Author Topic: IM-1 Odysseus lunar lander  (Read 254497 times)

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 866
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 2196
  • Likes Given: 1004
Re: IM-1 Odysseus lunar lander
« Reply #520 on: 02/23/2024 10:30 pm »
For the record, they said that they announced that they were upright because they had received telemetry that they were upright; they then received more overnight and found that the previous telemetry was stale.

Offline tjchambers

  • Member
  • Posts: 24
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: IM-1 Odysseus lunar lander
« Reply #521 on: 02/23/2024 10:34 pm »
Certainly sounds like a lot of inferences being made in this forum about the reason for the lander to be horizontal at this point.

- Did one leg land on a rock?
- Did it come in with motion horizontally but not level?
- Was it on a slope already and touched down going upslope?
- Any of 100 other possibilities?

I do not pretend to know answers to those questions and lacking access to the telemetry at ground zero, and hopefully pictures of the landing area (which I might add at best will be from one side only), it may be difficult to ascertain.

They are asking the right questions - and seeking answers which they can learn from.

I applaud them for landing at all in a configuration that communicates to earth it is still alive. At least for 9-10 days before the lights go out. None of us is as smart as ALL of us.


Offline daveglo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 545
  • "a big enough engine, even a water tower can fly"
  • St. Louis, MO, USA
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 633
Re: IM-1 Odysseus lunar lander
« Reply #522 on: 02/23/2024 10:38 pm »
Why so much snark about the landing? - they are absolutely in their right to call it succesful in so far as the lander is operational right now. This was not a crash, it wasn't blown to smithereens. It is up there communicating and at full power.
They told us 24 hours ago that the lander was "upright".  It isn't.   Creates doubt.

Good for them to get this lander to and on the Moon.  Much to applaud.  But lander tipped over is not a "success".  No matter how many times they say the word.

 - Ed Kyle


Completely disagree, Ed.  If you have defined mission parameters, and can complete them regardless of the lander's orientation, then it's a success.

And, they kind of get to set those.  So they get to make that call.

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1811
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: IM-1 Odysseus lunar lander
« Reply #523 on: 02/23/2024 10:41 pm »
As far as I am concerned. This is mostly a failed first Lunar landing attempt by Intuitive Machines. Will not matter in the long run, if their next (and fiscally doable final) attempt is more successful.

Unlike some posters here. Think the lack of photos and videos during the landing attempt is really bad PR. The days of media people reading out a press release about what happen is long gone. General public interest in a mission requires high quality video presentations of the phases of the mission and the actual event itself to be sustainable, IMO.

Considering how Astrobotic looks right now, IM is considerably better off. At least IM's lander actually made it.

Doesn't matter. The general public will likely not return to watch follow up coverage after the really mediocre landing attempt coverage.

The general public isn't as relevant to IM's future as NASA and IM's shareholders / partners are. <snip>

Lack of interest by the general public is relevant. As that make raising capital in the future for Intuitive Machines harder. Which will likely be done a few more times, as NASA isn't fully funding the development of the Nova-C lander. NASA is just paying a fixed price service contract as  bidded by Intuitive Machines.

Offline eeergo

Re: IM-1 Odysseus lunar lander
« Reply #524 on: 02/23/2024 10:44 pm »
Granted, one can attribute EagleCam's "telemetry" tweet to be semantically correct, while people were jumping to conclusions about what it meant (namely, that it'd worked and was sending landing pictures). Also granted, they appear to be attributing to "stale telemetry", whatever that might mean, the fact that they couldn't verify the lander's position and mistakenly stated it was upright when it was, in fact, laying on its side - apparently only noticeable because of the propellant tank's residuals readings, which seems hard to believe when there must be IMUs and other sensors available to at least get an approximation as to whether it's at 90º or not, especially when they were able to detect an 8º roll upon landing.

But there's no way around the fact that they REPEATEDLY tweeted that the lander "remained in excellent health", when that's patently untrue:
- Laser landing system was NOT working, impeded by a hardware safety switch.
- Comms were acting up and led to a major issue with the orbit, plus several hasty replanning steps on the fly.
- Something must have worked so-so to have caused the 8º roll, and the condition that led to the lander falling sideways.
- The lander has a broken leg (!)
- A faceplanted lander on the regolith with antennas pointing down, which hasn't been able to transmit pictures yet because of the difficult comms, and with some solar panels covered is not "in excellent health".

Personally, I saw the treatment of SLIM's bouncy landing as being too harsh, bureaucratically looking at success criteria and not at the exciting happenings on the Moon's surface. It's a great undertaking to achieve a lunar landing in a single piece, no doubt about it. But just as being all sad faces when you just landed somewhat safely is IMO too gloomy, the bombastic treatment of the unconfirmed successes of IM-1 has been quite disappointing in the opposite sense - both from IM and NASA alike. Why is there this allergy towards dispassionately announcing the successes AND failures to the public, matter-of-factly and like the adults they should be? I get it that they're after an ever-fiercer competitive funding landscape (which is perhaps the problem rather than the cure, but that's another matter), but as the $LUNR stock shows, truth can leak out faster than they might manage to conceal it. We'll see about what can be done about the payloads, but as a safe "commercial lunar payload" delivery service, IM-1 is just skirting the line between sporty success and definite failure.

Offline Sualdam

  • Member
  • Posts: 40
  • UK
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: IM-1 Odysseus lunar lander
« Reply #525 on: 02/23/2024 10:47 pm »
Certainly sounds like a lot of inferences being made in this forum about the reason for the lander to be horizontal at this point.

To be fair, if it had landed in a perfectly vertical vector (as was the design purpose), it wouldn't have tipped over. And the laser system which failed was (presumably) supposed to manage that.

Unless it landed on a large rock and then fell off (which is possible, of course), it is far more likely there was a horizontal vector at the point of touchdown, one or more of the feet snagged (yes, possibly on a rock), and the centre of gravity wasn't low enough to stop it tipping over at whatever velocity the horizontal vector had at that point in time.

Mind you, the moon's surface does seem to be a lot less rocky than people always suggest it is whenever we see surface images from landing sites. It's usually just regolith.

As I commented earlier, IM-1 did seem to be a strange design by being taller than its leg span. Something with such an unusual aspect ratio just had to land perfectly vertically.
You can have all the degrees in the world, and all the experience in the world, but that doesn't automatically grant you the gift of common sense.

Offline catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11780
  • Enthusiast since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 9389
  • Likes Given: 8085
Re: IM-1 Odysseus lunar lander
« Reply #526 on: 02/23/2024 10:52 pm »
I must admit that when I saw the lander for the first time, I though 'wow, that's tall'. It's over 4m high, with a leg span maybe two thirds of that. Any sideways movement vector upon landing would always be risky.

All the previous successful landers always looked... well, squat. Keeping a low centre of gravity and all. With very wide legs. That seemed to make sense. The Apollo landers were about 7m high with a leg span of 9.5m.



Sualdam,  welcome to the forum.  Enjoy your stay here.
It's Tony De La Rosa, ...I don't create this stuff, I just report it.

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 866
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 2196
  • Likes Given: 1004
Re: IM-1 Odysseus lunar lander
« Reply #527 on: 02/23/2024 10:54 pm »
I wanted to transcribe Tim Crain's answer about the navigation switchout:

Quote

Tim Crain: It sounds easy in retrospect. We had the Navigation Doppler Lidar (NDL) already plumbed in to the navigation system. So, the three beams on the NDL produce a velocity measurement, as Prasun had talked about. They also produce a range measurement. And we were not using the range measurement, we had just the range rate as a backup to our optical systems. But because it was already plumbed in there, we had to rewrite those, rewrite time tags, into our measurement loader.

But the challenge was, the lasers, we have these two navigation pods on the vehicle, if you can zoom in there. [...] There are these two navigation pods on either side of the vehicle that have cameras. And the laser rangefinders point in the same direction as the cameras. Those angles were optimized for our flight trajectories to give us the best measurements to land softly.

The NDL was under one of these, and its angles were optimized to test the extent of its performance, not necessarily to feed our navigation system, but to test the sensor, because it was a technology development.

So after we figured out we could write the measurements into the laser rangefinder, we had to quickly tell the computer that the laser beams were pointed in different directions. And so there were a number of attitude transformations where it's not in the same location, it's not in the same orientation. And if you've ever seen engineers doing right hand rule transformations, there were a lot of broken wrists, as people were trying to figure out which way is it pointing.

And I will tell you that in normal software development for a spacecraft, this is the kind of thing that would have taken a month. Writing down the math. Cross-checking it with your colleagues. Doing some simple calculations to prove that you think you're right. Putting it into a simulation. Running that simulation 10,000 times. Evaluating the performance. Usually you find an error because you did something in that rotation wrong. And you roll it back and go again.

Our team basically did that in an hour and a half. And it worked.

It was one of the finest pieces of engineering I've ever had a chance to be affiliated with.
« Last Edit: 02/23/2024 11:00 pm by theinternetftw »

Offline Yellowstone10

Re: IM-1 Odysseus lunar lander
« Reply #528 on: 02/23/2024 11:24 pm »
An important physics observation from Dr. Phil Metzger:

https://twitter.comm/DrPhiltill/status/1761171833489969523

Quote
A bit of physics to help understand why this happens. When a lander is tipping, inertial forces push it over, while gravity pulls its feet back down flat. On the Moon, gravity is reduced by a factor of 6, but inertial forces are not. *Everything is 6 times tippier on the Moon.*
« Last Edit: 02/23/2024 11:24 pm by Yellowstone10 »

Offline ulm_atms

  • Rocket Junky
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 930
  • To boldly go where no government has gone before.
  • Liked: 1565
  • Likes Given: 781
Re: IM-1 Odysseus lunar lander
« Reply #529 on: 02/23/2024 11:32 pm »
Landed on it's side

https://youtube.com/clip/Ugkx4_PsEleQQGUhA6Tn-95jSdGeRty3J4lk?si=tj_ZNBv7hRV9XB4B
SpaceX will now fund IM-2 just to get the knowledge of how to land sideways without breaking.

For um....reasons.  ;D

Joke aside.  I call this a success.  They got there in enough of a piece to transmit data back to earth.  All while learning a bunch of useful, new things while doing it....on a TINY budget.  Anyone trying to put a negative on this landing is wrong IMO.

Offline jcm

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3633
  • Jonathan McDowell
  • Somerville, Massachusetts, USA
    • Jonathan's Space Report
  • Liked: 1305
  • Likes Given: 781
Re: IM-1 Odysseus lunar lander
« Reply #530 on: 02/23/2024 11:39 pm »
An important physics observation from Dr. Phil Metzger:

https://twitter.comm/DrPhiltill/status/1761171833489969523

Quote
A bit of physics to help understand why this happens. When a lander is tipping, inertial forces push it over, while gravity pulls its feet back down flat. On the Moon, gravity is reduced by a factor of 6, but inertial forces are not. *Everything is 6 times tippier on the Moon.*

Yep.
Which is one of the things that makes me nervous about Lunar Starship
-----------------------------

Jonathan McDowell
http://planet4589.org

Offline Targeteer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6200
  • near hangar 18
  • Liked: 3414
  • Likes Given: 1156
Re: IM-1 Odysseus lunar lander
« Reply #531 on: 02/23/2024 11:52 pm »
During this thread, several took shots at IM for their updates prior to landing.  Honestly this was the most detailed, frank, and honest presser I've seen to any NASA related mission in years.  They admitted they forgot to remove the laser safing hardware.  They admitted the elliptic orbit was serendipitous.  The addition of the simple models greatly enhanced and clarified their answers. NASA and it's idiots, yes I said it, in PA could, no NEED, to learn a ton from this press conference.
« Last Edit: 02/23/2024 11:56 pm by Targeteer »
Best quote heard during an inspection, "I was unaware that I was the only one who was aware."

Offline Sualdam

  • Member
  • Posts: 40
  • UK
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: IM-1 Odysseus lunar lander
« Reply #532 on: 02/23/2024 11:53 pm »
Anyone trying to put a negative on this landing is wrong IMO.

I agree.

It was a first try, and it cost around $250 million.

Apollo 11 cost around $350 million - equivalent to $3.5 billion today. The entire Apollo programme came to just under $300 billion in today's money.
You can have all the degrees in the world, and all the experience in the world, but that doesn't automatically grant you the gift of common sense.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17313
  • Liked: 7144
  • Likes Given: 3068
Re: IM-1 Odysseus lunar lander
« Reply #533 on: 02/24/2024 12:02 am »
Anyone trying to put a negative on this landing is wrong IMO.

I agree.

It was a first try, and it cost around $250 million.

Apollo 11 cost around $350 million - equivalent to $3.5 billion today. The entire Apollo programme came to just under $300 billion in today's money.

IM-1 cost NASA $118M. 

Offline Sualdam

  • Member
  • Posts: 40
  • UK
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: IM-1 Odysseus lunar lander
« Reply #534 on: 02/24/2024 12:06 am »
IM-1 cost NASA $118M.

Yes, but Intuitive put $130 million in.

Total $248 million.
« Last Edit: 02/24/2024 12:07 am by Sualdam »
You can have all the degrees in the world, and all the experience in the world, but that doesn't automatically grant you the gift of common sense.

Offline eeergo

Re: IM-1 Odysseus lunar lander
« Reply #535 on: 02/24/2024 12:09 am »
Anyone trying to put a negative on this landing is wrong IMO.

I agree.

It was a first try, and it cost around $250 million.

Apollo 11 cost around $350 million - equivalent to $3.5 billion today. The entire Apollo programme came to just under $300 billion in today's money.

It's not a first try - it's building upon loads of (public-sector) accumulated US spaceflight experience flowing into this company, both at the design and ground-testing stage, as well as the more obvious case of the LIDAR usage.

It's also completely inappropriate to compare it with Apollo, which was an infinitely more complex *crewed* mission. Surveyor would be a fairer comparison, although that really was a first, with the first artificial satellite having been launched barely a decade prior, and being the one of the first extraterrestrial landings ever by a slim margin. That program cost $469M for 7 probes, or $67M a pop, which is around 2.5x the cost you mention for IM-1 when applying your inflation correction - without accounting for the payloads, ground support through DSN, and 60-year accumulated available expertise, getting a significantly worse result at landing.

Again, it's quite a feat to soft-land on the Moon, no matter how messily. But trying to shield away from "any negative" is not making anybody a favor.
-DaviD-

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6474
  • Liked: 4581
  • Likes Given: 5183
Re: IM-1 Odysseus lunar lander
« Reply #536 on: 02/24/2024 12:11 am »
(snip)but as the $LUNR stock shows, truth can leak out faster than they might manage to conceal it. (snip)

Quote
The rocket launched on Feb. 15, sending Intuitive shares up about 35%. Then the stock gained more than 50% on Tuesday as the spacecraft headed to the moon. Shares closed down 11.2% on Thursday. All the moves, including trading Friday, have left Intuitive stock up about 160% for the month.

“Somebody call the WHAMbulance!”

The “truth” got out and they’re “down” to +160%

Please calm down people
All in all, the fight went pretty well
Lots of elements brought to TRL-9
Closest landing to the lunar south pole to date
Let’s see what IM can do in their remaining week.
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11780
  • Enthusiast since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 9389
  • Likes Given: 8085
Re: IM-1 Odysseus lunar lander
« Reply #537 on: 02/24/2024 12:16 am »
The twitter post has a link to the article mention, I have also provided that direct link to that article below.

Quote
Good writeup by @jeff_foust  on the status of IM-1

https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1761196769193443346

Article Link    <<<<<<<<
« Last Edit: 02/24/2024 12:17 am by catdlr »
It's Tony De La Rosa, ...I don't create this stuff, I just report it.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17313
  • Liked: 7144
  • Likes Given: 3068
Re: IM-1 Odysseus lunar lander
« Reply #538 on: 02/24/2024 12:19 am »
IM-1 cost NASA $118M.

Yes, but Intuitive put $130 million in.

Total $248 million.

There is also non-NASA payloads and we don't know how much that Intuitive Machines received for those.

Where did you get the 130M? Is that for the development of the Nova-C lander?

Offline Sualdam

  • Member
  • Posts: 40
  • UK
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: IM-1 Odysseus lunar lander
« Reply #539 on: 02/24/2024 12:26 am »
It's not a first try

So you're saying Intuitive has done this before?  :o

A lot of people/countries have tried to land on the moon (and other things). All of them have used previous knowledge to develop their own attempts. Many have failed.

The fact that there was previous knowledge does not mean previous experience has been carried over. This was Intuitive's first experience of trying to land on the moon, having had no previous experience.

And the cost comparison with Apollo is highly appropriate when the relative figures involved are orders of magnitude different. The real error is in somehow assuming that the comparison means the two programmes had the same aims.

If you wish to be pedantic, Ranger 4 - an unmanned and unsuccessful US mission - in 1962 cost $170 million. That is equivalent to $1.7 billion today. And you can be sure the payload on Ranger 4 would have had a tiny fraction of the power of that on IM-1.

Intuitive has done this partially successful first attempt of theirs for under $250 million.
« Last Edit: 02/24/2024 12:48 am by Sualdam »
You can have all the degrees in the world, and all the experience in the world, but that doesn't automatically grant you the gift of common sense.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0