Odysseus Lunar Lander

[ORAC]

Launched on a Falcon 9 last week, due to attempt its lunar landing tonight.

https://x.com/nasa/status/1760483302807368171?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A


Odysseus, @Int_Machines’ uncrewed Moon lander, is targeted to touch down at the lunar South Pole at 5:30pm ET (2230 UTC) Feb. 22. Watch live with us as this Moon delivery brings science instruments to study the region.

https://go.nasa.gov/49Dw6bW

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1080x1546/image_e1f7684ec8430ab2f6b93ae879a8b46df7dbf777.png
​​​​​​​

[TURIN]

Touch down confirmed. Just waiting for telemetry data and photos to be broadcast. Good job well done.

[netstruggler]

Touch down confirmed. Just waiting for telemetry data and photos to be broadcast. Good job well done.

Yes, well done. But disappointing that there was nothing at all to watch Despite all the YouTube channels advertising 'Watch the Landing' all I saw was the control room and cgi animations (or is there video and I missed it).

NASA managed to provide live video from the Apollo landings. You'd think it would be easy now?

D

[ORAC]

They’re a commercial organisation selling ride-share slots, not a TV station - if NASA want video they’ll have to pay.

IM are building a lunar comms satellite network as well as lunar landers, rovers and hoppers as well as delivery to lunar orbit.

Big player with little visibility just because they use SpaceX instead of building their own rockets.

https://www.intuitivemachines.com/lunar-access-services

https://spaceref.com/press-release/nasa-selects-intuitive-machines-to-deliver-4-lunar-payloads-in-2024/

[wiggy]

Yes, well done. But disappointing that there was nothing at all to watch Despite all the YouTube channels advertising 'Watch the Landing' all I saw was the control room and cgi animations (or is there video and I missed it).

NASA managed to provide live video from the Apollo landings. You'd think it would be easy now?



There was never any live video of the actual Apollo landings as viewed from the spacecraft.

If you watched the Apollo landings on TV at the time you actually got pretty much the same presentation as last night - one or two wide angle views of the Mission Operations Control Room, plus the odd (sometimes very odd) animation and the occasional glimpse of the pundits in the studio...

The Apollo LM descent and landing footage that has made it into the various documentaries, films and onto the web over the years was taken with a film camera looking out of the LM pilot's window....that film was returned to Earth and got released to the news agencies maybe a week or so after the landing.

Live TV coverage from the surface itself actually started well after the landing, usually shortly after the commencement of the first EVA.

FWIW the last three Apollo missions carried the Lunar Rover which had an TV system completely independent from the LM. That was left operating after the astronauts has stepped off the surface for the last time and so was able to provide live footage of the LM liftoff from the Lunar Surface.




CBS Apollo 11....

[netstruggler]

There was never any live video of the actual Apollo landings as viewed from the spacecraft.

If you watched the Apollo landings on TV at the time you actually got pretty much the same presentation as last night - one or two wide angle views of the Mission Operations Control Room, plus the odd (sometimes very odd) animation and the occasional glimpse of the pundits in the studio...

The Apollo LM descent and landing footage that has made it into the various documentaries, films and onto the web over the years was taken with a film camera looking out of the LM pilot's window....that film was returned to Earth and got released to the news agencies maybe a week or so after the landing.

Live TV coverage from the surface itself actually started well after the landing, usually shortly after the commencement of the first EVA.

FWIW the last three Apollo missions carried the Lunar Rover which had an TV system completely independent from the LM. That was left operating after the astronauts has stepped off the surface for the last time and so was able to provide live footage of the LM liftoff from the Lunar Surface.




CBS Apollo 11.... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMF58ZP681A)

I believe Neil Armstrong stepping off Apollo 11 onto the moon was broadcast live (other beliefs are available :))

...and I can remember watching what seemed to be interminable footage of the moon surface passing slowly underneath a spacecraft. That could have been from the orbiter rather than the landing module and I don't remember which mission it was but I'm sure it was live. It was too boring to be a documentary.

Either way it was 50 years ago now and was assuming we'd get to see some similar but less blurry footage.

I take ORAC's point about this being a commercial operation and I can see that there's much less general interest now so I guess it wasn't worth the candle.

[Expatrick]

Yes, well done. But disappointing that there was nothing at all to watch Despite all the YouTube channels advertising 'Watch the Landing' all I saw was the control room and cgi animations (or is there video and I missed it).

NASA managed to provide live video from the Apollo landings. You'd think it would be easy now?

D

Broadcasting from Nevada is a lot easier than from the moon! 🤣

[wiggy]

netstruggler

"I take ORAC's point about this being a commercial operation and I can see that there's much less general interest now so I guess it wasn't worth the candle."

Lack of real time imagery last night might have been down to commercial and cost reasons, but OTOH maybe it could have been down to the data/bandwidth availableand what took priority.

I'm certainly looking forward to seeing if the Eaglecam snapped anything...fingers crossed..

https://erau.edu/eaglecam

[wiggy]

netstruggler:

"I take ORAC's point about this being a commercial operation and I can see that there's much less general interest now so I guess it wasn't worth the candle."

Might be a cost thing, OTOH it could be that data capacity /bandwidth might have been limiting - only enough for the essentials, not for imaging..

Anyhow hoping that the Eaglecam worked as planned, if it did those images will be spectacular...fingers crossed.

https://erau.edu/eaglecam

[TURIN]

I believe Neil Armstrong stepping off Apollo 11 onto the moon was broadcast live (other beliefs are available :))

...and I can remember watching what seemed to be interminable footage of the moon surface passing slowly underneath a spacecraft. That could have been from the orbiter rather than the landing module and I don't remember which mission it was but I'm sure it was live. It was too boring to be a documentary.

Either way it was 50 years ago now and was assuming we'd get to see some similar but less blurry footage.

I take ORAC's point about this being a commercial operation and I can see that there's much less general interest now so I guess it wasn't worth the candle.
The camera was attached to the side of the LEM. The astronauts pulled a lever to release it from its stowage. It dropped into position aimed at the ladder. That was broadcast 'live' via The Parks Observatory in Australia. The film The Dish is worth watching for this bit.

[wiggy]

Ref the previously mentioned Eaglecam...according to a press release sadly it wasn't deployed before touchdown.


"EagleCam Update: Camera System Deployment ForthcomingDue to complications with Odysseus’ internal navigation system — specifically concerning the software patch to navigation data to include NASA’s NDL (Navigation Doppler Lidar) payload, which is meant to ensure a soft landing — the decision was made to power down EagleCam during landing and not deploy the device during Odysseus’ final descent.

However, both the Intuitive Machines and EagleCam teams still plan to deploy EagleCam and capture images of the lander on the lunar surface as the mission continues.

The time of deployment is currently unknown.

Stay tuned! More information will be released as soon as it becomes available."

https://news.erau.edu/headlines/eaglecam-updates-embry-riddle-device-lands-on-moon

[MechEngr]

It tripped. Face planted. Snagged a rock and is now in a position previously managed by the Japanese but without the major engine failure.

"I've fallen and I can't get up."

At least the Japanese managed to have the pop-away camera so that the plight of the main platform was clearly known.

[jolihokistix]

It has been reported that they had an external camera but did not deploy it.

I wonder if a self-righting feature, such as performing a last-second jets-upward flipover, with a hemispherical lander base giving a low centre of gravity, might solve their puzzle of how to get the thing to stand upright? Or would thick lunar sand make that a no-go? They would have problems taking off again on later missions, that's for sure.

[wiggy]

It has been reported that they had an external camera but did not deploy it.

I suspect the external camera was the EagleCam mentioned just upthread ... that was supposed to be popped off the vehicle at very low altitude to take some pics of the actual lander in flight just before touchdown but wasn't deployed (as per the press release). Even if it had been deployed as planned AFAIK the images wouldn't have been sent back to Earth in real time....


....wonder if a self-righting feature, such as performing a last-second jets-upward flipover, with a hemispherical lander base giving a low centre of gravity, might solve their puzzle of how to get the thing to stand upright?.

Very old tech, been done....that's how the Soviets cracked the problem with the very very first Lunar soft lander, Luna 9, back in 1966...however the lander element of that vehicle that thing was the size of a beachball (link to info on that at foot of post) , I'm not sure how well the technique would work with larger vehicles or as you say be compatible with something designed to take-off again. Properly designed landing gear has worked fine for Surveyor, Apollo and quite a few later landers.

"Or would thick lunar sand make that a no-go?"

The surface layer of fine dust, which has a consistency more like talc than sand, hasn't been found to be particularly thick anywhere. I think the general experience from the Apollo missions was no more than maybe 10 cm depth most places....

Luna 9 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_9)





.

[jolihokistix]

No like button here, so thank you kindly for the considered responses.

[TURIN]

From what I can gather one of the biggest problems in the polar areas is that it's very rocky and uneven. The earlier missions had the luxury of choosing flat open areas, but even then Neil Armstrong had to take manual control to avoid a rocky area.

[what next]

From what I can gather one of the biggest problems in the polar areas is that it's very rocky and uneven.

But this was known long before the "Odysseus" lander was designed. One can seriously ask the question why the designers placed the centre of gravity so high, that the maximum permissible slope of the landing ground is 10 degrees.

[wiggy]

From what I can gather one of the biggest problems in the polar areas is that it's very rocky and uneven. The earlier missions had the luxury of choosing flat open areas, but even then Neil Armstrong had to take manual control to avoid a rocky area.

Once Apollo 12 demonstrated spot landings were possible later Apollos went into some uneven sites (Apollo14 and 15) and also some very terrain constrained and mountainous sites…(Apollos 16 and 17 in particular).

There were a whole raft of reasons unrelated to terrain as to why high latitude sites can be tricky to access, especially if the arrival will be preceded by a period in lunar orbit, some of it tied in with facets of orbital mechanics, some of it down to requirements for tracking of a lander either pre-landing or in the event of a return, on the climb-out..it’s also fair to say until the last couple of decades the very high latitude areas weren’t well mapped in 3D.

What has changed matters in the recent years is the suspicion there may be easily available water at high latitudes, so the potential rewards of going to the poles outweigh the increased difficulty of landing there verses landing at equatorial sites.

[wiggy]

But this was known long before the "Odysseus" lander was designed. One can seriously ask the question why the designers placed the centre of gravity so high, that the maximum permissible slope of the landing ground is 10 degrees.

Lots of parts of the Moon, even in the Lunar highlands, are relatively flat.

I suppose the answer to your question might be that the designers were confident their fancy automated landing system could sense and avoid landing on a spot where the slope was > 10 degrees..I’m only guessing but maybe having a need to cater for a higher tilt limit would place undesirable constraints on other aspects of the landers design….

[MechEngr]

The report is it was still going sideways when one or more landing legs hit a rock or other obstruction causing it to flip.

[wiggy]

The report is it was still going sideways when one or more landing legs hit a rock or other obstruction causing it to flip.

Yep, Just seen comment attributed to the CEO that in the moments before touchdown the vehicle had a higher rate of decent than planned and also a small horizontal rate (it should have had none)…

[fitliker]

Ever tried to land downhill ? the first time landing in mountain strips can be entertaining. I prefer to land uphill in any wind .
At least they cannot blame the landing on a crosswind .

[SpringHeeledJack]

Forgive my simplistic question, but as the lander was designed to be unmanned and remote and allowing for various negative possibilities/scenarios that might occur, why was this scenario not considered and a planned strategy implemented ? Even now side mounted booster jets might have had a rescue possibility, though it would need some pretty good synchronisation to avoid toppling over in the opposing directions. As I understand things, the lander will have almost no relevant functional ability in regards to it's mission as things (don't) stand..

[MechEngr]

One big negative was the mission lidar was (so far claimed) launched with the manual ground safety override in place so it could not function at all. I don't know if this merely blocked the laser beam from escaping or left it so it could not be powered. It was to prevent eye damage to technicians during checkout procedures. There was an experiment on board that also had a lidar system which they wrote a hack to communicate between the landing software and the experiment. A small amount of money on the chance the experiment lidar wasn't aimed in quite the same way and the landing software patch didn't make up the difference.

Surprising was the defect was noted only because someone apparently was curious to see what the readings were 2 hours before the mission lidar was needed. That made for a really short patch window.

There have been proposals to put up a navigation satellite constellation around the moon like the GPS or Galileo systems. This would have greatly aided the detection and cancellation of the sideways movement during landing. It might not require more than 4 or 5 satellites to do so as the landing could be specifically timed for when the nav satellites were visible. I think there is also a need for one ground station to calibrate the orbital information.

[happyjack]

'Learning to fly R/C Helicopters back in the 70's having the machine topple over on landing was extremely common for all resulting in the end of your day's flying.
A very simple solution was to tie/tape two sticks about 1m long in a cross to the underside of the landing skids. With this you could still impact the ground with about 45 degrees of bank and a sideways drift and the thing just settled itself back on skids.
I am very surprised that there appears to have been little consideration for Odysseus not touching down perfectly? Simple solutions were available?

[Uplinker]

The possibility of a sideways component existing during landing, and the probability of rocks being around on the surface must surely have been considered.

So how to mitigate it? If accelerometers on the craft, integrated to provide sideways movement feedback would not suffice, then how about dropping a laser reflector to the surface from the craft before it landed to provide a static reference point on the surface for the craft to lock onto ?

Maybe this is what the LIDAR system was supposed to do, but do I understand that it was switched off or disabled to protect technicians during testing ?

Surely NASA uses checklists to ensure everything has been prepared and made fully operational before the craft is loaded onto the rocket and launched ?

"top-notch engineering" is being trumpeted, but I would dispute that.

How much did this mission all cost, only for the craft to fall over on landing ? It just beggars belief.
.

[what next]

How much did this mission all cost, only for the craft to fall over on landing ? It just beggars belief.

Yes, indeed. The investors begin to react (as I would too): https://finance.yahoo.com/news/intuitive-machines-stock-plummets-moon-105138570.html

[netstruggler]

Yes, indeed. The investors begin to react (as I would too): https://finance.yahoo.com/news/intuitive-machines-stock-plummets-moon-105138570.html

The US stock market isn't open yet so that's 'out of hours' trading, which isn't always representative of what happens when it does open.

[Recc]

I am very surprised that there appears to have been little consideration for Odysseus not touching down perfectly? Simple solutions were available?

There are (conservatively) thousands of failure modes for a complex automated space mission. Addressing each of them with 'simple' mechanical solutions would add up to a very large increase in weight. As a starting point, the launch platform is set by the budget for the mission and the delta v requirement is fixed. This sets the maximum weight and dimensions of the spacecraft. Once you add in the basic mechanical components and the science components (which would have been set in the tender) your opportunities to add redundancy through additional mechanical components (rather than improved control software) becomes very limited indeed. I'm sure that a great deal of thought was given to this type of failure at the design stage but it is much easier to see the solution when you know what went wrong and don't have to work to the design constraints. The design challenges of building this type of spacecraft to a commercial budget are immense; it is still a very impressive accomplishment.

[TURIN]

The possibility of a sideways component existing during landing, and the probability of rocks being around on the surface must surely have been considered.

So how to mitigate it? If accelerometers on the craft, integrated to provide sideways movement feedback would not suffice, then how about dropping a laser reflector to the surface from the craft before it landed to provide a static reference point on the surface for the craft to lock onto ?

Maybe this is what the LIDAR system was supposed to do, but do I understand that it was switched off or disabled to protect technicians during testing ?

Surely NASA uses checklists to ensure everything has been prepared and made fully operational before the craft is loaded onto the rocket and launched ?

"top-notch engineering" is being trumpeted, but I would dispute that.

How much did this mission all cost, only for the craft to fall over on landing ? It just beggars belief.
.
Landing with a horizontal component was not considered because due to the moon's low gravity and the spacecraft's inertia, almost any sideways component would result in a topple. As has been said the major fault is that a preflight checklist item has been missed. The LIDAR could not be switched on. They found out early because they wanted to use it to measure and correct their insertion orbit. They created a hack to use one of the independent payloads own built in LIDAR, however with any hack it's never as good as the original and there was some lag between reading, action and feedback. To be honest I'm amazed they got it down in one piece after that.
As for NASA, this is an independent, commercial operation, from launch (SpaceX) to touchdown. NASA did provide some funding but it's mostly private money. NASA was not responsible for this mission at all. In addition if you compare the cost of the first Surveyor mission to land on the moon, that cost in today's money about $5B, this cost a tiny fraction of that.
So, no, I don't think it does begger belief.
A private company has landed on the moon at a fraction of previous costs, lessons will be learned and progress made.
Rocket surgery is hard.

[TURIN]

'Learning to fly R/C Helicopters back in the 70's having the machine topple over on landing was extremely common for all resulting in the end of your day's flying.
A very simple solution was to tie/tape two sticks about 1m long in a cross to the underside of the landing skids. With this you could still impact the ground with about 45 degrees of bank and a sideways drift and the thing just settled itself back on skids.
I am very surprised that there appears to have been little consideration for Odysseus not touching down perfectly? Simple solutions were available?
On a spacecraft, nothing is simple.
How big and heavy would those two sticks have to be to make this work on this spacecraft? How would they fit in the rocket fairing. They would have to be hinged or articulated in some way. A failsafe mechanism designed tested and built to extend them before landing. Then you would have to land in an area that was completely flat over an even wider area, one of those sticks hitting a big boulder during even a vertical descent would tip the craft over.
Rocket surgery is hard.

[wiggy]

Agree very much with Recc's final comment:

"The design challenge of building this type of spacecraft to a commercial budget are immense; it is still a very impressive accomplishment."

There's a lot of talk of NASA should have done this or done that but in simple terms NASA contracted out the flying and landing bit to the commercial sector:

CLPS (https://www.nasa.gov/commercial-lunar-payload-services/)

[what next]

On a spacecraft, nothing is simple.

Some things are simple, even when building spacecraft. Add a hinge at the base of each leg and a simple mechanism, in zero gravity rubber bands would be sufficient, to extend them once on the way to the moon. Worked perfectly well 58 years ago with Surveyor 1 (https://www.honeysucklecreek.net/other_stations/tidbinbilla/surveyor/Surveyor_A_Press_Kit_66-127_May_26_1966.pdf). Even the Chinese patent, and they seem to be the only ones remaining who still master the art of landing things on the Moon successfully, has expired, so could have been used (https://patents.google.com/patent/CN102092484B/en).
But of course, if you want to reinvent the wheel by building a spacecraft with a very high centre of gravity and a narrow landing gear, spaceflight suddenly becomes difficult again.

[wiggy]

“But of course, if you want to reinvent the wheel by building a spacecraft with a very high centre of gravity and a narrow landing gear, spaceflight suddenly becomes difficult again.”

As I understand it most of the upper structure on Odysseus was light weight so how high was the CoG and probably more importantly what were the tilt limits?

That said I think an increasing number of eyebrows are going to be raised at the proposals for the Human Landing System (HLS) on Artemis, and maybe also any thoughts that the landing on that system can be completely handed off to automation with no facility for manual reversion.

[TURIN]

Some things are simple, even when building spacecraft. Add a hinge at the base of each leg and a simple mechanism, in zero gravity rubber bands would be sufficient, to extend them once on the way to the moon. Worked perfectly well 58 years ago with Surveyor 1 (https://www.honeysucklecreek.net/other_stations/tidbinbilla/surveyor/Surveyor_A_Press_Kit_66-127_May_26_1966.pdf). Even the Chinese patent, and they seem to be the only ones remaining who still master the art of landing things on the Moon successfully, has expired, so could have been used (https://patents.google.com/patent/CN102092484B/en).
But of course, if you want to reinvent the wheel by building a spacecraft with a very high centre of gravity and a narrow landing gear, spaceflight suddenly becomes difficult again.
Does this rubber remain flexible at absolute zero temp? How does it react in direct sunlight? Like I said it all needs testing and it needs to fit in the budget. Any extra mass it adds will either mean more propellant is required or more performance from the engines. Or you ditch some of the science payload, which then means you've lost income from the payload customer, more budget constraints.
There is a very good reason whu Surveyor and Odyseus are different shapes, Surveyor didn't need to collect sunlight from a very high/low polar attitude, Odyseus did/does. A tall design allowed the solar panels to be mounted vertically, orientated in the best position to catch the most sunlight. No extending solar panels with complex unreeling or deployment required. Very simple just stick em on the side of the spacecraft.
All spacecraft are a compromise.
Edit, thanks for the link to the Surveyor mission. I couldn't find any references to rubber bands, only pyrotechnics and aircraft style shock absorbers, no wonder it was so expensive. 😁

[what next]

As I understand it most of the upper structure on Odysseus was light weight so how high was the CoG and probably more importantly what were the tilt limits?

Tilt is one thing that will throw your spacecraft on it's side, but much more important is a horizontal residual motion upon touchdown. Lunar gravity, the force that will hold it down, is only 1/6 of what it is on earth, but momentum, or the force (not a force in the true physical sense but for simplicity I will call it that) that will overturn it due to residual motion, remains the same. So one could say that it is six times as easy to overturn a lander on the moon than on earth. But certainly the guys who designed this thing knew about that.

[what next]

Does this rubber remain flexible at absolute zero temp?

I wrote "rubber" as a simple example, comressed gas (already present on the spacecraft), metal springs or pyrotechnics (which are not really expensive compared to the total cost of such a mission) would have done the job as well. And yes, these thigs add a little mass to the structure, thereby reducing the payload. As it is now, we have the maximum payload but lying horizontally on the moon, and therefore totally useless. Maybe they should have left those 125 stainless steel statues behind and installed a leg-spreading mechanism instead. But who am I to cosult spaceflight startup companies...

[TURIN]

As the best part is no part, complex leg components were deemed unsuitable for this craft.
I know nothing about statues. Who paid for them? Was that a way to raise funding?

[what next]

I know nothing about statues. Who paid for them? Was that a way to raise funding?

Here: https://news.artnet.com/art-world/jeff-koons-moon-phases-space-odysseus-2440372
It seems they want to capitalise on these statues by selling NFTs.

Spaceflight should broaden the horizon of mankind. Not make rich people richer. But who am I to consult mankind...

[wiggy]

Tilt is one thing that will throw your spacecraft on it's side, but much more important is a horizontal residual motion upon touchdown. Lunar gravity, the force that will hold it down, is only 1/6 of what it is on earth, but momentum, or the force (not a force in the true physical sense but for simplicity I will call it that) that will overturn it due to residual motion, remains the same. So one could say that it is six times as easy to overturn a lander on the moon than on earth. But certainly the guys who designed this thing knew about that.

Interesting point....now talking of high C of G's and landing gear any thoughts on Space X Starship as the lander for Artemis..............................................

https://www.nasa.gov/reference/human-landing-systems/

[wiggy]

Odysseus imaged from orbit by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO).

"Odysseus came to rest at 80.13°S, 1.44°E (https://bit.ly/49polH5), 2579 m elevation, within a degraded one-kilometer diameter crater where the local terrain is sloped at a sporty 12°.

https://www.lroc.asu.edu/posts/1360

[what next]

....now talking of high C of G's and landing gear any thoughts on Space X Starship as the lander for Artemis...

These have the advantage that they can hover in an actively controlled vertical attitude, as demonstated in at least one Starship test flight, until there is no more horizontal motion. Not much, or rather nothing, has been published on the internet yet regarding the landing legs of these vehicles. But I can imagine that they have the capability to extend differently in order to cater for uneven or sloping ground.

[wiggy]

What Next:

"These have the advantage that they can hover in an actively controlled vertical attitude, as demonstrated in at least one Starship test flight, until there is no more horizontal motion."

..I'm sure that's part of the theory, and I know it's been demonstrated, but of course according to the IM CEO a day or two back the intention with Odysseus was to touch down with zero horizontal motion....

One reason the likes of Surveyor's landing gear was as wide rigged as it was was because at the early design stage nobody had much of a clue about lunar topography on a micro scale (that started to come with the late Ranger missions) , and with the onboard technology available at the time the amount of horizontal motion remaining on touchdown couldn't be guaranteed to be zero...so the gear was built to allow the thing to land on a sizeable slope with some residual horizontal motion.

I'm probably way wide of the mark here so please allow a bit of idle speculation but I wonder if some of the current thinking is that with all the modern super reliable "tech" there's no need expended weight on oversize undercarriage, "just in case", because the new technology gizmos will avoid boulders, avoid lateral motion, and avoid significant slopes.

and yet here we are with a modern vehicle over on it's side on a 12 degree incline.......

Edit to add....Just seen Scott Manley has now addressed the geometry issue:

https://twitter.com/DJSnM/status/1761791071628271636

[TURIN]

Here: https://news.artnet.com/art-world/jeff-koons-moon-phases-space-odysseus-2440372
It seems they want to capitalise on these statues by selling NFTs.

Spaceflight should broaden the horizon of mankind. Not make rich people richer. But who am I to consult mankind...
Have you not been following events?
Government funded space exploration is old hat. It's private enterprise all the way now.

[what next]

Have you not been following events?
Government funded space exploration is old hat. It's private enterprise all the way now.

I have been following events and see nothing but failure. Government funded space exploration may be slow and expensive, but it works fine and produces results that teach us things we could not even imagine. No private enterprise would habe given us instruments like the Hubble and James Webb Space telescopes because there is no money to be made from them. As if money were important.

[TURIN]

I have been following events and see nothing but failure. Government funded space exploration may be slow and expensive, but it works fine and produces results that teach us things we could not even imagine. No private enterprise would habe given us instruments like the Hubble and James Webb Space telescopes because there is no money to be made from them. As if money were important.
What failures? The peregrine mission is the only private spacecraft I can think of that completely failed. All the others seem to have at least partially fulfilled their brief.
As for Hubble.
I'm sorry but that is not true. Hubble didn't work, it's mirror was not manufactured correctly. It was a complete white elephant until it was fixed... At great expense.
I'll give you the JWT. A remarkable achievement.

When you say you've seen nothing but failure do you include SpaceX Falcon 9 and Heavy launches? Over 200 successful consecutive launches and recoveries. Even the Dragon capsules and fairings are reusable.
Meanwhile the Boeing Starliner is yet to be crew certified.
As for the SLS and Orion programs, a complete waste of money, decades late and not reusable.

[jolihokistix]

Well, as long as they can climb out of the manned version after landing and push it upright again if necessary.

[happyjack]

I was not insinuating that a couple of sticks be tied to the lander, merely making the point that lads in a cold field came up with a simple solution to a common problem landing model helis.
With a big budget and a host of space technicians and designers could they not come up with something equally as effective?

[Uplinker]

Landing with a horizontal component was not considered because due to the moon's low gravity and the spacecraft's inertia, almost any sideways component would result in a topple.........Rocket surgery is hard.

I stand corrected on my incorrect points.

But really, to not test or arm the LIDAR with the certain knowledge that any sideways movement would result in a topple....... That does not seem to be the actions of a top notch team.

Given that a non functioning LIDAR could and did jeopardise the whole mission and all the scientific payloads the investors had paid for; it does seem odd to me that there was only one LIDAR and that it was not tested on the launchpad before lift off. Didn't the Saturn V go through an extensive testing and checking procedure of all systems before takeoff?

I also wonder why designers don't use the same vehicle designs that have worked successfully before, e.g. the Mars landers. There's too much at stake to try out new designs, I would have thought ?

[wiggy]

I think we need to be a bit careful about painting this as public sector bad, private good, or vice versa..

Remember (?) NASA has rarely if ever built spacecraft….historically they set the project goals and then put production out to tender (hence the old lowest bid joke about Atlas/Mercury). The previously mentioned Surveyor was I think built by Hughes..who in turn sub-contracted out the sub-assemblies…

NASA retained the project management and it would be a mix of NASA and sub-contractor employees who would put the whole combinations of vehicles (launcher, payload etc) together at the Cape or wherever.

What’s changed in recent years is NASA pushing more and more of the management and coordination out to the private sector and concentrating on the science side with schemes such as CLPS, where they pay for payload carriage but increasingly leave it to the private sector as to how to get the payload where it needs to go.

[TURIN]

I stand corrected on my incorrect points.

But really, to not test or arm the LIDAR with the certain knowledge that any sideways movement would result in a topple....... That does not seem to be the actions of a top notch team.

Given that a non functioning LIDAR could and did jeopardise the whole mission and all the scientific payloads the investors had paid for; it does seem odd to me that there was only one LIDAR and that it was not tested on the launchpad before lift off. Didn't the Saturn V go through an extensive testing and checking procedure of all systems before takeoff?

I also wonder why designers don't use the same vehicle designs that have worked successfully before, e.g. the Mars landers. There's too much at stake to try out new designs, I would have thought ?
I agree about the testing. The prelaunch checklist no doubt will be scrutinised somewhat. Either a check was missed or a box was ticked when it shouldn't have been.
Short answers to your last point is, money and mission objectives.
This was supposed to be a relatively inexpensive pathfinder mission. Dropping a 'Curiosity' type rover on the moon would have been hugely expensive and considering the latitude and rocky terrain, not a particularly good idea.

[wiggy]

TURIN:

" Dropping a 'Curiosity' type rover on the moon would have been hugely expensive and considering the latitude and rocky terrain, not a particularly good idea."

Costly yes, but wheeled vehicles (both manned and unmanned) have trundled around OK in the Moon...but I agree not at high latitude and yes they are expensive.

Uplinker:

"I also wonder why designers don't use the same vehicle designs that have worked successfully before, e.g. the Mars landers"

Lost of differences between Moon and Mars though.. simply from a landing POV a Mars lander vehicle has to survive an atmospheric entry, which is not the case for the Moon, hence Mars landers usually have heat shields and parachutes in addition to rockets for the final stages...Moon landers rely entirely on rocket power.

There's lots of other really significant differences, for example day length ..or more importantly night length (that means different specs for the ability to survive low temps)..

Fundamentally switching a Mars design to a Moon lander would almost certainly mean significant redesign...whether you're talking about a stationary vehicle or a Rover.

[Uplinker]

Yes but given the high chance of a topple, it would seem extremely important to mitigate that possibility.

The money element is often mentioned, but not having any mitigation is gambling the entire mission and all the money.

A certain aircraft manufacturer has recently 'demonstrated' the folly of relying on a single sensor.

[jolihokistix]

Not to push a point, but hoping they design it so it won’t fall over onto the exit door.

[what next]

What failures? The peregrine mission is the only private spacecraft I can think of that completely failed. All the others seem to have at least partially fulfilled their brief.

I may have expressed myself a little too harsh... But few people know, that privately funded spaceflight is not a recent invention, because it began exactly 50 years ago with a company called "OTRAG" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTRAG - there is an interesting documentary called "Fly Rocket Fly!" about it here (geman language with english subtitles only): Startseite-Englisch ? FLY ROCKET FLY (http://otrag.com/en/) ). The founder of that company was lectured by the same professors as I, but more then a decade earlier. I even applied for an internship but the company was already being dissolved then. Between OTRAG and SpaceX there have been several attempts at private enterprise spaceflight, some were total failures, others still exist as subcontractors. One of the last major failures was "Virgin Orbital" and honestly I don't see a bright future for "Virgin Galactic" either.

As for Hubble.
I'm sorry but that is not true. Hubble didn't work, it's mirror was not manufactured correctly. It was a complete white elephant until it was fixed... At great expense.

I count Hubble as one of the greatest successes of spaceflight ever. Because it was cleverly designed with in-orbit serviceability in mind. Therefore the initial flaw could be corrected. Not only is it a wonderful science tool, but also a strong reminder why human spaceflight is essential. Again, the cost is irrelevant, scientific advance has no price tag.

When you say you've seen nothing but failure do you include SpaceX Falcon 9 and Heavy launches? Over 200 successful consecutive launches and recoveries. Even the Dragon capsules and fairings are reusable.

Falcon is indeed a success story. As for the Dragon capsule, it's development was funded and subcontracted by NASA just like the Apollo spacecraft 60 years ago. Not really private enterprise there. And how much the development of the Falcon rocket really cost only Elon Musk knows... Starship has yet to prove itself, but again, NASA funding and subcontracting for it's use as lunar lander takes some of the "private" aspect away.

As for the SLS and Orion programs, a complete waste of money, decades late and not reusable.

I fully agree. Good lobbying from the industry combinded with weak project management from NASA.

So let's see how the remaining two missions of Intuitive Systems will perform!

[ORAC]

" Dropping a 'Curiosity' type rover on the moon would have been hugely expensive and considering the latitude and rocky terrain, not a particularly good idea."

I’ll just point out that the company is very much going down the SpaceX path of rapid prototyping and test flights to refine and develop. They have several more planned, as well as the lunar orbital constellation, which will carry multiple rovers and “hoppers”.

“Intuitive Machines’ second awarded flight, IM-2, is scheduled to land at the lunar South Pole in 2024. This will be the first on site, or in-situ, resource utilization demonstration on the Moon utilizing a drill and mass spectrometer to measure the volatile content of subsurface materials. The third Intuitive Machines awarded flight, IM-3, is scheduled to land at the Moon’s Reiner Gamma swirl in 2024 using the Nova-C lunar lander.”…..

​​​​​​​CLPS Flight: IM-2 

Expected Launch Date: 2024 

Landing Site: Shackleton Connecting Ridge 

Payloads: https://science.nasa.gov/lunar-science/clps-deliveries/prime-1aiintuitive-machines/

Lander Name: Odysseus

Lander Class: Nova-C

Task Order Information: TO Polar Resources Ice Mining Experiment-1 (PRIME-1) 

 

CLPS Flight:  IM-3 

Expected Launch Date: 2024 

Landing Site: Reiner Gamma 

Payloads: https://science.nasa.gov/lunar-discovery/deliveries/cp-11 

Lander Name: Odysseus (https://www.intuitivemachines.com/lunar-access-services)

Lander Class: Nova-C

Task Order Information: TO CP-11 (CLPS PRISM 11) 

[wiggy]

All is slowly being revealed:

Altemus said Tuesday that the flight computer onboard Odysseus was unable to process data from the NASA payload in real time. Therefore, the last accurate altitude reading the lander received came when it was 15 kilometers above the lunar surface—and still more than 12 minutes from touchdown.

Full article here:

Ars Technica (https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/02/it-turns-out-that-odysseus-landed-on-the-moon-without-any-altimetry-data/)

[wiggy]

FWIW NASA TV currently (Wednesday 1900 UTC) running a presser featuring the IM CEO and various NASA officials.

Everybody seems to very much on message with a common POV that despite the tilt on landing the mission is a massive success with lots of useful data gathered and lots still to come back.

[MechEngr]

I'm picturing a Road Runner or Bugs Bunny style cartoon with the lander getting close to the Moon and a white tipped can flicks out to tap-tap-tap on the lunar surface. The cane retracts and the lander just slams over. Maybe then a little flag that says "Bang!" pops out because there is no air on the Moon to hear the crash.

I do agree that getting the 999,999 correct decisions made is a great success even if 1 decision turned out poorly. I'd rather fix that one decision and maybe examine the few hundred that remained in the final touchdown than the 999,999 that went right before.

[wiggy]

Not sure if the conference will be on catch up on NASA TV but this Guardian report summaries much of what was said:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/feb/28/reawaken-moon-lander-odysseus