New Intuitive Machines' moon lander images shows 'broken landing gear' and tilt
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 02. 2024
- The Intuitive Machines' Odysseus lander tipped over after a landing gear broke on the surface of the moon during touchdown. Intuitive Machines CEO Steve Altemus explains at a news briefing on Feb. 28, 2024.
Credit: NASA - Věda a technologie
This is the new stand up routine.
It took "break a leg" literal
The topmost failure of the mission was the failure to communicate its real status and its broad range of problems. As an engineer I hate seeing other engineers self-banging on their own back and calling the failure a brilliant success. If they were to lay down the problems and explain what they did to overcome them the audience would be a lot more sympathetic and a lot more understanding because admitting the problems is the first step towards correcting them.
The problem is its all lies to begin with ....there is no such thing as landing on the moon or going to mars....we can't get out of our dome.......no such thing as outer space......
As a fellow engineer I couldn't agree more. These people are concerned with one thing and one thing only - keeping the investments rolling in. This is what happens when "explore" becomes "exploit". Profit, Profit, Uber Alles ... to Hades with honesty.
I agree but I'm not sure what caused the lunar module to tip over? It's landing foot getting stuck in the moon's surface? Or one the landing legs collapsing?
From the press conference, the lander still had a little bit of horizontal velocity when it touched down, which resulted in the tople over.
@@mpeterselmanIn one of the conferences they mentioned it landed 6mph vertically and called that a walk. It's a jog. The forward movement was 2 mph. As best I can see it landed on a flat surface and they made the thing too damn top heavy if that's enough to knock it over.
I have just watched the I.M. latest news conference on NASA Live TV, they are glossing over all that went wrong, and that it's still a total success, which is so wrong. The mission time was cut short when it ran out of power on Tuesday afternoon due to the partial use of one solar panel. They didn't utilize the Eagle Cam ejection payload, as they had to override it due to patching new landing software, as the original I.M. software could not be enabled due to a forgotten disable switch left disabled which should have been switched to enable before its launch.. I think they are being foolish glossing over everything that went wrong and maintaining that all payloads were unaffected, even the onboard cams, which took two images before it landed horizontally. then nothing after that. They finally managed to spit out Sagle Cam from Odysseus which managed one picture of the strike lander. Overall better luck next time.
I get it, but hey even failures are successes in space and i'm excited to see at least something. But yeah they're kinda acting like other private company's we won't name (OceanGate) cough cough oops sorry. Like hey it's all good despite 90% failure. I really hope this company never send humans to the moon lol. Let's leave that to a regulated NASA and not a private company. These companies tend to want to look better to the public than to actually admit failure and state publicly that they're learning from failures A, B, C etc... I really hope they are truly and meticulously looking into the failures and fixing them optimally and not really just "glossing" over them for the future missions. having said that, I'm cautiously hopeful and excited for their next 2 missions but we'll see.
Hopefully the upcoming internal reviews are more realistic and less PR oriented. They'll only learn if they are willing to accept that mistakes were made.
All of these recent issues are kind of like Apollo 1. Make the designers realize how little they know and how thorough they need to be.
Yep
It's an embarrassment... We're falling behind in the space race... Obama cutting funding to NASA definitely didn't help. Maybe Musk will gain some interest in the lunar race.
fundamental change has consequences...please lets not involve EM... he cant even build a truck...@@Ozbawky
he said the craft landed "softely" and took the force. I guess broken gears sounded better than missing leg parts.
"landed and tilted over slowly about 2 seconds"😅
If Apollo had done this, 2 men would have been trapped on the Moon to die within a few days.
@@tomscott1159I doubt we went to the moon after this
Dang, he’s trying so hard to not say we crashed it 😮😂
Makes what happened in the Sixties moon landing more marvelous based on very limited computers.
Or proves that it was fake.
All these failures prove the 1960s is fake! Man on the moon, yeah right!
Apollo 11 was relayed, but now it's only photos.😂
Well they also had literally 3000 times more funding and thousands of times more workforce to make it happen compared to this small private company. It doesn't make it any less impressive with what was achieved back then as probably the best engineering achievement in history, but again you need to consider all aspects and the context for this mission.
@@loststk6952 No landing on Apollo was live aside from voice comms and telemetry, only EVAs after they set up the TV camera, landings were only recorded on 16mm film. Apollo spacecraft could do live video feed as it was much bigger than this small robotic spacecraft, you're still limited by physics of signal transmission that require enough power to send a certain amount of data over a certain distance, robotic spacecraft like this can't afford to have powerful transmission systems to enable the bandwidth for live video. They were also bringing a large dedicated high gain antenna to set up on the surface from Apollo 12 onwards, which enabled higher quality color transmission, this is why it was black and white only on Apollo 11, the LM by itself with its antennas couldn't support a transmission in color.
This gives a whole new meaning to 'Break a leg.'
Not sure how a broken piece of landing gear is a "success"? I suggest re-evaluating your success bar.
They were designed to break. Its called a crush zone. Like how a car's nose is designed to crush to slow the stop for the passengers. Its the same principle.
@@SojournerArt Funny they didn't tell us this in advance.
@@SojournerArt That's like saying you successfully parked your car around a tree because you survived the crash.
try landing on the moon yourself I'm sure landing gear is the least of your worries
Apparently, many of us don't have enough thoughts, learning, and experience to make suggestions to "rocket" scientists. For example, The Chinese also did land on the moon a couple of years ago, but in multiple pieces, so that's called Failure. Hope this helps.
The big heroes here are the folks who reconfigured the navigation system to use the payload data sensors...in two hours. Brilliant.
I’m convinced there are aliens on the moon playing a game of tipping spacecraft as they land.
are you saying it landed and they pushed it over
@@tb7977I have to agree with @Jimo368 I'm sure that there are aliens on the moon and they are tipping spacecrafts
@@tb7977 Nope. Jimo clearly stated "as they land."
They've been watching rednecks tip cows for fun and decided to give it a try. They're getting pretty good at it.
But why do aliens allow Chinese and Indian lander smoothly? 🤔
Failure is the new Success.
Don't try to makes the best of a bad situation without acknowledging it's a bad situation. If I don't sense any humility or contrition, I won't have any confidence for your next mission.
and I wont buy any more of the publicly traded stock LUNR
I can't get into this mission. Surveyor 1 soft landed in 1966 with vacuum tube technology. Imagine that! Then came the Apollo program in a time of Black and White TV's and rotary phones.
More resources for those missions though. This is done on the equivalent of a shoestring budget. NASA's budget is tiny in comparison now. You say you can't get into this mission but you still cared enough to comment.
NASA in the 60s used real engineers
It's called a test flight for a reason.
'Zactly. Let's compare the landing gear of the Surveyors to this piece of junk.
There were a lot of failed missions prior to Surveyor 1's success. Give Intuitive Machines (And Astrobotic, etc) a chance to fail at first, they'll eventually get it right.
Not very impressed by what is being shared. You would think they had a better media team :(
(they're not doing it for you)
Impressing you is not their goal.
...the really nasty pictures won't be shared publicly...
how about they try to impress the shareholders of the stock they sold to the public??? would that be a goal?? problem with smart people is they ask common people to fund their projects and then feel they dont have to account for dumb mistakes@oc492
@@jurgenwulf490 It's how I found this?
pretty amazing, private company lands first time to make it the cheapest landing on the moon, and closest to south pole by hundreds of kms , with first ever methalox space engine to boot using a reusable rocket booster which also successfully landed, and all engineered in just a few years
it actually is a PUBLIC company that sells share on the NASDAQ...(LUNR)...and please define cheapest
Next time use LT-1 legs instead of the toothpicks that are LT-05
Lol no.
All it needs is moar boosters for it to stand on
Legs from Ikea look stronger than this.
Next time tell the lander program not to include "break a leg" as part of it's mission parameters
Broken or not, testing is part of the scientific method and knowing what to improve on is successful to me
it looked weak and top heavy to start with
@@tb7977 No doubt you could engineer and build better landing gear and overall better machine with proper center of mass. It's obvious they are beginners, making this noodle of landing apparatus. I'm sure they didn't even FEM the landing gear and the center of mass for the vehicle was cobbled something together. This is what the engineers usually do.
tell that to the shareholders...
yes I could@@koitk
I'd love to see them try a burn to lift off and re-position the craft upright. Not sure if it's possible but would be exciting to attempt.
that would cost another $100 million
Back in 1969 Apollo, they were able to live TV broadcast from the moon "one giant step for mankind", and now 55 years later it takes days to figure out computer animations had wrong rendition of the real situation. Back in 1969, all were done with chemical film cameras, rotary dialing phones ...
We have 8K digital video and GHz freq. Line of Sight radio communication and these are the best images available? Odd...
@@Kinann Sure…. OK. So Where is the high definition video of this lunar landing? And if it does not exist, why not? This is 2024. There are 5MP cameras smaller than a quarter now. What is your age and education level roughly?
It's not about cameras, it's about bandwidth.
Obviously you're too lazy to discover all this on your own and would criticize the answer anyway. What a coddled twit.
@@bartofilms Obviously you're too lazy to discover all this on your own and would criticize the answer anyway. What a coddled twit.
You're a good parrot. Unfortunately that's all you're good for. @@FrankyPi
So amazingly "successful..." they FORGOT to remove the lidar lens cover! They had no idea until they went to land it! LOL Folks that's an extremely BASIC checklist function! The amazing part is that they were able to partially recover from their idiotic mistake. I would not be bragging so much if I was them.
who forgot???was it sabotage??how do you forget something as simple yet critical as that???
@@afs6596 they announced it in a press conference
define announced@@AndrewKeifer
Ah, Andew. You are the first person to being up their #1 Mistake and the biggest! Have a CHECKLIST with you prior to launch and for goodness sake use the darn thing. Did anybody in your science class in school tell you this?? or were you too busy looking out the window at the cheer leaders?
@@michaelvega1731 I learned to use checklists in the army. We had what we called PCIs and PCCs. Pre-combat inspections and pre-combat checks. Planning and preparation were always a priority before the mission. We used a method for planning called a five paragraph operations order that covered absolutely everything about the mission. Everyone involved was required to attend the briefing and afterwards, leaders would do brief-backs with their individual soldiers to make sure all were on the same page and, of course, redundancy was built-in via multiple sets of key equipment and cross training individuals to step up if the primaries can't accomplish the mission.
I'm sure the IM-1 team had check lists, but to miss something so simple and not even know about it until it's time to employ the device in question is a biggie. You can bet they're going to do an internal investigation to find out how that happened and make improvements.
This company knew and did not disclose this information painting it as successful. Even the Mars Rover which was much a farther trip- they had great video of the descent and landing.
The legs surely look very flimsy.... Really... in the 21st century... this is the best landing vehicle they can dream up??
They look flimsy to you, because you were raised in earth's-gravity ... it's not earth.
Mass reared its ugly head in this case. Unchanging in any gravity.
@@Kinann Force = mass X acceleration.
mass is not the issue here...
@@njones420 MASS ALWAYS STAYS THE SAME REGARDLESS OF GRAVITY. Google it. Because it landed in 1/6 gravity is irrelevant here, the same mass impacted the legs exactly the same as if the impact happened on Earth.
A leg broken on touchdown. I think it's been established that they're flimsy.
Nice update, but I think we can tone down the accolades - there were several mishaps, not discrediting all the successes.
The forgotten laser rangefinder protective lenscap is utterly unforgivable.
@@Wayoutthere I've learned the hard way, that carefully constructed checklists don't work if you don't, uh, check them.
They have to believe it was a success to prove the money was well spent. Honestly they think the public are stupid.
Very much agree. We learnt from the Apollo moon missions that PR is incredibly important and not a trivial thing. This largely was a PR disaster - from the completely underwhelming and confusing countdown to the landing - to the silence and bad communications afterwards. All needs to get much slicker if they want to impress the American and world public- not an issue for science of course but issue for future missions.
The Hindenburg had lots of successes. It made it to New Jersey!
I’m getting the impression there’s a lot of employees chiming in on these videos.
yes, everything is some stupid conspiracy.
define chiming
Conspiracies exist whether you like it or not. @@twonumber22
Remarkable to salvage the mission…but it is still a failure. Lowering the bar to accepting this as a success…is like getting a participated trophy for a ball team that didn’t win.
That's from the Lib playbook. Why are you so hypocritical?
Japan also 😅😅
It landed precisely where it was supposed to and sent back data. Pretty successful in my book.
IMHO...the mission was compromised because of HUMAN failure (not my words)...someone on the team forgot to unlock a switch related to the laser range finder...How is this possible that a multimillion dollar spacecraft is compromised due to a failure of this??? And Why was this NOT addressed during the conference call???
Switch was there for eye safety during lidar testing and was left off, press conference changed it to say it was internally defective. Likely have to stay positive for funding, at least they learned from it. Strange it wasn't on the checklist.
The dust flying out looks exactly like the Apollo lunar lander. Lovely.
That's putting a positive spin on the spacecraft tipping over.
Nice PhotoShop
Prove it
We aren't making the claim that we landed on the moon. Burden of proof rests on your side, Nancy. @@LoyalHacket
Now I appreciate India's Chandrayaan 3 more and more...
quite a miracle they landed, given all the hurdles they faced.
Those puny golf clubs were supposed to protect the lander. Thought you were engineers.
I suppose we call it a well orchestrated failed landing,
In short , A Crash landing.
But we still managed to get a flag there!
"Any landing that you can walk away from is a good lan..."
Never mind.
I was 6 years old when I saw men walk on the moon on live television broadcast. I was amazed and thought to myself, we will have a city there when I am 60 years old. I am 61 now, and sorry NASA and Intuitive Machines, I am underwhelmed on this one.
that is not a 'landing', it's a crash 😆 maybe a soft one, but still a crash
Such a shame you weren't there to design it for them eh?
as we say in aviation "any landing you can walk away from is a sucess" ... it's wonky, but doesn't stop any of the planned experiments.
It's a soft crash!
Even the state of the art modern laser navigation system could help
Here's a thought, maybe the eagle cam did successfully deploy and caught the lander falling over, and to spare embarrassment they didn't show it. Delayed data transmission gave them time to cut away.
This is much better! I'm so glad we got more pictures from the lander. Very promising for the next 2 IM missions.
Remove lens cap ... Check
My doorbell takes better photos.
@@a8a999 Your doorbell isn't 240,000 miles away...
@@njones420 I paid $49 for my doorbell...
@@a8a999 yeah, I think you missed the point here.
Christ! How many more things are we gonna find that these guys screwed up❓
Well done.
Congrats. Well done.
Yet ...... in 1969 the moon landing went flawlessly with human beings aboard were able to transmit live video and audio and yet we are here over 50 years later not being able Sen video or audio. AMAZING!!!!
So someone with IM "forgot" to flip a switch prior to placing the lander in the final rocket assembly. That is a High School Science Project error - not worthy of a private company receiving millions of dollars. Every critical component should have been designed for remote operation. Surveyor managed to land itself upright and function properly back in the 1960s!
reason that government projects cost so much they have backups of their backups and everything is checked and triple checked. shows what now private does just to make money and backups cost money (cheap)like airplanes the space industry needs to be perfect because you cannot stop and repair out there.
I wondered how they were going to land that top heavy unit on the moon.
Thank you! It looked like they were trying to land an air conditioner on top of a bar stool.
top heavy? it might be tallish but the base of the legs which actually bear the weight spread wider than its height. Also its center of mass is lowish given all the heaviest stuff ie the engine are in the bottom half of the stack
Unlike Mercury and Apollo, how many were killed in this mission..your judgment is flawed horribly..
The Leaning Lander of Pizza
Logic: We've been using cars already 100+ yrs.
Are the self-driven cars in the experimental phase only? Can you believe that?
Old cars never existed except in films, I'm sure.
I intend to go camping this spring. Can I have my tent poles back please?
Fantastic!
Great fault tolerance and success!!!❤.
Seria possível no final da missão brincar um pouco e fazer o módulo decolar em efeito drone? Seria para testar e calcular uma levitação e deslocamento lateral, seria interessante! Poderia até levar para outra região, mas não sei quanto de combustível ainda tem! É apenas um comentário de leigo! Fantástica missão, parabéns a toda a equipe!
Amazing photos! Best of luck to the mission.
If you think this is real, I have an island for sale 😂😂
@@realitynotfictionii563 _if_ they were going to fake it, why would they fake failures?
@420 terrible failures at that. This is like the 3rd failed moon missions in the past 6 months. If this was all faked, we'd have only one failed mission to make fake space look real. No this is as real as can be!
@@njones420 It always starts with a ridiculous premise then tons of doubling down. That's the script.
@@Kinann That doesn't answer my question at all ...
You're just a science-denier, i'm sure you believe anything from tinfoil hat sites with no critical thought applied.
Flatearther? Antivaxer too?
I thought the most important experiment was to test for South Pole Moon Water? Did they ever test for that or was that impossible with the lander falling over?
For want of 0.025% mass of structural material would have saved this lander. Cessna developed the C152 with the same fault in its Nose Landing Gear over 70 years ago; nothing is learned, eh?
It looks like the "great leap for all mankind" that they called this to me.
Imagine how easily this could have happened in Apollo… 😮. It nearly did on one…. The Apollo 15 LEM was tilted and the landing was almost hard and ended up tilted like 12 degrees..
May want to just copy the Apollo lunar lander next time, seemed to work well......lol
And the cost was at least 100 times higher
This is a commercial mission. Much smaller, no humans on it, much cheaper.
We're at least 30 trillion in debt. The government could easily print half a trillion and go back to the moon. What's another half a trillion at this point? @@raptorwhite6468
At the beginning of the "For All Mankind" series, Neil Armstrong landed in the same way with Apollo-11, breaking one of the legs of the lunar lander.
Apollo 11 was relayed, but now it's only photos.
How did you get thu the firmament tell us that
The cannot, therefore they lie. The moon is small and local, not 200k miles away in 'space', lol.
@@derp8575’lol’ is such a weird word thing to type after typing all that weird stuff. Troll farm?
Interesting-one of the critiques of the Apollo photos is that the engine caused absolutely no movement of the dust on the surface.
Really? I remember seeing rays of dust shooting out from the old landers.
There are videos of all six Apollo descents to the lunar surface, and also ones from the Chinese Chang'e missions. They all look similar (as would be expected). And all of them clearly show dust being kicked up.
no, the Apollo conspiracy people complained there was no CRATER underneath the lunar lander.
@@olasek7972 I think it was both. But, whatever. Apollo hoaxers have nothing, which is why most of them post 'n' ghost.
How was this one not even tested
Are the feet supposed to break?
Glad to hear your lander is OK
Can we just get an image of space and the moon through a normal lens? Why is it always a fisheye lens?
To mess with flerfers.
Round earthers : " Look at the curve!" @@TheAzmountaineer
@@derp8575 I see it's working.
It appears to mess with you, but differently. Flat earth is living rent free in your head. Who was the first to mention FE in this comment thread? @@TheAzmountaineer
@@derp8575 daniel alluded to it with his fisheye lens comment, you know that. You flerfers should all take a ship to Antarctica and take pictures of the ice wall.
They need the old slide rule guys to design the craft.
The briefing was sickening.
Yes, BS in it's purest form.
Failure is failure 😅😅😅.
First fascinating images
I like all the flowery language he is using the make the situation less daunting.
not what we've expected
I don’t understand what’s behind all the back slapping and celebration when this thing basically screwed up. It’s like everything else these days… nobody is willing to admit their screw ups. 😳
and how does a multimillion dollar spacecraft get effed up because someone forgot to flip a switch??
Yep. Story checks out. Too much lateral movement/velocity. They have to cancel out some of that with thrusters and get a more vertical approach. This would have killed a crew easily.
I respectfully disagree.
A human pilot wouldn't have stood there and watched the crash. He would have either taken manual control or aborted back to the safety of orbit.
No way that the impact would have killed the crew. It was not violent or this thing wouldn't be working at all. Also a human landing this wouldn't have landed this poorly. They would have been able to land it with zero horizontal velocity, because they would have practiced it a thousand times. Nothing on the craft malfunctioned that a human. live, in real time, couldn't have accounted for. Now, if they rolled over, maybe they would have died if they couldn't get it back in a vertical position to take off again, but again, humans being humans, I have faith they'd have figured something out, if the only thing that was broken was one landing leg.
Would have been better using titanium for the legs wouldn’t have been a lot of weight difference considering the thickness you could used with the titanium and less bracing as required with this disaster.
Like 50 years ago ?????
we can land on the moon but we still need to show stills and say 'next slide please'. 🤣
So far, only china and india has managed to "land" on the moon over last few decades. Seems odd we can't even program a landing pattern that gets rid of all horizontal movement and can slow the small lander down enough so it doesn't crash. At least it was more upright than the upside down SLIM lander. But, even the upside down SLIM lander gave us way more images.
We can send people to school and educate them but we still have morons complaining about the most insignificant things. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Congratulations
Who took the picture?
Automatic for the people..
"who" ?!?
What a Fiasco
This is the first try in over 50 years> I give them a break because this stuff is really hard to do right the first time. Remember all the trouble SpaceX had with rockets? Was it a total success,? NO it was not. Was it a total failure? No it was not. It was partial- as a person who grew up with Apollo, there were lots of failures there too. As long we learn and improve, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.
Fascinating that they insist on still using the curtain rods and mylar tape formula from the 1969 studio recordings.
Oh you were in that studio, were you ? I was watching it on the TV screen that night ! That incredible feat of NASA that was happening on the moon that lunar day ! With a billion at least of other people all around the world glued to the screen. Sorry for you you missed that, cause you didn't even exist..
Perfect comment!
@@astrogeo1 I did exist, watched at an age old enough ....and have never believed it happened the way they told us!
And parts of the weather balloon from Roswell. Original or Mogul!!!
@p387 ...and I guess you're a qualified engineer, or astrophysicist, or some other highly-educated specialist with the knowledge and understanding to make such a claim. Tell us more about your expertise.
Oh my God what a mess 😢
Having done this over 50 years ago it sure seems difficult to land on the moon...
Half of all attempted lunar landing missions have failed, it is difficult and always has been.
Why does everybody insists on this stick landing gear??? It's hell bent to get caught on something! Come on people.
How about some wheels?
Would be a first to send a "robot-repair" lander on our part for making an attempt to somehow fix: when there's a will there has to be a way..
Was this from a $20 camera?
$20 cameras offer a high degree of quality.
And it even looks like it has bodily oil all over the lens.
High quality camera.
Lousy internet provider.
Apparently, the moon is served by AT&T.
same camera they use to take pics of sasquatch and UFO's ,,,lol
I know IM and NASA have learned a lot from this mission, I am sensing next moon mission will be amazing to see like Apollo.
that is one tuff lander. WAY TO GO EVERYONE .
Weak knees though, but tough lander.
In Dec 2020, China's Chang-5 lunar lander safely landed on the moon. Then it automatically sampled of 3.8 pounds (1,731 grams) of lunar rocks. Then it succesfully lifted off and rocketed the samples safely back to Earth. I wonder if USA/NASA is able to perform such mission at this stage.
The mission was to land near the South Pole which is a considerably more difficult mission than China's. So far only India has succeeded.
@@amitkriit In Jan 2019 chinese Cheng 4 landed in the South Pole-Aitken Basin on the FAR SIDE of the Moon that was still unexplored by landers. The whole operation was coordinated via communication relay satellite. And the chinese lander deployed a robotic rover on the surface. I wonder if USA/NASA is able to perform such mission at this stage.
Are they going to reactivate when it's in the sunlight again or is it's mission already over?
It might power on again, so they’ll be listening. But the odds aren’t in favor of Odysseus surviving the lunar night
I've read that the lander hit the surface too fast. That would account for the compromised landing leg, and the resulting tip-over. This presentation glosses over the failure to land the device upright. A glorious fiasco, I suppose.
Every 60 years we prove how stupid we really are.
every 60 ? you mean everyday ...🖖
@@juan_matus
We argue it everyday, this proves it.
It proves one thing is crucial for moon landing !!! We need the elite navy pilots to be the astronauts, that’s why all the Apollo missions landings were perfect. Skills does matter 💪💪💪
Why did landing gear fail??!!!
So why's there no landing video HUH?
Why isn't anyone saying "this was faked?" It just proves that we are not aloud to be proud of our achievements anymore!
D'oh!!!
Spin Spin Spin Spin Spin
That’s not a landing, it’s a crash 😅
It's a soft crash!
proud to be an indian