Moon lander crashes during test
NASA's experimental Moon lander crashed and burst into flames seconds after takeoff due to a hardware fault, the US space agency said, prompting an investigation but no casualties.
The low-cost Project Morpheus lander prototype, designed to carry cargo to the Moon and other space destinations, lifted off the ground successfully but then failed its first autonomous free-flight test at the Kennedy Space Center.
Fire crews rushed to extinguish the flames of Morpheus, large enough to carry 1,100 pounds of cargo, such as a humanoid robot, a small rover or a small laboratory to convert moon dust to oxygen.
"A hardware component failure, which prevented it from maintaining stable flight," was to blame, NASA said, noting that its engineers are examining test data to determine what caused the failure.
"Failures such as these were anticipated prior to the test, and are part of the development process for any complex spaceflight hardware," the space agency said in a statement.
"What we learn from these tests will help us build the best possible system in the future."
NASA has so far spent $7 million on the project, which aims to provide an environmentally friendly vehicle to land on the Moon, asteroids and other surfaces in outer space.
It features a new propulsion system with oxygen and methane, both considered green fuels that are better for the environment than the rocket fuels NASA usually uses. They could be manufactured on other planets as well, according to the space agency.
The incident took place just days after NASA safely landed a robotic rover on Mars with the goal of finding traces of life that may have once existed on the Red Planet.
Popular Stories
Money has to serve, not to rule - Pope
Update 7 - Bombs kill 3 people, wound...
Updated - Boston bomb suspect 'identified'
Margaret Thatcher dies after stroke
Update 2 - Three missing women found...
Update 2: Gunman held in Rome police...
Investigators scour video, photos for...
Updated: Boston lockdown as bomber hunted
Many dead, injured in huge Texas...
In Discussion
Margaret Thatcher dies after stroke
Almost 500 migrants rescued in 24 hours...
Clashes as France approves gay marriages
More migrants arrive in Lampedusa
Boy, 8, killed in Boston blasts...
EU approves Cyprus bailout plan
England to ban wild animals at circuses
Pope washes feet of young inmates -...
Update 7 - Bombs kill 3 people, wound...
8 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
william cauchi
Aug 11th 2012, 10:57
You start getting your doubts about that moon thing that happened 43 years ago, when the technology of a simple washing machine today is 100 times more powerful than that of the said moon lander in 1969.
Somebody mentioned hi-resolution photos of the moon landing. Well with photoshop I can produce hi-resolution photos of me sipping a cool beer on Mars.
Well whatever, the moon landings had kept me up all night. Whilst I was driving my Ford Anglia 105E (with a Webber carburetor and fancy exhaust, mind you), somebody else was driving that buggy on the moon surface.
Gary Bonnici
Aug 11th 2012, 00:48
After more than 40 years NASA still have trouble and crashes with lunar landers. Now my doubts that they really went to the moon are stronger than ever....
G Caruana Dingli
Aug 10th 2012, 17:33
Morpheus is a test bed and it is not unexpected for problems to occur. The whole project is actually run on a very low budget between NASA and a commercial company called Armadillo space.
The project uses methane and oxygen fuel, this is a very useful fuel because it is easy to store for long periods, it can be manufactured in space and is even a waste product from the International Space Station. Morpheus also tests autonomous navigation systems which would allow automatic landings of about a 1 tonne payload on the moon, an asteroid etc
The LLRV was a very unstable trainer for Apollo astronauts. It consisted of a frame around a jet engine which provided a fixed thrust of 5/6 of the weight of the vehicle to simulate the moon's gravity. The rest of the thrust was provided by small hydrogen peroxide rockets in an attempt to simulate a lunar module on the moon. There were several accidents, the most famous one being Neil Armstrong's crash which very nearly killed him in 1968. Most of the LLRVs and the earleir LLTVs crarhed and they were only used to train the early Apollo astronauts.
Armstrong claims that the experience gained form these vehicles was essential for the Apollo 11 landing.
@Mr Charles Grixti - have a look at the NASA site to see high resolution pictures of the Apollo landing sites to dispel any doubts whether the Apollo missions actually landed on the moon.
Charles Grixti
Aug 10th 2012, 18:32
And even if it did, how exactly did this enrich the lives of everyday humans? T
The money would have better been spent to eradicate the top 3 killer diseases, help emerging nations and control rampant overpopulation and give us renewable and sustainable clean energy. NASA and what comes out of it is just done for military applications and superiority. Everything is greatly overpriced because it is the taxpayers that are paying, and the money goes into the coffers of the private corporations that have the defence contracts. Meanwhile, millions of American live in camp sites and have no access to decent medical care. But instead we get nice pictures that can be done with photoshop. Give me a break please.
G Caruana Dingli
Aug 10th 2012, 19:15
Thank you for replying, I appreciate your opinion but I beg to differ.
Of course the moon programme was partly to 'win' the cold war and of course a lot of the technology was sourced from the military and some was used by the military but that is no reason to deride the project. Do you think that atomic physics should not have been developed because it also led to the development of the atom bomb? or that planes should not have been invented because they were used to drop bombs?
The Apollo programme was an inspiration for the widespread teaching of science and the research involved led to the development of the computer and internet and satellite communications that you are using to write your comments. The most promising source of renewable energy is photovoltaic and this was developed to be used in space.
The money spent on the Apollo project was infinitesimal compared to what the US spent on the Vietnam, Gulf and Afghanistan wars. It definitely did not curtail the spending on science or medicine where developments have led to a life expectancy in the 80s for people in the US and incidentally also Malta.
NASA bashing is pointless because the exploration of new frontiers should be encouraged and will lead to long term gains on the investment. Have you read what difficulties Christopher Columbus encountered when trying to fund his trip to discover America. What would have happened if the king of Spain was Charles Grixti and he refused to pay for Columbus' trip?
I have spent a few days talking to one of the Apollo astronauts who walked on the moon and I assure you he is not a fake and definitely not photoshopped!
Charles Grixti
Aug 10th 2012, 15:53
Moon lander? They have not been to the moon in more than 40 years and some people believe they never went at all.
From the film it looks like a few cans strung together like you would find in some 'Z" grade horror sci-fi movie, but I am sure it costs taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars to produce. Ever wonder in whose pockets these large sums end up in? Just some food for thought.
paul camilleri
Aug 10th 2012, 09:10
even NASA cant get it right. they had the same problem back in the 60s when Niel Armstrong was test flying the luna lander when it went out of control. if anyone remembers the 6 million dollar man trailer which shows the very incident that Neil Armstong was in.
Louis Zammit Mangion
Aug 10th 2012, 10:58
Get your facts right Paul. While it is true that Neil Armstrong lost control of the Lunar Lander ResearchVehicle (LLRV), also known as the flying bedstead, the opening scene from Six Million Dollar Man featured the crash of the lifting body vehicle M2-F2 piloted by Bruce Peterson (who incidentally survived with multiple severe injuries, although he couldn't be "put back together" to the same extent as in the series). Both vehicles represented the cutting edge of aerodynamic design at that time, and without the computing power we have today it's a wonder they performed so well. Actually Armstrong said the real lunar lander was easier to fly than theLLRV, probably because in the moon's gravity things happen much slower.
Please choose the reason of your report below: