What Exactly Went Wrong During Odysseus’s Landing?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 тра 2024
- A few days ago on the 22nd the Intuitive Machines lunar lander attempted to touchdown on the lunar south pole. This was quite a big deal as not only was it a private company responsible but this was also the first U.S. lunar landing attempt in over 50 years. However, what was initially reported by the company as a successful and upright landing, has since changed with new information.
We now know that during its final approach toward the surface, they believe one of its legs got caught in a hole in the ground tipping the entire lunar lander onto its side. It now is horizontal with some of its solar panels now sideways rather than vertical attempting to gather energy. Despite this mishap, teams at Intuivitve Machines and NASA believe it can still complete part of its science mission. Here I will go more in-depth into the landing error, how it happened, what this means for the rest of the mission, and more.
Full article here - thespacebucket.com/what-exact...
For more space-related content check out - thespacebucket.com/
Credit:
NASA - / @nasa
Intuitive Machines - / @intuitivemachines
Chapters:
0:00 - Intro
0:43 - Sideways Landing
3:56 - Impact On Payloads - Наука та технологія
Their first mistake was naming it Odysseus. He had all kinds of problems.
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.
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.
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.....
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
Aw come on! We ALL know it was Garfield. He's always kicking Odie over or off the table.
🐈💨
😂😂😂😂😂😂
The quote could have been, "Watch out for that last step!" Or, "Remember to flip off the Safety switch."
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@gadidakodakaThe LEM was able to self land, but none of the crews allowed it. The LEM's self landing ability was extremely limited.
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?
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.@@Metalle
@@billinct860 agree, back then learned and were successful… I believe we have lost really bright engineers.
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.
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
If this kind of landing had happened during an Apollo mission, we would have dead astronauts on the moon.
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 ,
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.
Call it a Crash 😢
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 UA-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!
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!! 😎
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"?
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?
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
🙄
Thanks for the very clear explanation and beautiful images of the cameras and other parts.
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.
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!!
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.
“Sir, it's quite possible this asteroid is not entirely stable.”
~ (C3P0)
"Sir, it's quite possible that it could tilt" - A 5th grader.
More believable than anything NASA puts out. ~ CPO3
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
One can buy a $5 toy , and no matter how you throw it , it always ends upwards. .
Excellent analysis 🖖🏽
One giant tipped-over dustbin for mankind...
Sideways is the new upright. Vertical landings are so last century.
🤣🤣😄
Now THAT was funny 🤣
"It must be real because it looks so fake"
😂
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.
At least it wasn’t a “smashing success”, but rather a qualified learning opportunity.
At least tRump lost the election
Who designed this thing - the guy who designed the Titan submersible? Mr Rush?
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.
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.
@@user-vo8zx2uj1pThe 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.
Godspeed Eagle Cam.
How about some kind of absorbers on the legs to take the shock of the impact on landing? More weight to send, etc..But this thing looks really rigid.
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.
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.
Are any of the experiments on board still able to perform ? or is this a crashed lander.
Some of the experiments are working, but it doesn't look like they'll be able to get the data back to Earth.
This is the exact reason i place extending antenna on the edges of my landers in KSP... Just deploy and it will push you back up .. bit of a miss that 😂
Like the old car antennas that extended with a motor YES. Such an old idea young scientists don't know about it.
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.
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.
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.
What about that sky crane contraption that was used on the Perseverance rover?
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"
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.
They ran out of duct tape and glue.
Cheap mock up sample
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.
how was the weight ditrubuted vertically. looks like it was a very tough lesson on center of gravity. ! send one more!😀
It was developed with earths gravity and fell over with the moons gravity. Which is only one sixth of the earth.
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??
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.
Was the lander moving sideways (horizontally) for its leg to get caught by something? Isn't it supposed to be moving purely vertically when it's that close to the surface?
It was planned to land vertically but the laser range finder was malfunctioning (1:00); the private lander had to to use the experimental NASA landing system which demanded both vertical and horizontal movement.
@@davidstevenson9517 I noticed that they patched to use NASA instrument. But I didn't realize that it made horizontal movement necessary (I mean, why?). But I guess that's a huge difference for a craft of such high aspect ratio (1.6m dia vs 4m height). So this isn't about the C.G alone.
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.
Surveyor 1 successfully landed on the moon in 1966. Am I supposed to be impressed that Odysseus landed (on its side) in 2024?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sooooo....it was designed for vertical landing, yet it was traveling sideways. Too windy to land? No one iinvented wheels? Keystone Kops with rockets?
Uhh what does "collecting science" mean?
They can't use a thruster to push it back up?
What about the detachable camera that was supposed to pop off before landing in order to record the landing? All the other cameras have failed as well? Methinks it just crashed.
Maybe you should pay a bit more attention. All of this was explained. Due to the lack of the lidar system, they changed the landing sequence and the release of the camera was not done. All of the cameras took plenty of images. The problem is the thing is face down in a crater and we have very poor signal and can't retrieve much of the data. And yes, it did crash.
Maybe you should stop believing in excuses and fairytails @@stargazer7644
What was the reason given for not deploying the cameras prior to landing on the moon.? Or photographing or recording video of the craft landing on the moon.? Makes no sense..
They know they will crash landing lol 🤣🤣
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.
Weebles wobble but they don’t fall down!
Great video...👍
Very Nice - Thanks!
Yes too bad they didn't have a camera you could have seen what happened how to correct for it did you make cameras now that staying focused
Yeah I heard about this thing landed sideways and everything and I'm glad somebody was there to stand it back up you know not very many people know about the other side of the moon and what's there
Will the telemetry data just disappear, like it did for every moon landing?
Yeah, because Trump sold those classified documents to the Chinese.
@@id10t98 They were reels of tapes as well. Joe and Hunter are working with China. Or have you forgotten about the laptops? Also, Trump was allowed to have the classified documents while Dementia Joe was not. See through the Derangement Syndrome. I'm not even for Trump, he destabilized Venezuela and now we are invaded by refugees. Trump was also for Red Flag laws.
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
Why a fixed lander that is too heavy? The Webb telescope had like 310 spof and completed all maneuver. If the legs were collapsible I believe it would have been bigger to support the height and weight better for landing. Just Ans opinion.
The difference between JWST and this mission is about 9.9 billion dollars.
Am I the only one that have thought from the beginning it looked top heavy?
In a word ....... No 🤣
Funny, translation velocity is supposed to be zero .... not 2 MPH. In addition, without any calculations looks top heavy or easy to tip over given the narrow landing structure... 😉
The legs are wider than it is tall.
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 ?
Wheres the live footage???
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.
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.
I wonder if landing skids would be more practical on the moon?
Or Pogo Sticks.
No, landing vertically is more practical on the Moon.
So much for the state of art the laser guidance system they bragged about that was supposed to look out for rocks and crevices and valleys and etc etc
In case you missed it, that laser guidance system is what some yahoo left the "remove before flight" safety disable plug in when it launched.
Just like what happened to the Indian Lander.?
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.
Dadgum! Am I going to have to drive up there and stand that thing up? Goodness gracious!
Did somebody tested the lander in some facility ON EARTH?
What else would anyone expect from trying to land anything sideways? Then where was the center of mass? Even if the LIDAR did not work… or was disabled…how much did we learn from what worked for the Apollo missions?
it’s a vertical zero translation vector landing? I would start by figuring out why the communication was faulty to begin with 😅
Apollo had an even bigger risk of tipping over. That's why they were extremely careful where they landed and to make sure their horizontal velocity was canceled out before touchdown and the place they landed was flat. The comms are bad because the thing is laying on its side in a crater and the antennas aren't pointed toward Earth.
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.
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.
Nice story like the one where someone was filming the first guy taking the fist step on the moon. Guess the guy who was already on the moon was not good enough to get the credit for making the first step .
Didn't they utilize cameras below the lander? If everything is planned to the t then you know where to point the camera...
Obviously you did not see the footage i saw . Someone was already on the moon so was technically the person on the moon.@@thegame7557
You can't possibly be this thick. Armstrong deployed a camera on a pole sticking off the leg of the lander before he went down the ladder. That was how you got video of the event.
Making the best out of the result. This is just another challenge for the ‘Team’. And, they will solve it!
Why isnt there anything to correct a tipped landing
As soon as Nasa lost contact with it I guessed it might have landed on its side. I knew this might explain that Nasa was still able to communicate with the lander even though it was partial data.
Overall is seems like it was a Giant "Cluster" !!
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?
Same thing happened to the Japanese probe. Need a way of getting upright.
Outsource to china. 😂 Honestly these problems are not design issue. Its a delta v issue. The slower you can afford to approach, the more accurate the landing. Just need to reduce the payload abit and they should land easy enough.
The "way of getting upright" is to land on your feet.
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.
informative.
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.