Peregrine moon lander suffers anomaly after launch
A new commercial moon lander, Astrobotic’s Peregrine, has suffered a propulsion anomaly and loss of propellant shortly after launch on ULA’s debut Vulcan Centaur rocket, threatening its planned February lunar landing despite a partial recovery of its solar orientation. Commenters weigh the implications for NASA’s Commercial Lunar Payload Services program and for the broader push toward cheaper, more frequent private lunar missions. The payload mix—ranging from scientific instruments to cryptocurrency tokens and human remains—also raises ethical and cultural questions about treating the Moon as a commercial memorial site and potential dumping ground.
Launch outcome and anomaly
- Commenters note relief that the anomaly appears confined to the Peregrine lander, not the brand‑new Vulcan launch vehicle.
- Links to updates indicate the team restored sun-pointing for the solar array but likely has a significant propellant leak, making the original lunar landing in February doubtful.
- Some see this as evidence that “space is hard” and early commercial lander missions will be failure‑prone.
Rocket performance, noise, and local effects
- Locals report being woken by Vulcan’s launch even tens of miles away, describing it as extremely loud and powerful.
- Speculation about future Starship operations raises questions about noise impact if there are many launches per year, including whether offshore platforms or remote sites will become necessary.
Propulsion, pollution, and fuels
- Discussion compares methane–oxygen engines (Starship, BE‑4) to kerosene and solid rocket boosters.
- Several argue methalox exhaust is mostly CO₂ and water with less soot, and that solids are much dirtier and widespread in use.
- Others point out engines often run fuel‑rich, so some unburned methane may be emitted, which is a strong greenhouse gas, though some “afterburn” in the plume is expected.
- Accidental release of large quantities of unburned methane is noted as potentially damaging but rare.
Human remains and cryptocurrency payloads
- A major thread debates the inclusion of cremated human remains and “cryptocurrency” as payloads.
- Some see lunar burial and crypto payloads as tasteless marketing and turning the Moon into a vanity cemetery or garbage dump.
- Others argue ashes are already scattered on Earth’s mountains and oceans, so the Moon is not fundamentally different.
- There is confusion and critique about what it even means to “have cryptocurrency on board” physically (keys vs actual coins), with many labeling it a stunt tied to “to the Moon” crypto memes.
Cultural and legal objections
- The Navajo Nation’s objection to remains on the Moon as desecration of a sacred site is discussed.
- Some dismiss this as “space NIMBYism”; others emphasize the difference between private, for‑profit memorial marketing and quiet, personal scattering of ashes.
- Questions arise over who gets to decide what happens on the Moon, given current treaties forbid land ownership but not such activities.
Space debris, contamination, and ethics
- Comparisons are made between Apollo-era waste (including bags of astronaut waste) and new commercial payloads.
- Some argue any human presence will inevitably leave traces, including future lunar garbage and burial sites.
- Others worry about planetary protection, biological contamination, or using the Moon as a dumping ground for things like nuclear waste, though this last idea is framed as conditional on very safe transport.
Mission operations and technical risk
- First‑hand anecdotes from satellite operators describe the intense stress when attitude control and sun-pointing are at risk.
- Another team planning a small-satellite deployment discusses design trade-offs in solar panel placement and backup power.
- Overall sentiment: admiration for the engineering effort, recognition of high failure risk, and hope that even partial mission success can return useful science and operational experience.