What Exactly Went Wrong During Odysseus’s Landing?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 май 2024
- 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 - thespacebucket.com/what-exact...
For more space-related content check out - thespacebucket.com/
Credit:
NASA - / @nasa
Intuitive Machines - / @intuitivemachines
Chapters:
0:00 - Intro
0:43 - Sideways Landing
3:56 - Impact On Payloads 
Наука
Their first mistake was naming it Odysseus. He had all kinds of problems.
idiots, the shape of it, like a pen, try to balece a pen,most probe are not that tall unbalence shape,where did those project engineers came from ?
The best part is the CEO explaining that a tipped over lander is not how it's supposed to go
I mean, some people are slow, he didn't discriminated his audience...
Did they deploy the blue pillow too? Where did that come from?
@@Buonarotti10 Ikea. This is all privately funded.
They lied again it did not tipped over, it smashed surface so strong that it deployed airbags and was rolling forever before stopped upside down. Perhaps if all data from Apollo program was not missing they new how they did it 60 years ago. LOL . DISASTER NOT SUCCESS.....
That’s why it was so muted in the control room. They knew something was wrong and didn’t want to celebrate the landing even after it was announced.
It's a crash landing. They knew it.
A chip accelerometer sensed the moon's gravity in the X-axis, rather than the Y-axis. Oops. I'm surprised they had the major of aspect ratio oriented the Y-direction. Not center of gravity stable. Remember how the Mars Opportunity landed in air cushion? I was thinking they'd do the same. But they probably had "not-invented-here" syndrome.
The control room with the flat earth table in the middle of the room😂
Yes, that's what I noticed too. The company Spin was not putting smiles on their faces. They knew it was botched.
@@fredflorist1682Gravity is usually in the Z axis.
Are they going to reprint the limited edition t-shirts with the lander lying on it's side?
I want the ceo to be on the shirt explaining why it’s still a huge success
🤣This is just crazy, can't believe Apollo did it right the first time and now 50 years later into the future with the most advanced chips and knowledge on space travel, it had to tilt. NASA sent two robots on mars and those never tilted. How is this even possible to the closet planet of moon.
Same print, but nightshirts.
@@sto2779That's a pretty good questions, I really think this is about inexperience and pretty optimistic predictions.
The moon landings where made by profesional pilots that trained a lot on helicopters and being there avoided the autonomous side of the new missions.
The moon surveyor program and the moon landing used a pretty low center of gravity ships that where designed to withstand side movement at landing and stay correctly oriented.
The old mars rovers where designed to land by crashing and bouncing into te surface and unwrapped to be right side up. The new ones with the sky crane, that is a huge thing and a huge feat by the JPL, those sure used tons of simulations and testing and still is amazing how they work.
@@fdavpach The design of the moon lander looks like it’ll tip over. Should’ve gone with a tried and true approach. But I think they wanted to do something new which heavily relies on fast advanced computer algorithms with advanced motion control of jet nozzles, which seriously complicates things. Seems like not enough proper testing caused it to tilt. I blame it lack of budget from private funding.
they decided to turn off the camera on descent? how lame.
I watched the press conference, and it wasn't so much that they decided to turn it off, it was that the last minute software patch that they had to make to use the nasa laser instrument in the navigation system disabled eagle cam, and they didn't have the time to fix the issue and get it working before they had to land, so they opted to not try.
They wanted people to hold the stock watched the trading day lots of good people lost tons of value. Very sad,@@DaniNyaaa
Lies
They did not want to biff the landing on live feed
@@seanhewitt603this
I like how many people consider this a 100% success or a 100% fail. It achieves 80% of it's goals but nope it completely failed because reasons.
At least it wasn’t a “smashing success”, but rather a qualified learning opportunity which wasn’t totally bad.
Landing SIDEWAYS on the moon after 50 YEARS of technology advancements since NASA's several successful landings is certainly not a 'success'.
I mean yeah but landing is like 10% of the end goal, right? But landing 100% correctly is what allows it to perform the other 90% of its goal
It's on it's side. Russia what and 80% success then also right?
Let me try that positive outlook way of viewing life. The Titanic was 80% successful . It did float and took on passengers. The San Francisco Millennium tower is standing . So it tilts and sinks , no big deal, Want to make this a success. Send up and land a Boston Dynamics robot and have it put the lander in the correct position. If that's possible it would be cool.
Yea, these guys were self-congratulating themselves non-stop in the press...despite knowledge of a long series of malfunctions/failures which led to the truly unsuccessful "landing".
You are on the other hand taking the contrarian perspective for questionable reasons. This lander had several firsts that most people seem to ignore and instead dwell only the fact that it tipped over or that there weren't pictures for the fans who don't seem concerned with anything else. As to those firsts!!
1). The first lander from the US to touch down on the moon in one piece in 50 years.
2). The first lander to use a cryofuel.
3) The first lander to use a methlox fuel.
4). The first lander to use such a small budget 118 million $!! Yes that is indeed cheap.
5). The first US lander to touch down on the south pole.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 The first lander from the US to look embarrassing on the lunar surface forever - or the next billion years at least.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 First are cancelled out because the mission failed.
@@gregorylayne9044 Not failed, as more then half of it is complete already prior to landing, which was successful despite using wrong tools for that, and more of a designer mistake (very tall and top heavy payload, intended to work only in perfect conditions).
Which necessitates examination of ALL stock trading of all related companies the past few days. Science is conducted in the open; capitalism thrives in secrecy: only openness can resolve the inherent conflicts of interest. This stupid pride project is small potatoes compared to what will be, so we'd better establish proper investigative procedures right now or be really sorry way too soon. If NASA were calling the shots they would have come clean within the hour, it's why we trust them and can NEVER trust so conflicted a private venture when it FAILS.
The first time I saw the IM lunar lander, I thought it just looked too tall creating the possibility of tipping over and Voila.
Yup, tall and narrow. Brilliant!
Hmm. Maybe that might be driven by aerodynamics and hence shape of the fairing?
SpaceX would have never.
I would like to see the weight distribution layout. I bet it's all at the top 🙂😅🤣
Did you warn them?
Aw come on! We ALL know it was Garfield. He's always kicking Odie over or off the table.
🐈💨
😂😂😂😂😂😂
1m/s ( 2.24 mph ) was the intended vertical landing speed. It came down at 6m/s ( 13.4mph ) with a 2m/s ( 4.5mph ) horizontal velocity that should have been 0m/s. That's a essentially a crash. Theres no way anyone should be characterising this as a successful landing.... 🤔.
Correction: 6mph down, 2mph horizontal. It should have been 2.24mph down ( 1m/s as mentioned by NASA official, "walking pace" ), 0mph horizontal. That's still a hard landing.
Agree.. it's the definition of cope.
I haven't crossed referenced with official sources, but this video said mph, not m/s
Agreed! Frankly they lied on Friday morning pre-market. They reprogrammed their whole landing sensor system on the fly in-orbit, but they had no read out from an IMU anywhere to determine the 90° difference in orientation. I'm short-selling these scoundrels shares until they are delisted
They're using Yeager's definition. "If you can walk away from a landing, it's a good landing. If you can use the airplane the next day, it's an outstanding landing."
Just blame it on the wind of the moon to cause it to drift sideway. Many americans will believe that excuse.
The quote could have been, "Watch out for that last step!" Or, "Remember to flip off the Safety switch."
At 1st glance, Odysseus appears to be top heavy. It is 14 ft tall with a high center of gravity. Anyway, a lot was accomplished by this mission. Subsequent attempts will benefit from lessons learned, both the successes and failures. Godspeed, IT.
In my opinion I think the top-heavyness is likely a result of having to fit to the form of the falcon 9 payload as well as have room for all of the science on board. Was it ambitious? Yeah, sure. Was it a total failure? Not by a long shot!
It might be easier to land it sideways then have an inflatable balloon stand it upright. Aiming and depending on complete perfection seems too optimistic
The original Apollo lander was not so narrow. Not the best landing but at least it's mostly working.
@@kimbo99 Is there air on the moon? If not, then some thrusters could mouse fart it to upright.
so what "lot was accomplished"?
In 1969 we put a man on the moon. NOTHING for the next 50 years. We FINALLY tried to return, we sent a machine?! And screwed that up. Imagine if the Apollo Lunar Module had landed on its' side? Oops! Silly us. It fall down...go 'boom'.
The major difference is that there was a steely eyed missile man in control of the manned versions.
A big, dare I say incomparable difference is that there were pilots on board. If not for Neil Armstrong the LM for Apollo 11 would be sideways in a boulder field.
The Apollo program was more than a thousand times more expensive than this mission.
The US has been going to Mars for the last 50 years instead of the Moon. Fourteen successful missions sine 1972. The Moon is unimportant.
@@gadidakodakaThe LEM was able to self land, but none of the crews allowed it. The LEM's self landing ability was extremely limited.
India's space agency ISRO succeeded in a similar mission to the lunar south pole just few month ago - that was the history making first. ISRO has one tenth of NASA's budget and yet its lander landed spot on and the small robotic rover operated for 2 weeks as expected. ISRO took the 10-week sling shot approach to get its lighter spacecraft to the moon in order to save on board fuel. The descent to the moon's surface was also kept deliberately slower. In an effort to beat Indians to the coveted lunar south pole, Russians tried to get there in 2 weeks, but their spacecraft crash landed. Therefore, given how difficult it has been to land on the lunar south pole, delivering Odysseus's quite heavy payload of instruments and in mere 8 days was perhaps too ambitious.
And yet it is still capable of doing 90% of it job.
This was a private company not NASA.
@@Amanwalksn2abarSo was Apollo.
@@naughtiusmaximus830 Apollo was NOT a private company. It was completely government controlled. Your comment is simply ridiculous. 🙄🤡
@naughtiusmaximus830 no it wasn't.
Remember the very first probes sent to the moon? The Ranger probes took live video pictures while the craft crash landed, as planned. No soft landing but it still took 7 tries to get one to work (Ranger 7). The Surveyors soft landed, and one was later visited by Apollo 12 astronauts who retrieved its camera for study back on Earth.
fascinating.
Hollywood stuffs lol 😅😅😅. I don't believe a damn thing about Apollo moon landing 😅😅😅
Did we learn anything? I’m sure the Space programs back then did learn and succeeded… 50 years forward…more technology and computing power… this last week still trying to land sideways
Of course... it led to Apollo landing men on the moon.@@Metalle
@@billinct860 agree, back then learned and were successful… I believe we have lost really bright engineers.
So the last two lunar landing attempts both tipped over!? I'm thinking they might want to put some effort into preventing this problem.
The Japanese moon lander was designed to come to rest on its side just as it touched down. Instead of rotating 90 degrees to do that, it rotated 180 degrees and ended up on "its top" instead of its side. The touchdown spot of the Japanese lander ended up being on a greater slope than planned may have been the principal reason coupled with the failure of one of its descent engines for its final resting position.
To be fair this time we a rock getting stuck on a foot, while Japan had their engine explode off, the same engine design that might have also exploded off on a (if I remember) venus mission where they had to opt for a different window while in deep space to poke the spacecraft into Venusian orbit
Japanese one is actually success because they land near the intended spot ,
funny, landing on the moon was much easier back in the Apollo era, with old tech.
Yeah, but that was with a human at the controls rather than a machine. Humans are far more adaptive to unexpected situations.
It wasn't easier at all! Take a look at the track record of lunar spacecraft leading up to the apollo landings
@@MrCateagle cool, we should bring back manned landers then
Back then second place was the first loser. Today everybody gets a trophy.
There is human trash on both the moon and mars now so much rovers spot it and waste time looking into it.@@DaniNyaaa
Call it a Crash 😢
If it wasn't for the CGI animation,i wouldn't have believed it 😂😂😂😂
All CGI..yep
Go get a new brain
It looks so fake it has to be real 😳
Exactly! Plus Mars is flat guys, don't be fooled!!
“Sir, it's quite possible this asteroid is not entirely stable.”
~ (C3P0)
"Sir, it's quite possible that it could tilt" - A 5th grader.
More believable than anything NASA puts out. ~ CPO3
This looks great but I'm finding it hard to follow the dialogue because it it is very fast. Thank you for making it though.
you can slow it down to 75% with youtube.
😂😂😂😂
@@runrin_then the person sounds drunk
There is a Closed Caption function with RUclips....
you can READ what is said, and also in other languages.
@@runrin_ Yes true, but why has it to be so fast in the first place!
If this kind of landing had happened during an Apollo mission, we would have dead astronauts on the moon.
That upright design versus a more flattened out version 😳 hurt them ...kinda the reason they put the Mars rover in a Ball to land in its initial projects!! Godspeed with the present mission regardless ! Amazing!! 😎
Thanks for yet another insightful video.
India's space agency ISRO succeeded in a similar mission to the lunar south pole just few month ago - that was the history making first. ISRO has one tenth of NASA's budget and yet its lander landed spot on and the small robotic rover operated for 2 weeks as expected. ISRO took the 10-week sling shot approach to get its lighter spacecraft to the moon in order to save on board fuel. The descent to the moon's surface was also kept deliberately slower. In an effort to beat Indians to the coveted lunar south pole, Russians tried to get there in 2 weeks, but their spacecraft crash landed. Therefore, given how difficult it has been to land on the lunar south pole, delivering Odysseus's quite heavy payload of instruments and in mere 8 days was perhaps too ambitious.
@@skt1731 The lander isn't from NASA. It is from Intuitive Machines, a private venture.
As in: "Intuitive Machines, Inc. is an American space exploration company headquartered in Houston, Texas. It was founded in 2013 by Stephen Altemus, Kam Ghaffarian, and Tim Crain. The company has begun a lunar program to provide lunar surface access, lunar orbit delivery, and communications at lunar distance.[1] Intuitive Machines holds three NASA contracts, under the space agency's Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) initiative, to deliver payloads to the lunar surface.[2]
The formerly privately-held Intuitive Machines, LLC,[3] became a public company after completing a merger with a special-purpose acquisition company, Inflection Point Acquisition Corp., in February 2023. The company is listed on the Nasdaq and incorporated in Delaware.[4] On February 22, 2024, the Odysseus lander of Intuitive Machines' IM-1 spacecraft successfully landed on the Moon. It was the first privately built craft to land on the Moon"
@@skt1731 but India gave us the real videos!- that's fake 😂😂😂 NASA is giving us CGI animation - that's real and insightful
@@skt1731 India failed on its first try, did you forget that?
One giant tipped-over dustbin for mankind...
Sideways is the new upright. Vertical landings are so last century.
🤣🤣😄
Now THAT was funny 🤣
People need to understand that this is the 1st try by a relatively new US private space company. It is a huge success though for NASA for their CLIPS mission in the less than ideal soft landing.
There are no participation trophies here. Lots of technical success along the way, including the brilliant reprogramming to allow the NASA NDL LIDAR to guide the landing. But the most important thing to accomplish here is the landing. If you don’t stick the landing, you get no gold medal.
crash landing is considered a huge success now?..
Bollocks. The Soviets were on the moon in 1959.
@@flipflopski2951 Its not a crash landing, leave your remarks to another re-build of starship (one would think that making major changes to experimental craft and failing 2 times in a row is enough to figure out what not to do, like re-making large part of craft that didnt even failed).
nobody shares information to have all available data for a new company to give landing a shot??
Apollo had backups of every critical system
dr frankensien out shopping for a new brain for his creature, "how come these engineer brains are so expensive?" brain dealer, "because they are so hard to find"
Engineer brains are still extremely expensive. The more things change, the more they stay the same. @@thevnbastid1027
One can buy a $5 toy , and no matter how you throw it , it always ends upwards. .
There was supposed to have a camera ejected at 30 m (one of the payload). However since the altimeter lasers were not functional, they had to make a software patch to implement a plan b but left out the camera.
Try again
🙄
At least it wasn’t a “smashing success”, but rather a qualified learning opportunity.
At least tRump lost the election
Thanks for the very clear explanation and beautiful images of the cameras and other parts.
Dumped stock at 35% up then people figured out it was a fail. Stock manipulation the great American way.
That's a great unasked question! How many investors inexplicably dumped their IM stock after the proclaimed 'successful' landing and before the failed landing was announced? Perhaps the SEC should be asking that question?
Anyone buying stock in this company should have their head examined.
@@jcdisci It immediately crossed my mind... Who knows.
@@gadidakodaka "If anything governments like India, China, Russia are quick and honest when their mission fails." Yep, and it's also a matter of prestige for any countries... As well as mocking Russia for their failure to land with their last attempt... But yes, that is another warning about those private companies.
Space is hard of course, but you should never let them get away with anything without stringent regulatory overlook. It will be about money with them. Not about furthering human life or anything like that, except if they can confidently expect a juicy ROI on it. But you will always have dick riders for that mentality. Especially in the US.
Disappointing, but not really surprising given the landers proportions.
Or the operators, I'm hoping this is actually real this time. O humans though, I noticed.
Time to reconsider that starshit hls
What proportions were those? The landing legs are wider than the spacecraft is tall.
@@stargazer7644 the problem is lunar gravity is so weak and the atmosphere there so inexistant, that a small shock completely destabilize the lander, with it's 4 meters height alone, elevated by the feets of the lander, the center of gravity on this thing is just way too high for it to land properly without falling, even if it had not touched anything, being on a non flat terrain would have make it fall, the same thing is sure to happen to hls.
Because everything inside the ship is suppose to be upside the 50m tall rocket, and with almost empty tanks after landing, the center of gravity will be so ridiculously high, that it will fall almost immediately after landing for sure, no matter if it's due to the terrain, the elevator, the astronaut moving inside the crew part a bit too much, or just some artifact that created a collision with the lander.
@@user-vo8zx2uj1pThe spacecraft legs are wider than the thing is tall. It didn't "fall over". The proportions of this craft (14 x 15 feet) are very similar to the Apollo LM (19 x 22 feet). The CG of the Apollo LM was HIGHER than the IM-1 lander because the Apollo LM consisted of two stacked rocket stages. IM-1 flipped over because it landed with horizontal velocity on a sloped surface and slid into a rock which caused it to flip. Objects are 6 times easier to flip over on the moon. This was a very real danger for Apollo as well, and that's why they were extremely careful to land vertically on a flat surface with no significant rocks.
As a novice it looks to me like the centerof gravity is to high compared to the width of the legs.
The legs are wider than the spacecraft is tall.
"It must be real because it looks so fake"
😂
Who designed this thing - the guy who designed the Titan submersible? Mr Rush?
I told them so many times: "Guys, make it shorter and wider!", but noooo, nobody listens...
They been brain washed with seeing too many space x landings etc. like dudes… really waste of opportunity 😂.moon aliens are laughing at us .
This is what happens when you base your designs on KSP.
Better learn from China 😅
@@aungaisum8654 Notice people, how this 🤡 wants to claim the Apollo landings were fake, but is quite willing to accept the communists in China did it without question? Do you see the double standards, hypocrisy, and general bullcrap by this fool?
potholes are everywhere
Good point. They should've tested this thing on Michigan roads. It would not have fallen over; it would have been swallowed up by the pothole.
Of course it tipped over , the way it came in like a bat out of hell skidding sideways. They crazy
24 year old nasa engineers sitting around designing shit,, "oh yeah, I built that on my COD space flight simulator and it works fine landing on planet Corleone"
Why is it not round with a roll cage so it can roll over to the desired position by way of push arms which can be discarded after landing?
Because that would result in transparency of the entire schtick.
Too much weight (which require lander to be massively overbuild btw), minimal gains, as reason why it happened at all is mistake of a design itself, not fit for any horizontal movement on landing.
They ran out of duct tape and glue.
Cheap mock up sample
Excellent analysis 🖖🏽
Godspeed Eagle Cam.
After many hours past the landing if they are still deciding the orientation of the craft with fuel sensors; we might never get any images.
You can look at the vehicle and tell it's top heavy and very likely could tip over given an uneven surface it landed on. Lol.
You cannot tell something is "top heavy" merely by looking at it. The engine in the base of the spacecraft is quite heavy.
@@stargazer7644 true.....but still. It certainly looks more capable of tipping over than say the Lunar Modules of the moon landings I personally watched from the comfort of the living room in 1969 onward. Of course though they were flown in by eyeball of pilots landing them.
@@tommywatterson5276 Odysseuss is 14 feet tall. Its legs are 15 feet wide at the base. The Apollo LM was 19 feet tall. Its legs were 22 feet wide at the base.
When I first looked at the spacecraft, I thought it was top heavy and the landing legs are not spread out regardless of the fact that there are six of them. Can someone please indicate if the oxidizer and fuel tanks are located at the bottom or the top?
The legs are wider than the spacecraft is tall. People act like the spacecraft is a tall skinny object - it is not with the legs extended.
Something in my gut says "there may be more to the official narrative" than what we have been told. So frustrating. Just imagine the horror being experienced by whomever may have been responsible for failing to disarm the safety mechanism on that laser, if indeed that is the truth we have been told!
Considering this is probably the most incompetent and embarrassing explanation, I don't see why they'd make it up to hide something else.
Am I the only one that have thought from the beginning it looked top heavy?
In a word ....... No 🤣
Weebles wobble but they don’t fall down!
You can tell the thing is top heavy when compared to the Apollo Lunar Module. No surprise it tipped over. A 10 year old kid using Legos would have designed it to be more stable.
Actually that's not right. IM-1's legs are 15 feet wide and the spacecraft is 14 feet tall. The Apollo LM legs were 22 feet wide and it was 19 feet tall. The LM center of gravity was quite a bit higher because it was actually two rocket stages stacked on top of each other (descent and ascent stage). Rolling over was also a real risk for Apollo. Apollo was just very careful to land with zero horizontal velocity and on flat ground.
Great video...👍
In the late sixties, we had stills and video, now in 2024....we get a CGI 'Simulation'....brilliant.
And what is 2080 going to be then?
This is a cheap short mission by a private company. This is not a 10 year project funded by a world super power
This aligns with the fact that the brains of humans started to shrink 3000 years ago ... (Seriously :( )
Well, we had a camera there, but it didn't eject we think, and even if it did it fell over face down, too. Pits.
Too many atheist
I wondered if a retro rocket might be tweaked to upright it. Given the 1/6th gravity, that might be an option? No doubt considered already. Looks like a retracting rod on each side might've been an idea. But it sounds like this incident was not thought to be problematic. Always the tiny things that get ya. Odd that the Japanese lander was upside down. We can get them there, but sticking the landing is the tricky part.
Maybe shouldve built in a simple self righting piston arm so it could lift itself back up.
Works for battlebots,and this craft had pretty much unlimited mods they couldve done to correct an issue like this fairly simply.
You don't understand the serious constraints spacecraft designers have to work with when building their vehicles.
Very Nice - Thanks!
This is the exact reason i place extending antenna on the edges of my landers in KSP... Just deploy and it will push you back up .. bit of a miss that 😂
Like the old car antennas that extended with a motor YES. Such an old idea young scientists don't know about it.
What went wrong? The lander lost (by physically not activating it prior to launch) its primary and only landing system. The "observing landing system" put aboard by NASA was able to be utilized as an alternate landing system. The horizontal movement of the spacecraft was not halted in the final touchdown phase of the landing, causing the lander's failure to remain upright upon touchdown.
The only success of this mission as it pertains to its arrival on the moon's surface is that the lander is, in fact, on the moon's surface, and it still communicates in a limited state.
It also apparently chose to land inside a crater on a 12 degree slope, adding to the tipping difficulties. This also put it in a hole where it has to look over the crater rim to see Earth adding to the communications problems.
The real question is, when it crashed on the surface, would it make any noise?
Only if there was someone there to hear it
In Space, no one can hear you scream.
Yes, if you were on it. Not so much if you were standing next to it.
This and the Japanese lander both tipped over on landing. Looks like engineers are going to have to work to correct this flaw before the next lander is sent.
Don't laugh, the laser rangefinders were manually safed on the ground for safety reasons, and duh, they forgot to manually unsafe them before launch. There was no automated way to recover this in flight because it required someone to flip the switch.
The JWST had something similar and I remember learning that it was a big thing to ensure nobody forgot to flip these protectors ...
Excuses only lol 😅
@@falklumo Can you imagine if the JWST suffered that situation ?!! I can't. Simple human error that should have been triple checked before launch.
@@dww527 My exact point. The JWST did NOT suffer this situation BECAUSE they made a big story about how to prevent this beforehand.
Too bad the independent team never knew this
Is 2024 the year of landing on the moon incorrectly, but still successfully landing?
The year of the crashes. They can't say it straight, they have to keep pumping
The stock dumped after a profitable pump on all the USA! USA! hype then that wore off on tv. LOL!@anddirt1506
Credit where credit is due, the fact we can still receive signals from craft with gross mechanical failures and inopportune landing orientations is amazing. We just can't do that with crewed vehicles.
On the other hand, if a crewed vehicle tips over the astronauts could perhaps tilt it back by constructing some sort of lever and using muscle power... Though it is probably still too heavy even under weak moon gravity.
Yep because they did land on it
since the apollo years, evey attempt to go back has been met with failure, clearly it's difficult getting there
Are you counting chineses in? Because there was no attempt on the us part in over half a century
The first and only problem is that nasa was involved
starting at 7:58 is a super cool sequence of what it would be like to be standing on the moon. What strikes me is how different it is looking at the Earth and then the Sun. While the moon is definitely imposing for us, the Earth from the Moon is definitely more so.
Dr. Phil Metzger (director of microgravity research center) explains it like this- On the moon you weigh only 1/6 what you do on earth, but wherever you are your Mass and Momentum is the same. On the moon gravity puts 1/6 the force down on the lander's feet but momentum puts the full force of any sideways motion. On the moon things are 6 times more tippy than on earth.
Thank you, Mlata, most enlightening; the Apollo astronauts demonstrated how mass and momentum affected balance when walking (and playing golf).
Unable to land vertically as planned but landing helicopter-stlye meant the risk of the probe "tripping up" was a strong possibility.
This is not the only lander that has done this, How about they make a lander that can upright itself, then there would not be a problem. Think outside the box for all contingences that could happen.
They should just make them ball shaped, with solar panels all the way around. Then there'd be no wrong way up.
YES hydraulic motors can do wonders. And why cant the lander lay down on the job and function ? Why must it be 14 feet tall ?
sad story. second lander on it's side
Better said crashed 😅
Surveyor 1 successfully landed on the moon in 1966. Am I supposed to be impressed that Odysseus landed (on its side) in 2024?
The lander is obviously very top-heavy. Given the difficulty finding a perfectly flat spot on the moon, I'm wondering why they chose this configuration? Must be due to the maximum dimensions of the rocket payload space.
It seems like it was almost a miracle that we put humans on the moon so many years ago and brought them back to earth alive considering all that could of and did gone wrong.Here we are many years later trying to land an unmaned craft on the surface of the moon and all the issues and possible problems are still there and will continue to be there. We must persevere.There will be set backs as there were during the apollo missions and we will over come them with success.Keep up the great work Nasa.
Are any of the experiments on board still able to perform ? or is this a crashed lander.
Some of the experiments are working, but it doesn't look like they'll be able to get the data back to Earth.
Common sense would tell you that this top heavy and tall design was a risk for this very thing to happen.🤔
6 прилунений-тоже вызывают вопросы!
Yes a wider landing gear stance perhaps.
Tell this to Elon Musk and his "Starship" design...
@@Hal09i Someone definitely should tell him, yes. It's likely to be a disaster. Landing a booster upright on a launch pad, with teams of engineers watching over it, is very different from landing a tall thin craft on the uneven surface of the moon.
I mean, this is typically what happens in Kerbal Space Program too so they should have known... 🤣😂🤣
Why do the legs of the spacecraft have flat landing pads? Why don't they use wheels (or round balls of some sort) so the craft can safely roll to a stop during the last 10 feet?
Because the surface of the moon is like powdered sugar. You sink into it.
Leaves me wondering whether a landing attempt in a rough terrain should not be accompanied by a group of light weight roll-over bars ( carbon fibre)
You may not be able to fully restore vertical orientation but you'd get close.
How about some kind of absorbers on the legs to take the shock of the impact on landing? More weight to send, etc..But this thing looks really rigid.
They landed countless times on the moon half a century ago, and with humans on board, yet in 2024 they failed.
China hasn't failed and neither has India.
Making the best out of the result. This is just another challenge for the ‘Team’. And, they will solve it!
A craft that small should have had 3 Legs and the landing pads should have had more surface area. I'm not an Engineer but that was an engineering failure on their part.
Maybe nobody told them there are craters on the moon !
That's why real pilots are still superior.
@Jordan🤔🤔🤔🤔🤭🤭🤭
It's ridiculous how people can't comprehend why this mission can be considered a success. For a first lunar lander from a privately owned company that developed the lander for only $118 million (for perspective thats only $18 mil more than Oppenheimer's budget!!) this is an amazing feat proving that the private sector can develop and execute lunar missions with increased reliability and low budgets.
It's also in 1 pieces with most of the science still able to be utilized as intended. For a first ever lunar lander that is expected to be active for only 8-9 days I'd say thats pretty successful.
Like cmon imagine youve never throw a dart before and you get the outside bullseye on your first shot. Still damn impressive
And it tipped over, so you get what you paid for.
My thoughts exactly. I have noticed that many commenters have a very narrow concept of what they call success. They think that since there were no pictures immediately that it was a failure and the fact it tipped over made it failure. But they don't include any of the facts about getting to the moon, touching down in one piece and doing so on a tiny budget as you did.
Even if it had landed upright they would have complained about how short its planned lifespan was or some other minor detail while ignoring the big picture!! 🙄
Nevertheless the mission was a failure.
Because people in comment sections are generally dumb armchair experts
Picture you leaving a plane: side ways, every single time.
Was the lander moving sideways (horizontally) for its leg to get caught by something? Isn't it supposed to be moving purely vertically when it's that close to the surface?
It was planned to land vertically but the laser range finder was malfunctioning (1:00); the private lander had to to use the experimental NASA landing system which demanded both vertical and horizontal movement.
@@davidstevenson9517 I noticed that they patched to use NASA instrument. But I didn't realize that it made horizontal movement necessary (I mean, why?). But I guess that's a huge difference for a craft of such high aspect ratio (1.6m dia vs 4m height). So this isn't about the C.G alone.
What about that sky crane contraption that was used on the Perseverance rover?
terrible design space probe, engineers are incompetent
If only YOU had been on the design team! (or is that TOO draconian?)
They could of saved some weight by eliminating the legs all together.
well they eliminated the landing camera
What is the advantage to eliminating the landing legs? That would make landing upright even more difficult.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 Well they obviously didn't need them this time around ;)
@@wally7856 You can do it btw. Airbags were used for that purpose already, with quite some success.
"could have"
Well maybe landers should be designed to land on their sides instead. Lets have Space X design their rockets so they come down and land this way too …… so they dont fall over. Anyone ever watch Space 1999 and how their vehicles take off and land …. Just saying.
"When it come to space and space travel, science and science fiction are essentially the same"- William Shatner
Maybe they can get Buzz back up there and stand it back up.
Maneuvering thrusters can't upright the lander? Remember, the weight is significantly less, so the thrust needed is significantly less.
Spit and duct tape, like the old days
If you don't understand don't comment
Stupid, woke ground crew won't fire thrusters. Might result in moonal warming.
Make a bad but possibly salvageable situation worse.
I had the same thought. Would be very tricky but worth investigating.
US Surveyor 1 - 1966 - successfully landed on the moon… low Center of Gravity (CG) design - think squat - the vehicle weight is close to the landing surface, and the legs are far apart. Not easily tipped over. Russian Luna 16 - 1970 - successfully landed on the moon and returned lunar samples back to Earth - again, low CG design with widespread legs. The Apollo Lunar Landers - ALL designed with a low Center of Gravity with very wide leg stance.
All successful with one germane thing in common… they are all SQUAT… not TALL and SLENDER!
No one in their right engineering mind would build an off-planet lander that was TALL and SLENDER… if the lander must land on unprepared surfaces… like a surface strewn with boulders, rocks, craters, and subsurface voids. Sad…
If over fifty years ago we could land multiple craft on the moon with a high success rate why now is it so hard to accomplish this today?
Because the landers were piloted by men.
So that his students would not be sad, the teacher tried to cheer up his students by deliberately making almost the same mistakes.
- India as a student managed to land then frozen to death.
- Japan as a student then lands with his feet upside down.
- As the teacher, USA landed sleeping on his side.
As the saying goes *_"Like the Master, like the disciple..."_*
Did somebody tested the lander in some facility ON EARTH?
Yeah I knew something was not right when they didn't have any footage whatsoever of the flight and the landing. I remember watching live tv footage of Apollo 11 landing on the moon as a kid. The engineers back then knew their stuff and had to guts show both their failures and their successes.
Still believe those Hollywood stuffs 😅😅😅😅
Back in the 50’s fairytale moon landing, the President could call the astronauts real time😂
@@aungaisum8654and yet no proof they were faked… you’d think after all this time you’d have any shred of evidence but nope, just call it Hollywood and move on 😂 low iq
As usual they can land a rocket on the moon but cannot take one simple digital photograph.
Maybe the Moon People will be appreciative of the art work we sent them and, set the craft upright.
I think they're pretty disappointed with the Earth people by now for sending another piece of metal that crashes,
I ridiculed and laughed when the Chinese lunar module fell over. And now here we are....
Does anyone know where we can find real footage of the landing or any real footage of it's travel. I'm only getting seconds long clips of CGI when I search.
The eagle eye cam that was supposed to capture the landing was disabled in order to implement the landing software patch so there unfortunately is no footage of the landing; however IM is trying to eject the eagle eye cam on the surface to get an image of the lander
there wont be any 'real footage' as they needed plausible deniability.
WAKEY WAKEY little one... Now you go draw your own conclusions.... please...
There is no footage of the landing. They can't get any of the data back from the spacecraft.
I wonder if landing skids would be more practical on the moon?
Or Pogo Sticks.
No, landing vertically is more practical on the Moon.
I hope Lunar Starship advocates are taking note of this landing: above 20° inclination, Starship will topple over; and the lunar Southern Pole is notoriously uneven and pockmarked with craters.
I'd like if you and others in the science community to give the measurements us normal people use. Inches, feet, miles. The US population, outside the science community use imperial, not metric.