|
Failed U.S. lunar lander is now at the bottom of the ocean
#3206134
01/19/24 10:15 AM
01/19/24 10:15 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 12,296
Benton, IL.
DaveRS23
OP
Special needs idiot
|
OP
Special needs idiot
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 12,296
Benton, IL.
|
At least what is left of it is. ' The failed Peregrine One lunar lander will re-enter the Earth’s atmosphere late Thursday and burn up somewhere over the South Pacific. Experts had been working with NASA and other space companies to find the most safe and responsible way of ending Peregrine’s mission. The doomed $108 million lander suffered a critical propellant leak shortly after launching from Florida on its Vulcan rocket last week, as Breitbart News reported.
Although engineers were able to stabilise the situation, the loss of oxidiser meant a safe touch-down on the lunar surface could never be attempted. Pittsburgh-based Astrobotic has decided to dispose of the craft, rather let it wander aimlessly through space, posing a collision hazard.
It is reportedly carrying a sample of President John F Kennedy’s DNA alongside the ashes of dozens of people, all of which will now be lost.'
www.breitbart.com/tech/2024/01/18/e...ound-for-fiery-end-in-earths-atmosphere/Anyone else wonder why we are spending $108,000,000 to go back to the moon? Here is what NASA says; ' We’re going back to the Moon for scientific discovery, economic benefits, and inspiration for a new generation of explorers: the Artemis Generation. While maintaining American leadership in exploration, we will build a global alliance and explore deep space for the benefit of all.
www.nasa.gov/specials/artemis/
Master, again and still
|
|
|
Re: Failed U.S. lunar lander is now at the bottom of the ocean
[Re: DaveRS23]
#3206140
01/19/24 10:32 AM
01/19/24 10:32 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 21,547
N.E. OHIO, USA
A12
Too Many Posts
|
Too Many Posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 21,547
N.E. OHIO, USA
|
The doomed $108 million lander suffered a critical propellant leak shortly after launching from Florida on its Vulcan rocket last week, Well maybe this is good news for hydrogen fueled vehicles if they developed a better sealing leak proof propellant system. And here I thought they had that all figured out after the cold seal tragedy a couple of decades ago? What's happening with current hydrogen vehicles in the minus zero temperatures we are having lately?? "Oops Houston we have a leak"
|
|
|
Re: Failed U.S. lunar lander is now at the bottom of the ocean
[Re: A12]
#3206188
01/19/24 01:28 PM
01/19/24 01:28 PM
|
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 6,330
nowhere
Sniper
master
|
master
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 6,330
nowhere
|
but I did sleep in a Holiday Inn Express Tuesday, lol. That would actually only make you a rocket surgeon.  Where's my leeches, lol
|
|
|
Re: Failed U.S. lunar lander is now at the bottom of the ocean
[Re: DaveRS23]
#3206371
01/19/24 10:35 PM
01/19/24 10:35 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,732
Bitopia
jcc
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
|
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,732
Bitopia
|
"Anyone else wonder why we are spending $108,000,000 to go back to the moon? Here is what NASA says;"
That would not be the first question I would ask, mine would be:
"What took you guys so long?
Reality check, that half the population is smarter then 50% of the people and it's a constantly contested fact.
|
|
|
Re: Failed U.S. lunar lander is now at the bottom of the ocean
[Re: poorboy]
#3206637
01/20/24 07:37 PM
01/20/24 07:37 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,911
Ontario, Canada
Stanton
Don't question me!
|
Don't question me!
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,911
Ontario, Canada
|
That is pretty convenient actually, If they say its at the bottom of the ocean, they don't have to prove it existed at all, Great, another f'n conspiracy theory !!!
|
|
|
Re: Failed U.S. lunar lander is now at the bottom of the ocean
[Re: DaveRS23]
#3207069
01/22/24 02:45 AM
01/22/24 02:45 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,155
Tucson, AZ
Ramrod39
My New Title
|
My New Title
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,155
Tucson, AZ
|
Anyone else wonder why we are spending $108,000,000 to go back to the moon?
First off, define "we'. Secondly, remember that this was a privately funded project. And then consider that Americans spend over 100 Billion each year on our pets.
|
|
|
Re: Failed U.S. lunar lander is now at the bottom of the ocean
[Re: Ramrod39]
#3207074
01/22/24 04:25 AM
01/22/24 04:25 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2019
Posts: 9,574
Super Spudsville
Mr PotatoHead
Half Baked
|
Half Baked
Joined: Aug 2019
Posts: 9,574
Super Spudsville
|
A new space race/ space arms race is my thoughts of going back to the moon.
As well if what they say is true we need it for a jump spot for further exploration.
STOP POTATO HATE!
|
|
|
Re: Failed U.S. lunar lander is now at the bottom of the ocean
[Re: Ramrod39]
#3207102
01/22/24 10:09 AM
01/22/24 10:09 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 12,296
Benton, IL.
DaveRS23
OP
Special needs idiot
|
OP
Special needs idiot
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 12,296
Benton, IL.
|
Anyone else wonder why we are spending $108,000,000 to go back to the moon?
First off, define "we'. Secondly, remember that this was a privately funded project. And then consider that Americans spend over 100 Billion each year on our pets. The we is us. As in taxpayers. It may be a commercial enterprise, but it is largely financed by NASA which is funded by tax dollars. " Peregrine is the first of eight planned missions in NASA’s commercial lunar payload services initiative."
"NASA hopes it can reduce the cost of future missions by sponsoring the private sector."
'The funding for the Peregrine mission to the Moon comes from two primary sources: 1. NASA's Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) initiative: Majority funding: This initiative contracts with private companies like Astrobotic, the company behind Peregrine, to deliver payloads to the lunar surface. Specific contracts: Astrobotic won a contract through CLPS to carry five NASA payloads on Peregrine, which significantly funded the mission. 2. Private investment and partnerships: Astrobotic itself: The company raised private funding from investors and venture capitalists to develop the Peregrine lander and secure launch services. Payload customers: Organizations and individuals paying to send their payloads to the Moon on Peregrine also contribute to the mission's funding. These payloads can include scientific instruments, lunar rovers, and even cremated remains.' www.quora.com/Who-is-providing-funding-for-the-Peregrine-mission-to-the-Moon
Master, again and still
|
|
|
Re: Failed U.S. lunar lander is now at the bottom of the ocean
[Re: DaveRS23]
#3207137
01/22/24 11:31 AM
01/22/24 11:31 AM
|
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 6,330
nowhere
Sniper
master
|
master
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 6,330
nowhere
|
Anyone else wonder why we are spending $108,000,000 to go back to the moon?
First off, define "we'. Secondly, remember that this was a privately funded project. And then consider that Americans spend over 100 Billion each year on our pets. The we is us. As in taxpayers. It may be a commercial enterprise, but it is largely financed by NASA which is funded by tax dollars. " Peregrine is the first of eight planned missions in NASA’s commercial lunar payload services initiative."
"NASA hopes it can reduce the cost of future missions by sponsoring the private sector."
'The funding for the Peregrine mission to the Moon comes from two primary sources: 1. NASA's Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) initiative: Majority funding: This initiative contracts with private companies like Astrobotic, the company behind Peregrine, to deliver payloads to the lunar surface. Specific contracts: Astrobotic won a contract through CLPS to carry five NASA payloads on Peregrine, which significantly funded the mission. 2. Private investment and partnerships: Astrobotic itself: The company raised private funding from investors and venture capitalists to develop the Peregrine lander and secure launch services. Payload customers: Organizations and individuals paying to send their payloads to the Moon on Peregrine also contribute to the mission's funding. These payloads can include scientific instruments, lunar rovers, and even cremated remains.' www.quora.com/Who-is-providing-funding-for-the-Peregrine-mission-to-the-Moon So when any organ of the US Government ships anything via commercial shippers is that a "taxpayer funded" company? No difference in regards to the Peregrine issue, Just a different delivery location. One does wonder if NASA had insurance on the items?
|
|
|
Re: Failed U.S. lunar lander is now at the bottom of the ocean
[Re: Mr PotatoHead]
#3207143
01/22/24 11:54 AM
01/22/24 11:54 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 21,547
N.E. OHIO, USA
A12
Too Many Posts
|
Too Many Posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 21,547
N.E. OHIO, USA
|
A new space race/ space arms race is my thoughts of going back to the moon. This^^^ Pretty sure there are lots of ways to take out or mess with (lower) orbiting military, communication, GPS and other satellites but would be a little tougher if there was something on the moon. Just a thought. A good friend of mine years ago was working for the gov on a "space cannon" for just that purpose to take out enemy satellites from the earth to the satellites, don't know if it ever happened?
|
|
|
Re: Failed U.S. lunar lander is now at the bottom of the ocean
[Re: Sniper]
#3207148
01/22/24 12:00 PM
01/22/24 12:00 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 12,296
Benton, IL.
DaveRS23
OP
Special needs idiot
|
OP
Special needs idiot
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 12,296
Benton, IL.
|
You are conflating two different things. NASA shipping something with FedEx is not the same as this NASA contract with Astrobotic. 
Master, again and still
|
|
|
Re: Failed U.S. lunar lander is now at the bottom of the ocean
[Re: Mr PotatoHead]
#3207153
01/22/24 12:33 PM
01/22/24 12:33 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,120
Rochester NY
Jer
super stock
|
super stock
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,120
Rochester NY
|
A new space race/ space arms race is my thoughts of going back to the moon. . It was reported last year that NASA and Nokia will be building a 4G network on the moon, supporting the NASA Artemis program. We're told that it's to support further 'space exploration', but having equipment on the moon, but controlled on earth, does sound like it could have more ominous intents.
|
|
|
Re: Failed U.S. lunar lander is now at the bottom of the ocean
[Re: DaveRS23]
#3207201
01/22/24 02:25 PM
01/22/24 02:25 PM
|
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 6,330
nowhere
Sniper
master
|
master
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 6,330
nowhere
|
You are conflating two different things. NASA shipping something with FedEx is not the same as this NASA contract with Astrobotic. Just like the feds have contracts with many carriers to deliver goods, this is exactly the same thing, Being a dumbshit, no one expects you to understand that.
|
|
|
|
|
