4mo ago

Sadly, Athena toppled over on the moon. With a lunar eclipse coming shortly, why didn't they design in a secondary power source over solar?

www.theguardian.com

Athena spacecraft declared dead after toppling over on moon

Even if it landed correctly, why would they plan a solar powered mission to the moon when our next lunar eclipse is in like 5 days?

Technology @lemmy.world

cm0002 @lemmy.world

4mo ago

Athena spacecraft declared dead after toppling over on moon

www.theguardian.com /science/2025/mar/07/athena-spacecraft-mission-dead

Technology @lemmy.ml

geneva_convenience @lemmy.ml

4mo ago

Athena spacecraft declared dead after toppling over on moon

www.theguardian.com /science/2025/mar/07/athena-spacecraft-mission-dead

[Dormant] moved to !space@mander.xyz @lemmy.world

Nemeski @lemm.ee

4mo ago

Athena spacecraft declared dead after toppling over on moon

www.theguardian.com /science/2025/mar/07/athena-spacecraft-mission-dead

26 comments

Weight == $$$
- Wait, I thought Eggs == $$$
  🤔
  
  Yes, and eggs have weight.
  So they couldn't use eggs as a power supply.
  Therefore, the only alternative was to rely entirely on solar.
That's just private-sector efficiency taking control.
Eclipses end, though. Being tipped over does not.
- Quite true. Strangely, here on Earth they have smart robots that you can literally kick over sideways, and their sensors and hydraulics and stuff kick right in and set them back upright.
  If you're gonna dump hundreds of millions of dollars into such a project, why not utilize all known, available, and proven technology?
  
  Weight. That's the only actual answer.
  It's extremely expensive to send weight to the moon, everything you list is more weight.
How would a secondary power source save it from being tipped over? That's a mission ending failure no matter how many redundant power sources you have.
- Being tipped over doesn't inherently stop all of its equipment from working, I'm sure at least some of the sensors could otherwise still work, if they had power.
  Even if only 10% of the sensors and equipment could still work, 10% would still be better than 0%.
  
  True, but communication could still be a problem.
  Generally this kind of probe will have a highly directional antenna that has pretty strict limits on it's aim. We would have to be very lucky for the antenna to not get damaged during the fall and end up in a position where it can still establish a connection. Even if all the science is fine, it's as good as useless if it can't communicate any results or accept commands.
What other power source? There is only solar and nuclear in space. And not even NASA does nuclear unless absolutely required for the mission.
- We have uranium in our tap water here. As long as it remains less that 43 parts per million, they consider it 'safe'. With hundreds of millions of dollars to throw around, it can't be all that difficult to filter enough uranium out for the energy for a two week mission.
  And it was a private spacecraft, not made by NASA (although it carried some of their sensors and equipment).
  
  You don't know how nuclear power works.
It's all about weight when going to space. It's one of the basic parts of rocket science. If you want to send 1 pound into space, you need to add gas to cover that weight, and the weight of the gas you add. Eventually you reach a point where the combined weight of the gas is more than the thrust it provides and you can't add more. Solar is light, a few hours of no power isn't a big deal over months or years of operation time, if you are confident things will come back on when there's light again.
Chief O'Brien would be so disappointed. he wouldn't like to be caught without a secondary backup in a crunch.

26 comments