NASA ‘Snoopy’ lunar module likely found 50 years after being jettisoned(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
NASA ‘Snoopy’ lunar module likely found 50 years after being jettisoned
https://techcrunch.com/2019/06/10/nasa-snoopy-lunar-module-likely-found-50-years-after-being-jettisoned-into-space/
83 comments
I'm positive NASA pilots are professional enough not to 'jump the queue', I believe the fuel limitation, like everything else, was fine tuned to minimize total weight on takeoff.
>I'm positive..
i'd like to be positive about that too, but the whole stamp controversy made me realize that astronauts are people, too.
[0]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_15_postal_covers_incide...
i'd like to be positive about that too, but the whole stamp controversy made me realize that astronauts are people, too.
[0]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_15_postal_covers_incide...
Plenty of other shenanigans done on different missions, too. Gemini Sandwich[0], mutiny on Skylab[1], ...
--
[0] - https://www.space.com/39341-john-young-smuggled-corned-beef-...
[1] - https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/mutiny-space-why-t...
--
[0] - https://www.space.com/39341-john-young-smuggled-corned-beef-...
[1] - https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/mutiny-space-why-t...
Agree. Reading the book, "Moondust", it's clear that more than a couple of the Apollo Commanders were going to land regardless of what the computer, radar or Mission Control advised.
Not to mention this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Nowak#Charges_of_attempte...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Nowak#Charges_of_attempte...
You can hear about Apollo 10 a little bit in this podcast (which is absolutely amazing) : https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w13xttx2
Imagine just landing on the moon, totally off the cuff. Madness. Even crazier that NASA considered this and accommodated for it lol
Conversely, I am glad I live in a universe where professional crew members stick to the flight plan and don't go glory hunting at the first opportunity.
AFAIK, "Snoopy" was too heavy to land and take off anyhow, the astronauts didn't have EVA capable suits, and there wasn't enough oxygen to replenish the LM cabin should they have opened the hatch to perform EVA. Any ride to the surface would have been suicidal folly, regardless of fuel quantity.
AFAIK, "Snoopy" was too heavy to land and take off anyhow, the astronauts didn't have EVA capable suits, and there wasn't enough oxygen to replenish the LM cabin should they have opened the hatch to perform EVA. Any ride to the surface would have been suicidal folly, regardless of fuel quantity.
I thought Apollo 10 was meant to be a dry run for Apollo 11, so it was set up identically. Why would they have differed on something so important as the weight of the LM?
Almost every LM on every mission was completely different. I don't believe any two were the same. Each mission had different requirements that necessitated major redesigns to the LM. For instance, the later missions that used the Lunar Rover had significantly bigger and heavier LMs to accommodate the vehicle.
From a cursory look, they all look the same. I remember the LM went through lots of iterations before it was practical (and it's entirely possible Snoopy was too heavy) but it's hard to see too many differences between the versions that actually flew. What changed seemed to be landing weight and life support for the crew (later versions allowed multiple EVAs and remained landed much longer than Eagle).
Still, no EVA suits is one thing, but having no operable ascent engine is really terrible because, if something goes wrong with the descent engine (which is the thing being exercised here) the crew has no backup whatsoever in case they have no option but landing (maybe a guidance issue that requires the LM to stop - in general emergency landings in places with no breathable atmosphere are a mistake).
Still, no EVA suits is one thing, but having no operable ascent engine is really terrible because, if something goes wrong with the descent engine (which is the thing being exercised here) the crew has no backup whatsoever in case they have no option but landing (maybe a guidance issue that requires the LM to stop - in general emergency landings in places with no breathable atmosphere are a mistake).
Is it really reasonable to think the astronauts would have disobeyed orders and landed on the moon? This seems like it would have so many negative repercussions on the astronauts involved that it seems outside the realm of possibility to me.
I feel like this type of job self selects for people who would totally do that.
Also, disobeying orders in space has happened before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab_controversy
Also, disobeying orders in space has happened before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab_controversy
Though that story is apparently in dispute, and there was no strike. I've done some research and its a surprisingly murky topic.
Amazing story if true.
"[T]he crew were alleged to have stopped working. Gibson spent his day on Skylab's solar console, while Carr and Pogue spent their time in the wardroom looking out at the window."
"[T]he crew were alleged to have stopped working. Gibson spent his day on Skylab's solar console, while Carr and Pogue spent their time in the wardroom looking out at the window."
Once you are the first man on the Moon they can ask you to resign for disobeying orders or even sack you if they don't mind the bad publicity at a time when NASA is showered in international glory. But you're still the first man on the moon.
The object is 2006-RH120, which was closer than the moon (0.002 au) in 2007 and will come within 0.025 au in 2028. It is currently on the far side of the sun.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_RH120 -- https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=3403148;orb=1;old=0;c...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_RH120 -- https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=3403148;orb=1;old=0;c...
The 'Apollo 10 Lunar Ascent Stage' is listed here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Derelict_satellites_i...
Is it me or is this article so poorly written that the main point of the article -- where the thing is -- is not even described coherently?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect
As noted below, Scott Manley does a much better job covering it. YouTube is a much more efficient tool for connecting the knowledgeable and passionate with the interested learner. If anything the "imprimatur" granted by legacy media brand names gets in the way on topics where the public is generally badly informed, or where there is a lot of false knowledge floating around the culture.
The downside, is that knowledge has to compete with falsehood, so the complete elimination of falsehood is problematic, and it may take some time for the real knowledge to rise. I think it's better overall, more democratic and pro-freedom, if people participate by making their own choices to find the truth.
As noted below, Scott Manley does a much better job covering it. YouTube is a much more efficient tool for connecting the knowledgeable and passionate with the interested learner. If anything the "imprimatur" granted by legacy media brand names gets in the way on topics where the public is generally badly informed, or where there is a lot of false knowledge floating around the culture.
The downside, is that knowledge has to compete with falsehood, so the complete elimination of falsehood is problematic, and it may take some time for the real knowledge to rise. I think it's better overall, more democratic and pro-freedom, if people participate by making their own choices to find the truth.
Agree. I was screaming inside my head the whole time, "Where is it?" IMO, this article is very poorly written.
I was disappointed in the lack of details too (as well as the mis-spelling of Gene Cernan's name). Is the LM in orbit around the sun? In an extended orbit around the Earth's orbital plane? Trapped in orbit around another solar body? That was what I was looking for from the article...
The lack of knowledge in news articles regarding space topics is astounding.
If you want to learn more about Snoopy, Scott Manley makes a great video about it!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXVYZm9epmU
The orbit description starts at 3:30 but the rest is worth a watch, full of interesting footage and data!
- Make this headline get clicks!
- I have no idea what I'm doing <labrador>
Sad you got downvoted given the TechCrunch article links to the Sky News article while providing less information.
[edit: I see the TechCrunch brigade is out in force]
[edit: I see the TechCrunch brigade is out in force]
Hey.
What's really funny -- and why I posted the link -- is that TFA doesn't actually point to the Sky News article. The Sky News link in this sentence ...
> The effort to discover its location began in 2011, undertaken by a group of amateur U.K. astronomers led by Nick Howes — the same who now claim they’re “98 percent convinced” they’ve discovered where it ended up, according to Sky News.
... actually points to https://www.newsweek.com/nasa-snoopy-lunar-module-space-1443... . Some editor wasn't paying attention, I guess. If they still have editors, anyway.
What's really funny -- and why I posted the link -- is that TFA doesn't actually point to the Sky News article. The Sky News link in this sentence ...
> The effort to discover its location began in 2011, undertaken by a group of amateur U.K. astronomers led by Nick Howes — the same who now claim they’re “98 percent convinced” they’ve discovered where it ended up, according to Sky News.
... actually points to https://www.newsweek.com/nasa-snoopy-lunar-module-space-1443... . Some editor wasn't paying attention, I guess. If they still have editors, anyway.
Wow, when I went to the article it had an actual link to the Sky News article. I wonder what they have going on, because that is just wrong. It really looks like they decided they didn't want to point to Sky News and then switched to Newsweek without changing the actual text.
Huh. That's even stranger.
I mean, why would they switch from a primary source to a secondary source? I wonder if there's some sort of relationship between TechCrunch and Newsweek.
I mean, why would they switch from a primary source to a secondary source? I wonder if there's some sort of relationship between TechCrunch and Newsweek.
[deleted]
This is the closest to a primary source I've found:
https://twitter.com/NickAstronomer/status/113779137705039462...
https://twitter.com/NickAstronomer/status/113779137705039462...
I just learned about this mission on Saturday, while visiting the Charles Schulz Museum in Santa Rosa, CA. They have small display with pictures, and the audio from the mission.
I often think of NASA as exceptionally serious people, but it never seems to stop them from adding a bit of humor and fun to their work.
https://schulzmuseum.org/
I often think of NASA as exceptionally serious people, but it never seems to stop them from adding a bit of humor and fun to their work.
https://schulzmuseum.org/
Well Apollo 10 was the last time NASA let the astronauts name the CM and LM, precisely because they named it Snoopy. I think it is well known that in general the early astronauts had a pretty good sense of humor (along with balls of steel), but ground control, not so much.
WW2 air crews named and painted their airplanes crazy fun things. There were some complaints about it, but the brass had enough sense to let the crews do what they wanted. It was a way for them to take a bit of the edge off of the terrible strain they were under. (Very high death rates.)
My dad was a bit superstitious, all his combat rides were named "Round Trip Ticket". It worked :-)
https://imgur.com/zuY1vGA
https://imgur.com/QqlYM
My dad was a bit superstitious, all his combat rides were named "Round Trip Ticket". It worked :-)
https://imgur.com/zuY1vGA
https://imgur.com/QqlYM
That is brilliant on so many levels. Kudos to him!
Thank you. Above his funeral, another P-51 driver gave him a spectacular sendoff.
What's with the dozen swastikas in the first picture? Number of enemy planes he shot down?
They're the claimed enemy airplanes shot down. Some of those kills were shared with other airplanes. There were several gunners on the B-17, so the number there represents all of their work.
The painted bombs above it represent the number of combat missions.
My father was the navigator, which was up front. His gun pointed out the side, which made for rather difficult deflection shots. He said the favored attack by the Luftwaffe was head on, which made deflection shots as they passed that much harder. The nose of the B-17 is a plexiglass hemisphere, and he could see the Me-109's firing straight at them, and wondered how they could miss. Nowhere to go, nowhere to hide, no armor.
The painted bombs above it represent the number of combat missions.
My father was the navigator, which was up front. His gun pointed out the side, which made for rather difficult deflection shots. He said the favored attack by the Luftwaffe was head on, which made deflection shots as they passed that much harder. The nose of the B-17 is a plexiglass hemisphere, and he could see the Me-109's firing straight at them, and wondered how they could miss. Nowhere to go, nowhere to hide, no armor.
Are you sure? NASA still seems to use Snoopy in an official capacity (e.g. the Silver Snoopy award). Starting in the 80s they even started sending every Silver Snoopy pin up into orbit before it was given to the recipient.
I'm pretty sure all of the CMs and LMs were named by the astronauts themselves, but the names probably had to be approved after that.
My favourite names are Gumdrop and Spider from Apollo 9.
My favourite names are Gumdrop and Spider from Apollo 9.
There was a great relationship between Charles Schulz, and NASA, which showed up in some odd places. There's an award, the Silver Snoopy, that is presented by astronauts to non-management employees that have significantly contributed to human space flight.
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/sfa/aac/silver-snoopy-...
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/sfa/aac/silver-snoopy-...
On Apple TV there is a 9 minute documentary about this relationship and specifically Apollo 10. It aims to answer the question: was Snoopy a secret astronaut?
It’s pretty cute.
It’s pretty cute.
An impressive achievement if they did manage to locate it, certainly.
On the other hand, proposing that it merits retrieval is staggeringly vain- only the tiniest fraction of human enterprise has ever operated outside our planetary system (the Earth and our moon). Consider the mind-blowing opportunity cost of any mission sent to 'retrieve Snoopy', and take a moment to think of just some of the incredible projects one could do instead.
On the other hand, proposing that it merits retrieval is staggeringly vain- only the tiniest fraction of human enterprise has ever operated outside our planetary system (the Earth and our moon). Consider the mind-blowing opportunity cost of any mission sent to 'retrieve Snoopy', and take a moment to think of just some of the incredible projects one could do instead.
> Consider the mind-blowing opportunity cost of any mission sent to 'retrieve Snoopy', and take a moment to think of just some of the incredible projects one could do instead.
For an opposite point of view, think of all the technological advances that would be necessary for a safe "retrieve Snoopy" mission. Even if the mission itself is pointless, all the developments leading to it could be useful. That is, what matters might be the journey, not the destination.
For an opposite point of view, think of all the technological advances that would be necessary for a safe "retrieve Snoopy" mission. Even if the mission itself is pointless, all the developments leading to it could be useful. That is, what matters might be the journey, not the destination.
Agreed. Plus it's like a dry-run for a deep space rescue, and a bit like an easier version of an asteroid capture mission. For example, how do you grapple and maneuver with an object if you don't have matched docking ports? If the object is fragile? How do you efficiently enter LEO from interplanetary space without aerobreaking? Lots to learn from the effort!
tantalor(1)
I was thinking the same thing. The technology and science that could come out of a mission like that would be great! We’d be the First Nation to retrieve something far away from earth that belonged to us. A stepping stone for future mishaps on other planets.
"We choose to go (back) to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."
Millions of people have looked to the moon for tens of thousands of years, and wondered if someday, a human being might walk on it.
A truly transcendent category of goal, even if a large part of the underlying motive was pretty obviously demonstrating American superiority over the Communist 'other'.
I don't really put retrieving the 'Snoopy' module in this same category.
A truly transcendent category of goal, even if a large part of the underlying motive was pretty obviously demonstrating American superiority over the Communist 'other'.
I don't really put retrieving the 'Snoopy' module in this same category.
I think you may have missed the joke.
I did, thanks.
EDIT: for anyone interested in the history of the Apollo 10 mission, its commander (and only crew-member remaining living) Thomas Stafford also went to Moscow to serve as a pallbearer in the state funeral given to the Soyuz 11 crew after the tragedy, the only human beings known to have died in space.
EDIT: for anyone interested in the history of the Apollo 10 mission, its commander (and only crew-member remaining living) Thomas Stafford also went to Moscow to serve as a pallbearer in the state funeral given to the Soyuz 11 crew after the tragedy, the only human beings known to have died in space.
Not only the tech developed, but also studying the retrieved artifact: we don't have a ton of hardware that's spent 50 years in space. What happens to all this stuff in a vacuum getting radiated, baked and frozen that long. Metals, hoses and gaskets, insulators and wires, semiconductors, dielectrics etc.
If we're going to colonize the solar system, we have to learn how to build hardware to last in that environment.
If we're going to colonize the solar system, we have to learn how to build hardware to last in that environment.
The thing about opportunity costs arguments wrt. space, when used from the outside (vs. just reallocating existing NASA budget), is that the "incredible projects one could do instead" never materialize. It's a thinly veiled way of just not giving money to space exploration.
It would have to be done in stages anyway. The first stage would be to send a tug out that would return Snoopy to an Earth centric orbit. Such a mission would be unmanned and would take many years, on the order of a decade or more. That mission would be something low cost and low risk.
Getting it out if Earth orbit and back to Earth would be much harder. But who knows, maybe by then something like starship would be operational.
Getting it out if Earth orbit and back to Earth would be much harder. But who knows, maybe by then something like starship would be operational.
If Snoopy somehow stayed near (or returned to) the Earth-moon system, retrieving it might be similar to fixing the Hubble in space. Difficult, yes, expensive, of course, but evidently doable.
Would retrieving the module bring the same kind of benefit as fixing Hubble did?
Fixing the Hubble involved sending a bunch of people on a space shuttle. We don't have the shuttle anymore, but now we have much better robotics. A mission such as retrieving Snoopy might be a great opportunity to develop and test robotic retrieval missions in space.
That technology could come in handy, for example, when we need to rescue people who are stuck in malfunctioning capsules. Or for mining asteroids and sending the resulting bulk material elsewhere in space. Or maybe for retrieving EOL satellites that are about to crash into one another and spread debris all over the place.
In America, doggy retrieves stick. In Soviet Russia, big firey stick retrieves doggy. :)
That technology could come in handy, for example, when we need to rescue people who are stuck in malfunctioning capsules. Or for mining asteroids and sending the resulting bulk material elsewhere in space. Or maybe for retrieving EOL satellites that are about to crash into one another and spread debris all over the place.
In America, doggy retrieves stick. In Soviet Russia, big firey stick retrieves doggy. :)
> might be a great opportunity to develop and test robotic retrieval missions in space
Hubble was fixed so it can perform its mission: it was uniquely qualified to send high resolution images of the universe, which proved invaluable to our understanding of space.
If testing tech is your aim then Snoopy is just as good as anything else. In the end it may be more valuable left in space for future space archaeologists.
Hubble was fixed so it can perform its mission: it was uniquely qualified to send high resolution images of the universe, which proved invaluable to our understanding of space.
If testing tech is your aim then Snoopy is just as good as anything else. In the end it may be more valuable left in space for future space archaeologists.
In space exploration, testing new technology is synonymous with developing said technology. I would rather they debut bleeding-edge space retrieval technology with a piece of antiquity with good publicity value than with something that is actually critical, such as a manned capsule or a suspected alien spacecraft.
Now that sounds more like a "Oh that would be cool" type wishlist than actually useful mission.
There are probably dozens of more suitable pieces of "space memorabilia" that could be used for such tests. And if there isn't you can easily put there a realistic mock-up of whatever you want to rescue. Look at Musk's flying Tesla for example. There's nothing that makes Snoopy uniquely qualified for it.
But there's only one Hubble. The single greatest tool for space exploration we ever had at our disposal. And one that had already cost $5bn by the time it needed the fix.
The 2 cases don't feel to similar at all, short of them being both in space.
There are probably dozens of more suitable pieces of "space memorabilia" that could be used for such tests. And if there isn't you can easily put there a realistic mock-up of whatever you want to rescue. Look at Musk's flying Tesla for example. There's nothing that makes Snoopy uniquely qualified for it.
But there's only one Hubble. The single greatest tool for space exploration we ever had at our disposal. And one that had already cost $5bn by the time it needed the fix.
The 2 cases don't feel to similar at all, short of them being both in space.
The BBC has a podcast about the moon landing:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48232627
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w3csz4dj
Apple podcast url: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/13-minutes-to-the-moon...
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48232627
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w3csz4dj
Apple podcast url: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/13-minutes-to-the-moon...
It's one of the best podcasts I have ever listened to.
RSS feed: https://podcasts.files.bbci.co.uk/w13xttx2.rss
Program page (with link to RSS etc.): https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w13xttx2/episodes/downloads
RSS feed: https://podcasts.files.bbci.co.uk/w13xttx2.rss
Program page (with link to RSS etc.): https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w13xttx2/episodes/downloads
So, where is it, and how was it found? The article and even the source it links are extremely vague.
It is apparently in an orbit that "won't make a close pass to our planet until 2037".
https://www.iflscience.com/space/apollo-10-lunar-module-snoo...
https://www.iflscience.com/space/apollo-10-lunar-module-snoo...
This sounds bad, but it's a serious question: Was there any poop aboard Snoopy? It sounds silly, but it's at least an issue of comfort and dignity when people first enter the historic craft after recovery.
Not exactly what you asked, but more information than you even wanted to know: (Scott Manley) "Space Poop Challenge - Floaters Are Way Worse in Space" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5y0mTqK54k
It'd be completely frozen through. Anyone who has a dog in a cold climate knows frozen poo is infinitely easier to deal with
If there is, that means there is still a repository of Earthly life around, even if Earth itself somehow perishes.
Might be pretty serious indeed!
Might be pretty serious indeed!
They can take one of those giant canadian arms to pick it up and put it in a ... wait, to throw it into the sun.
... wait, to throw it into the sun.
Okay, nice try there! Everyone on HN should know the Canadarm can't achieve the approx 29 km/s needed to cancel orbital velocity around the sun in the vicinity of Earth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHvR1fRTW8g
'doh, you got a reaction out of me anyhow!
Okay, nice try there! Everyone on HN should know the Canadarm can't achieve the approx 29 km/s needed to cancel orbital velocity around the sun in the vicinity of Earth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHvR1fRTW8g
'doh, you got a reaction out of me anyhow!
But what if it was startled after it realized what it was holding? :)
I feel like it's kind of ironic that a probe named "snoopy" was hard to find.
It wasn't a probe - it was part of Apollo 10
I wish we lived in a universe where NASA didn't have the forsight to short fuel Apollo 10. Imagine a joyride to the lunar surface.