What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Astrobotic’s Peregrine Mission One did not land on the Moon. A helium-pressure valve failed soon after its Jan. 8, 2024 launch, rupturing the oxidizer tank and making a soft landing impossible. After operating for about 10 days, the spacecraft was deliberately guided into a controlled re-entry over the South Pacific on Jan. 18. Four of NASA’s five payloads still powered on and returned flight data.
What happened to the Peregrine lunar lander?
Peregrine launched from Cape Canaveral aboard United Launch Alliance’s first Vulcan rocket as NASA’s first commercial lunar delivery under the Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) initiative. Its primary objective was to deliver NASA and other customers’ payloads to the lunar surface.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
For All Mankind | Buy on Amazon | |
| 2 |
|
The Last Man on the Moon | $5.99 | Buy on Amazon |
| 3 |
|
Moon Pilot | $3.99 | Buy on Amazon |
After launch, the spacecraft activated its avionics and power-management systems and established communications through NASA’s Deep Space Network. The failure occurred during propulsion-system commissioning, when helium pressure-control valve PCV2 was actuated. Helium then entered the oxidizer tank uncontrollably, rapidly raising its pressure until the tank ruptured. Oxidizer leaked for the rest of the mission, leaving the propulsion system unable to provide the pressure needed for a lunar descent and landing.
Astrobotic stabilized the spacecraft as much as possible, collected investigation data and continued payload operations while assessing its options.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors2Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches3Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems#1 Best Overall
Why did Peregrine fail to land?
Astrobotic’s independent review board later identified the most likely root cause as PCV2 losing its seal after actuation. The board linked that loss of sealing to vibration-initiated relaxation between threaded components inside the valve. The resulting helium flow overpressurized and ruptured the oxidizer tank.
The conclusion was supported by ground testing of a spare valve under similar conditions, which produced a comparable leak. Disassembly of that spare valve found a loosened threaded joint and damage to its primary seating O-ring. Because Peregrine itself was lost during re-entry, these findings support a most-likely explanation rather than a direct inspection of the flight valve.
NASA’s contemporaneous Jan. 14 statement said the root cause was not yet known. That was accurate at the time; Astrobotic’s more detailed review was published in August 2024 after the investigation chaired by Ohio State University professor Dr. John Horack and involving 34 government, industry and company subject-matter experts.
Why was the spacecraft sent back into the atmosphere?
Once the propulsion leak ruled out a soft landing, Astrobotic and NASA chose a controlled disposal rather than leaving a damaged vehicle in cislunar space. Astrobotic’s post-mission report says the decision, made in consultation with NASA on Jan. 13, was intended to avoid any possibility of a debris-proliferation event.
Recommended Free Tools
Rank #2
NASA reported that Peregrine re-entered over open water in the South Pacific at approximately 4:04 p.m. EST on Jan. 18, 2024. This was a planned, controlled return—not a crash or an uncontrolled impact.
NASA’s mission-conclusion account describes the spacecraft as spending 10 days and 13 hours in space, while Astrobotic’s post-mission report records 10 days and 14 hours of spacecraft operation. Astrobotic also reported that Peregrine traveled more than 535,000 miles.
What data did Peregrine return?
A failed landing did not mean that the mission produced no useful results. NASA said four of its five payloads powered on and collected data during flight:
- Linear Energy Transfer Spectrometer (LETS)
- Near-Infrared Volatile Spectrometer System (NIRVSS)
- Neutron Spectrometer System (NSS)
- Peregrine Ion-Trap Mass Spectrometer (PITMS)
NASA said preliminary results indicated measurements of natural radiation and chemical compounds around the spacecraft, with science teams still interpreting the data at the time of the agency’s conclusion announcement.
Rank #3
The fifth NASA payload, the Laser Retroreflector Array (LRA), was passive and designed for measurements from the lunar surface. It therefore could not perform its intended role during Peregrine’s flight.
“Space exploration is a daring task, and the science and spaceflight data collected from Astrobotic’s lunar lander is better preparing NASA for future CLPS deliveries and crewed missions under Artemis.”
— Bill Nelson, NASA administrator, Jan. 19, 2024
Peregrine’s intended mission versus its actual outcome
| Mission element | Planned | What happened |
|---|---|---|
| Launch | Jan. 8, 2024, on Vulcan’s maiden flight | Completed; spacecraft reached cislunar space |
| Propulsion | Support a powered lunar descent and landing | PCV2 leak ruptured the oxidizer tank; landing pressure was unavailable |
| Lunar landing | Deliver payloads to the Moon | Abandoned |
| NASA payload operations | Operate instruments during the mission and at the lunar surface | Four of five powered on and collected flight data; LRA required surface operations |
| End of mission | Continue lunar-surface operations | Controlled re-entry over the South Pacific on Jan. 18 |
What Peregrine’s failure says about early commercial lunar missions
Peregrine was the first commercial-vendor mission launched to the Moon through NASA’s CLPS program. NASA’s Office of Inspector General has described CLPS as an effort that accepts significant technical and program risk while transferring more responsibility to commercial providers. Its June 2024 review identifies propulsion engines, propellant tanks and avionics among the difficult lander-development areas facing vendors.
That context matters: Peregrine’s landing failure exposed a propulsion-system vulnerability, but the spacecraft also demonstrated launch, communications, power management, in-flight operations and payload commanding. NASA associate administrator for the Science Mission Directorate Nicola Fox said, “Spaceflight is an unforgiving environment, and we commend Astrobotic for its perseverance and making every viable effort to collect data and show its capabilities of Peregrine while in flight.”
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Quick Recap
Timeline of Peregrine Mission One
- Jan. 8, 2024: Peregrine launches from Cape Canaveral on ULA’s maiden Vulcan flight. The spacecraft powers up, establishes Deep Space Network communications and encounters the propulsion anomaly during commissioning.
- After launch: PCV2 allows uncontrolled helium flow into the oxidizer tank. The tank overpressurizes, ruptures and continues leaking oxidizer.
- Jan. 13 (reported later): Astrobotic, in consultation with NASA, decides to end the mission rather than risk debris proliferation in cislunar space.
- Jan. 14: NASA announces that the propulsion problem prevents a soft landing and says the root cause is still too early to determine.
- Jan. 18: Peregrine makes a controlled re-entry over the South Pacific at about 4:04 p.m. EST.
- Aug. 2024: Astrobotic publishes its post-mission review and the board’s most-likely PCV2 failure explanation.
Sources
- NASA mission conclusion, Jan. 19, 2024
- NASA mission update, Jan. 14, 2024
- Astrobotic review-board announcement, Aug. 27, 2024
- Astrobotic Peregrine Mission One Post-Mission Report
- NASA Office of Inspector General, CLPS review, IG-24-013
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
