Intuitive Machines - IM-1 - Moon Mission Lander
Discussion
They could put feet along the length of the cylinder, with the main engine at the rear and smaller landing thrusters on the feet.
That way it lands horizontally with a low COG.
Like the Space1999 Eagle
https://youtu.be/Fit_HiE4PQY?si=GQjmdKo-2dCL8x0a
... maybe not.
That way it lands horizontally with a low COG.
Like the Space1999 Eagle
https://youtu.be/Fit_HiE4PQY?si=GQjmdKo-2dCL8x0a
... maybe not.
The Angry Astronaut agrees with me on the theme of "over tall" lunar landers -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DDg-DsJaRc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DDg-DsJaRc
Eric Mc said:
The Angry Astronaut agrees with me on the theme of "over tall" lunar landers -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DDg-DsJaRc
I wouldn’t be too keen on publicising your alignment of views with him, Eric. You’ve probably twenty times more knowledge than him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DDg-DsJaRc
I’ve come to realise that the bloke is largely bloody clueless.
SpaceX have done over 270 successful propulsive landings now with a ~156 ft tall, skinny rocket.. Often on the pitching deck of a landing barge. If anyone can get a lunar lander to plant itself safely, it's them. Starship is only about 8 ft taller than a F9 booster and interstage - and 18 ft wider as well.
Captain Obvious here, but it seems to me that trick to moon landing is to come down gently and to scrub off any horizontal movement to as near zero as you can. Something that the flight computers on most of the robotic moon lands don't seem that great at. They said in the press conference that the IM-1 lander was going about 2 mph sideways - Walking speed basically- as it touched down. That seems to have been enough for it to trip over its legs.
The Apollo landers were designed to withstand up to an 5.45 mph (8 ft/sec) vertical velocity and up to 2.72 mph (4 ft/sec) horizontal velocity
2 mph was the typical decent speed of the Apollo landers. Apollo 11 had the softest landing of them all. Barely over 1 mph (1.7 ft/sec). They were going 1.5 mph (2.2 ft/sec) horizontally at the time.
Captain Obvious here, but it seems to me that trick to moon landing is to come down gently and to scrub off any horizontal movement to as near zero as you can. Something that the flight computers on most of the robotic moon lands don't seem that great at. They said in the press conference that the IM-1 lander was going about 2 mph sideways - Walking speed basically- as it touched down. That seems to have been enough for it to trip over its legs.
The Apollo landers were designed to withstand up to an 5.45 mph (8 ft/sec) vertical velocity and up to 2.72 mph (4 ft/sec) horizontal velocity
2 mph was the typical decent speed of the Apollo landers. Apollo 11 had the softest landing of them all. Barely over 1 mph (1.7 ft/sec). They were going 1.5 mph (2.2 ft/sec) horizontally at the time.
The other issue with propulsive landing on unprepared surfaces is damage caused by flying debris from the rocket exhaust. It didn't matter in Apollo as the lunar Module used a different engine for ascent. It will matter for Starship if they intend to lift it off the moon again using the same engines it used for landing.
PlywoodPascal said:
Dog Star said:
Eric Mc said:
Point taken.
Scott Manley is my favourite you tuber.
He probably is mine - although his substituting “d” for “t” does my head in Scott Manley is my favourite you tuber.
I prefer The smarter everyday chap. His series on ULA and interviews with Tory Bruno (who I also really like) was some of the best aerospace film making I've seen in years.
One of youtube's plus points is there is no need for fast editing, dumbing down, and previously and coming up statements... And in can go full science and engineering nerd.
They are going to need a well-mapped area, down to about 10cm altitude resolution. I guess that will need something with synthetic aperture radar rather than just Lidar, as darkness is such a problem. The lander would ideally have stereo cameras to image the landing site in real time (assuming a daytime landing, and until the dust starts getting in the way).
Don't forget how many attempts at barge landings SpaceX made before they managed to get them to stick consistently. Lunar landings won't get that luxury.
I'm a big fan of the Space 1999 Eagle as the basis for a real world Lunar transporter, but it would probably look more like the Swift.
Don't forget how many attempts at barge landings SpaceX made before they managed to get them to stick consistently. Lunar landings won't get that luxury.
I'm a big fan of the Space 1999 Eagle as the basis for a real world Lunar transporter, but it would probably look more like the Swift.
Eric Mc said:
The other issue with propulsive landing on unprepared surfaces is damage caused by flying debris from the rocket exhaust. It didn't matter in Apollo as the lunar Module used a different engine for ascent. It will matter for Starship if they intend to lift it off the moon again using the same engines it used for landing.
Not so - the engines go out at an angle from the body of the lander, quite high up. Not sure if there are separate landing/liftoff engines.
It will depend on the amount of thrust required to lower the thing down and maybe to lift the whole thing back up again as to how much in the way of rocks and rubble gets thrown about and how far and how high the rubble gets thrown.
The damage to the engines on the very first Starship launch was caused by the pad under the exhaust distintegrating under the thrust pressure. That was supposedly a properly, bonded and strengthened concrete pad.
The moon won't have such things for a long time. It's lumpy, bumpy, loose and slopey.
I just can't see tall structures working well in such situations.
The damage to the engines on the very first Starship launch was caused by the pad under the exhaust distintegrating under the thrust pressure. That was supposedly a properly, bonded and strengthened concrete pad.
The moon won't have such things for a long time. It's lumpy, bumpy, loose and slopey.
I just can't see tall structures working well in such situations.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff