I do wonder what happened to the lander to end up on it's side like that.
They also admitted leaving the dust covers on the LIDAR sensors I believe.
A few days ago on the 22nd the Intuitive Machines lunar lander attempted to touchdown on the lunar south pole. This was quite a big deal as not only was it a private company responsible but this was also the first U.S. lunar landing attempt in over 50 years. However, what was initially reported by the company as a successful and upright landing, has since changed with new information.
We now know that during its final approach toward the surface, they believe one of its legs got caught in a hole in the ground tipping the entire lunar lander onto its side. It now is horizontal with some of its solar panels now sideways rather than vertical attempting to gather energy. Despite this mishap, teams at Intuivitve Machines and NASA believe it can still complete part of its science mission. Here I will go more in-depth into the landing error, how it happened, what this means for the rest of the mission, and more.
Full article here - https://thespacebucket.com/what-exact...
There should be an engineering equivalent to the Golden Raspberry/Darwin Awards - designing a lander with six legs that is still able to topple is almost an accomplishment in itself.Fuckwits! Didn't they have bright red "Remove before Flight" signs on these covers? No doubt someone has been yelled at for this idiotic fuckup.
Edit: The Space Bucket has uploaded a video concerning the lander's toppling over.
Another NASA Artemis update on the Moon to Mars programs to report this time.
The seventh RS-25 hot-fire test in a Retrofit 3b series of 12 occurred at NASA Stennis Space Center in the afternoon of February 23, with a 550 second hot-fire. Engine 0525 will test a second new production restart nozzle for the remainder of the series.
NASA Public Affairs posted more pictures of Exploration Ground Systems work to finish stacking preparations for the Artemis II Solid Rocket Boosters. Painting of the NASA worm logo on the center-center segments is complete and work to finish aft assembly buildup is expected to be complete soon. Video of a Mobile Launcher crew access arm swing test at Launch Pad 39B was also published.
A Universal Stage Adapter test article for the SLS Block 1B Crew vehicle in development was also seen in transport to Marshall Space Flight Center during the week.
Yes, the astronauts were well aware of the need for only vertical (Z axis) motion in the final moments of descent. The upper left panel on the LM had a (digitally driven) analog display of cross pointers, which displayed the X and Y rates on the LM. This assisted the LM commander to access the rates and null them out prior to landing.- they hadn't fully canceled yaw rate (or spin)
- the lander had still a bit of forward (or lateral) speed and tripped over.
- they improvised landing at a slightly higher mass when residual motion is non-trivial.
I think, Messieurs, this is a good occasion to lower (again) our hats in a general salute to the Apollo LEM pilots.
Kids today see black and white pictures or funny grainy color footage and they think that's easy.
Easy to get unbroken coms. Easy to land in regolith. Easy to deal with the absence of atmosphere (that act as a damper to unwanted motion for example). Easy to deal with relaxed gravity... Yeah.
There is Reason why certain organizations have and employ extensively detailed procedure instructions and exhaustive checklists, both of which do admittedly cost man hours and money.Apparently it was a system in the LIDAR to protect people’s eyes on the ground from the laser, but should have been removed before launch but wasn’t.
Well…some will attack it, I defend..more back-and forth—and locked again.I wonder when the SLS thread is going to be reopened?
IM-1 Work-in-progress of my (unofficial) infographic with the updated post-landing. This is only a "possible" scenario and is my interpretation of how Odysseus may have landed based on yesterday's news conference. The steps will be added to my main infographic and are subject to… pic.twitter.com/BerpzGy0Xe
— Tony Bela - InfographicTony (@InfographicTony) February 24, 2024
The EagleCam team are using tools available in the Space Technologies Lab to simulate what we can expect to receive once EagleCam deploys. We are currently working with Intuitive Machines to determine a safe deployment time and strategy. pic.twitter.com/PyqGkUlDQe
— Space Technologies Lab (@SpaceTechLab) February 24, 2024
EagleCam update: "Telemetry data confirms... [it] is still fully operational." ERAU is running sims for how it will deploy in the current lander attitude. Timeline "remains unknown" but it'll land 3-5 meters away, take images, send to lander via WiFi, then back to Earth. https://t.co/UFKXFPb68z
— Marcia Smith (@SpcPlcyOnline) February 25, 2024
But also read Scott Tilley's thread about his analysis of the status of Odysseus's antennas @coastal8049. "...at this point the communications options for IM-1 seem very limited and at low data rates only."
— Marcia Smith (@SpcPlcyOnline) February 25, 2024
Thanks to the team at @radiotelescoop we have definitive news about IM-1's signal. The signal is strongest in LHCP meaning it's a reflection off the Moon's surface. Assuming @Int_Machines has switched the antennas around for best SNR this is likely the best it can be. pic.twitter.com/c5wRAZA4qC
— Scott Tilley 🇺🇦 🇨🇦 (@coastal8049) February 25, 2024
Why the IM-1 signal is weak - none of the antennas are pointing at the Earth (i.e., the old top). pic.twitter.com/vacXnfbnjt
— T. Marshall Eubanks (@TM_Eubanks) February 25, 2024
there reason why you should build your Moon lander like this:
![]()
Odysseus continues to communicate with flight controllers in Nova Control from the lunar surface. After understanding the end-to-end communication requirements, Odysseus sent images from the lunar surface of its vertical descent to its Malapert A landing site, representing the… pic.twitter.com/CuCkOVvBqu
— Intuitive Machines (@Int_Machines) February 26, 2024
Because they were used a test LIDAR for data because the primary was inop- they hadn't fully canceled yaw rate (or spin)
- the lander had still a bit of forward (or lateral) speed and tripped over.
- they improvised landing at a slightly higher mass when residual motion is non-trivial.
Not really.I think, Messieurs, this is a good occasion to lower (again) our hats in a general salute to the Apollo LEM pilots.
It was an enable plug that wasn't installed.Fuckwits! Didn't they have bright red "Remove before Flight" signs on these covers? No doubt someone has been yelled at for this idiotic fuckup.
No, the design is fine. Problem was using untested experiment as a primary sensor.There should be an engineering equivalent to the Golden Raspberry/Darwin Awards - designing a lander with six legs that is still able to topple is almost an accomplishment in itself.
wrong conclusion. It could have fell on it. Omnis are the way to go.Well, it looks like it might be wise from here on out to add complexity and a few more potential failure points to Moon landers, rotatable and pointable antenna.
Yes, but we know that.Because they were used a test LIDAR for data because the primary was inop
But you don't know the actual mass distribution.If you look at the design geometry, it *intuitively* (pun fully intended) appears top heavy, i.e. the dry CG is relatively high in comparison to the maximum distance between individual landing pads, which makes it intrinsically more sensitive to non-vertical touchdowns than stouter configurations.
Yeah, right. I push the sumo wrestler on the forehead and he will fall backwards on his ass.Here are a few suggestions for the physics genius who designed that thing
Proper mass distribution requires intelligent planningBut you don't know the actual mass distribution.