Intuitive Machines - IM-1 - Moon Mission Lander
Discussion
In the "old days" when a lander crashed it was usually because they had lost control of it on final approach and it just smashed into the moon at high speed. The Russians made a habit of this. This was the fate of the robot lander they tried to land on the moon the same week as Apollo 11. It was an attempt to upstage the historic American mission and was one of the few occasions when I was glad a space mission had failed.
The proposed Russian manned lander (the LK) was a bit on the tall side - although they never got to try it out - perhaps luckilly for the sole occupant.
The proposed Russian manned lander (the LK) was a bit on the tall side - although they never got to try it out - perhaps luckilly for the sole occupant.
It’s just occurrred to me that while we are all debating how ridiculous the idea of landing a cylindrical object on its end on the moon is, back on earth there is some lunatic trying to catch a three hundred foot tall rocket with a pair of sticks, plonk it back on the pad then catch another one with the sticks and drop it on top of the first one.
If you’d suggested this to someone six years ago they’d have laughed in your face.
Maybe we had best not underestimate these people?
If you’d suggested this to someone six years ago they’d have laughed in your face.
Maybe we had best not underestimate these people?
Dog Star said:
It’s just occurrred to me that while we are all debating how ridiculous the idea of landing a cylindrical object on its end on the moon is, back on earth there is some lunatic trying to catch a three hundred foot tall rocket with a pair of sticks, plonk it back on the pad then catch another one with the sticks and drop it on top of the first one.
If you’d suggested this to someone six years ago they’d have laughed in your face.
Maybe we had best not underestimate these people?
I think Eric made the point earlier that they are developing this through a process of repeated failure. That's not such a good idea when you're planning manned luna missions. Not to say it's beyond the engineers to get in right first time with a moon mission, but a lander with a lower centre of gravity does seem like it would reduce the chance of 'falling over' on an uneven surface.If you’d suggested this to someone six years ago they’d have laughed in your face.
Maybe we had best not underestimate these people?
According to Eric Berger, the IM-1 lander didn’t have accurate altitude data as it descended. Since the laser altimeter was disabled, it could only use the NASA LiDAR Scanner to get a fix when it was 15km up and 12 mins from touchdown. Unfortunately the flight computer wasn’t able to process this in real time, so it had to guesstimate altitude as it descended by using image comparison from an onboard camera. So it did quite well to not create a new crater.
Intuitive Machines: Moon lander pictured on its side with snapped leg https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-684...
Some pics here…
Some pics here…
Pupp said:
Intuitive Machines: Moon lander pictured on its side with snapped leg https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-684...
Some pics here…
"Nasa's six instruments were focused on testing new navigation technologies and studying the surface conditions at the landing site."Some pics here…
lols
Using a LIDAR alone for this stuff doesn’t work, it’s why you use them in conjunction with LRFs. Even then, short distance GNC stuff is notoriously tricky. There is a notorious lack of space rated LIDARs and they are not cheap, as such there are a number of projects atm trying to put variations of automotive/terrestrial LIDARs up there and qual them. To an extent something similar is happening with LRFs, using cots components, sub assemblys and trying to turn them into space equipment. There are some interesting quality challenges with the above.
Are any of you lot system engineers familiar with Monte Carlo analysis? And I don’t mean Paddy Hopkirk results
Are any of you lot system engineers familiar with Monte Carlo analysis? And I don’t mean Paddy Hopkirk results
simon_harris said:
the moon isn't flat...
But neither is the earth or the back of the car that your lidar is looking at for distance keeping.If robot mil-truck can navigate around a rocky desert using lidar, laser scanning, and vision based systems, I'm surprised you can't do the same on the moon. Hence the curiosity.
I did wonder whether dust kick-up on landing hampered it.
For want of a better analogy: in space nobody can hear you scream.
The less silly answer is: environment. Space, and getting there, is a touch more of a harsh environment than on earth. And once you are there, there is a very limited amount that you can do to rectify stuff.
That simple line covers a whole multitude of sins. The whole of ECSS Q-60 and 70 for a start. And that’s just EEE & PMP stuff. The sys Eng boys will quote you a whole bunch of other stuff.
Suffice to say: it’s an arseache. It becomes an even bigger arseache when you are trying to do stuff on a significantly reduced budget from previously.
Anyway, I’m running away now before anybody asks me any difficult questions.
The less silly answer is: environment. Space, and getting there, is a touch more of a harsh environment than on earth. And once you are there, there is a very limited amount that you can do to rectify stuff.
That simple line covers a whole multitude of sins. The whole of ECSS Q-60 and 70 for a start. And that’s just EEE & PMP stuff. The sys Eng boys will quote you a whole bunch of other stuff.
Suffice to say: it’s an arseache. It becomes an even bigger arseache when you are trying to do stuff on a significantly reduced budget from previously.
Anyway, I’m running away now before anybody asks me any difficult questions.
Ah OK. So not insurmountable, but pushing COTS kit to environmental limits it was never designed for in the interests of cost reduction.
I've worked in defence and nuclear so very aware of the challenges of integrating COTS kit into systems that see extreme transients. Nevermind getting them to reliably talk to each other.
I've worked in defence and nuclear so very aware of the challenges of integrating COTS kit into systems that see extreme transients. Nevermind getting them to reliably talk to each other.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff