🤣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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.....
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.
@@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.
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.
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."
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.
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
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.
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
Second mistake it was making it so tall. But next time I hope they make it even taller, so it tips over again and destroys itself. After all they haven't given any thought for the height and support.
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.
@@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).
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
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.
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.
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'.
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.
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.
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!! 😎
Simple design failure. Why can it have legs built all around? Think of a globe with legs all around. After its final landing the module can internally turn towards landing side based on moon's gravity.
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?
@@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.
IM knew a lot more than they’d let on within first 24 hours and only now revealing. Unfortunately that’s what PR is, spin spin spin. And that brings with people whose BS detectors don’t appreciate being spun. The big stock jump they saw the day after “landing” is now going to be viewed differently come Monday morning. If this was just govt mission there’d be nothing of that however this was a commercial mission with investors and stock prices. I’d say it’s a minimal success with a lot of hard learned lessons taught. Not a horrible first step though. The software patch in mid flight was impressive for instance. I’m overall very encouraged by these efforts though and I hope they keep em coming. Just my humble take
Honestly considering it's a private company that has to consider their economic future they've been decently transparent. They've definitely 'eased' us into it, but that's expected
@@gregorylayne9044 Probably yes, it seems a bit sketchy to say they only understood it the next day or so, especially with the company stock movement... It's possible they were genuinely confused though. I have to watch the Scott Manley vid about it, to see what's his opinion on the matter... One chatter in here pointed out that you could hear, on the live stream, the worries of some people just after impact. I did not watch the stream so I don't know, but if it is the case; then yeah, it is suspicious.
@@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.
@@TomDrezThe 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.
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"
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?
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"
An artwork piece? Give me a break. That serves no purpose whatsoever. You could’ve saved the weight and put in some stabilizing legs, or something to right the craft in case it fell over on landing. SMH
Given the minimal weight of the art piece if it was not included is purely wild speculation that some adjustment could have been made to the landing legs to ensure a more secure landing. People need to stop obsessing on the landing not going perfectly and recognize how much went right for this rare lander that touched down on the SOUTH POLE or the first time and in one piece. And getting to the moon is hard enough so to also land on the south pole using methlox cryo fuel, A 1ST and doing on a tight budget was a big for first step for an autonomous lander.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 I watched the entire Apollo mission live as it was happening. Every one of them. It is great that we are going back to the moon. I will assert that this effort, was blown. We screwed it up. we did not have enough confidence in this mission to be farting around with putting art on the moon. We should’ve stuck with science. I’m not saying that having an additional gyroscope would’ve helped. But I certainly know a piece of art did not help. We should be focusing on the science, which we do very well, and save the artsy fartsy stuff until we can get the science correct first. There is too much at stake, human lives.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 as this is part of the return of “ landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth”, We should not be messing around with anything that does not further the success of the mission. Have not learned anything from OceanGate Inc.?
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.
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.
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
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!! 🙄
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.
@@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?
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.
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.
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!
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.
If it cannot send back the data from the science package aboard it is 80% failure. If they buy another laser range finder from the company that made the one that failed they have learned little. The need better a terrain senor and topography avoidance system, perhaps in duplicate. If they still go with a vertical stacking structural design, they might get the same result later this year. If they do not have a minimal self-righting system they are also likely to get the same result. The NASA idea that this can be done on the cheap is a constraint on addressing these problems. Note how fast Bill Nelson got in front of the camera. The media frequently remembers first impressions (i.e. "it is a success!") rather than later truths. It was just too big to fail, and thus we saw obfuscation. On this point, note that "doing science" is not the same as "having the results of that science". Also claiming that pictures are coming the day after tomorrow does not make it so. I think we have a little dressing up of the pig.
And yet somehow, without any of the modern technology of lidar, radar, etc., Apollo astronauts were able to stick the landing multiple times with merely an altimeter and a small window to look out with some thruster buttons to push. Totally plausible.
The Laser LIDAR unit didn't fail. They failed to pull the "remove before flight" plug to enable it before flight. You don't use a ridiculous "self righting system", you simply land vertically on a flat surface so you don't fall over. The reason they didn't land vertically and didn't land in a safe level spot is because the LIDAR unit wasn't available.
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 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?
You have a lander that tipped on its side. That's not a success by any definition. And that laser guidance issue that's being glossed over? the lander had a manual safety switch to inactivate the lasers on the ground to protect eyes. It was not switched on prior to launch. A major oversight/screwup. That's why it wasn't working. They forgot to throw the switch and turn it on.
I mean considering this is their first mission and other missions have failed completely for worse oversights, such as the mars rover that crashed because they didn't convert from meters to feet, these are simple fixes that can be changed for IM2
@Hal09i. Instead of saying you don't think it was a success by any definition you would have been more precise and honest if you had said it wasn't a success by YOUR definition because you aren't aware of all the ways to define success. In the first you are ignoring how difficult it is get to the moon in the first place. Only a few others have tried in the last 50 years and six of those occured since 2019. Four of those reached the surface and were partially functional. I could relay that history, but you can do that yourself. This lander was the first to use a cryo fuel which also methlox, another first. This was first lander by a private US company. And they did it on a shoestring budget of 118 million $.
Two additional points: The Odysseus’ laser range finder system that the entire landing sequence depended on, the "safety enable switch" was "not disable." Or to put it in other words the laser range finders were not in-flight mode. That was a manual operation that could not be done in flight. Someone apparently didn't add that operation to their preflight check off list. Equally as pertinent, the communication issues now experiencing and apparently the reason limited data is being recovered is the radio is still in "flight mode" where the "fault detection system" due to loss of signal is "powering off and restarting the radio while flip flopping antennas" as it tries to regain a signal. IM thought they had a solution to that in hand. So far, apparently not.
I mean considering this is their first mission and other missions have failed completely for worse oversights, such as the mars rover that crashed because they didn't convert from meters to feet, these are simple fixes that can changed for IM2
@Jett-n-gin No one said these items can not be fixed or were egregious. It was just additional information not covered in the video that puts things in proper perspective.
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The original price for the IM-1 mission was $77 mil. Then that got bumped up to $118 mil due to modifications. With all that money it took a $1 manual safety switch not being turn off to ruin the whole mission. In the 60's everything had backups and backups to backups. Redundancy was a primary design application in everything Nasa did. And why was this switch manual without a digital override or a backup digital switch. With all the computerization on this lander why was something so vital to the success of this mission left to 1 switch with no backup. Unbelievable.
What's unbelievable is your cynical attitude claiming the whole mission was ruined because of this "1$ safety switch not being turned off". The mission was not defined by it being to land successfully and do its experiments. Getting to the moon with a budget you even cited was an accomplishment in itself. After all look how few other landers have successfully gotten to the lunar surface in one piece. Besides being expensive it is a difficult technical challenge. This vehicle used a methlox cryo fuel which was also a first. It wasn't about just landing perfectly!!
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 Sorry. I guess being witness to the 1969 and all the other manned lunar landings shows in my lack of acceptance for mediocrity. But you wouldn't understand, being I would guess not born before 1980, the lowering of standers, participation trophies, and the dumbing down of schools, DEI, Affirmative Action, and the myriad of other social justice blather, have made you accept and spin an obvious failure into a triumphant victory. You should work for the Biden Administration. They love people like you.
The switch was manual because its entire purpose was to make it impossible to remotely turn on the laser when people were near the spacecraft. It's a safety device. Making that switch software overrideable would completely defeat the purpose. The bigger question is why you couldn't figure this out on your own. Unbelievable
You spin failure like Karine J Pierre. Anything that important to the mission should have a backup. Redundency is a key to all good design in something that is unmanned. In this case, a switch to over-ride the safety that was either under computer or Earth based, especially in an unmanned mission. I guess your DEI studies didn't cover that point.
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.
I find it very pathetic, how after 50 years of advanced technology we're still struggling to land on the moon. It's like an inverse law the better the technology the more chances of failure.
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.
3:30 - Wha??? So that it would be all a mystery to figure out what exactly happened without the cameras working during touchdown... the cameras should've run so that it can be used to help figure out what went wrong and tilted.
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
It didn’t land… it crashed. Landing is when it stands on the legs that were designed for it to stand on. Crashing is what happens when it falls on its side and is damaged.
I’m no scientist, far from it, but why couldn’t they just use an Anchor? Doesn’t have to be a weight anchor, but a reference point to align the lander and provide metrics on positioning. They did that with the camera developed by the University Students. Edit: something I’d do is I’d send two missions. The first one is a unit that does not need a soft landing, in fact it would be a ballistic missile that shoots isn’t the ground with a static payload that buries itself into the lunar surface. The second would be the actual lander that uses the first mission as a virtual landing pad. The first one wouldn’t need any special devices either. It could be as simple as a rod with a QR code on its rear so that all the lander needs is visual confirmation to erect itself when descending for a landing.
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.
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…
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.
It would seem more prudent to land the item on its ide then stand it up with a mechanism. How hard could that be ? Why does it have to stand up 14 feet high ? Why cant it remain horizontal on 4 legs and still function.? Um we have retractable undercarriage on planes..........We have dinghys that inflate with a tiny gas bottle that could stand the whole thing up.
@@stargazer7644 That goes without saying, but being so simplistic has backfired tragically. Its almost like the designers have never been camping never thought of folding thinks up.
@@stargazer7644 Though stargazer you don't really know that, you're just assuming. Tragic mistake was made. The problem is nearly as simple as stacking cans in a supermarket.
@@kimbo99I'm just assuming? lol. It's a tall skinny craft that came out of a tall skinny fairing. That's what we in the technical field call a "clue". Regardless, how skinny the spacecraft is has nothing to do with why it is on its side. The spacecraft had legs that unfolded. The legs are wider than the spacecraft is tall. The reason the spacecraft is on its side is because the LIDAR safety interlock was left in place before launch and they didn't have their most important instrument for making sure they landed vertically on flat ground.
People need to remember that this is a private company that made a spacecraft with without a NASA style budget! The fact it managed to launch and land on the moon itself is an achievement! This what exploration is all about learning and adapting to lessons learned
It's insane that they literally did this on the same budget as most big blockbuster movies. It's crazy that people don't realize this. Oppenheimer had a budget of $100 mil, IM1 was $118 mil
@@Jett-n-gin Interesting, they even 3D-printed parts of the engine. $60 mil was for IM alone and had to make the trip from orbit to the lunar surface, about as heavy as a car. I find it more insane though how expensive blockbuster movies have become ...
Despite decades of technological advancement, space technology and landing on another planet or stellar objects is and will always be very difficult. Plus, this is this companies first attempt to land. That they got to the moon and mostly landed (sideways though it was ) is still a major accomplishment and one from which they will learn many lessons. Expect this kind of failure to be sadly common going forward as other companies begin to learn the hard lessons needed to operate on the moon or other stellar bodies and watch as they progressively get better at landing and getting bigger packages to the moon. Technological progress is the art of failing, learning from mistakes, applying lessons learned and repeating until an optimal and repeatable solution is found and then constantly iterating on said concepts. The Space Race is a marathon, not a sprint and only those who are committed long term for the very very long haul this is will emerge as victorious. Congratulations to this team for getting everything done that they set out to do, except the landing. Most likely next time they wont flip.
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.
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.
@@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
@@adlabar7289 Yeah, something like that! We can't just be spending multi millions of dollars just for it to stub its toe on a rock and fall over and not work now. It's embarrassing. Every probe should have some kind of self correcting abilities, maybe even maneuvering.
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
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.
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.....
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 quote could have been, "Watch out for that last step!" Or, "Remember to flip off the Safety switch."
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.
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.@@Mannicx
@@billinct860 agree, back then learned and were successful… I believe we have lost really bright engineers.
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.
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"?
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 ?
Second mistake it was making it so tall. But next time I hope they make it even taller, so it tips over again and destroys itself. After all they haven't given any thought for the height and support.
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?
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??
If this kind of landing had happened during an Apollo mission, we would have dead astronauts on the moon.
One giant tipped-over dustbin for mankind...
Sideways is the new upright. Vertical landings are so last century.
🤣🤣😄
Now THAT was funny 🤣
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 ,
Aw come on! We ALL know it was Garfield. He's always kicking Odie over or off the table.
🐈💨
😂😂😂😂😂😂
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
🙄
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.
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 TH-cam....
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!
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.
@@cube2fox Yeah, but we now have technology more than a thousand times better than that of 1969.
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.
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.
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
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!! 😎
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.
Simple design failure. Why can it have legs built all around? Think of a globe with legs all around. After its final landing the module can internally turn towards landing side based on moon's gravity.
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
One can buy a $5 toy , and no matter how you throw it , it always ends upwards. .
Call it a Crash 😢
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.
Maneuvering thrusters can't upright the lander? Remember, the weight is significantly less, so the thrust needed is significantly less.
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.
@@WildlifeWarrior-cr1kkthat's how freedom of speech works, right?🤔
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.
IM knew a lot more than they’d let on within first 24 hours and only now revealing. Unfortunately that’s what PR is, spin spin spin. And that brings with people whose BS detectors don’t appreciate being spun. The big stock jump they saw the day after “landing” is now going to be viewed differently come Monday morning. If this was just govt mission there’d be nothing of that however this was a commercial mission with investors and stock prices. I’d say it’s a minimal success with a lot of hard learned lessons taught. Not a horrible first step though. The software patch in mid flight was impressive for instance. I’m overall very encouraged by these efforts though and I hope they keep em coming. Just my humble take
Yeah, it smells "stock manipulation shenanigans". Who knows... But it's a bit sus...
Honestly considering it's a private company that has to consider their economic future they've been decently transparent. They've definitely 'eased' us into it, but that's expected
I’m thinking that they knew it flopped over within a minute or so.
@@gregorylayne9044 yep
@@gregorylayne9044 Probably yes, it seems a bit sketchy to say they only understood it the next day or so, especially with the company stock movement... It's possible they were genuinely confused though. I have to watch the Scott Manley vid about it, to see what's his opinion on the matter... One chatter in here pointed out that you could hear, on the live stream, the worries of some people just after impact. I did not watch the stream so I don't know, but if it is the case; then yeah, it is suspicious.
Surveyor 1 successfully landed on the moon in 1966. Am I supposed to be impressed that Odysseus landed (on its side) in 2024?
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.
@@TomDrezThe 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.
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?
At least it wasn’t a “smashing success”, but rather a qualified learning opportunity.
At least tRump lost the election
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.
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
An artwork piece? Give me a break. That serves no purpose whatsoever. You could’ve saved the weight and put in some stabilizing legs, or something to right the craft in case it fell over on landing.
SMH
Given the minimal weight of the art piece if it was not included is purely wild speculation that some adjustment could have been made to the landing legs to ensure a more secure landing. People need to stop obsessing on the landing not going perfectly and recognize how much went right for this rare lander that touched down on the SOUTH POLE or the first time and in one piece. And getting to the moon is hard enough so to also land on the south pole using methlox cryo fuel, A 1ST and doing on a tight budget was a big for first step for an autonomous lander.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 I watched the entire Apollo mission live as it was happening. Every one of them. It is great that we are going back to the moon. I will assert that this effort, was blown. We screwed it up. we did not have enough confidence in this mission to be farting around with putting art on the moon. We should’ve stuck with science. I’m not saying that having an additional gyroscope would’ve helped. But I certainly know a piece of art did not help. We should be focusing on the science, which we do very well, and save the artsy fartsy stuff until we can get the science correct first. There is too much at stake, human lives.
@@tack_dog No human lives were ever at risk from this mission. Just sayin'.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 as this is part of the return of “ landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth”, We should not be messing around with anything that does not further the success of the mission.
Have not learned anything from OceanGate Inc.?
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 ?
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.
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.
The first and only problem is that nasa was involved
Who designed this thing - the guy who designed the Titan submersible? Mr Rush?
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
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?
What a terrible design. How sad it is that we were more technically capable over 50 years ago.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If it cannot send back the data from the science package aboard it is 80% failure. If they buy another laser range finder from the company that made the one that failed they have learned little. The need better a terrain senor and topography avoidance system, perhaps in duplicate. If they still go with a vertical stacking structural design, they might get the same result later this year. If they do not have a minimal self-righting system they are also likely to get the same result. The NASA idea that this can be done on the cheap is a constraint on addressing these problems. Note how fast Bill Nelson got in front of the camera. The media frequently remembers first impressions (i.e. "it is a success!") rather than later truths. It was just too big to fail, and thus we saw obfuscation. On this point, note that "doing science" is not the same as "having the results of that science". Also claiming that pictures are coming the day after tomorrow does not make it so. I think we have a little dressing up of the pig.
And yet somehow, without any of the modern technology of lidar, radar, etc., Apollo astronauts were able to stick the landing multiple times with merely an altimeter and a small window to look out with some thruster buttons to push. Totally plausible.
The Laser LIDAR unit didn't fail. They failed to pull the "remove before flight" plug to enable it before flight. You don't use a ridiculous "self righting system", you simply land vertically on a flat surface so you don't fall over. The reason they didn't land vertically and didn't land in a safe level spot is because the LIDAR unit wasn't available.
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 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.
You have a lander that tipped on its side. That's not a success by any definition. And that laser guidance issue that's being glossed over? the lander had a manual safety switch to inactivate the lasers on the ground to protect eyes. It was not switched on prior to launch. A major oversight/screwup. That's why it wasn't working. They forgot to throw the switch and turn it on.
I mean considering this is their first mission and other missions have failed completely for worse oversights, such as the mars rover that crashed because they didn't convert from meters to feet, these are simple fixes that can be changed for IM2
@Hal09i. Instead of saying you don't think it was a success by any definition you would have been more precise and honest if you had said it wasn't a success by YOUR definition because you aren't aware of all the ways to define success. In the first you are ignoring how difficult it is get to the moon in the first place. Only a few others have tried in the last 50 years and six of those occured since 2019. Four of those reached the surface and were partially functional. I could relay that history, but you can do that yourself.
This lander was the first to use a cryo fuel which also methlox, another first. This was first lander by a private US company. And they did it on a shoestring budget of 118 million $.
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!!
Godspeed Eagle Cam.
Two additional points: The Odysseus’ laser range finder system that the entire landing sequence depended on, the "safety enable switch" was "not disable." Or to put it in other words the laser range finders were not in-flight mode. That was a manual operation that could not be done in flight. Someone apparently didn't add that operation to their preflight check off list. Equally as pertinent, the communication issues now experiencing and apparently the reason limited data is being recovered is the radio is still in "flight mode" where the "fault detection system" due to loss of signal is "powering off and restarting the radio while flip flopping antennas" as it tries to regain a signal. IM thought they had a solution to that in hand. So far, apparently not.
The opposite of "turn off the lights when you go out"?
I mean considering this is their first mission and other missions have failed completely for worse oversights, such as the mars rover that crashed because they didn't convert from meters to feet, these are simple fixes that can changed for IM2
@Jett-n-gin No one said these items can not be fixed or were egregious. It was just additional information not covered in the video that puts things in proper perspective.
@@WWeronko Sorry, it's hard to decipher tone sometimes; especially when the comment section is full of IM1 mission hate/calling it a total failure
@@Jett-n-gin I don’t hate this mission. If it failed then simply say it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
terrible design space probe, engineers are incompetent
If only YOU had been on the design team! (or is that TOO draconian?)
"It must be real because it looks so fake"
😂
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.
They ran out of duct tape and glue.
Cheap mock up sample
Am I the only one that have thought from the beginning it looked top heavy?
In a word ....... No 🤣
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.
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
The original price for the IM-1 mission was $77 mil. Then that got bumped up to $118 mil due to modifications. With all that money it took a $1 manual safety switch not being turn off to ruin the whole mission. In the 60's everything had backups and backups to backups. Redundancy was a primary design application in everything Nasa did. And why was this switch manual without a digital override or a backup digital switch. With all the computerization on this lander why was something so vital to the success of this mission left to 1 switch with no backup. Unbelievable.
What's unbelievable is your cynical attitude claiming the whole mission was ruined because of this "1$ safety switch not being turned off".
The mission was not defined by it being to land successfully and do its experiments. Getting to the moon with a budget you even cited was an accomplishment in itself. After all look how few other landers have successfully gotten to the lunar surface in one piece. Besides being expensive it is a difficult technical challenge.
This vehicle used a methlox cryo fuel which was also a first.
It wasn't about just landing perfectly!!
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 Sorry. I guess being witness to the 1969 and all the other manned lunar landings shows in my lack of acceptance for mediocrity. But you wouldn't understand, being I would guess not born before 1980, the lowering of standers, participation trophies, and the dumbing down of schools, DEI, Affirmative Action, and the myriad of other social justice blather, have made you accept and spin an obvious failure into a triumphant victory. You should work for the Biden Administration. They love people like you.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 Not that cheap either. For US lander? Sure, it is. Russian/indian/chinese? Already more then average.
The switch was manual because its entire purpose was to make it impossible to remotely turn on the laser when people were near the spacecraft. It's a safety device. Making that switch software overrideable would completely defeat the purpose. The bigger question is why you couldn't figure this out on your own. Unbelievable
You spin failure like Karine J Pierre. Anything that important to the mission should have a backup. Redundency is a key to all good design in something that is unmanned. In this case, a switch to over-ride the safety that was either under computer or Earth based, especially in an unmanned mission. I guess your DEI studies didn't cover that point.
Jesus, so they lied...mission is failure...
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.
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.
I find it very pathetic, how after 50 years of advanced technology we're still struggling to land on the moon. It's like an inverse law the better the technology the more chances of failure.
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
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.
3:30 - Wha??? So that it would be all a mystery to figure out what exactly happened without the cameras working during touchdown... the cameras should've run so that it can be used to help figure out what went wrong and tilted.
It was a crashed. They don't want to let the world know.😅
The cameras were running. The problem here is they don't have good communications back to Earth to get the data back.
What did you expect? The body is too tall for the legs.
Look at the Apollo landers, short and wide.
Low CG makes it more stable.
It crashed sideways into the moon, has nothing to do with being too tall.
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.
It didn’t land… it crashed. Landing is when it stands on the legs that were designed for it to stand on. Crashing is what happens when it falls on its side and is damaged.
Shhhhh they don’t want the investors to know
@@Mike_Greentea Well it’ll be hard for them to hide the dents and scratches on it. I hope they have good vehicle insurance.
I’m no scientist, far from it, but why couldn’t they just use an Anchor? Doesn’t have to be a weight anchor, but a reference point to align the lander and provide metrics on positioning. They did that with the camera developed by the University Students.
Edit: something I’d do is I’d send two missions. The first one is a unit that does not need a soft landing, in fact it would be a ballistic missile that shoots isn’t the ground with a static payload that buries itself into the lunar surface. The second would be the actual lander that uses the first mission as a virtual landing pad. The first one wouldn’t need any special devices either. It could be as simple as a rod with a QR code on its rear so that all the lander needs is visual confirmation to erect itself when descending for a landing.
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.
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.
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…
Thanks for the very clear explanation and beautiful images of the cameras and other parts.
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.
It would seem more prudent to land the item on its ide then stand it up with a mechanism. How hard could that be ?
Why does it have to stand up 14 feet high ? Why cant it remain horizontal on 4 legs and still function.? Um we have retractable undercarriage on planes..........We have dinghys that inflate with a tiny gas bottle that could stand the whole thing up.
Plausible deniability. "We had the best engineering but 'something' went wrong."
Why is it tall and skinny? Because that's the shape that fits inside the rocket fairing.
@@stargazer7644 That goes without saying, but being so simplistic has backfired tragically. Its almost like the designers have never been camping never thought of folding thinks up.
@@stargazer7644 Though stargazer you don't really know that, you're just assuming. Tragic mistake was made. The problem is nearly as simple as stacking cans in a supermarket.
@@kimbo99I'm just assuming? lol. It's a tall skinny craft that came out of a tall skinny fairing. That's what we in the technical field call a "clue". Regardless, how skinny the spacecraft is has nothing to do with why it is on its side. The spacecraft had legs that unfolded. The legs are wider than the spacecraft is tall. The reason the spacecraft is on its side is because the LIDAR safety interlock was left in place before launch and they didn't have their most important instrument for making sure they landed vertically on flat ground.
Looks like the average IQ for space exploration has seriously declined over the last 50 yrs
People need to remember that this is a private company that made a spacecraft with without a NASA style budget! The fact it managed to launch and land on the moon itself is an achievement! This what exploration is all about learning and adapting to lessons learned
It's insane that they literally did this on the same budget as most big blockbuster movies. It's crazy that people don't realize this. Oppenheimer had a budget of $100 mil, IM1 was $118 mil
@@Jett-n-gin Interesting, they even 3D-printed parts of the engine. $60 mil was for IM alone and had to make the trip from orbit to the lunar surface, about as heavy as a car. I find it more insane though how expensive blockbuster movies have become ...
Maybe nobody told them there are craters on the moon !
That's why real pilots are still superior.
4 meters tall, less than t 2 meters diameter, that's what went wrong.
Depends on the weight distribution (which is stating the obvious).
Despite decades of technological advancement, space technology and landing on another planet or stellar objects is and will always be very difficult.
Plus, this is this companies first attempt to land. That they got to the moon and mostly landed (sideways though it was ) is still a major accomplishment and one from which they will learn many lessons.
Expect this kind of failure to be sadly common going forward as other companies begin to learn the hard lessons needed to operate on the moon or other stellar bodies and watch as they progressively get better at landing and getting bigger packages to the moon.
Technological progress is the art of failing, learning from mistakes, applying lessons learned and repeating until an optimal and repeatable solution is found and then constantly iterating on said concepts.
The Space Race is a marathon, not a sprint and only those who are committed long term for the very very long haul this is will emerge as victorious.
Congratulations to this team for getting everything done that they set out to do, except the landing. Most likely next time they wont flip.
I ridiculed and laughed when the Chinese lunar module fell over. And now here we are....
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.
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
What went wrong was basic design!
Look at that top heavey, spindly legged nonsense they tried throwing at the moon!
It didnt even have a tip assist!
very high center of gravity ..
@@adlabar7289 Yep.
And I wana start a movement that every probe/landing craft should have some tip assists just in case.
6 longer landing legs that extend out .. heck , maybe it can walk around the surface like a spider.
@@adlabar7289 Yeah, something like that! We can't just be spending multi millions of dollars just for it to stub its toe on a rock and fall over and not work now.
It's embarrassing.
Every probe should have some kind of self correcting abilities, maybe even maneuvering.
Maybe they can get Buzz back up there and stand it back up.
is all 50 year worth of BS these people look like they just born yesterday