Yep. Really interesting company. Its the best example in history of a spaceflight of a stock company that takes full advantage of the stock market, and gets away with a multi million dollar scam with no good results. Yep, I wish them well too......
I'm really liking this channel more and more. Dispassionate reporting on space technology news, without injecting a bunch of bias or opinion like them other blokes. 👏
Got invited to see the launch of IM-1 through one of my college’s clubs, basically the entirety of the intuitive machines company was out there too to watch it go up. We don’t get to see much moon exploration anymore, so I hope we get to see even more with the second mission.
@@salty_berserker_channel seeing the response to simple reports during the first launch, I wish you the most profitable reactions for the next year or so and beyond!
It's like if you look at the solar system from way above the north pole it turns counter clockwise but if you envision it from the south pole it turns clockwise.
I think the craft could do with a wider span on the landing legs in view of it's height. Any sideways movement will have an effect on the inertia when landing, making toppling that little bit more likely. However fingers crossed that this one nails it this time!
@@MattNolanCustom Well I would imagine that most of the weight is housed in the lower half at least. It will be interesting to see what upgrades they make in the 3rd rendition of the vehicle. 😉
More for the algorithm! Would also love to hear more critique like this video or Boings Star liner! Especially with SpaceX. One does not see their wrong doings, but they are there. Like the Watertowers they did not reinforce.
The fact that this 'lander' and the company that built it haven't delivered on anything they promised yet is really telling. 'We promise to live stream the landing' (they didn't do it) 'we promise it will land safely' (they didn't do that either.) And the fact they were calling it a success for the nation and then didn't tell anyone it failed until the stock markets closed... this company made a poor example of a lunar impactor, which we could already do in the late 50s, and they called it a success... So. Many. Lies!
No it's not bound to fall over. If the safety on the first flight has been properly disabled on the first flight then the laser range finder would likely have worked properly allowing for a safe landing. Instead the IM lander had to use an untested software system which resulted in the lander falling over primarily because it was still moving sideways as it approaches the surface.
Scientists at various NGO's around the world. The Moon will be colonized and divided up for it's resources within our lifetimes and the planning needs to start now.
Did you ever learn how to do an online search? All of your answers are likely to be found there!! It is better for a person to learn how to fish than to expect that fish will just be given to him!! 😁
using the same heavily flawed lander for second mission? they must have money to throw away. It needs a MUCH wider stance. I hope the second lander falls over. Then maybe, just maybe, they'll take this seriously. So stupid.
How many times did you succeed at a really difficult task the first time? Just because the IM-1 ended up on its side the first flight does not mean that the whole lander is flawed. The first failed because a safety switch for the Lazer system was not disabled ahead of time. Consequently, the Lazer land finder could not be used and an untested software landing system had to be used. The IM-2 has upgrades to correct this problem and we will see how it does. It's also amazing that this tiny aerospace company built this lander for the relatively low cost of 100 million. This company is persistent and consequently will do better the next try.
@@Helliconia54 I'll be laughing when the company called Imaginative Machines, that built this probe, corrects their landing system protocol with a similar probe and lands on the moon on the second try. For a company that built the craft on a shoestring budget and NASA support they will get there. Why they designed it the way it is is their business.
Without any specs how do you know what the center of gravity is? The thing made it to the Moon and you think the people who designed and built it are stupid? Based on just looking at a picture?
Yes it was a remarkable achievment it didnt cost the usual extravaagant amount of money for such a mission. It wasnt cost efective, because effective has to be successful. This mission failed, and everyone knows that. So stop bleating on about the amount of Data that was procured for the other science modules. The data retieved would not fill 4% of my Home PC hard Drive and thats 500 Gb. The true reflection of success is shown in your share price. Please take it on the chin and admit that in all the excitement, schoolboy errors like preflight check lists were disregaurded, when they should have been checked and rechecked on many formats, it was an enable or disable pin switch that was critically overlooked. Therefore your simulater tested and mission chosen lander software could not be initialised. Thats why you failed.Good luck if Nasa give you another go, we only are as good as our last f*** up
Looking forward to IM-2!🚀👍👍
Amazing that a small company may get to the moon twice in the same year. I wish the best of luck. Ad astra.
Looks like an interesting company. I wish them well.
shoutout tim dillon
you can invest in them. LUNR is their symbol. $3.60 a share. i bought a bunch. looks like a solid and and ambitious team
Yep. Really interesting company. Its the best example in history of a spaceflight of a stock company that takes full advantage of the stock market, and gets away with a multi million dollar scam with no good results. Yep, I wish them well too......
@@salty_berserker_channel ahahahaha
@@salty_berserker_channel I did2 before the first launch.
I hope this mission is successful.
Me too. 👍
Same I have a decent amount of stock. Wouldn’t have invested if I didn’t believe in them. Hope all goes well, or at least most goes well.
@@FerociousPancake888 What's the ticker?
I'm really liking this channel more and more. Dispassionate reporting on space technology news, without injecting a bunch of bias or opinion like them other blokes. 👏
thanks for the news
Thanks man !
Absolutely great informative video, Subscribed! Please continue to follow IM's progress and share updates with videos like this one.
Sounds like a great plan good luck and congrats
Got invited to see the launch of IM-1 through one of my college’s clubs, basically the entirety of the intuitive machines company was out there too to watch it go up. We don’t get to see much moon exploration anymore, so I hope we get to see even more with the second mission.
two moon landing in a year!
4 counting SLIM and Chang'e 6
@@Wurtoz9643 5 counting Blue Ghost
All cartoons, woo hoo.
@@richspillman4191low iq statement
Here is to good luck and a great landing!
Shareholder! LUNR
mee too. bought in 3 times as their stock price dove. im underwater and will by even more
@@salty_berserker_channel seeing the response to simple reports during the first launch, I wish you the most profitable reactions for the next year or so and beyond!
@@salty_berserker_channel Why? Because they draw cartoons?
Do they have the Earth spinning in the wrong direction, in the views from the Moon's surface?
It looks like it at just after 4:10. Good catch!
If south is “up” ie the world turned upside down from that perspective it changes east and west. Look closely and Africa is upside down. At 4:11
Perhaps not. Remember, they’re talking about a South Pole landing, so here south is “up”. 😊
Yup that's it, north pole of the earth is facing down, it's a simulated view from the south pole of the moon !
It's like if you look at the solar system from way above the north pole it turns counter clockwise but if you envision it from the south pole it turns clockwise.
I think the craft could do with a wider span on the landing legs in view of it's height. Any sideways movement will have an effect on the inertia when landing, making toppling that little bit more likely. However fingers crossed that this one nails it this time!
Do you think that the craft is uniformly dense?
@@MattNolanCustom Well I would imagine that most of the weight is housed in the lower half at least. It will be interesting to see what upgrades they make in the 3rd rendition of the vehicle. 😉
@@johnnyhollis9977 It also has to fit in the diameter of the launch rocket.
Well done!
All the best🎉 congratulations 🎉
When is the second Misson?
February 27th. Should be announced in the next few days.
Best of luck..
May the force be with you.
imagine astronauts in 2028 like: lets tilt this back up and plug it in
Are they going to launch on Space X rocket?
He only said so.
@@richspillman4191 What do you mean?
Wish them luck
Never, they are a stupid company that makes bad equipment.
I hope they double check the double checkers before the next attempt.
It is all cartoons and simulations.
Really cool mission purpose, but will it find, water?
Only if the simulation program says so.
If it does that will be something.
Would any lander designer put odds more in their favor by using a low center of gravity design?
Do you know what the CG of that lander is? Why do you assume it would be easy to make it lower? Do you think the people who designed are stupid?
Maybe they should try landing a ball so it can't possibly land sideways again.
Looks like something I built in KSP.
That's because it's only a cartoon.
Easy cakes in 70's, and now is attempting 💪
Why not send robots with the moon lander. Its a good test to see whether these robots can function in space.
Five bucks this one will tip over too.
I will be take that bet. I think, it lands up right.
Step up your bet.
Think it falls over buy puts on LUNR
Think it lands upright buy Calls on LUNR.
i was wondering where this was thx
JUST ADMIT THE LAST ONE CRASHED
You build a tall lander and are surprised that it tips over? Blame it on software!
Breaking a leg? That's very popular with actors
More for the algorithm!
Would also love to hear more critique like this video or Boings Star liner!
Especially with SpaceX. One does not see their wrong doings, but they are there. Like the Watertowers they did not reinforce.
the water towers that they were already removing?
Lets break the chain of landers landing sideways !
Let's build a lander the correct way and eliminate the possibility of falling over.
Earth spinning wrong direction I agree.
From South Pole. Africa is going east since it is upside down
@@davidcarrillo7758 Upside down.
COME ON AMERICA! get your act together.
100 million, compared to wars small change.
Hopefully this time they don't spend some of the budget on pizza parties, wait till you land successfully!
Awesome!
Idk why ,but your voice sounds so sarcastic 😂😂😂
Great video though
Terrible video, nothing real about it.
I bet it lands on it's side again.
Can you please shoot the LZ with Harpoon first that will relay telemetry
to lander or even connect to, like a sleeve.
...oh, and fuck AI 😆
Harpoon collect sample from penetration + drill apparatus
Maybe the next one can do the trick of standing on its head😅
Lunar circus competition 😂😅
make it short and squaty
how about NOT going down and forward at the same time 5 feet above landing "down only"
That can be resolved by using the tested landing system as intended instead of an untested software system.
The fact that this 'lander' and the company that built it haven't delivered on anything they promised yet is really telling. 'We promise to live stream the landing' (they didn't do it) 'we promise it will land safely' (they didn't do that either.) And the fact they were calling it a success for the nation and then didn't tell anyone it failed until the stock markets closed... this company made a poor example of a lunar impactor, which we could already do in the late 50s, and they called it a success... So. Many. Lies!
Let me see you do it. Otherwise shut up. Try sleeping at night, it might help.
Second???😂
No Moon landing ever happened!!!
Even to a child. You can see its top heavy with spindly legs. It was bound to fall over.
No it's not bound to fall over. If the safety on the first flight has been properly disabled on the first flight then the laser range finder would likely have worked properly allowing for a safe landing.
Instead the IM lander had to use an untested software system which resulted in the lander falling over primarily because it was still moving sideways as it approaches the surface.
So you're a child eh?
How does Intuitive Machines profit? Who pays them? Who needs data from the moon?
Scientists at various NGO's around the world. The Moon will be colonized and divided up for it's resources within our lifetimes and the planning needs to start now.
Did you ever learn how to do an online search? All of your answers are likely to be found there!!
It is better for a person to learn how to fish than to expect that fish will just be given to him!! 😁
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 With all this schooling you gave me, you could have just answered my f*cking questions.
@@fedorbutochnikow5312 Sounds like you would do almost anything to avoid looking up the answers yourself?! 🙄
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 with an attitude like yours I sure do look up answers myself.
using the same heavily flawed lander for second mission? they must have money to throw away. It needs a MUCH wider stance. I hope the second lander falls over. Then maybe, just maybe, they'll take this seriously. So stupid.
How many times did you succeed at a really difficult task the first time? Just because the IM-1 ended up on its side the first flight does not mean that the whole lander is flawed. The first failed because a safety switch for the Lazer system was not disabled ahead of time. Consequently, the Lazer land finder could not be used and an untested software landing system had to be used.
The IM-2 has upgrades to correct this problem and we will see how it does. It's also amazing that this tiny aerospace company built this lander for the relatively low cost of 100 million.
This company is persistent and consequently will do better the next try.
So you find Aladdin's lamp, you rub it and this is what you wish for?
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 A smart person LEARNS from others. Apollo had a WIDE stance and landed. Not rocket science
@@Helliconia54 I'll be laughing when the company called Imaginative Machines, that built this probe, corrects their landing system protocol with a similar probe and lands on the moon on the second try.
For a company that built the craft on a shoestring budget and NASA support they will get there. Why they designed it the way it is is their business.
Who IS IT the creates these headlines????? Machines " plural " ARE! not IS !
WTF? "Intuitive Machines" is the company name. "IS" is correct!
If Intuitive Machines was a band, maybe you would be pedantic. Intuitive Machines is a single entity. A company.
What a stupid design, anyone can see that it is top heavy.
Without any specs how do you know what the center of gravity is? The thing made it to the Moon and you think the people who designed and built it are stupid? Based on just looking at a picture?
@@pi.actual It is obvious number one, two, they are not on the moon it is just a make believe story
Maybe they should just purchase a lander from China 😂
Yes it was a remarkable achievment it didnt cost the usual extravaagant amount of money for such a mission. It wasnt cost efective, because effective has to be successful. This mission failed, and everyone knows that. So stop bleating on about the amount of Data that was procured for the other science modules. The data retieved would not fill 4% of my Home PC hard Drive and thats 500 Gb. The true reflection of success is shown in your share price. Please take it on the chin and admit that in all the excitement, schoolboy errors like preflight check lists were disregaurded, when they should have been checked and rechecked on many formats, it was an enable or disable pin switch that was critically overlooked. Therefore your simulater tested and mission chosen lander software could not be initialised. Thats why you failed.Good luck if Nasa give you another go, we only are as good as our last f*** up