Spacecraft Lost Shortly After Blastoff: Unraveling the Mystery
A spacecraft destined to chart lunar water vanished a day after it left the ground from a Florida space station. Despite the abrupt loss of contact, the silence from the spacecraft was permanent. A year after the incident, the mystery behind the failure of the $72 million mission has been unveiled.
Software Glitch to Blame
A special investigation team was set up to dig into the reasons behind the failure. The review showed that a software error was responsible; it was supposed to direct the spacecraft's solar panels towards the sun, but instead, it turned them 180 degrees in the opposite direction. This, in combination with other onboard errors, led to the spacecraft's demise.
Timothy Cook, an associate professor from Massachusetts, explains that the downfall of such a complex system often involves more than one issue. Cook, who managed a failed mission himself back in 1999, knows all too well about these problems. His mission suffered from similar issues with its solar panels, among other things.
Manufacturer's Shortcomings
The spacecraft, branded as a low-cost project, was built by a company that, according to the reviewing panel, didn't adequately test the solar panel orientation software before the launch. While this issue might have been rectifiable, other software complications made it exceedingly difficult, and finally, impossible to correct the orientation error.
Both the manufacturing company and the space agency declined to comment on the matter. However, they both issued separate statements acknowledging the lessons learned from the failure. The space agency's statement admitted the disappointment but highlighted the valuable lessons for future budget-friendly missions.
Challenges of Low-Cost Missions
The manufacturer's statement also hinted that such low-cost missions carry inherent risks. They mentioned enhancing core principles in three areas to ensure mission success. These include fault management architecture, flight software implementation, and pre-launch testing.
Scott Hubbard, a veteran now teaching at a well-known university, agrees that budget-friendly, or class D missions do come with higher risks. "Class D missions are about taking risks, but they should be calculated and understood, not foolish," he advises. He emphasizes that cheap failure benefits no one.
He acknowledges the profound disappointment for scientists who have devoted their careers to such missions. These projects often take many years to materialize, making the loss even more devastating.
Lessons Learned
Bethany Ehlmann, the principal investigator for the mission, expressed her gratitude to the community who aided in the recovery attempt after the loss of contact. She stressed the importance of aligning institutional objectives, contracting, and technical approaches to ensure mission success. She appreciates the space agency's openness about the failure, as other missions can learn from the blunders.
One such mission that could benefit is a pair of spacecraft headed to Mars to study the effect of solar wind on the Martian atmosphere. The principal investigator for this mission, Robert Lillis, recounts his anxiety in the control room after launch. The spacecraft were expected to make contact within one to three hours of launch. However, there was only silence.
Lillis confesses his immediate thoughts turned to the previous mission's failure, filling him with dread. But the silence was broken six hours after launch when the ground antennas were correctly adjusted. The relief was immense. "It was like nothing I felt in my whole life," Lillis says.
A spacecraft destined to chart lunar water vanished a day after it left the ground from a Florida space station. Despite the abrupt loss of contact, the silence from the spacecraft was permanent. A year after the incident, the mystery behind the failure of the $72 million mission has been unveiled.
Software Glitch to Blame
A special investigation team was set up to dig into the reasons behind the failure. The review showed that a software error was responsible; it was supposed to direct the spacecraft's solar panels towards the sun, but instead, it turned them 180 degrees in the opposite direction. This, in combination with other onboard errors, led to the spacecraft's demise.
Timothy Cook, an associate professor from Massachusetts, explains that the downfall of such a complex system often involves more than one issue. Cook, who managed a failed mission himself back in 1999, knows all too well about these problems. His mission suffered from similar issues with its solar panels, among other things.
Manufacturer's Shortcomings
The spacecraft, branded as a low-cost project, was built by a company that, according to the reviewing panel, didn't adequately test the solar panel orientation software before the launch. While this issue might have been rectifiable, other software complications made it exceedingly difficult, and finally, impossible to correct the orientation error.
Both the manufacturing company and the space agency declined to comment on the matter. However, they both issued separate statements acknowledging the lessons learned from the failure. The space agency's statement admitted the disappointment but highlighted the valuable lessons for future budget-friendly missions.
Challenges of Low-Cost Missions
The manufacturer's statement also hinted that such low-cost missions carry inherent risks. They mentioned enhancing core principles in three areas to ensure mission success. These include fault management architecture, flight software implementation, and pre-launch testing.
Scott Hubbard, a veteran now teaching at a well-known university, agrees that budget-friendly, or class D missions do come with higher risks. "Class D missions are about taking risks, but they should be calculated and understood, not foolish," he advises. He emphasizes that cheap failure benefits no one.
He acknowledges the profound disappointment for scientists who have devoted their careers to such missions. These projects often take many years to materialize, making the loss even more devastating.
Lessons Learned
Bethany Ehlmann, the principal investigator for the mission, expressed her gratitude to the community who aided in the recovery attempt after the loss of contact. She stressed the importance of aligning institutional objectives, contracting, and technical approaches to ensure mission success. She appreciates the space agency's openness about the failure, as other missions can learn from the blunders.
One such mission that could benefit is a pair of spacecraft headed to Mars to study the effect of solar wind on the Martian atmosphere. The principal investigator for this mission, Robert Lillis, recounts his anxiety in the control room after launch. The spacecraft were expected to make contact within one to three hours of launch. However, there was only silence.
Lillis confesses his immediate thoughts turned to the previous mission's failure, filling him with dread. But the silence was broken six hours after launch when the ground antennas were correctly adjusted. The relief was immense. "It was like nothing I felt in my whole life," Lillis says.