Odysseus Moon Lander 'Tipped Over On Touchdown' - Slashdot

Odysseus Moon Lander 'Tipped Over On Touchdown' - Slashdot
Close
binspam
dupe
notthebest
offtopic
slownewsday
stale
stupid
fresh
funny
insightful
interesting
maybe
offtopic
flamebait
troll
redundant
overrated
insightful
interesting
informative
funny
underrated
descriptive
typo
dupe
error
173140670
story
On Thursday, the Odysseus Moon lander
made history
by becoming the first ever privately built and operated robot to complete a soft lunar touchdown. While the lander is "alive and well," the CEO of Houston-based Intuitive Machines, which built and flew the lander, said it
tipped over during its final descent
, coming up to rest propped up sideways on a rock. The BBC reports:
Its owner, Texan firm Intuitive Machines, says Odysseus has plenty of power and is communicating with Earth. Controllers are trying to retrieve pictures from the robot. Steve Altemus, the CEO and co-founder of IM, said it wasn't totally clear what happened but the data suggested the robot caught a foot on the surface and then fell because it still had some lateral motion at the moment of landing. All the scientific instruments that planned to take observations on the Moon are on the side of Odysseus that should still allow them to do some work. The only payload likely on the "wrong side" of the lander, pointing down at the lunar surface, is an art project.
"We're hopeful to get pictures and really do an assessment of the structure and assessment of all the external equipment," Mr Altemus told reporters.
"So far, we have quite a bit of operational capability even though we're tipped over. And so that's really exciting for us, and we are continuing the surface operations mission as a result of it." The robot had been directed to a cratered terrain near the Moon's south pole, and the IM team believes it got very close to the targeted site - perhaps within a couple of kilometers. A US space agency satellite called the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter will search for Odysseus in the coming days.
Related Links
Air Pollution Could Be Significant Cause of Dementia
US Lands Unmanned 'Odysseus' Spacecraft On Moon
Dead Athena Moon Lander Seen Inside Its Crater Grave From Lunar Orbit
Vending Machine Error Reveals Secret Face Image Database of College Students
This discussion has been archived.

No new comments can be posted.
Odysseus Moon Lander 'Tipped Over On Touchdown'
More
Odysseus Moon Lander 'Tipped Over On Touchdown'
Comments Filter:
All
Insightful
Informative
Interesting
Funny
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Solution
Score:
, Funny)
by
backslashdot
( 95548 )
writes:
on Saturday February 24, 2024 @03:06AM (
#64264856
Maybe they should land on the moon's North Pole instead of south of it.
Share
Re:
Score:
by
blue trane
( 110704 )
writes:
Did you know that geologists proved the Aleutian Islands once stood straight up, then tipped over, because of heavy dinosaurs?
Re:
Score:
by
backslashdot
( 95548 )
writes:
Well given all the advances in technology up to today, a moon landing will be a lot easier. I mean, have you seen the real-time raytracing capabilities in NVIDIA graphics cards and the Unity game engine?
Ugh, I hate that I can't even joke about moon landings being faked because there are so many morons who actual believe it was fake.
Re:
Score:
by
Brett Buck
( 811747 )
writes:
Of all the major conspiracy theories, "fake moon landing" is the dumbest, and requires the most absurd logical twists. If it were true, about half the planet would have to be in on it.
Re:
Score:
by
backslashdot
( 95548 )
writes:
I agree, but will have to award a joint first prize to flat Earth too, and maybe the "nuclear weapons don't exist" crowd.
Re:
Score:
by
war4peace
( 1628283 )
writes:
You forgot "birds being robots" or something.
Re: Solution
Score:
by
pezpunk
( 205653 )
writes:
âoeBirds arenâ(TM)t realâ was always intended to be a joke.
Re:
Score:
by
Brett Buck
( 811747 )
writes:
Didn't you have your briefing? We aren't supposed to talk about that with the normals.
Re: Solution
Score:
by
beelsebob
( 529313 )
writes:
Flat Mars was the absolute best Iâ(TM)d seen.
Re:
Score:
by
Calydor
( 739835 )
writes:
And not just half the planet - the MAIN COMPETITION in getting there first would have to be convinced beyond any doubt that they'd lost the race.
Re: Solution
Score:
by
beelsebob
( 529313 )
writes:
And simultaneously be in on it.
Re:
Score:
by
blue trane
( 110704 )
writes:
Wouldn't faking the landing have been a lot cheaper and thus more capital-efficient, so you have the full force of capitalism behind the mass hallucination, my highly-intelligent, long-lived friend?
Re:
Score:
by
Brett Buck
( 811747 )
writes:
It would have been far cheaper to actually do the mission than try to bribe 1.5 billion people into going along with it,
Re:
Score:
by
blue trane
( 110704 )
writes:
So you're trying to blackmail them now?
Re:
Score:
by
sconeu
( 64226 )
writes:
You believe in the MOON? Hah! Everyone knows the Moon doesn't exist, it's just an illusion!
Re:
Score:
by
blue trane
( 110704 )
writes:
Did you just troll yourself? Should you have a nice day?
Re:
Score:
by
Dusanyu
( 675778 )
writes:
If it was faked how is there landing sites that are viewable with a powerful telescope?
[space.com] use your head for more than to keep your hat off of your shoulders.
Re: Solution
Score:
by
fullgandoo
( 1188759 )
writes:
That was taken by a lunar orbiter. There's no telescope on earth powerful enough to take a photo of the flag planted on the moon, let alone footprints.
We remain unconvinced ðY
Re:Solution
Score:
, Interesting)
by
Torodung
( 31985 )
writes:
on Saturday February 24, 2024 @10:42AM (
#64265328
Journal
I watched a Mythbusters episode on the moon landing with my 10 yo daughter where they broke a bunch of the conspiracy theories.
I calmly explained to my daughter, so she would understand what was going on, that the answer or "bust" to every myth would be, "Because they're on the fucking moon." It cut through a lot of the advanced science, and helped her to understand that the moon has different physical properties than earth.
So a 10 yo can understand it if you break it down into simple enough terms.
Parent
Share
Re: Solution
Score:
by
OrangeTide
( 124937 )
writes:
Maybe the 10 year old was indoctrinated in liberal public school to be party of the cover up. Same people trying to cover up the flat Earth. Or climate change. Or viruses. And remember birds aren't real. That's how deep this world wide cover up goes.
Re:
Score:
by
blue trane
( 110704 )
writes:
How come the actual geological data from the moon doesn't fit with any model of its formation? Why is the moon's surface retro-reflective? Why does the moon over water shine a path of light directly to me, and to you even if you are standing a mile away from me? Why are you teaching your offspring to be as gullible as yourself, is it just because of money and would a Strong Basic Income (SBI) fix that?
Re:
Score:
by
nasch
( 598556 )
writes:
How come the actual geological data from the moon doesn't fit with any model of its formation?
It does.
[nasa.gov]
Why is the moon's surface retro-reflective?
It isn't, except where astronauts installed a retro-reflector.
Why does the moon over water shine a path of light directly to me, and to you even if you are standing a mile away from me?
Because that's how light works. It's the same reason two people can see themselves in the same mirror at the same time.
Re:
Score:
by
blue trane
( 110704 )
writes:
Is it surprising that this post is replete with misinformation?
For example, if you do a simple internet search will you come upon the following abstract that starts out "Isotopic measurements of lunar and terrestrial rocks have revealed that, unlike any other body in the solar system, the Moon is indistinguishable from the Earth for nearly every isotopic system. This observation, however, contradicts predictions by the standard model for the origin of the Moon, the canonical giant impact."?
So was I right th
Re:
Score:
by
nasch
( 598556 )
writes:
Interesting, got some links?
Re:
Score:
by
ShanghaiBill
( 739463 )
writes:
They should've learned from the Martian lander.
It was a tetrahedron, so there was no "wrong" side.
Martian Lander - Structure
[nasa.gov]
Re:
Score:
by
quonset
( 4839537 )
writes:
They should've learned from the Martian lander.
It was a tetrahedron, so there was no "wrong" side.
Martian Lander - Structure
[nasa.gov]
Before I make a snarky remark as to why they didn't do that, I am presuming the reason is the Martian Lander had the benefit of parachutes and giant retrorockets to slow it down enough that it didn't plow into the martian surface.
Whereas, in the current case, there is no atmosphere to deploy parachutes into so they only had rockets to slow the descent and it was easier to make a craft taller rather than wider. The complete opposite
of a good burger
[memedroid.com].
Re:
Score:
by
blue trane
( 110704 )
writes:
As a neoliberal scientist, why have you left out the crucial cost-benefit analysis, gentle sir? What if it's just cheaper to buy tip-over insurance than actually not make it tip over?
Re: Solution
Score:
by
OrangeTide
( 124937 )
writes:
As long as the employees had the flexibility to work from home we can still consider this a major accomplishment.
Re:
Score:
by
bb_matt
( 5705262 )
writes:
Maybe they should land on the moon's North Pole instead of south of it.
Maybe you should do a little more research.
Something something
... water
... something.
Landing pads
Score:
by
Traf-O-Data-Hater
( 858971 )
writes:
Looking at a photos of the IM-1 inside the fairing it seems the pads were quite small, and sharp edged. Perhaps the notion of having 6 legs led to a false sense of security in tipping, but if the pad's small has little of a raised edge it could well dig in with a bit of horizontal drift.
But of course it's so easy to argue about this now. They did very very well and I would not be surprised if their next one in a few months had redesigned pads.
Re:Landing pads
Score:
, Interesting)
by
Brett Buck
( 811747 )
writes:
on Saturday February 24, 2024 @03:45AM (
#64264894
It's also very "tippy", and very prone to lateral movement. Compare it to Surveyor, the pads on Surveyor were essentially cylindrical, but the CG was about a foot and a half and it had a very broad landing gear span. Same with the Japanese lander that also tipped over.
Parent
Share
Re:
Score:
by
burtosis
( 1124179 )
writes:
Don’t forget 1/6th earths gravity. It makes tipping over much easier for the same speeds.
Re:
Score:
by
blue trane
( 110704 )
writes:
So much for market innovation, eh?
Re:
Score:
by
Brett Buck
( 811747 )
writes:
I have no inside information about IM, but NASA/Hughes (the contractor for Surveyor) were definitely hedging their bets and giving themselves all the margin they could to maximize the chances of success. The Soviets (Luna) too the added step of having an uprighting mechanism of sorts.
BTW, without any specific details here, when you didnt have a lot of computer capability, you were inclined to give lots of margin. Now, the tendency is to try to solve problems with massivel
Re:
Score:
by
blue trane
( 110704 )
writes:
Why am I reminded of the toothpaste dispenser assembly line that would randomly produce empty boxes, so the engineers designed a complex weighing apparatus, whiie the workers just put a fan to blow the empty boxes off the line?
Re:
Score:
by
Brett Buck
( 811747 )
writes:
Exactly.
That's two in a row?
Score:
by
93 Escort Wagon
( 326346 )
writes:
on Saturday February 24, 2024 @03:53AM (
#64264914
Are we sure there aren't some little green men running around up there, engaging in that well-known lunar prank of "satellite tipping"?
Share
Re:
Score:
by
backslashdot
( 95548 )
writes:
No. We're not sure if they are green.
Re:
Score:
by
account_deleted
( 4530225 )
writes:
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Re: That's two in a row?
Score:
by
RightwingNutjob
( 1302813 )
writes:
Typical racist AI: "a black guy did it!"
Re:
Score:
by
NoWayNoShapeNoForm
( 7060585 )
writes:
Are we sure there aren't some little green men running around up there, engaging in that well-known lunar prank of "satellite tipping"?
Green men on Mars. This is The Moon, so Little Gray Men.
You know the type
... the ones with the funny-fitting high-waisted pants that hang out by the craters whining about all the space junk that strikes the place at all hours.
/sarcasm ?
Re:
Score:
by
hawk
( 1151 )
writes:
I thought *everyone* knew that the martians put a monitoring outpost the moon to keep an eye on us in the aftermath of our unprovoked 1999 attack . . .
Re: That's two in a row?
Score:
by
beelsebob
( 529313 )
writes:
Itâ(TM)s just that the lunar South Pole is rugged as hell compared to other places weâ(TM)ve landed in the past.
RIP
Score:
by
SeaFox
( 739806 )
writes:
Imagine being that artist... "Yeah, my work is up there on the moon, but no one will ever see it since it's under the lander."
Re:
Score:
by
backslashdot
( 95548 )
writes:
Never say never. If lunar tourism becomes a thing someone may be able to go over there and un-tip it.
Re:
Score:
by
account_deleted
( 4530225 )
writes:
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Re:
Score:
by
thomst
( 1640045 )
writes:
guruevi blathered:
Right after the "we are sailors to the moon" exhibition.
It's "whalers," idiot. Not "sailors." "Whalers."
The tip-off is the next line: "We carry a harpoon."
Y'know, if you lift your arms just the
tiniest
bit, your knuckles won't get all red and swollen like that
...
Someone hates art
Score:
by
Bruce66423
( 1678196 )
writes:
After years of totally uninspiring art lessons, someone has got their revenge...
;)
Re:
Score:
by
SonicSpike
( 242293 )
writes:
Does this mean Poland is about to be invaded?
Why no images?
Score:
by
greytree
( 7124971 )
writes:
Still no images, and I wonder why that is when it appears the lander is communicating?
Very low bandwidth due to the tipping, possibly?
Or camera facing straight up now?
Re: Why no images?
Score:
, Informative)
by
rfunches
( 800928 )
writes:
on Saturday February 24, 2024 @07:37AM (
#64265092
Homepage
The CTO said in the press conference that the lander's comms system post-landing is designed to look for a good lock with Earth, and if not, switch arrays. I think he said the window is 15 minutes to establish and verify a full carrier lock. Because of the limits of the ground stations and their procedures to instruct the lander to move past that sequence, they weren't able to get it all completed in 15 minutes, so the lander would switch arrays (there are two with two antennas each) and the whole process restarts. He did say in the presser that the team expected it to be solved soon and get the lander out of its comms loop. But that suggests they're currently getting less than 15 minutes of data at a time, and the time to recycle means they're probably not getting a full four windows per hour. He also said they use data error detection/correction on the transmits so while they expect to get all of the data, there's clearly overhead for integrity that eats into the max data payload.
Parent
Share
Re:
Score:
by
greytree
( 7124971 )
writes:
Thank you for that.
The use Windows?
Score:
by
Latent Heat
( 558884 )
writes:
That's the problem, right there!
typical merkins
Score:
by
Growlley
( 6732614 )
writes:
on Saturday February 24, 2024 @08:50AM (
#64265190
can't park by stick.
Share
Battlebots
Score:
by
burtosis
( 1124179 )
writes:
Let’s see now, that’s Odysseus or IM (from tfa) and SLIM both losing functions from being tipped over. Seems like instead of betting everything will go off flawlessly they could use a self righting feature to ensure operation instead. A simple arm could self right in the low gravity but also run experiments for example. Even with a low center of gravity and some give on the passive landing gear it’s not so simple in 1/6th gravity because it’s so easy to bounce and the surface is f
Re:
Score:
by
blue trane
( 110704 )
writes:
Aren't the scientists literally supposed to be thinking about next quarter's shareholder report at all times? Would Uncle Miltie have it any other way, my highly-esteemed capitalist shill friends?
Weebles wobble, but they don't fall down
Score:
by
tepples
( 727027 )
writes:
Seems like instead of betting everything will go off flawlessly they could use a self righting feature to ensure operation instead.
For example, they could make the bottom of the instrument a weighted hemisphere, so that if it lands on its side, gravity will pull it back up until it wobbles into place. If you or your children have ever played with
Weebles toys
[fandom.com], you might understand how this works.
Re:
Score:
by
burtosis
( 1124179 )
writes:
That’s a strategy, but it only works on flat surfaces. If it was stuck in powdery moon dust with rocks it likely won’t hurt but may not right. I believe any competent engineer would already have a low center of gravity in the upright position as mentioned, for the same stability reason.
Re:
Score:
by
hawk
( 1151 )
writes:
but that could take more mass--unless you find a way to put mass that already needs to make it to landing down there. Batteries?
Re:
Score:
by
wooferhound
( 546132 )
writes:
Should be designed to land on it's side and then self right itself
Re: Why is this still so hard? I have 6 questions
Score:
by
pezpunk
( 205653 )
writes:
Youâ(TM)re an absolute worthless moron.
Re:Why is this still so hard? I have 6 questions
Score:
, Interesting)
by
supremebob
( 574732 )
writes:
themejunky&geocities,com
on Saturday February 24, 2024 @10:55AM (
#64265350
Journal
I think that the problem is that we don't have a badass astronaut like Neil Armstrong at the controls making last minute course corrections. If they tried to do this remotely back in the 1960's, they probably would have had equally terrible results.
I guess that they're going to have to go the Battlebots route and add a self-righting mechanism for the time being. That is, until they develop AI smart enough to land the damn thing consistently.
Parent
Share
Re:Why is this still so hard? I have 6 questions
Score:
, Insightful)
by
Firethorn
( 177587 )
writes:
on Saturday February 24, 2024 @11:18AM (
#64265380
Homepage
Journal
No lessons learned: There certainly were. However, everybody involved in those are either dead or retired, and it's hard to keep those lessons learned active in such a case.
Tall vs short: Can't really say, other than maybe "easier to fit on the rocket"? Also, taller would be better for radio antenna.
skids vs legs: Weight.
Designs assume perfect operation: Because it's cheaper than building redundancies.
Sep. camera pod: Cost and weight.
Irrefutable: We've already done it, with mirrors placed on the moon that you can detect from earth. Those who attempt to refute are not doing so in good faith though, so they just make up an excuse to not even attempt it.
Frankly, I believed in the initial moon landings but now increasingly have my doubts. SpaceX is precisely landing rocket boosters vertically on ocean platforms but no one can land a small lander on the moon without something going wrong and/or providing the flimsiest evidence of success?
They are succeeding, they just aren't succeeding 100%. Think of how many rockets SpaceX blew up before they had a successful landing.
We're talking about landings by companies that aren't SpaceX, Odysseus was "Intuitive Machines". The one that landed upside down was Japanese, their first. Again, mostly operational even with that problem. Both were developed more or less at the same time, I'd argue.
Any others with landers in development are probably slamming the "HOW DO WE MAKE SURE IT DOESN'T TIP OVER" buttons right now.
As for "providing the flimsiest evidence of success", they have PLENTY of evidence. Problem being that the doubters wouldn't believe anything short of being given a spaceflight to the moon so they could see the lander "with their own eyes", and even then they might try to take their helmet off to prove that they're not actually on the moon.
Reading more articles, it seems that a safety switch wasn't thrown, which meant that important landing sensors (laser range finders) weren't operational, which limited accuracy on landing.
They're shaking the dust off their experiences, and have entirely new crews. But we don't have the people used to following checklists obsessively like we had historically, I think.
Parent
Share
Re:
Score:
by
DWish
( 10502508 )
writes:
SmarterEveryDay
The presentation to NASA underlined the culture change away from 6 redundancy deep planning.
[youtu.be]
Re:
Score:
by
Striek
( 1811980 )
writes:
Frankly, I believed in the initial moon landings but now increasingly have my doubts.
That's because you're an idiot.
Re:
Score:
by
wooferhound
( 546132 )
writes:
This lander jettisoned a camera before landing that was supposed to record video of the landing.
My guess is that the data rate is too slow to have transmitted the video by now.
Mars lander development
Score:
by
doug141
( 863552 )
writes:
I remember reading about development of one of the mars landers, and out at the design test site they had one individual who would put rocks in the worst possible test locations. It started arguments and made craft designers mad. In the end they had a more robust design because of it.
Re:
Score:
by
Tony Isaac
( 1301187 )
writes:
Mars provides one important advantage to rockets, compared to the moon. It has an atmosphere, which enables rockets to land using parachutes. These do provide a significant advantage.
Links?
Score:
by
Khyber
( 864651 )
writes:
Why are the links in TFS just re-linking back to Slashdot instead of, y'know, actual articles?
Re:
Score:
by
Ksevio
( 865461 )
writes:
Looks like the "editors" just used the same link to the old story twice instead of to the BBC article.
Noobs
Score:
by
skogs
( 628589 )
writes:
Can we please give some of these engineers a copy of KSP? Honestly this IS NOT rocket science. Apollo lander had a pretty goddamn wide base. The Japanese lander a couple weeks ago and now this lander - both very narrow bases. FFS....pretend the ground is not concrete and that you are not perfectly accurate horizontally. Go outside and throw a cardboard box and see if it lands upright on the smallest surface it has.
Literally every bastard that plays KSP learns this the first time they land.
These guys ha
Re:
Score:
by
blue trane
( 110704 )
writes:
Wait a minute
... isn't this actually literal rocket science?!?
Re:
Score:
by
skogs
( 628589 )
writes:
No it is not you twat.
Materials science, navigation, thruster control, electronics, expansion, fuel conditioning, thermals, etc....that is all included in rocket science.
These guys are fucking up the equivilent of a knocking over a tall glass. Balance is conquered by 18 month old babies - and one doesn't start out walking like their a gymnast on a tightrope
... they start with their feet a little further apart.
Re:
Score:
by
Lije Baley
( 88936 )
writes:
MOD UP. If you think it's a troll, you're part of the problem.
Re:
Score:
by
sysrammer
( 446839 )
writes:
Both the Japanese and this lander were upright and top-heavy. I speculate that one of the reasons for this form factor is an attempt to fit within the fairings of cheaper, smaller launchers. Although it seems that they could have designed for the same form factor designed to land horizontally with wide-splayed legs.
I also note that these guys were happy getting within a kilometer of its target. The Japanese one got it within a hundred meters.
great achievement
Score:
by
bugs2squash
( 1132591 )
writes:
This is a momentous achievement and the IM team should be justifiably proud, I suspect the sensor failures may have played a role in them not sticking the landing.
But having said all of that - I suspect they would have valued getting the landing perfect over any of the onboard scientific instruments collecting data about water on the moon (even though that may be of most value to the ongoing program) , because the landing was most of what the AI was intended to accomplish I believe.
oh, cmmon
Score:
by
Growlley
( 6732614 )
writes:
it's not like it's rocket science,
Related Links
Top of the:
day
week
month
317
comments
CDC Changes Webpage To Say Vaccines May Cause Autism, Revising Prior Language
307
comments
US Formally Withdraws From WHO
299
comments
Ultra-Processed Foods Should Be Treated More Like Cigarettes Than Food, Study Says
297
comments
CDC Data Confirms US is 2 Months Away From Losing Measles Elimination Status
273
comments
Scientists Warn US Will Lose a Generation of Talent
next
Vending Machine Error Reveals Secret Face Image Database of College Students
100
comments
previous
Air Pollution Could Be Significant Cause of Dementia
64
comments
Slashdot Top Deals
The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent.
-- Sagan
Close
Working...