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

News
By Mike Wall
published

Efforts to get LunaH-Map on track may wrap up by the end of May, mission team members said.

NASA's LunaH-Map cubesat is designed to measure the distribution and abundance of hydrogen in the moon's south polar region.
Artist's rendering of NASA's LunaH-Map cubesat, which was designed to measure the distribution and abundance of hydrogen in the moon's south polar region. (Image credit: NASA/Arizona State University)

There apparently isn't much time left to save NASA's LunaH-Map cubesat.

The tiny probe was one of 10 cubesats that launched as ride-along payloads last November on Artemis 1, the first-ever mission of NASA's moon-bound Artemis pogram.

LunaH-Map aimed to map the abundance and distribution of water ice near the south pole of the moon. But the spacecraft failed to perform a crucial engine burn five days after liftoff and didn't get into lunar orbit as planned.

Mission team members soon traced the problem to a stuck valve in the cubesat's propulsion system. They've been trying to troubleshoot it ever since, but those efforts may wrap up soon.

"If we cannot ignite the [propulsion] system, we are likely to end operations at the end of May," LunaH-Map principal investigator Craig Hardgrove, of Arizona State University, said on Monday (May 1) at the Interplanetary Small Satellite Conference, according to SpaceNews. 

Related: The 10 greatest images from NASA's Artemis 1 moon mission

The Artemis 1 cubesats were integrated into a stage adapter on NASA's Space Launch System (SLS) megarocket in the fall of 2021, as SpaceNews noted. But the mission didn't get off the ground until the following November, thanks to technical issues and bad weather.

That delay may be the ultimate cause of the problem that afflicted LunaH-Map, Hardgrove said. 

"We had informed NASA that this propulsion system was not built to withstand a long launch delay, longer than four or five months," he said on Monday, according to SpaceNews.

Related stories:

— NASA's Artemis 1 mission launched 10 cubesats. Here's how they're doing

 —  Artemis 1 launch success makes NASA's SLS the most powerful rocket ever to fly

—  Artemis 1 Orion spacecraft sees the moon for 1st time in stunning video

LunaH-Map wasn't the only Artemis 1 cubesat to have a rocky road after liftoff. For example, Japan's OMOTENASHI spacecraft suffered a communications problem that prevented it from dropping a tiny lander on the moon. And NEA Scout, which aimed to solar-sail its way to a near-Earth asteroid and then study the space rock up close, never phoned home after the Nov. 16 launch.

But the mission teams of all the Artemis 1 cubesats should hold their heads up high, Hardgrove said. 

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

Artemis 1 succeeded overall, sending an uncrewed Orion capsule to lunar orbit and back. NASA is now gearing up for Artemis 2, which will launch four astronauts around the moon in late 2024, if all goes according to plan. Artemis 3, which will put boots down near the lunar south pole, is scheduled to follow a year or so later.

Mike Wall is the author of "Out There" (Grand Central Publishing, 2018; illustrated by Karl Tate), a book about the search for alien life. Follow him on Twitter @michaeldwall. Follow us on Twitter @Spacedotcom or Facebook.

Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: community@space.com.

Mike Wall
Mike Wall
Senior Space Writer

Michael Wall is a Senior Space Writer with Space.com and joined the team in 2010. He primarily covers exoplanets, spaceflight and military space, but has been known to dabble in the space art beat. His book about the search for alien life, "Out There," was published on Nov. 13, 2018. Before becoming a science writer, Michael worked as a herpetologist and wildlife biologist. He has a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology from the University of Sydney, Australia, a bachelor's degree from the University of Arizona, and a graduate certificate in science writing from the University of California, Santa Cruz. To find out what his latest project is, you can follow Michael on Twitter.

13 Comments Comment from the forums
  • 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.
    Reply
  • Ameriman
    billslugg said:
    "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.
    Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • billslugg
    Ameriman said:
    Of course they are failures. Stop Gaslighting.
    Start reading more carefully.
    Reply
  • chardgrove
    billslugg said:
    "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.
    Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • 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".
    Reply
  • 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”.
    Reply
  • chardgrove
    Unclear Engineer said:
    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.
    Reply
  • 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?
    Reply