Big JWST Breakthrough // Moon Success VS Failure // Three New Moons
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 тра 2024
- We’ve learned what happened to the Odysseus Lander. SLIM survived the lunar night. Experience a fiery trip from orbit to the Utah desert. James Webb completes one of its major science goals.
👉 Interviews:
• Interviews
🦄 Support us on Patreon:
/ universetoday
📚 Suggest books in the book club:
/ universe-today-book-club
00:00 Intro
00:15 What really happened with Odysseus
www.universetoday.com/165896/...
03:19 SLIM woke up!
www.universetoday.com/165890/...
04:56 JWST big discovery
www.universetoday.com/165936/...
08:57 Vote results
• USA’s Crazy Moon Landi...
09:43 Three new moons
www.universetoday.com/165910/...
10:52 New space telescope
www.universetoday.com/165825/...
12:40 Support what we do
13:16 NASA test Starship docking system
www.nasa.gov/image-article/na...
14:20 Last pics of Ingenuity
www.universetoday.com/165931/...
15:33 Varda's descent from space
www.universetoday.com/165935/...
16:32 Success of failure
Host: Fraser Cain
Producer: Anton Pozdnyakov
Editing: Artem Pozdnyakov
📰 EMAIL NEWSLETTER
Read by 60,000 people every Friday. Written by Fraser. No ads.
Subscribe Free: universetoday.com/newsletter
🎧 PODCASTS
Universe Today: universetoday.fireside.fm/
Astronomy Cast: www.astronomycast.com/
🤳 OTHER SOCIAL MEDIA
Mastodon: astrodon.social/@fcain
Twitter: / fcain
Twitter: / universetoday
Facebook: / universetoday
Instagram: / universetoday
📩 CONTACT FRASER
frasercain@gmail.com
⚖️ LICENSE
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
You are free to use my work for any purpose you like, just mention me as the source and link back to this video. - Наука та технологія
we did get the eagle cam launched, but it didnt get pix due to wifi issue or some other similar problem. also there were a few pix of the landing which will help with understanding the kicked up dust issue.
Hi Fraser! Did you see Dr. Kipping's post that he got darned near an hour worth of JWST time for exo-moons? Fan-freaking-tastic!
Yep, amazing.
We're going to have our first Kippingnian moons!
Fraser could be the lucky charm for Dr. Kipping.❤
Not just an hour, he got 59 hours!
What we have learned during these last few weeks is that whenever humans return to the moon they need to bring along a sign warning of the tripping hazard.
Just landing and still being partially operable was a success for Odysseus I just want to see the output from it's scientific payloads which will be a bonus
And if it does survive the lunar night, they'll have many cycles to get the data from the experience.
With all these incredible surveys, we are going to need more astronomers
AI will be fine
It's a great opportunity for amateur astronomy.
13:42 the docking mechanism isn't "SpaceX's docking mechanism". It's an international standard - International Docking System Standard (IDSS).
I cant tell you how much I appreciate these weekly updates. Thank you!
Thank you for saying "Nancy Grace Roman" telescope. I was SO confused when I heard there was a telescope named after Nancy Grace...
UA-cam needs a laugh icon. 😂
It’s really disconcerting how many less than perfect moon landings there’s been lately, especially considering that humans are going back within the next few years…
So the same guy who's only job was to remove the lens caps from the Soviet Venus landers has now got a new job at Intuitive Machines now ??
Battery improvements are already benefiting earthlings. Good stuff.
They should really add some arms that can push a lander upright if everyone keeps insisting on building tall and narrow landers.
A big success for Intuitive Machines. Everyone is saying how the moon lander is not upright. But just a month ago, Astrobotic Technology’s moon lander didn’t even leave earth orbit and completely failed in a similar mission lol. Being the first company (not a whole country), landing on the moon in the first try. What more do you guys expect.
For NASA, with only a budget of only hundreds of millions (dirt cheap compared to any Apollo mission). The six payloads at least is sent to the moon and functioning. I mean just think of it as a delivery service. At least your package is “landed sideways” in front of your door, not in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.
Seriously.. and he finishes this video still pretending like Starship is anything but a giant grift.
The number of Kerbal landings that tipped over is too damn high.
@@AndrewPasqWhy is Starship a giant grift?
Question for the question show:
What are the chances of the "Oort cloud and Planet 9" calculations turning out to be local dark matter?
Good question, but pretty much zilch. Think how much dark matter there is compared to regular matter. There's like five times as much or thereabouts. When it comes to matter distribution in the solar system, about 98% of the mass is in the Sun, 1% in Jupiter and 1% in the rest. Roughly. Sure, there can be dark matter in and around the solar system, but not enough to make a significant difference. Also when you picture the Oort cloud, forget any sci-fi movie scenes of asteroid belts filled to the brim with rocks... it's mostly just empty space. But it is that part of empty space where lone rocks like to hang out.
@@FrancisFjordCupolaYour response brings up many facts which have helped form the question I asked above. There is a lot of dark matter, magnitudes more than regular matter. Yet, our orbital calculations throughout the centuries never pointed to this phenomenon till we started investigating galaxies. With the recent "Halos" of dark matter seen around certain galaxies, it makes me wonder if there's some underlying mechanism we haven't discovered yet which causes it to "condense" in areas and be void in others. Whether it's something like solar winds pushing back the dark matter or some variation of a "positive/negative" system I'm hypothesizing I'm unsure of. I could be something as mundane as a form of Cosmic Brownian motion where the dark matter collects in areas of lower activity. I know there is debate about "planet 9" and yet orbital trajectories in the Oort cloud are being effected by something, just a cool thought experiment of what if dark matter had something to do with it.
I think the answer is almost definitely no but this question hits at so many interesting things like how dark matter works on scales smaller than a galaxy that I really want to hear someone more educated than me answer it.
Let there be light
Looking forward to this one! 😎 *Grabs breakfast popcorn*
Guess former NASA Mike Griffin's plan for a fast Moon return, starting to make more feasible sense. An updated version of the Lunar Lander, that would work with the SLS Block 2. The Lunar Starship as Blue Origin lander could drag the Artemis schedule, with added mission complexity.
Good update. Thank you
Thanks a lot!
Cool bite’s thanks for sharing love your work best in the business.
You mention the official science goals for JWST, what goals have we already accomplished / which are we still working on?
EXACTLY why Armstrong flew a couple miles down range from original landing spot. " Volkswagen sized boulders" I forgot who actually said that but great visual....
I love all news about Uranus. It makes me smile every time. :D
I see it every full moon.
Scientists want to change the name of Uranus, they are tired of all the jokes.
Their new name is Urectum!
I hope one day we will discover why Uranus is tilted on its side. Maybe a giant object fell into it?
@@jpaulc441I can tell you all about it. >:3
Do you think one day we will send a probe to Uranus?
I think there were a lot of different objectives for Odysseus, including the first single-stage from Lunar Transfer to landing with a methane-fueled spacecraft. All the other landers, as far as I know, had one part with a big rocket to do the Lunar Orbit Injection and then a smaller part that actually did the landing without carrying the fuel tanks. Odysseus carried the fuel tanks all the way to the surface. That is why it was so tall, large fuel tanks.
If I did the math right, one of those new moons of Uranus, if placed in orbit around the earth at the distance of our moon, would be about as bright as the star Sirius. Its shape would be visible in a good telescope.
The Odysseus mission is an example of commercial single point failure versus Nasa redundancy design. A Nasa design would have had a backup laser range finder or it would have been tested on the ground for function. Redundancy and extensive testing costs more but avoids single point failures like the two commercial companies have done on the recent lunar landing. Nasa should have done the design and assembly of the first system and the allowed its partner companies to take over and not let companies with no space experience ruin the whole mission.
Good job. High five!
The new docking system is hopefully going to become an industry standard, adopted by all space faring entities. It would be great if this is true, for cooperation missions, rescue missions, all sorts of reasons really.
The live stream coverage and the press release for the next day was pretty terrible. The stream went from "we have a weak signal" to "everything is fine, a complete success" then the stream abruptly cutting off. Then crickets for the next 20 hours.
Contrast that with the coverage of the Astrobotic's Peregrine Mission which was completely transparent from start to finish even when they were failing.
Intuitive is a publicly traded company from what I understand so maybe they were trying to avoid a stock panic.
Not only is Odysseus a success, based on the cost comparison and the fact that it (mostly) survived landing, despite not having all its systems functional, but also in the (near real-time) problem solving of the systems and flight crews. Despite what could have been a failure condition, they managed to jury rig other systems to get the lander to the surface with most of its tech intact and functional... those are skills that we need. That could have been the difference between life and death for a manned mission.
Now that the scariest part is over, if it can survive lunar night, then they can keep working on it, making fixes and improvements. I think you're exactly right.
"Reionized light is now~" Dude you just announced an epoch. You rock :D
Now imagine trying to land and balance a 50m tall Starship and you'll have some idea why our current plans for the moon are probably not going to happen anytime soon.
The astronauts can walk straight out on the moon, they do not need the elevator anymore
@@doncarlodivargas5497They still have to land and balance it, that hasn't changed. And they're trying to land a 50m tall rocket with 4 skinny legs on an unimproved surface with unknown composition. One slip and everyone involved dies and hundreds of millions of dollars worth of equipment is gone. It's not worth the risk for what is essentially a rushed PR stunt. There are zero benefits to placing humans ON the moon.
@@doncarlodivargas5497 They still have to land it upright on an unimproved surface with unknown composition. One slip and everyone involved is gone.
@@doncarlodivargas5497 They still have to land and balance it without it tipping over on an unimproved surface with unknown composition. Good luck.
@@doncarlodivargas5497 The Starship itself still needs to land upright.
Seems like the team prioritized an Art piece in the lander instead of a redundancy guidance landing system. But "successful" seems like a pr stunt, similar used by SpaceX with Starship.
Why aren't they planning for this kind of problems with the landers?
Some suggestions:
- There's plenty of spent reactor fuel to go around so make some small radioisotope decay heat based heaters to keep batteries sufficiently warm during lunar nights.
- Have the artificial satellites around the Moon act as signal relays so that landers don't need to rely only on high-gain antennas to communicate with mission control.
- Mount solar panels on moving arms that can adjust their orientation
- A robotic arm could potentially be used to recover if the lander tips over.
You can bet they do think about all those things. But getting launched into space, with all it's shaking and G forces, as it's own challenges too, including regulation designed to avoid a rocket blowing up spreading radioactive material all over the place.
Idiocracy is becoming true.
Thank you for the Odysseus update. Landing on the moon is such an overwhelmingly difficult endeavor, thank you for speaking to that. It is still so very exciting regardless.
Our final images of Ingenuity for now. Someday, we will collect our little buddy, take her home with us, and put her in a museum. I am hoping that the said museum will be on Mars, but a good second-place option would be Dayton, Ohio, U.S.A. - the birthplace (so to speak) of human aviation. This is a "see you later", not a "good-bye".
It's still kinda insane to think that we've flown a plane on another planet.
The epic story of the first epoch of the universe !
Action-Packed week this time, thanks for keeping us all in the loop Fraser!
Question: It seems like one learning from these couple landers should be that they should come with hardware that can help them reorient upright after landing. Is that viable?
No. Expensive and redundant.
I would rather construct something that is able to collect energy on all sides, but this would turn the probe into a cube or a ball. And cameras still have to peer through, so it is probably over-engineering, and causing too much weight.
I think the basic issue is that you're giving up surface area and payload capacity that could be used for scientific instruments or solar panels. And like you couldn't just have one arm do it you'd need something that sticks out from every surface. I think this would only make sense if you had to use the space anyways for say powerful RCS or a robotic sample collection arm. But also these two landers are in the minority, so it's really not a big issue it's just funny that it happened twice within a few weeks.
Obrigado
Great video as always, thanks! A small suggestion: consider changing the dominant color of your video thumbnail regularly. This way, viewers can quickly recognize if it's a new video. Currently, the overall look is very similar between consecutive video thumbnails.
Regards
Epoch? Hehe great content. Thnx
What’s so funny?
I wonder if these lunar landers could use some kind of mechanical battery to get them through the night. Like a clockwork that could store enough energy to warm just what needs warming and enough electrical energy to keep the circuits alive until the solar panels can kick in again.
A chemical battery using Luna regolith might be possible since it's high in aluminium which has a few simple to perform exothermic processes.
Surely the clear lesson for any future moon landers is to make them self-righting and able to spin their solar panels around to face the Sun even if they fall over. Generally speaking, they should be designed to deal with a wider range of problematic scenarios.
Odyessus was an epic failure. Sick of seeing them pat themselves on their own backs. No flight checklist? Maybe they should look at the 1966 surveyor mission for a working idea. Those were fully successful.
Hey Fraser, any news out there for adding to/expanding the Deep Space Communication Network? You would think having more than 3 worldwide sites would be better for bandwidth and redundancy.
I found another small channel (4k sub) that has some very good explanations on several astronomical subjects and also does general science communication
What's it called?
Fraser, I've read somewhere... I don't remember where, but either way, that the capacitors basically explode because of the low temperature. Their interior crystallize, grow and... Well, you know.
Either way, I imagine if the circuit of the Japanese probe was protected at all.
Anyway, thanks for the news!
Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊
That and batteries tend to be very temperature sensitive.
Hey Fraser, as I understand it we have yet to be able to map the opposite side of the Milky Way. Shouldn’t the JWST be able to peer through the galactic dust and gases to give us a better understanding of the other side of our galaxy? Would this be too ambitious due to the length of time it would take or is this out of the question due to the direction the telescope would have to face ? Thanks.
Q. Do you have any thoughts about these unexpected galaxies the JWST, keeps discovering.
Did Blackhole and galaxy formation take place faster, to account for this?
Hello ! You mentioned in one of your videos a youtube channel similar to kurzgesagt called something animations ?? Ive been trying to find where you mentioned it! Thank you
Rational Animations
@Fraser about ingenuity; is it known why the blade broke off, I mean it didn't crash or anything?
We don't know exactly, but I think it just hit the ground too hard and maybe caught a blade on the dune.
A handful of AGI rescue and repair moonbots would be nice to have waiting at a prospective landing site (while being driven by the Philosophy of Broader Survival, in order not only to prevent being foolish highjacked by clueless humans, but to give them the larger picture that applies to the continued survival of us and them)...
Following on from Zam's comment, how much 'astronomy' research is less about the actual physical process side, and how much is the statistical signal process, feature extraction and general software manipulation? I ask because a recent article in Ciel et Espace talked about the expected terabytes of data expected from Euclid and the techniques to be used to detect deformations of about 1-2%. Across related populations of galaxies. And that's before the info is passed onto the people who will then try to map the dark matter distributions.
Anyone studying any kind of experimental science will learn a ton of statisical methods for extracting data.
Indeed. But what then is the real 'day job'? The data handling or the data interpretation? I appreciate that there teams of bods working in everything, but we always hear about the results rather than the methods of getting them. It would be interesting if Frazer could do an interview with someone who has done some prep calibration work on, say, Euclid, to give some idea how the final results will be arrived at.
The other point is that although eg Webb looks at specified targets for the most part. there's so much info in the background that it'll provide work for decades. So what is the strategy in the sci community for trawling through this stuff?
The Varda video + audio is INTENSE!
Fraser, the recent moon landing attempts are ok but until they can stick right side up do you think a rescue orbital anti-lander with a hook and thrusters or electromagnet device could stand them upright?
Unexpected learning comes from unexpected mistakes! (SP 2024)😊
Hah, very true.
Hi. You said quasar and thought of the retro video game....so question...what is your favourite space video game?
Elite. There can be only one.
@@TheMcspreader never heard or played this. Watched a youtube clip about it now thx and appreciate you're feedback.
Could you imagine building like the most expensive, rare Rolls-Royce car and a couple months later it gets in a major accident and it's discovered that someone forgot to put the airbag fuse in the fuse box? The airbags didn't go off and the occupants were doomed. Seems like the most critical parts of a machine should be double and triple checked before it leaves the factory by different technicians. Whether it's an expensive car or a priceless Moon-bound satellite.
Over a million people die in auto related incidents worldwide every year. Great example.
The are triple checked. And thats why this "landing" is a complete failure.
@georgespalding7640 Not a true comparison... this was more akin to forgetting to fit the break line, but managing to bring the vehicle to an emergency stop from 70mph with only the loss of one suspension rig... people can walk away from that kind of failure.
@@brucehansensc we could really reduce the auto death incidents, we have the tech but it's all about money and feasibility... You know that racing cars, most have that cage that protect pilots from the most atrocious accidents. In theory, if we all had these in our regular cars, most of us will survive car crashes... But we don't, because it's expensive, heavy, and will be a pain in the ass to enter the car and many other reasons... Yet, it is a feasible solution if car manufacturer cared more about human life than cutting costs, especially if they team up with insurance companies...
Consider a lander that is a ball that can roll itself into the proper orientation and then sprout solar panels and whatever else. I do not see the point of having legs unless there is a rocket engine that will be launching it off from the moon later.
When nature are decided, human can still only observe.
Everyone would have to agree on what constitutes "success" before we can say Odysseus qualifies. As someone else commented recently, was the final Hindenburg flight a success because it made it to New Jersey?
if spaceX can call exploding rockets a success then Odysseus should get a gold star for success xd
I mean Odysseus landed, it just had a rough landing, I think if an experimental plane made a successful flight but then one of the landing gears broke on landing without significant damage to the plane itself then we would consider the tesr flight a success.
Why don't we make landers shorter and squater, lower center of gravity so they don't tip over? You know, like a saucer.
landers need to fit in the rocket fairing that launches them
That would make landing them more tricky, landing is a lot easier if all the mass is stacked straight on top of the rocket engine.
@@hedgehog3180 ah
@@bbbnuy3945 ah
If I go on a mission. Parachute from a plain. Break a leg on landing, leaving me unable to do what I went there to do...fail. Can't imagine them celebrating. Near hit, counts as a miss.
They were able to do most of the science they wanted to do. It was not a true success, but not a total failure either. It was in the middle.
On an academic scale, I'd give it a 'C.' Is that a success? Sure. You can move on towards graduating.
Is it great? Not really.
The goal of the mission was to land softly on the moon and have the instruments communicate back useful science data.
They got back a good amount of data, and from every NASA instrument too. The lander's design was proven to be good, and it successfully passed all critical points that couldn't be tested on the ground. Even the landing gear that snapped exceeded expectations, and it still managed to land the craft safely on the moon. And based on the data they have, they're confident their original landing system would have nailed the landing - so next time they don't overlook this minor issue and it'll land perfectly.
IM themselves have said they consider the mission an "unqualified success", and they already had ESA asking them to cooperate on a future mission at the time of the press conference a few days ago.
If you jumped from high up in the atmosphere off a balloon, landed on a 10' x 10' island, and broke your leg, that might be considered a success.
But you also have to admit that breaking a leg is a fairly mild failure considering all the possible outcomes.
You got to name the moon's corn and peanut you can say I got Uranus in my sights and I can ask you can you see corn and peanut❤
The Next lander could be like a roly-poly toy, and not have any legs !
Is one of those thumbnail Frasers from the Mirror Universe? Could the one on the left be made of antimatter?
How will the top-heavy starship land in the rocky terrain of the south pole, when so many much smaller landers keep falling over?
It was a failure. The laser range finder wasnt switched on properly. They didn't deploy the eagle cam that could have taken pictures of the landing, then it broke on landing.
Yeah, fail.
Come on, be charitable, apply the new "success shouldn't be expected but entertainment is guaranteed" way of doing things by a well known and revered Einstein-class genius billionaire... Or as someone put it in a delightful mental gymnastically way in the comments here : it is a "successful failure"!
@@classydave75 I mean if "hey we threw something at the moon and it got there" is the measuring stick, then yeah.
It's only a failure if they expected everything to work flawlessly, otherwise I'd call it some degree of success. For NASA, the primary goal of these shoestring missions is to develop commercial capability, to provide opportunity to learn how to pull it off, not really to do amazing science. Pretty sure they learned a lot.
yeah it was woeful, just failure after failure. They failed to make the closest landing to the south pole in history, failed to run world's first ever methalox space engine perfectly, failed to engineer it all in a few years on the cheap, failed to be first private lander on the moon, failed to transmit back 50(350?) megabytes of science data from moon, failed to improvise work arounds to save the mission from catastrophe, failed do do all this first time up with their first ever moon lander, first ever moon lander to use a reusable rocket which also failed to land back on earth etc
yeah it was woeful, just failure after failure. They failed to make the closest landing to the south pole in history, failed to run world's first ever methalox space engine perfectly, failed to engineer it all in a few years on the cheap, failed to be first private lander on the moon, failed to transmit back 50(350?) megabytes of science data from moon, failed to improvise work arounds to save the mission from catastrophe, failed do do all this first time up with their first ever moon lander, first ever moon lander to use a reusable rocket which also failed to land back on earth etc
30 degree tilt on a 12 degree slope: well, not bad. But I do think manned landers should be designed squat, not tall, and tippy with high center of gravity like Starship. Apollo LM design worked. Why do we reinvent the wheel or defy the wheel?
Are solid state batteries or ultra capacitors perhaps a route to reliably surviving the lunar night?
So, how was the extremely faint signal of the CMB teased iut if all if the noise if the universe?
I hope you understand that it is NOT POSSIBLE to separate a particular signal from a noisy "soup" of signals.
There are no instruments that can do it and there is no transform in signal processing software that can do it!
The astronomer behind the UA-cam-channel Cool Worlds has been granted time on the JWST (59 hours) for searching for exomoons around a Jupiter-like planet during its slow transition in front of its star. I'm sure he is a good candidate for an interview.
Here you go, about three weeks ago: ua-cam.com/video/umiMtQU3bMU/v-deo.html
Next lander should have 20 antennas... and 300 cameras... and solar panels covering ALL sides for safety.
It seems these are tiny things and there's no good excuse to not have them.
Is a gravitational lense event within a gravitational lense event possible? Technically this could see far beyond JWST capability.
Question: we do have a minimum size to qualify for a planet. Do you have similar for moon?
I guess it would be if the moon was so big it was a binary planet. Pluto and Charon almost qualify for that.
@@frasercain What about a lower bound? On planets with rings how large does the object have to be to no longer just be ring debris and be considered a fully fledged moon?
At which frequency was Odyssey transmitting back to Earth?
Do we have time-lapsed footage of a moon lander's camera pointed at earth over months?
"Dear lunar missions..."
- RTG manufacturer
Amazing. The damned thing went ahead with a VFR landing. 😎
(Just like Alan Shepard hinted he may have done if his landing radar hadn't come on.)
"Let there be light"
69% for Odysseus. Nice. 😂
My question is about the nova c . Couldn't we just let it die and restart it years later when we get back to the moon permanently and restand it back up for the solar panels to recharge the craft?
Excuse me Odysseus 😅
Question: could it be that inertia miscalculation caused both Japan’s SLIM and USA’s Odysseus missions to flip over? Weight is six times less, but inertia is the same
I'm sure they accounted for that in their calculations.
Offbeat Question here. Last night, about hour or two after sunset on the East coast of the USA. I seen a Satellite or something up there which was magnitudes brighter than anything I ever seen, including the Space station(many times the space station). Does anyone have any idea what it might have been? It flared up to an estimated 20x what Sirius looked like in the sky, lasted like that for about 20 seconds or so, went out then flared back up closer to the horizon for a couple seconds before vanishing. This suggest a slow rotation. I am sure it was a sat or at least it had that behavior but if this was reflected light this thing would have needed to be so insanely massive it feels unrealistic, and I was wondering if perhaps we had one explode last night or something. This dwarfed anything of this nature I have seen before. Even the star links are bright but this made them look dim as at first I thought it might have been a Helicopter spotlight.
There's a blog post titled Bright Tangent Arc After Sundown that might be describing what you saw. If so, that sounds really cool
Thanks, I checked it out but that aint it. Na, this was as you would see any other satellite, like a bright star of sorts moving across the sky in this case roughly NW( more north then west) from my location at the bottom of NJ. It was as any other satellite but it was insanely bright and large. It was rather close to Sirius when I first seen it and it dwarfed Sirius brightness by far. Good 10-20x brighter I would say. It then rapidly faded out like Sats tend to do but roughly a minute later it flared back up for another brief instance. I been watching Sats in the sky since I was a young child so 30+ years or so and it almost surely was one but the brightness of this one was unreal. It would have needed to be super reflective and EXTREMELY large. I have seen bright ones before with them becoming more common by the day it seems but nothing has come close to this one. Not by a mile.@@hive_indicator318
Starlink satelite perhaps? They are known to flare up extremely brightly when they reflect sunlight and easily outshine anything else in the night sky. If you saw it to the west then it would fit since they are usually seen flaring a couple of hours after sunset. If there were some less bright dot in front of it and trailing it then it was almost certainly a Starlink satellite. I've seen this happen once myself and they outshine basically anything other than the moon for between ca. 30-60 seconds. They often get mistaken for UFOs so you can find some good info among UFO debunkers.
1 single failure which will be easily fixed by the next mission.
That is impressive.
The next landing now comes with such a good guarantees, customers will be lining up to send payloads.
Did you watch a different press conference than I did? They detailed quite a bit of problems that required urgent solutions - such as the star trackers not working initially, and an elliptical moon orbit insertion that required a correction burn. Also using the NASA instrument as a backup rangefinder didn’t actually work as intended due to a missing “data valid” flag.
But next time I believe they won’t run into the same issues
best to just tell us why we dont know so much anymore, but why this is a good thing, if we dont know we are chasing a dream, we keep chasing the dream, isn't that so?
I'm 62 years old, i remember watching the moon landing through a neighbours window, prob a day or 2 l8r than the actual landing, a bbc repeat no dought, hahaha, but even then, i was about 8 or 9, i knew we were never going to live there, i mean kids schools etc, a base? maybe, but humans are not going to live there, i knew that at age 8, i'm 62, we are not going to live on mars, we just are not, we have one world in this solar system, we need to start thinking about that, it is going to take us .........several, great handsome generations, handsome like me, reddy to sacrifice everything for the people, owW, my bone spurs, uhHhh mama toooOO tuff, strange stuff going on, a long time to even understand what we need to know before we go anywhere, but we only have so much time.
A lander that looks like a refrigerator with legs is on its side on the moon. The new human lander has a ratio of height to base width that looks to be much much worse than that. Do we think that center of gravity doesn't matter because Rocket Jesus can stammer through a presentation and have his hype squad do Beatles mania? Are we really going to learn what the moon can teach us with new human flights or is this just another Hyper Loop?
The Odysseus Lander could be called a Fucess
Succailure
👍👍👍
Is that celcius or fahrenheit Mr. Cain please?
For SLIM? Celsius.
@@frasercain
Thank you, yes I meant for SLIM, I wasn't sure if Canada had adopted celcius, unlike US.
Why can't they fire the thrusters to upright it?
Be like water moving around the rock obstacle.
I think JAX was able to do that.
Can the odysseus lander and SLIM teams Salvage science out of a failed landing ?
👍🏾👍🏾👍🏾👍🏾👍🏾
yep, when i seen that chewed tip, i wondered if there was even half left on the other side, i flew some drones too, its a normal malfunction when you get tunnel vision flying a drone, hahahah.
what we need to know is ? how did this happen, did the drone tip over, get too close to a rock?
it cost millions to put it up there, we would like more from it, well the next one, if there is one.
One thing I've heard was it was trying to land on very featureless sand, and maybe its optical navigation just couldn't figure out where the ground was with no distinct features.
Absolutely!
Design the landed that way it does not matter on which side it lands.
Am i certified for a job now NASA ?
9:43 Shouldn't we consider any orbiting object around a planet or dwarf planet (which definition isn't that good either) not massive enough to be spherical (within maybe 5 to 10% of size/shape variation) as dwarf moons? Because then, in the case of Saturn for example, what's stopping us from considering the smallest rings particles as moons as well? Some of those Saturn moons already are as small as a football field I think, pushing the count to almost a hundred...
Ridiculous honestly, especially since a "planet definition" was issued to avoid considering the probable dozens of _dwarf_ planets in the Kuiper belt, as full blown planets, just to avoid an inflated amount of those... Yet, astronomers are fine with Saturn and Jupiter having a hundred "moons". Then I suppose you should also define a lower arbitrary limit to the size of those dwarf moons... That's all a bit messy, imho.
it landed a mile off target right? just lucky it came down on an even slightly appropriate landing surface at all. clearly not enough redundancy/system-hardening.
Helium 3 being mined on the moon, from secret base on dark side