NASA's Lunar Trailblazer mission ends in disappointment
The NASA satellite was part of the IM-2 mission by Intuitive Machines, which took off from a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket from Kennedy Space Center on February 26 at 7:16PM ET. The Lunar Trailblazer successfully separated from the rocket as planned about 48 minutes after launch. Operators in Pasadena, CA established communication with the satellite at 8:13PM ET, but two-way communication was lost the next day and the team was unable to recover the connection. From the limited data ground teams received before the satellite went dark, the craft's solar arrays were not correctly positioned toward the sun, which caused its batteries to drain.
"While it was not the outcome we had hoped for, mission experiences like Lunar Trailblazer help us to learn and reduce the risk for future, low-cost small satellites to do innovative science as we prepare for a sustained human presence on the Moon," said Nicky Fox, associate administrator at NASA Headquarters' Science Mission Directorate. "Thank you to the Lunar Trailblazer team for their dedication in working on and learning from this mission through to the end."
The Lunar Trailblazer mission was one of several commercial spaceflights planned for travel to the moon during 2025. Its goal was to create high-resolution maps of any water on the moon's surface, as well as assessing how much water was present, in what forms and how it may have changed over time. Fingers crossed the remaining missions have better success.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wall Street Journal
3 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
‘Battle of the Big Bang' Review: A Question of Origins
In the 1920s, scientists discovered that the universe was not static in size, as had previously been assumed, but was expanding in all directions. Galaxies were rushing away from one another as the very space between them was stretching. It was tempting, therefore, to imagine running the film backward into the past. The expansion, it seemed, must have started somewhere: at an infinitely hot, infinitely small and infinitely dense point from which everything exploded some 13.8 billion years ago. This origin became known as the big bang, and that infinitely small point at which it all began was called a singularity: a place where all the known laws of physics break down. Time was purportedly created only at the moment of banging, so it made no sense to ask what came before the big bang, just as it makes no sense to ask what is north of the North Pole. Why it happened at all remained an awkward question, but the existence of such an inscrutable singularity at the birth of all things became the mainstream view. It might be surprising, then, to learn that few experts in the field hold this view anymore. The traditional picture of the big bang is actually two separate ideas, explain Niayesh Afshordi and Phil Halper in 'Battle of the Big Bang: The New Tales of Our Cosmic Origins.' Researchers continue to endorse the hot big bang, the idea of a primordial explosion of energy, but most do not think it goes back to 'a state of infinite density where time stands still and the answers to all our origin questions meet their demise.' Mr. Afshordi is a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Waterloo in Canada; Mr. Halper is a fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society and the creator of the YouTube series 'Before the Big Bang.' Their excellent book promises to map the 'quiet revolution' of 21st-century cosmology and introduce us to the revolutionaries. In very different ways, these rebels are all addressing questions left unanswered by the old theory. One is the origin-of-structure problem: The big bang ought to have spread energy homogeneously throughout space, but we observe clumps of galaxies with vast spaces between them, and measurements of the cosmic microwave background—the fossil radiation from when the universe was only 380,000 years old—reveal an unpredictable pattern of warm and cold spots. Nor have we ever seen an inflaton, a hypothetical particle that is supposed to have driven a period of enormous growth in the size of the early universe.
Yahoo
6 minutes ago
- Yahoo
NASA's Curiosity Rover Grows More Powerful After 13 Years On Mars
Happy 13th birthday to the Curiosity rover, which landed on Mars on August 6, 2012. Ah, I remember when I turned 13: just starting to shave, voice cracking like ice in spring, and learning how to multitask so that my tiny nuclear reactor would last longer. Sadly, Curiosity will never learn to shave, but it has just figured out how to do that last bit. After all this time in the dust of another planet, the rover is literally getting better. NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab, which operates the Curiosity mission, has pushed a new software update to the six-wheeled adventurer. The main purpose is to improve the lifespan of its multi-mission radioisotope thermoelectric generator (MMRTG), which isn't a video game genre, but an advanced form of radioisotope power system (RPS). This is a miniaturized plutonium power plant, which is pretty amazing. Trouble is, even plutonium runs out eventually, and it's not like Curiosity can just pop over to the garage to pick some more up (and swap out its wheels while it's at it). Every time Curiosity does anything at all, it uses electricity. Driving the wheels, scanning for a route, taking samples that one day should return to Earth, phoning home -- it all takes a little juice, and recharging the batteries means expending plutonium. Once it's all gone, Curiosity becomes a future Martian museum piece, nothing more. So making the seven-foot-tall guy more efficient is pretty critical, as it will extend the life of the MMRTG and, thus, Curiosity itself. How to do that? By doing what every 13-year-old juggling homework and social media does: multitask. And then take more naps. Read more: Call Me A Luddite, But These Modern Features Only Seem To Make Cars Worse The Quest For More Naps Curiosity has a lot to do, but all of that is programmed by the good people back at JPL. So a day's mission might be, say, drive over there, take some photos, upload those photos back to Earth, then drive somewhere else. Each of those steps is planned out in sequence, and Curiosity fulfills them one at a time. Sensible, but also hugely inefficient. So, crazy idea: what if Curiosity could upload the photos during the drive to the second location? That reduces the total amount of time Curiosity even has to be on to accomplish the mission, meaning less total power draw. This, critically, means more naps, a priority for us all. In fact, before this update, the rover would do each of these tasks for an allotted amount of time, regardless of whether it accomplished the objective early. Maybe the drive was a bit smoother than estimated, and it arrived a little early. The old Curiosity would still serve out the scheduled time. The updated Curiosity can recognize when it's done its job for the day and then power down. The more power saved, the less the plutonium gets used up, the more years Curiosity will last. The Miniaturized Nuclear Reactor NASA has actually been using RTG systems since the 1960s. The Apollo missions used them, and the two Voyager spacecraft sailing off into the universe are still being powered by them today. The current version being used by Curiosity and its sibling Perseverance is "multi-mission," meaning the same design could be used in space or in atmosphere. The main principle at work here is that if two conductive elements are at vastly different temperatures, electricity flows. Inside the device are plutonium pellets, which generate immense heat when desired. Outside the device, well, it's Mars! It's cold. You get the cold part for free. There's a reason this stuff is still working in the void of space. That allows for 110 watts from 10.6 pounds of plutonium to charge the rover's batteries. The device itself is pretty sturdy, which it has to be, in case there's an accident. No one wants a science mission to turn into a dirty bomb. In fact, back in 1968, a rocket carrying a satellite with an RTG crashed into the sea. The generator was successfully recovered, intact and then reused on a future satellite. How long will Curiosity's MMRTG last? As with all things on Mars, it's hard to predict. Maybe future updates will make it even more efficient; maybe something will go horribly wrong tomorrow. But when it first landed, NASA was only hoping the rover would make it two years. It just hit its 13th birthday. Here's to the next 13, buddy. Want more like this? Join the Jalopnik newsletter to get the latest auto news sent straight to your inbox... Read the original article on Jalopnik.
Fox News
25 minutes ago
- Fox News
CBS host frets Trump admin plans for moon base could usher in new 'age of colonialism' in space
CBS News host Vladimir Duthiers questioned the Trump administration's plan to establish a base on the moon and drew parallels to Earth's history of colonialism. On "CBS Mornings Plus" on Wednesday, Duthiers and co-host Adriana Diaz discussed the White House calling for more human space exploration and administration plans to build a nuclear reactor on the moon to precede an eventual U.S. lunar base with astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson. Diaz asked if it was "inevitable that we're going to have to go to the moon and try to colonize the Moon?" Tyson said that the United States is being "reactive" in a race to the moon with China, and stated, to the laughter of the panel, that he does not want to "live on the moon." But Duthiers questioned if colonizing the moon was a good idea. "We know how the age of colonialism worked on this planet," the host said. "Should we be trying to colonize and saying that there's a keep-out zone that no other countries can participate in having?" Tyson replied by pointing out that it would be difficult to colonize an area that does not have people. "Well, the — the real problem with the colonization history in Western civilization is that there were people already there," Tyson said. Duthiers and Diaz agreed, and Tyson added that "there are no moon beings that were displaced as far as we know." Tyson later criticized administration plans to decrease funding to NASA. "What's not on brand is to cut science programs, not only in NASA, but across the board, and then say, we want to excel in this one spot," Tyson said. "Well, in the 1960s, science was a major investment profile of the United States," he continued. "And by the way, it's not on brand even for Republicans, because Republican administrations since the Second World War have had a higher annual increase, average annual increase, in the science budget than even the Democrats." "So Trump's decision to cut science is not on brand for even being a Republican," Tyson added.
