The Odysseus Moon Lander Is Officially Out of Power
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 тра 2024
- After just about a week on the Moon’s surface, the Odysseus lander is officially out of power as the long lunar night begins. In the last few days, we received even more images showcasing its position on the surface, broken landing legs, and tilt. This comes in addition to another press conference revealing what payloads were affected and the state of the lander.
While it’s possible that Odysseus survives the lunar night, teams at Intuitive Machines didn’t design the lander to do so which means the mission has likely come to an end. Here I will go more in-depth into the new images, the lander’s power, final operations, and more.
Full article here - thespacebucket.com/the-odysse...
For more space-related content check out - thespacebucket.com/
Credit:
NASA - / @nasa
Intutitive Machines - / @intuitivemachines
Chapters:
0:00 - Intro
0:32 - More New Images
3:05 - Out of Power - Наука та технологія
Moon's newest tourist attraction :- The Leaning Tower Of Odysseus.
LOL
Good one !
Next is Colossus 😉
And Frozen temple, .. Vikram 😅😅😅
You think it's real 😂
Lander: I’m out of power
Mission Control: well shit
CEO - "Successfully ran out of power!"
"Aw, man! My jet pack's busted.", Lt. Doolittle "Dark Star" (1974).
Voyager 1 and 2 rolling their eyes and muttering about Odysseus: "Sheesh, kids these days!
"These solar kids"
“Something might not be acting correctly.” Yeah, roger that
This was a "Remove Before Flight" failure. It's fate was sealed before it left Earth.
the insurance people are not going to buy that
Can you imagine going to work on Monday and being told, The Boss is looking for you...
@@firstlast-pt5pp , the voiceless American tax-payer is the "insurer" of Federal failure...
So another flop
@@jasonrae9190 , if a man can "be" a .>WOMANSUCCESS
2:52 Yes IM did modify their software to use the NASA LIDAR (NDL) system. However, during the February 18th press conference IM's Steve Altemus and Tim Crain made note that "data valid flag" programing was not properly populated and NDL in fact didn't work for the landing. The lander was only able to use the camera system and IMU for range and location data. These inherently inaccurate systems resulted in the lander hitting hard and breaking a landing leg. If the LIDAR system had worked, they most likely would have "nailed" the landing. The engine bell hit the surface and the engine continued to fire after landing. Apparently, the IM-1 lunar lander did not have a surface contact sensor like the Apollo LEM did and was relying on LIDAR data. All things considered, the mission was a success and the problems that occurred are fixable.
But I'd still rather visit the Titanic than board a rocketship to the moon...
When you design with ZERO WHAT IF senerios
SCENARIOS
I'm sure the fine folks over at Intuitive have reasons for their lander design, but hopefully the next one will be wider than it is tall, making it less likely to tip over, even with a busted leg. I'll never understand how you can use the word "success" at any time regarding this landing.
they treasure their "participation" trophies and ribbons....
Most of the scientific instruments were able to get data and send back to Earth.
It's on the moon south pole as intended, mostly intact, returning data, first attempt.
it's easy if you lower your standards and insist on higher contract rates.
This is not the problem. The problem was landing with horizontal velocity. Even with a wider lander, which may not fit into most launch vehicle payload bays, the legs would likely have sheered just the same and the lander tipped just the same.
they should design a lander that works on any side even if it rolls
That is genius. Why didn't nasa think of that. Very smart.
Probably shouldn't haul passengers till your landing percentage gets higher than fitty🤔
It's a commercial payload lander project, not human rated and never will be
😂
How about higher than 99% lol
Every lander this year has had bad luck 😢
It's still only February. . . .
Them pesky aliens.
That’s because the people building these things aren’t as smart as 50 years ago during the Apollo program
The technology 50 years later is light years ahead of what nasa had and yet it has proven extremely difficult to land on the moon. I wonder how nasa was so capable when space technology was so primative back then.
@@Freedom_from_imp Isn't it because the South pole has more rugged terrain than the Apollo landings
52 years after the last Apollo Mission to the Moon, the Odysseus (1) can't land without falling over; and (2) loses power in a matter of days.
Now that's scientific progress.
It actually puts a huge, huge question mark on the veracity of the Apollo 11 moon landing claim. There're a lot many questions that remain unanswered till date.
Rather than doubting humanity's incredible scientific progress maybe you question the claims of the Apollo missions...........
@@DANNY40379 Yes indeed! If you come to think of it closely and logically, the 1969 event does seem to be fake and kinda laboratory / studio job...a very clever job!
The US has successfully landed multiple spacecraft on the Moon and Mars and it will continue to do so. A nation doesn't progress without mistakes.
Are you talking about mistakes or about success? Because the moon landing in 1969 was a success! or was it? The second biggest scam in the history of mankind made in Hollywood style big celebration. It is a dormant volcano in Iceland where the tracks are still visible from Google Earth where that big production was executed. Want to know which volcano was it? You are on your own my friend, because I’m not gonna tell you which was it.
Like Brandon !?
@@ronhobyak9902 If you have to depend on the USA for basic things like youtube, you need to learn how to speak English.
Ich glaube, ich spreche ganz gut Englisch, danke.@@ChadwickTheChad
@@ronhobyak9902 True, everybody outside of the US is confused.
I will wait for the SpaceX Starship and move on from this. Yes, it is a learning experience but a very costly one.
These people were fired from spacex
From this mission, I would say it is largely a success. One gets the impression they have some very smart people AFTER launch who are amazing at solving problems. Unfortunately, they have some people who made some unwise decisions BEFORE launch; for example the decision not to review the pre-flight checklist which resulted in the LIDAR LASER not being enabled. If it had been correct, there is little down they would have had a nice, safe, slow, vertical landing with no horizontal translation. I told my brother about this. He said, "The one who was supposed to check the LIDAR is now working at a place that requires a paper hat, name tag, and the phrase, "Do you want fries with that?" My brother is a funny man.
Not having reviewed a pre flight checklist is a capital mistake.. at such high cost at stake unforgivable and no success.. 😢😢
The Kids that designed The Eagle Cam which was originally going to be ejected to land on the surface and take images and video of the Odysseus touching down. They must have been absolutely gutted, that their brilliant technical invention was shelved, although Odysseus managed to spit it out, and it did take an inhibited image of part of the stricken lander just before its power was depleted. It's such a shame that their Camera Module Eagle Cam which was scrubbed from the mission due to the pin enablement for the original geo proximity landing software, which was overlooked as you correctly said on the preflight checklist. was the reason it was scrubbed from the mission. Hopefully it will still be used on I.M.-2
Gotta give him credit, that is funny...
There are a lot of ignorant dummies commenting on this video but for those who care about facts, 5 out of 6 NASA experiments on IM-1 were carried out successfully. The only experiment that failed was SCALPSS and my understanding, based on the NASA press conference, is that SCALPSS failure was not a fault of IM-1, and an internal hardware failure related to SCALPSS itself ... I might be wrong on SCALPSS situation though!
So, this mission was at least 84% successful (5 out of 6) ...
Sure.
That’s alright. It’s a private company; they won’t have to convince anyone to send another lander. It’s all down to the money they want to spend.
I’m sure quite a few valuable insights were also gathered from this mission.
They have to sell payloads, if their lander doesn't work people won't buy slots. Failure with customers on board isn't a good thing you know
@@mathewferstl7042The mission was mostly a success though.
@@mathewferstl7042 That’s actually a very fair argument. Thanks for bringing that up.
@@bluesteel8376 So was the Hindenburg, it made to it's intended destination in New Jersey it's first try!
@bluesteel8376 half half, some payloads were compromised and couldn't collect data properly or at all and the landers operational time in the surface was cut short. But no, it wasn't a full failure and I'm not suggesting it was.
Well if Nasa really wants to land on MOON, they can do it without even breaking the sweat, they regularly land on mars with much difficult flight envelope, they are just trying to raise space capabilities of their private sector now, but the real punch of NASA comes from likes of JPL. It also showcases how impressive Chandrayaan 3 was, who not only managed to land but also performed the hop experiment.
How can the Eagle CAM fail when it was not even turned on properly!
Let's hope the batteries survive the cold like slim
@3:02 - "technically designed not to ever wakeup gain" 😂
thank you.
Personally I think it is very likely to wake up. Batteries are certainly the biggest risky part on that but I have dunked a lot of electronics in liquid N2 and liquid He and almost never see failures even being careless with them. It does depend on some compliance, what exact packages they used etc but I think pretty low like to work. The electronics may latch up though due to carrier freeze out which could cause a failure but that just depends on the particular circuits. As to the battery even if it gets mechanical damage between its layers it may well work enough to hold some charge. I think sort of the key is not to power it hard before it warms up enough. Surviving unpowered though shouldn't be too hard. Companies will never sign up to it because it is too hard to test to and they don't want to be sued, but what really matters is the physics and material science.
If you were a customer who wanted to have your instrument land on the moon, would you use this company now?
We landed on the Moon in the early 60s and 70s. We've landed on Mars several times, but now we can't land on the Moon again. What is wrong with that picture?
60’s had human pilots. Mars has an atmosphere. This was autonomous in no atmosphere. That’s the difference.
They should have fired the stabilizers and rocket engine again to get it up into space. It wouldn't be able to land, but what would it hurt?
I thought the same thing, a short burst might right the craft again, what can they lose?
I’ve been told seriously at the official press-conference, that it was a successful landing…
Apparently the technicians in their mind kept visualizing a soft landing and didn't give much thought to "what if ?"
You know like how you see something on tv and think i can do that and it's not as easy as you thought.
At any rate you only get one shot at it on the moon as these recent attempts have shown. A fail is a fail...not terrible but not great.
Where we are at in the age of Robotics why they didn't install a self-righting mechanism on this thing is totally mystifying.
EXACTLY!!
Cause it's B.S., buddy.
Nearly sixty years ago humanity were able to land two human beings on the surface of the moon, and return them safely.
Sixty years later, with planes that fly themselves, cars that drive themselves, ships that sail themselves; the two most recent landers without people have ran into difficulties?
Something is very questionable about the most recent, or in fact, the most distant landings.
Thanks. John, Dulwich.
My impression is that the flimsy inner tripod feet were designed to be breakaway structures. The main legs have righteous square shock absorber feet. lf the OML had any drift when it landed, or it landed on a slope OR a Moon Troll tipped it over....enquiring minds need to know.
Ahh, The dreaded moon trolls...
I thought it might be the Chinese having a little fun.
Did they not think about shock absorbers?
It appears they didn't think at all.
If they had legs all around, not just the bottom, it could have landed at a better position. There is technology that uprights machines too.
Let us pause as the bugler plays 'Taps'.😔
I’m just glad that the six manned Apollo lunar landers reach the surface of the moon without incident or accident and the crews were able to take off again safely.
50 years ago, think about that.
My friend if you really believe that those crew landed on the moon than you have to think again. Think about the technologies in 1969. I watched on TV and never could understand the differences of the decoupling from the main module and the quality on the surface of the moon. I know that in the space everything work differently than on the surface of the earth. But shouldn’t work different in a less gravitated surface as the moon has. As we know, the moon has less gravitation than the earth and the moon doesn’t have Oxigen filled surface air, which could make the stars winkle or made the background shimmer. It was just a badly executed Hollywood production.
View from human eye is totally different from robotic eye.
@@bubamaranovichok4901Google... Dunning Kruger. You're it.
@bubamaranovichok4901 it's a God thing you don't work for NASA or some other space agency. You clearly lack the IQ to work there.
Maybe make the next one with a lower center of gravity
Maybe make the next one by engineers that know what they're doing
CEO - "It successfully tipped over!"
Why only moon animations? Its 2024 wake up! We have internet in space before pictures of the moon
I still think radioisotope generators should be included just in case on most missions
radioisotope generators are very expensive, very heavy, and very large.
We only make about 1.5 kg of pu238 per year. There just isn't enough world supply to use it on most missions.
They did this entire mission for less than 1 percent of the cost of surveyor Not even accounting for 60 years of inflation
Well, they could have saved all costs by not going... and the result would have been the same.
@@3366larryandrews not really true. Many of the science probes worked fine and lots of new data was collected. And when daylight comes back in two weeks it might be brought back. The question is can the batteries survive the lunar night. There is no guarantee so we will see. The thing is to learn and solve the issues.
Intuitive employees have a bright future at Boeing!!!!
They said it was only dormant not "out of power" though.
Mark of a new era! Good comms and the experiments were able to be done for the customers. The new lander is gonna be siick 😎
Why didn't they make it short and with a wide base, instead of tall and skinny making it fall?
can one of the millitary death lasers be used to charge the panels from earth?
When in hibernation mode, I guess the electronics won´t get "heated" anymore. Most electronics are not made to operate at -273.15 °C and will get damaged due to the low temperature. So let´s hope the lander can wake up again. Fingers crossed.
They didn’t include motors on the legs… or wheels?!
It's a shame that of all the Well Engineered thought into this vehicle Engineers decided too ignore and then cheapen out of the importance of landing. Especially on a very rocky,non level and hard surface. An 8 degree pitch would had been recoverable if landing dimension at ruggedness was just a little bit more robust.
Actually, with all the poor planning and lack of acknowledgment of the things that can go wrong… I’d say that was a very unsuccessful moon mission. Japan, who has a LOT less experience, was able to get their moon lander to land upright and correct!! Their lander’s legs didn’t break due to cheap and poor quality leg construction. They had a cheap heater that kept their circuits alive. So yes… I’m embarrassed for NASA and the American people.
So why did this happen? Was there a stiff breeze on the moon?
Probably just a software problem
Probably a bunch of moron engineers problem
The laser telemetry switch was off. All experiments by the customers were still conducted. So mission success
Actually, with all the poor planning and lack of acknowledgment of the things that can go wrong… I’d say that was a very unsuccessful moon mission. Japan, who has a LOT less experience, was able to get their moon lander to land upright and correct!! Their lander’s legs didn’t break due to cheap and poor quality leg construction. They had a cheap heater that kept their circuits alive. So yes… this is a pretty good and accurate assessment. I’m embarrassed for NASA and the American people.
There was a child safety switch for the lasers that were supposed to guide the landing. They neglected to disarm the switch before take-off. They realized this before the actual landing. So then they did a whole lot of program re-configuring through a sleepless night and used a NASA -designed laser they had extra onboard that was going to be used for data collection . It wasn’t designed to help land the craft but it did good enough to keep it from crashing. That part was a miracle Hail Mary. But the craft kept moving forward by forces they don’t completely understand and tipped over a rock in its path.
The lander technically didn't crash down on the moon, the moon crashed up into the lander !
But let’s build a lunar community!
What? When will those big shut investors, scientists,politicians realize, that we are just little worms in the universe locked on this little planet? We are destined to be born and die here, and those who do want to go out there, please use most of our stupidly earned money to discover what is under the seas and not what kind of dangers awaiting us out in space.
India "hopped" their lander a couple days after landing but isn't Eagle Cam the first suborbital autonomous spacecraft to ever to launch from the surface of the Moon?
"Aw, man! My jet pack's busted.", Lt. Doolittle "Dark Star" (1974).
I can already hear the chorus of laughing from the Apollo Moon Landing Deniers…. 😳
You know it. 😂
Hard to blame them. Perhaps next time they will record the entire event from launch to touchdown on video. Who wouldn't love to see it?
What's even funnier is the chorus of excuses from Apollo Moon Landing Believers 🤣
Vikram is the first spacecraft that landed on lunar southpole region
Ground control keep it positive as long as possible. It was a CF
When rainbows design stuff
The lander took a hit. With how much they clearly lied and tried to save face, I wouldn't be surprised if it tumbled a couple of times.
Sounds ĺike a redesign òf the lander is in order.
How hard is it to build the electronics strong enough to survive the cold, Without batteries
It is difficult and expensive. This mission was done with a very small budget.
Are you a nimrod. The only point of the mission wss to show proof of concept. The lander is supposed to die so they can try to turn it bsck on after 2 weeks. Every journalist in media and youtube knows nothing about the company or the mission or the purpose for its existence.
Officially, it is out of power now and has gone to sleep to wait out the two-week night. They still expect that when the sun rises again that power will be restored enough to continue the mission. It’s not dead yet. ❤😊
SpaceX has set the bar low. I watched two rockets blow up to the wild applause of the employees watching it. I NASA did this, or I was working on this I would be heart broken, modest, wonder if I could have done something differen, better.
So technically, humans have now started leaving their waste on the moon as well .
You don’t know much history do you? 😂 🤭
have to come up with a new power source and heater , my understanding is the surface is irradiated?
The lunar surface gets intense (4 times Earth's surface, IIRC, but Google it) sunlight for two weeks and deep darkness for two weeks. These periods are called lunar day and lunar night. Lunar night is not only very dark--remember, the moon doesn't get moonlight--but it's very cold. Without heat, electronics, batteries, etc, get significant mechanical stress, which can lead to permanent failure. So, you really want to try to keep things from getting cold. For this type of spacecraft, this usually means electrical heaters. However, though I'm sure I've never done this, well, not too many times, it's like leaving your car on overnight. The heaters are driven by power from the batteries and they need to supply that power not for just overnight, but for two weeks. That requires bigger, and heavier, batteries. Since the cost of a launch is primarily driven by weight, if there is no mission requirement to last out the lunar night, the choice is usually to avoid the big batteries. However, engineers in programs like this tend to want to check back in with the spacecraft once lunar day arrives. We certainly don't know which things may fail and the exact conditions. JAXA's SLIM lander woke back up. I expecr rhere were a few very surprised engineers, and a team's worth of excitement. As payloads get more demanding, you can expect requirements that spacecraft can overnight reliably. And, battery power is not the only way to do this. Plus, we're just going to learn more about conditions durning lunar night and how to design spacecraft so they don't freeze to death.
The lunar surface gets intense (4 times Earth's surface, IIRC, but Google it) sunlight for two weeks and deep darkness for two weeks. These periods are called lunar day and lunar night. Lunar night is not only very dark--remember, the moon doesn't get moonlight--but it's very cold. Without heat, electronics, batteries, etc, get significant mechanical stress, which can lead to permanent failure. So, you really want to try to keep things from getting cold. For this type of spacecraft, this usually means electrical heaters. However, though I'm sure I've never done this, well, not too many times, it's like leaving your car on overnight. The heaters are driven by power from the batteries and they need to supply that power not for just overnight, but for two weeks. That requires bigger, and heavier, batteries. Since the cost of a launch is primarily driven by weight, if there is no mission requirement to last out the lunar night, the choice is usually to avoid the big batteries. However, engineers in programs like this tend to want to check back in with the spacecraft once lunar day arrives. We certainly don't know which things may fail and the exact conditions. JAXA's SLIM lander woke back up. I expecr rhere were a few very surprised engineers, and a team's worth of excitement. As payloads get more demanding, you can expect requirements that spacecraft can overnight reliably. And, battery power is not the only way to do this. Plus, we're just going to learn more about conditions durning lunar night and how to design spacecraft so they don't freeze to death.
cmon. how much harder would it have been to make the thing last more than a week
Куча инженеров, а центр тяжести никто не просчитал.)
IM-2 will go better and they won't forget to pull the stupid pin on that laser landing tech this time. Hopefully won't have so many problems orienting itself in space after getting up there. They overcame a lot of "firsts" with this mission.
Sure ... I never forget to grab my coffee off the roof of my car in the morning ...
34 times and counting. ... 🤣
So how did this contraption reach the moon without jet propulsion? There isn't any air in space, not to mention the amount of heat and radiation going through the "Van Allen" belts.. Just curious..
Can we just work on what is in the ocean first? Lets figure out this plenet before we get to the next one.
no backup LIDAR but it has "art" payload .. ? No nuclear battery ( which were used by older succesful space probes ) .. ? Cameras that produce images that are worst than my webcam ..? And it cost million of taxpayers money . These private companies did not do enough testing prior to the missions .
it's in the utah desert with the others, can't someone go and change the battery?
Take your meds
@@otal0721says the guy who thinks australians are spinning upside down...
Lol! For real. Any thinking person would question why they did not video record the entire event from launch to touchdown. Who would not want to watch that?@@ThePhilosophicalOne
Leg up in the Air😂🤣
No air in the Moon.
This should give intuitive a leg up on the competition.
Unbelievable.
Surely we had much better technologies back in 60s than now.
And even farther back we built pyramids ... Really !
Maybe it's not such a good idea to name a spaceship after a guy whose ships kept sinking and whose crew was frequently eaten by monsters.
“Duh, we didn’t test anything for cold! Daw, er, uh!”
And it's too late, baby, now it's too late
Though we really did try to make it
Something inside has died and I can't hide
And I just can't fake it, Oh no no.....
Human error, forgetting to remove the lens cap on the LIDAR before launch. Was SpaceX responsible for that?
So they "land" on the moon 6 times in the 60s and 70s and their new lander decided to lay down and take a nap?
Wernher Von Braun would be so proud. At least it didn't land upside down or at 1000 ft per second. Odysseus gets 2nd place in the moon participation award... behind China.
Braun also published a book in 1952. It was about a man named Elon who would guide humanity to Mars.
I would have timed he landing for earlier in the morning so they could have gotten twelve or fourteen days of data out of it. Maybe they needed the Sun as high in the sky as possible for the cameras to see the landing area.
What is this film seeming to show the Earth setting over the Lunar horizon? The Earth does not move in the Lunar sky.
leg breaks and tips over, only one picture sent = SUCCESS!
one year later
leg breaks , tips over, loses all air, all astronauts die, one video sent = SUCCESS!
How did we do it 50 years ago and not now. This mission should be a walk in the park. I finally stopped believing we didn't land on the moon. But with this mission im starting to believing it again . What's your thoughts, did we land on the moon 1969 all those years ago. Im undecided.
Happens
Always keep some booster cables in the trunk ...
Well at least it didn’t suffer!
I've fallen and I can't get up
Kind of like the original if it was real. There is no way they made it to the moon and back w out refueling. Plus, how do you get back to the shuttle from the moon? Catch it w a net as you go by? This is why they never show you the footage. Because it never happened.
How in any way was this mission was successful?
I've fallen and I can't get up!
It appears to be easier to land on Mars than the moon.
Well, well, well, look who's officially out of juice! R.I.P. Odysseus, your 6-day stint was shorter than a Snapchat streak.
Why tf are we having so much trouble landing on the moon? We've put several rovers on Mars for feck's sake, why can't we land on the moon? Mindboggling.
Half of all attempts to land on mars fail Landing on an alien body is just very hard. Surveyor cost in the billions then. Now they are trying to do it privately for 1 percent on the cost.
Aren't you a tad puzzled that they did not film the entire event from launch to touchdown? It's 2024. There zero reason to not affix a Gopro. @@RossM3838
I’m sure they are happy … right. Now, maybe, just maybe, space on the cheap isn’t such a bright idea.
Indiana Yes!
This is so sad. Just wish they could have pulled it off.
Not feeling the excitement over a mining expedition.
Should’ve used Space X/Elon and
Tesla Batteries
It looks like something out of wallace and grommit.
yeah right, it was totally a success
Elon fans say that after every explosion.
lol The definition of success needs a rewrite just like vaccines.
For spacex ££££££££££££££