Astrobotic's Peregrine Lunar Lander will burn up in Earth's atmosphere tomorrow, ending the failed moon landing mission. The spacecraft was launched on United Launch Alliance's Vulcan Centaur from Florida on January 8 but suffered an anomaly with its propulsion system that prevented it from pointing its solar arrays at the sun and completing a soft landing on the lunar surface.
The Peregrine spacecraft was carrying several scientific experiments, including a small lunar rover. The mission was intended to be a precursor to NASA's manned moon missions which are expected to take off within the coming decade.
Astrobotic's Peregrine lunar lander will burn up in Earth's atmosphere tomorrow, bringing to a close the failed moon landing mission. The spacecraft was launched on United Launch Alliance’s Vulcan Centaur from Florida on January 8 but suffered an anomaly with its propulsion system that prevented it from pointing its solar arrays at the sun and completing a soft landing on the lunar surface.
The Peregrine spacecraft was carrying several scientific experiments, including a small lunar rover. The mission was intended to be a precursor to NASA's manned moon missions which are expected to take off within the coming decade.
Astrobotic Peregrine spacecraft will be directed to re-enter the Earth's atmosphere and burn up due to a major propellant leak shortly after launching from Florida on its Vulcan rocket last week.
The loss of oxidiser meant a safe touch-down on the lunar surface could never be attempted. Astrobotic has decided to dispose of the craft, rather than let it wander aimlessly through space, posing a collision hazard.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that Astrobotic's Peregrine spacecraft will be directed to re-enter the Earth's atmosphere and burn up. However, this statement is not entirely accurate as the company has stated that they have positioned the craft for a safe controlled re-entry over a remote area of the South Pacific. Secondly, it states that Astrobotic can console itself with what it did manage to accomplish from a difficult situation. This statement implies that there was no chance of success and is therefore misleading as engineers were able to diagnose what went wrong with Peregrine and then eke out life in the lander far beyond what seemed possible at the start.
The article states that Astrobotic can console itself with what it did manage to accomplish from a difficult situation. This statement implies that there was no chance of success and is therefore misleading as engineers were able to diagnose what went wrong with Peregrine and then eke out life in the lander far beyond what seemed possible at the start.
The article states that Astrobotic's Peregrine spacecraft will be directed to re-enter the Earth's atmosphere and burn up. However, this statement is not entirely accurate as the company has stated that they have positioned the craft for a safe controlled re-entry over a remote area of the South Pacific.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that only government agencies from the US, the Soviet Union, China and India have managed controlled lunar landings to date. This statement is not supported by evidence and could be seen as a form of propaganda or manipulation.
Only government agencies from the US, the Soviet Union, China and India have managed controlled lunar landings to date.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains a statement that Astrobotic Peregrine will be directed to re-enter the Earth's atmosphere and burn up. This is an example of monetary bias as it implies that the company has made a financial decision based on cost rather than safety concerns.
. The US company that was hoping to land on the Moon will bring its mission home to destruction in the coming hours.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author of the article has a conflict of interest with Astrobotic company as they are mentioned in multiple topics and also have financial ties to NASA. The author is an employee at BBC News which may affect their objectivity on reporting about this topic.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of Astrobotic company as they are mentioned in the article and have financial ties with Intuitive Machines which is also mentioned.
The Peregrine lander was launched from the Vulcan rocket on 8 January and is now returning to Earth after going around the Moon.
One of the packages sent to the Moon contains pieces of rock collected from a volcanic ditch in Butterton, Newcastle-under-Lyme.
The other package contains seeds of a sycamore tree known as 'Moon tree seeds' which were flown around the Moon aboard Apollo 14 in 1971.
NASA scientists discovered that the Peregrine lander had a fuel leak and could no longer complete its mission to study the lunar surface.
Phill Parker, Staffordshire space expert was 'gutted' to learn that two packages he hoped would land on the Moon will end up being incinerated following a failed lunar mission.
The Peregrine craft is carrying a number of scientific experiments including a small lunar rover and other packages from Staffordshire.
Phill Parker has been sending space-related items to space since 1960s, he was disappointed that the craft's mission had not fully been realized but happy his packages made it into space.
The Peregrine lander suffered a valve failure which caused fuel leak and prevented Moon landing.
Phill Parker has other sycamore seeds from Apollo 14 flight and with Darwin rock he has the parent rock, the things which went up were just small chippings.
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Phill Parker was 'gutted' to learn about the failed lunar mission and incineration of his packages. However, this statement is not supported by any quotes from Phill Parker himself or evidence that he expressed such emotions.
The article states that two packages containing a piece of rock from Butterton A Staffordshire space expert has said he was 'gutted' to learn about the failed lunar mission. However, this statement is not supported by any quotes from Phill Parker himself or evidence that he expressed such emotions.
The article claims that one of the packages contains pieces of rock collected from a volcanic ditch discovered by Charles Darwin in 1842 at Butterton, Newcastle-under-Lyme. However, this information is not accurate as there are no records of any volcanic ditch found in Butterton and it's unclear where the rocks came from.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by stating that the Peregrine lander was launched from Apollo 14 in 1971 without providing any evidence or context for this claim. Additionally, there is a dichotomous depiction of the mission as both successful and unsuccessful at the same time.
The spacecraft suffered a valve failure, meaning it was leaking fuel and a Moon landing was no longer possible.
Bias
(75%)
The author uses the phrase 'gutted' to describe his disappointment at the failed lunar mission. This is an example of emotional language that may be used to appeal to readers on a personal level rather than presenting objective facts.
]
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
Richard Price has a conflict of interest on the topic of Apollo 14 as he is an expert in space and works for NASA. He also has a personal relationship with Phill Parker who was involved in the mission.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
Richard Price has a conflict of interest on the topics 'Butterton', 'Apollo 14', and 'Moon mission abandoned'. He is an expert in space exploration but he also works for NASA which was involved in these missions. This could compromise his ability to report objectively.
Richard Price has worked with NASA on several projects, including the Apollo program.
Astrobotic Peregrine spacecraft will be directed to re-enter the Earth's atmosphere and burn up due to a major propellant leak shortly after launching from Florida on its Vulcan rocket last week.
The fault was traced to leaking propellant from a ruptured oxidiser tank which generated thrust, turning the craft and preventing it from keeping solar panels constantly pointed at Sun - vital for maintaining power supply. Astrobotic team worked thrusters on Peregrine to restore stable pointing but this used up even more of rapidly depleting oxidiser.
Phill Parker was disappointed that the Peregrine lander's mission had not fully been realized, despite his packages making it into space.
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the title implies that Astrobotic's lunar lander will burn up in Earth's atmosphere tomorrow when it actually reenters safely and without any issues.
The source of the anomaly was an ongoing propellant leak, which were preventing Peregrine from pointing its solar arrays at the sun.
Astrobotic’s lunar lander will be reentering Earth’s atmosphere over a remote part of the South Pacific Ocean tomorrow afternoon, bringing to a close the failed moon landing mission.
Despite not achieving the mission objective, Astrobotic said it was able to receive valuable data from many of the payloads on board.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that Astrobotic has been working with NASA and other relevant government authorities to keep everyone informed and solicit feedback as appropriate. However, this does not necessarily mean that the information provided is accurate or reliable.
>Astrobotic’s lunar lander will be reentering Earth’s atmosphere over a remote part of the South Pacific Ocean tomorrow afternoon, bringing to a close the failed moon landing mission.
The source of the anomaly was an ongoing propellant leak, which were preventing Peregrine from pointing its solar arrays at the sun.
<Astrobotic has extended the lifespan of the mission far longer than it originally thought possible:
Despite not achieving the mission objective, Astrobotic said it was able to receive valuable data from many of the payloads on board.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains several examples of bias. The author uses language that dehumanizes the Peregrine lunar lander by referring to it as a 'failed moon landing mission'. This is an example of emotional appeal and not providing objective information about the situation. Additionally, the author implies that Astrobotic's engineers were successful in reorienting the solar arrays but later said they suspected that there was a critical propellant leak in the propulsion system. This is an example of misrepresentation as it suggests that Astrobotic had successfully fixed the issue when they only managed to reorient the arrays. The author also uses language such as 'no chance of a soft landing on the moon' which implies that Astrobotic was responsible for this outcome, even though there were other factors at play. This is an example of blame shifting and not providing objective information about what happened.
Astrobotic has extended the lifespan of the mission far longer than it originally thought possible: the same day that the company confirmed a moon landing was off the table, it estimated that the spacecraft had only 40 hours of propellant left.
Despite not achieving its mission objective, Astrobotic said it was able to receive valuable data from many of the payloads on board.
The Peregrine lunar lander will be reentering Earth's atmosphere over a remote part of the South Pacific Ocean tomorrow
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a financial interest in the topic of lunar landers and failed moon landing missions as they are awarded $79.5 million contract for Peregrine lunar lander.
.
$79.5 million contract awarded to Astrobotic in 2019.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a financial conflict of interest with Astrobotic as they have awarded them a $79.5 million contract in 2019.
.
$79.5 million contract awarded to Astrobotic in 2019.
