company? ULA? BO? Astrobotic?

Now now now no need for friendly fire! The correct protocol is software blames business who blames manufacturing who blames hw. This way nobody wants to bring the bad subject up :)

I'm sure they will learn a lot. Unfortunately as far as I'm aware they are going to "try again" in about a year with their Griffin lander carrying NASA's first unmanned moon rover. To the best of my knowledge there's no plan for another Peregrine launch before then.

Very often the first launch of an entirely new rocket is sent up with only a "mass simulator", so anything of scientific or R&D value that could go up instead of a boilerplate satellite is a bonus.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com