Intuitive Machines - IM-1 - Moon Mission Lander
Discussion
Dog Star said:
Eric Mc said:
If it was a big ticket major space exploration project, then I’d agree. But this is the first test of a lunar delivery van - so not quite up there with Voyager or Viking.
Yep. There’s been no trumpeting from the media about the first US landing in 50 years. There’s been no evidence of constant media releases and webcasts by IM. There’s been no OTT stuff like “Odysseus has a new home”. And Bill Nelson hasn’t appeared giving a gushing speech about it. Nope. None of the above has happened, which totally explains the virtual silence from IM machines for the last day and a half, save for a couple of tweets which appear to be somewhat false/optimistic.
I was tremendously optimistic about this effort. If they’d just come clean and said what had gone wrong like the Japanese did I’d have just thought “good show, great effort, get it right next time” (the whole CLPS philosophy). But they haven’t. Almost 25% of the spacecrafts life now expended (if it was working). Trumpeting a failure as a success just looks stupid. They should have kept that Bill Nelson video in the can.
All they’ve done is lied and caused mistrust and scepticism. Whoever does their PR needs a kick up the arse.
RichB said:
Since it crash landed I lost interest, but I found the whole "America is back on the Moon." thing off putting.
Why? Is part of the kit not American? Or does it sound too nationalistic for modern ears?Mind you if I was an American, getting a bean can to fall over on the surface of the moon isn't something I'd be proud of. It would be better suited to an Ealing comedy.
Simpo Two said:
RichB said:
Since it crash landed I lost interest, but I found the whole "America is back on the Moon." thing off putting.
Why? Is part of the kit not American? Or does it sound too nationalistic for modern ears?Mind you if I was an American, getting a bean can to fall over on the surface of the moon isn't something I'd be proud of. It would be better suited to an Ealing comedy.
Beati Dogu said:
The laser rangefinder on it didn’t work, as they had left a physical safety switch in the “disable” position before launch. It was something they couldn’t override with software.
There’s a reason they say checklists are written in blood.
As mistakes go, that’s up there with launching a space telescope and leaving the lens cap on. There’s a reason they say checklists are written in blood.
ks coming from IM…
SpudLink said:
Beati Dogu said:
The laser rangefinder on it didn’t work, as they had left a physical safety switch in the “disable” position before launch. It was something they couldn’t override with software. There’s a reason they say checklists are written in blood.
As mistakes go, that’s up there with launching a space telescope and leaving the lens cap on. 
I have been wondering about the “wiseness” of trying to land rather tall devices on the lunar surface. Unless you can guarantee a perfectly flat and level surface, then the risk of toppling over must be quite high.
I would have thought something a bit more squat with a low centre of gravity would be a more stable design. Although people keep referring to Apollo, I think a better comparison might be the unmanned Lunar Surveyor craft which were landed on the moon in 1966 and 1967.
I would have thought something a bit more squat with a low centre of gravity would be a more stable design. Although people keep referring to Apollo, I think a better comparison might be the unmanned Lunar Surveyor craft which were landed on the moon in 1966 and 1967.
Eric Mc said:
I have been wondering about the “wiseness” of trying to land rather tall devices on the lunar surface. Unless you can guarantee a perfectly flat and level surface, then the risk of toppling over must be quite high.
I would have thought something a bit more squat with a low centre of gravity would be a more stable design. Although people keep referring to Apollo, I think a better comparison might be the unmanned Lunar Surveyor craft which were landed on the moon in 1966 and 1967.
That’s my concern with the HLS Starship, although I believe they’re hugely bottom heavy. You’d have thought they’d have done a short, stubby version with pop out legs at least initially; they’re not going to need 120T to the moon for a long time. I would have thought something a bit more squat with a low centre of gravity would be a more stable design. Although people keep referring to Apollo, I think a better comparison might be the unmanned Lunar Surveyor craft which were landed on the moon in 1966 and 1967.
Eric Mc said:
I have been wondering about the “wiseness” of trying to land rather tall devices on the lunar surface. Unless you can guarantee a perfectly flat and level surface, then the risk of toppling over must be quite high.
I would have thought something a bit more squat with a low centre of gravity would be a more stable design. Although people keep referring to Apollo, I think a better comparison might be the unmanned Lunar Surveyor craft which were landed on the moon in 1966 and 1967.
Yeah it does seem an unnecessary risk but I presume the shape is compromised by other factors, like fitting into the launch rocket. I would have thought something a bit more squat with a low centre of gravity would be a more stable design. Although people keep referring to Apollo, I think a better comparison might be the unmanned Lunar Surveyor craft which were landed on the moon in 1966 and 1967.
I suppose there's an element of luck whatever you do. The Philae lander on the Rosetta mission was squat, had wide legs and even rocket-powered grappling hooks, and that still managed to do a somersault and end up on its arse. Still worked though
Now that I think of it, the extraordinary complexity and relative success of that mission does put this one into perspective.
Edit: holy moly - that comet landing was almost ten years ago!
Edited by durbster on Saturday 24th February 20:13
Scott Manley’s video is out. Worth watching, as usual.
https://youtu.be/wynBeg7BYr0?si=QPoFGQT_8c-cl7ts
https://youtu.be/wynBeg7BYr0?si=QPoFGQT_8c-cl7ts
Eric Mc said:
I have been wondering about the “wiseness” of trying to land rather tall devices on the lunar surface. Unless you can guarantee a perfectly flat and level surface, then the risk of toppling over must be quite high. I would have thought something a bit more squat with a low centre of gravity would be a more stable design.
Makes sense to me. I think you should present your ideas to the relevant agencies, much as Barnes Wallis did to the RAF 
'My god Merryweather, this accountant has just solved the moon landing problem we've been struggling with for years!'
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff