The end may be near for ice-hunting Artemis 1 moon cubesat

[Admin]

Mission team members may stop trying to fix a stuck valve on the LunaH-Map cubesat at the end of the month, according to reports.

The end may be near for ice-hunting Artemis 1 moon cubesat : Read more

 

[billslugg]

"Characterizing any of them as a failure is not fair," he said, according to SpaceNews. "They've all developed a substantial amount of technology."

To the extent that the unresponsive cubesats show us what does not work, yes, they are not failures.

 

[Ameriman]

"Characterizing any of them as a failure is not fair," he said, according to SpaceNews. "They've all developed a substantial amount of technology."

To the extent that the unresponsive cubesats show us what does not work, yes, they are not failures.

Of course they are failures. Stop Gaslighting.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

To the extent that those cubesats failed to achieve their mission objectives, yes, they are failures. This was not a test launch like the recent Super Heavy / Starship launch, where the objectives were to get developmental data on the launch vehicles, themselves.

That said, the folks who developed those cubesats did achieve some useful things. If the Artemis 1 mission had launched on schedule, who knows if the cubesats would have actually achieved their design missions. So, I would not necessarily chalk up those failures against the cubesats themselves. Artemis reliability and schedulability are substantial issues, and the Artemis 1 mission was partly to get data on vehicle performance. But, it was also intended to go well enough to man-rate the vehicles for at least moon orbit and return.

 

[billslugg]

Of course they are failures. Stop Gaslighting.

Start reading more carefully.

 

[chardgrove]

"Characterizing any of them as a failure is not fair," he said, according to SpaceNews. "They've all developed a substantial amount of technology."

To the extent that the unresponsive cubesats show us what does not work, yes, they are not failures.

That’s quite the myopic view of technological progress. Is SpaceX a failed company because they had a few early launch failures? Did they achieve nothing from all their work getting to those “failed” launches? IMO the answer is no, and for the very modest expense these small satellites incurred on the taxpayers the investment in technological advancement and early career engineers/scientists was well worth it.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

There is quite a difference in the SpaceX development launches and the NASA launches. Would you have called the Artemis 1 launch a "success" if it failed and was intentionally destroyed 4 minutes after launch? The Atremis 1 mission was to show that it coud do its mission as designed and constructed. The Super Heavy launch was to find the problems that would keep it from doing its design functions so that later launches would be successful.

 

[billslugg]

chardgrove
"Failure" is when the success criteria is not met. There are various levels of success and failure depending on how much of the success criteria is met. A cubesat that leaves the pad and never sends any data back is known as a "complete failure".

 

[chardgrove]

You’re incorrect. Cubesats were developed at universities to engage and teach engineeeing students. Some of the cubes on Artemis-1 were developed at universities and their success criteria included student engagement, developing the satellite, testing it successfully and delivering it to SLS (furthering technological advancement and young engineer/scientist careers). In the case of LunaH-Map, which was developed at a university, it did all of those things and it also collected science data at the Moon, and completed several other technology demonstrations, and from what everyone can tell has about 99% of its components working very well 6 months after launch. In that case, some success criteria were met, and others were not.

I’m arguing that people should stop focusing on the one success requirement that was not met for any number of these satellites, and instead focus on those success criteria that were met. Particularly since we don’t always know what success criteria they were working towards along the way. A satellite that doesn’t phone home is not necessarily a “complete failure”.

 

[chardgrove]

There is quite a difference in the SpaceX development launches and the NASA launches. Would you have called the Artemis 1 launch a "success" if it failed and was intentionally destroyed 4 minutes after launch? The Atremis 1 mission was to show that it coud do its mission as designed and constructed. The Super Heavy launch was to find the problems that would keep it from doing its design functions so that later launches would be successful.

I’m not comparing Artemis-1 launch or development with SpaceX launch or development at all. They’re not comparable. I’m comparing the fact that SpaceX publicly failed many times and yet no one accuses them of failing, while the Artemis cubesats are not given the same benefit of the doubt. It should be obvious that failure is just a part of technological progress.

 

[billslugg]

chardgrove
I am not talking about anything but: "A cubesat that leaves the pad and never sends any data back." NEA Scout, which was not heard from after launch, is an example of this. Please try to focus and don't put words into my mouth.

From eoportal dot org:
"NEA Scout’s science objectives are to retire strategic knowledge gaps for Human exploration and increase our understanding of near earth asteroids by focusing on a class of targets (<100 m) that has not been covered by previous and ongoing missions.
Specific measurement objectives include global shape determination and regional morphology mapping, determination of rotational parameters, including whether the object is a single axis rotator or a tumbler, albedo mapping on a global scale, and high-resolution imaging of a fraction of the surface. At closest approach, the resolution is projected to be <10 cm/pix."

None of the science objectives were met. That is the definition of mission failure.

As for your objectives of providing students with experience and professors with jobs, they are not listed in the mission science objectives. They would be known as "nice to haves" or "side benefits" but play no role in determining mission success. When they go back for more money and assert that the mission was partly successful, they will lose credibiity. Better to be honest, admit failure, and present a plan that it won't happen again.

Such a plan might be presented to the funding agency for the next attempt.

- Admission of complete failure
- Say you are sorry
- Tell them how disappointed all of the team is
- Emphasize how much you appreciate the hard work that went on
by all of the people who worked on it
- Explain that it was a good learning experience

- Plan to identify every possible means of failure.
- Brainstorming in groups - different groups, different mixes of people
- Outside review
- anonymous feedback
- Plan to mitigate each

- If no "Most Probable Cause" can be found then look at every facet of our organization including:
- Is there a mole in our organization?
- Are people burned out from long hours?
- Is there a bully causing problems?
- Do we have drinking and drug use going on?
- Have we been hacked?

 

[chardgrove]

I hope you remember your perspective on this the next time you work on a project for 5-7 years and it isn’t 100% successful. No one is arguing that NEAScout was 100% successful, but to ignore the work of hundreds of engineers and scientists across multiple missions and declare the entire enterprise a “failure” feels needlessly ignorant of the technology that was developed, and careers that were jumpstarted, in support of these missions. You also have no way of knowing, despite what you’ve found on eportal or other internet searches, exactly what the goals and objectives were for each mission unless you talk to the people involved. As one of the people deeply involved in LunaH-Map, I can tell you that although it was not fully successful the team is happy with the successes we have had. Our science instrument collected data at the Moon and has been selected to fly on a lunar rover. We stood up a successful mission operations center that is communicating with the spacecraft today. We demonstrated an on-board autonavigation software. I’m happy with what we did and excited to see what the future holds for these little spacecraft.

 

[billslugg]

I did not say the entire enterprise was a failure. I said the mission was a failure. Plwase do not put words into my mouth.

That particular satellite failed. Not the people. You don't ever tell anyone they are a failure or they will live up to your expectation.

I can tell you have had some disappointments. Me too.

I worked on projects in heavy industry for 48 years. Some were gloriously successful and others complete bombs. No one cared if you failed, all we cared about was an honest assessment of what went wrong and a good plan to fix it. If your project was on the work plan and you were doing it in a sanctioned manner then we, who designed the system, are at fault. All we care about is it does not happen again. We don't "blame" unless the action was against the rules, calculated and deliberate, for personal gain, at other's expense. As always we constantly celebrate the hard work going on.

 

[Ameriman]

Would you have called the Artemis 1 launch a "success" if it failed

NASA promised SLS(Constellation) as a “quick & cheap” replacement for Shuttle… 18 years & $60 billion taxpayer dollars ago.
Yes, by any Standard SLS/Orion is another $4.1 billion per launch miserable unaffordable, unsustainable dead end NASA failure.

SpaceX is using exciting new breakthrough, affordable green reused technology, for example with engines costing $250k each.
NASA is using legacy 1970s throwaway technology with engines costing $148 million each… and solids spewing hundreds of tons of carcinogens into our atmosphere & toxic boosters into our oceans.
Innovative, efficient, spirited SpaceX is due test launches & patience, bloated, pork driven, wasteful Federal Agency Nasa is not.