Artemis Moon Program

[southwestforests]

Well, bummer.

Coming to mind is conversation from IM-1 landing coverage last year about the tall and narrow proportions of the lander,
and,
that is connecting in the murky depths of my memory with a Pontiac ad from the previous century,
"Wider is Better"

Discovering That "Wider is Better"

The "Wide Track" had been the most familiar identities among automobiles, describing the Pontiac line of cars with distinctive broad, low, bold design...

www.motorcities.org

 

[Archibald]

It's dead, Jim https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=62540.msg2669960;boardseen#new

 

[FighterJock]

Sad about the Moon lander landing landing on it's side, Just heard about it on the BBC News Channel.

 

[Michel Van]

They dit it again...

 

[aim9xray]

Excuse me, Why does God need a starship?

Excuse me, why are we trying to land tall, high CG vehicles on challenging terrain? Howabout something with a higher probability of success such as squat, wide and with a low CG like, say, Surveyor or Viking?

 

[FighterJock]

That is what I was thinking aim9xray, the designers should look at what happened to the lander and go back to basics as far as designing landers are concerned.

 

[publiusr]

Sometimes, it is the simple things that get you.

Perhaps they located the center of gravity with a full tank---forgetting to take into account that it would be emptying on descent?

An aside

Stability of a superegg

Supereggs, a sort of compromise between a sphere and a cylinder, are stable. However, the degree of stability depends on the parameters defining the superegg.

www.johndcook.com

 

[TomcatViP]

The mass flow of ejecta is also an important parameter. With a low gravity gradiant, the brownout conditions are more severe, with a denser clouds and an elevated probability of aggregates that in turn act on the vehicle.

Think aerodynamics but with a transient and dense flow.

 

[Rhinocrates]

Excuse me, Why does God need a starship?

Excuse me, why are we trying to land tall, high CG vehicles on challenging terrain? Howabout something with a higher probability of success such as squat, wide and with a low CG like, say, Surveyor or Viking?

Tipping over twice in a row is just embarrassing.

There are plenty of precedents too for side-landing spacecraft. These are big manned ones from past years, the most recent being Dynetics' one for Artemis. The design requirements here were to get something massive into a proportionally narrow payload shroud while allowing easy access to the surface, with the added advantage of superior stability. Once it's out of the atmosphere, it doesn't matter if it flies with the broad side or narrow end in the direction of travel after all. As we can see, multiple studies addressed the issue seriously.

If this does somehow add costs, one lander that succeeds is surely cheaper than two that fail.

 

[Michel Van]

IM-2 stop working reason is simple:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1898125055147884592

View: https://twitter.com/DJSnM/status/1898125055147884592

 

[NMaude]

There are plenty of precedents too for side-landing spacecraft. These are big manned ones from past years, the most recent being Dynetics' one for Artemis. The design requirements here were to get something massive into a proportionally narrow payload shroud while allowing easy access to the surface, with the added advantage of superior stability. Once it's out of the atmosphere, it doesn't matter if it flies with the broad side or narrow end in the direction of travel after all. As we can see, multiple studies addressed the issue seriously.

These are excellent points and I wonder if IM design and build a lander in the future that lies on its' side to give it a low CoG?

You forgot another example of a side-landing Moon-lander:

 

[publiusr]

Lunar version

SEI Swan Song: International Lunar Resources Exploration Concept (1993)

The story of spaceflight told through missions and programs that did not happen - that is, the great majority of them.

spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com

Martian version

NASA Glenn Research Center's 2001 Plan to Land Humans on Mars Three Years Ago

The story of spaceflight told through missions and programs that did not happen - that is, the great majority of them.

spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com

 

[martinbayer]

The mass flow of ejecta is also an important parameter. With a low gravity gradiant, the brownout conditions are more severe, with a denser clouds and an elevated probability of aggregates that in turn act on the vehicle.

Think aerodynamics but with a transient and dense flow.

Well over half a century after the first successful Surveyor Moon landings there is absolutely no valid engineering excuse whatsoever for a completely idiotic design failure like that.

 

[martinbayer]

Sad about the Moon lander landing landing on it's side, Just heard about it on the BBC News Channel.

Correction - it's not sad, it's *utterly* pathetic, incompetent, and disgusting.

 

[martinbayer]

Sometimes, it is the simple things that get you.

Perhaps they located the center of gravity with a full tank---forgetting to take into account that it would be emptying on descent?

While I am on basic moral principle a firm, staunch opponent of the death penalty for *any* crime at all, an egregious engineering failure like that, if it actually occurred, might make me reconsider culling any feeble minded individual(s) responsible for such an outrageous misjudgement from the human herd simply for the reason of genetic self protection, rather than mere punishment. Remember the cautionary tale of the telephone sanitizers on Golgafrinchan Ark Fleet Ship B...

 

[NMaude]

Phillip Sloss has uploaded a new video dealing with the destruction of the IFT-8 spacecraft and more details concerning the Artemis mission:

We're getting some new details on NASA's strategy for launching Artemis II earlier than the April 2026 target date and the Orion spacecraft solar arrays were installed for flight, but the big news of the week is the second straight Starship flight test prototype that exploded during launch. In this video I'll look at some possible, initial consequences of two Starship test mishaps in a row on long-range Artemis plans, go into the details of Artemis II planning for later this year, and look at some news and notes on Mobile Launcher-2 and Gateway.

Imagery is courtesy of NASA, except where noted. Lunar Link image courtesy of ESA.

Links to social media posts referenced:
https://www.youtube.com/redirect?ev...musk/status/1832550322293837833&v=FFwCiq6eKBM
/ 1832550322293837833

/ 1895598258225106984

/ 1897794641572884702

/ 1897798175081005540

/ 1897795271167250832

/ 1897883255380029524

/ 1896958561818718592 https://www.youtube.com/redirect?ev...ight/status/1896958561818718592&v=FFwCiq6eKBM

Links to stories referenced:
https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/03...https://www.youtube.com/redirect?ev...s-science-budget-by-50-percent/&v=FFwCiq6eKBM

00:00 Intro
00:44 Starship Flight Test 8 ends prematurely, like Flight Test 7
04:53 Artemis II Orion gets its (solar array) wings
09:44 Takeaways from interview with Matt Ramsey, Artemis II Mission Manager
13:10 Mobile Launcher-2 umbilical tower module 5 stacking
13:48 Gateway Lunar Link begins integrated testing
14:26 SLS Michoud Assembly Facility imagery from 2024 released
15:23 Thanks for watching!

 

[Byeman]

Sometimes, it is the simple things that get you.

Perhaps they located the center of gravity with a full tank---forgetting to take into account that it would be emptying on descent?

The center of gravity moves downward as propellant is consumed.

 

[Rhinocrates]

Let's see if the skill of human pilots can overcome the idiocy of the designers and they miraculously find a patch of lunar surface as clear and level as a bowling green.

The Blue Origin one at least seems to put most of the heavier stuff in the lower half and has a wider stance.

 

[BlueAbyssal]

Blue Origin's lander has the habitable portion at the bottom, with propellants above; SpaceX's has the propellants at the bottom.

 

[publiusr]

Those engines aren’t exactly lightweight either.

Those Carnival fun ships spook me—but I am told they’re not that top-heavy…still

 

[Michel Van]

LRO took picture of IM-2 Athena
what solve the mystery why fell over - it landed in small crater (center of Picture)

I notice before on IM-1, that this lander design dosen't work on Moon...
it doom to fell over in unstabel terrain

 

[TomcatViP]

Honestly, why don't they simply leave the job of designing their landers to... Qualified engineers.
All those excuses with this or that are becoming so despicable.

 

[Flyaway]

President Trump says a human mission to Mars is of interest to him but is not a “number one” priority, amid concerns about potential sweeping budget cuts at NASA.

Trump says Mars missions are of interest but not a top priority

President Trump says a human mission to Mars is of interest to him but is not a “number one” priority, amid concerns about NASA budget cuts.

spacenews.com

 

[NMaude]

Trump says Mars missions are of interest but not a top priority

President Trump says a human mission to Mars is of interest to him but is not a “number one” priority, amid concerns about NASA budget cuts.

spacenews.com

If the Orange Oaf is saying that then I strongly suspect that funding related to this and other science missions may be cut and/or suspended, on the other hand I suspect that he does want to have his Tricky Dick moment having a very, VERY long-distance telephone call with the Artemis III Moon-lander.

 

[Moose]

Starship lander won't be ready at this rate, even if he cuts everything at NASA except Artemis he's not making that call.

 

[NMaude]

The Space Bucket has a new video about new images of the IM-2 landing site taken by the LRO:

It's now been a few days since the IM-2 Athena lander made contact with the Moon and new images were just released from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. With these we can actually see the lander inside a small crater along with the surrounding terrain.

This helps give an idea of what could've gone wrong during the touchdown attempt, leading to a broken landing leg and the eventual loss of power.

Credit:
Intuititve Machines - https://www.youtube.com/ ⁨@Intuitivemachines⁩

 

[southwestforests]

My current thought, built on a foundation of I'm not sure what:
Perhaps what we see here is a need to have one or more manned stations orbiting the moon, which will take over control of arriving landers and have close enough to zero signal lag times to do real-time remote control of landers so as to avoid terrain-caused landing mishaps & maybe even also avoid system-caused landing mishaps.

I suspect the actual real life reality is that we naturally not born perfect humans simply need more experience developing and assembling the complex systems required for autonomous lander operation.

And then there's what looks a lot like a very binary thing where either you are perfect or you fail, and although the moon is grey there is no halfway grey in your effort and condition, be perfect or be a failure, that's it, that's all you get to do.

 

[Flyaway]

I wonder if Bezos will pipe up in a while going mr president you want to go to moon, well I just happen to have a large rocket you could fit Orion too, I also happen to have a large lunar lander in development. No need for any of that Starship business.

 

[TomcatViP]

Watch sparks fly as Blue Ghost lander drills into the moon (video)

Blue Ghost is delivering value data and stunning visuals from the lunar surface.

www.space.com

Video:

See Firefly's Blue Ghost drill, vacuum and deploy electrodes on moon

The Firefly Aerospace Blue Ghost moon lander has begun its work on the moon using its drill, vacuum and electrodes. Blue Ghost has drilled into surface to determine heat flow from interior of Mo...

cdn.jwplayer.com

 

[Michel Van]

Scott Manley look into data and found out that...

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISZTTEtHcTg

 

[publiusr]

Tricky Dick moment having a very, VERY long-distance telephone call with the Artemis III Moon-lander.

If Starship winds up the junkpile I fear it to be-he'll have to use the Safire letter.

 

[TomcatViP]

What Scott didn't take into account (but lander's designer did not before him) is simply the local condition just prior landing.

LEM for example had contact sensor to cut its engine (in effect the switch was actuated by astronauts.

Here, I bet they put the killer switch on the leg. A simplistic approach would tell you that's it's the right way of doing thing. The landers decrease it's effective altitude until a solid contact is detected. Then the engine is shut-off.

But what if a dense cloud of dust is blown upward toward the lander? The flow or regolyths and aggregates will impart a vertical force that will counter the engine thrust. Boost setting at this time being a little margin under equilibrium to ensure only a slow descent.

Well, you probably get already what's next now: the little push from the regolyths flow compensate the thrust margin leaving the lander in near perfect equilibrium (but not stable due to the chaotic nature of the upward flow) floating just short of the ground. The leg in near contact or only bitting the layer of dust that does not oppose enough resistance to actuate the engine kill switch... Leaving the lander just short of a landing with its engine running until a catastrophic event (a bump actuates the switch or the lander falling on its side).

LEM had probes made of contact sensing wire mesh extending well downward to send a signal at the slightest touch. The idea being that the engine are cut and the landers continue the descent under gravity only, ensuring dust layer penetration and a vertical setting. (gravity being very low on the moon, the acceleration is too weak to be a concern for damages for a fall from this height).

 

[southwestforests]

But what if a dense cloud of dust is blown upward toward the lander? The flow or regolyths and aggregates will impart a vertical force that will counter the engine thrust. Boost setting at this time being a little margin under equilibrium to ensure only a slow descent.

I'm not buying that.
It is going to take a lot of upward dust from that regolith to counter the 2,000kg, 4,500lb, (approximately) mass of the lander,
even in the moon's 1/6 gravity.

A lot more upward dust than,
(source, https://www.eglin.af.mil/News/Artic...lops-partial-solution-to-helicopter-brownout/)

 

[TomcatViP]

On one side you have a gravity reduced to 1/6th. On the other an upward accelerated mass with 1/6th deceleration force and 1/6th the adhesive action.
Then the margin of thrust bellow pure hover is very low. For example for a 2000kg lander, it's 333kg of thrust for hover. With 10% margin, the thrust imbalance is 33kg.
Due to the low cohesive force of the superficial moon layer, dust and aggregates are lifted at thrust near efflux velocity, V. The force of m mass of aggregates at impact is mV per seconds (massflow).
The imbalance of thrust of the rocket is the mass flow of propellant time the same V time the ratio defining the margin.
You can see that as the lander approach the surface, the equilibrium is function of the ratio of density b/w the ejecta species (regoliths) and the fuel nature.
Inherently, it's a loosing match for the landers as the thrust increases and the surface impacted by the blown effect augments.