New Images of Odysseus On The Moon Have Been Released!

After around 4 days since the Odysseus lander made contact with the Moon, we have finally received some actual images of the lander on the surface. This includes distant images from NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter along with some onboard cameras. Unfortunately, the quality is still far from ideal.
That being said, it gives us more insight into the current state of the lander along with what to expect in its final days. Here I will go more in-depth into the new images, what they tell us, the upcoming lunar night, and more.
Full article here - thespacebucket.com/new-images...
For more space-related content check out - thespacebucket.com/
Credit:
NASA - / @nasa
Intutitive Machines - / @intuitivemachines
Chapters:
0:00 - Intro
0:31 - New Lander Images
3:31 - Running Out of Sun

[@Hedgehobbit]

They stuck "art installations" on this thing but didn't have a backup antenna. That's a major failure of mission priorities.

[@classydave75]

I know it's a bit dismissive but I can't help but think about what the conversion could have been during the conception phase: - Manager guy: Hey guys, so, that big shareholder at the board wants a slot on the lander for several art pieces, Idk, for company hype and stock pump... And NFT sh*t or something... - Engineer guy: Shouldn't we use that slot for backup nav, like a multi-beam ground radar and an additional LIDAR. You know, for redundancy? - Manager guy: That wasn't a question. Also, your job is a slot too... - Engineer guy: Art sh*t is great!

[@Andrew-13579]

@@classydave75 One guy on the team: “If we put a billboard on the Moon aboard a solo spacecraft for millions of dollars, who’s going to see it? Sounds like a poor marketing idea.” Manager guy: “You’re fired! Get out!” Another guy: “Why don’t we land two spacecraft within close sight of each other so they can take pictures of each other’s advertising billboards amidst the lunar landscape, maybe even with Earth in the background?” …[crickets]… Manager guy: “Okay, moving along…”

[@flybywire5866]

The lander has multiple antennas. But it wasnt expected for the lander to be lying on its side. A high gain antenna needs a precise orientation. This mission cost about 0.1% of a Apollo lunar landing. If a Apollo lunar lander would have tipped over, that would have been it, too.

[@Zadster]

@jacobclement8150It is pretty trivial to have a single antenna cover more than a hemisphere, 2 small antennas would cover almost the entire omnidirectional sphere. Of course none of this helps if you landed in a crater or behind a big boulder. Various Mars rovers have omnidirectional antennae, which can communicate directly with earth stations.

[@dayegilharno4988]

@@flybywire5866 The Apollo mission didn't tip over because it was landed manually, and it was landed manually because NASA had the funding to put boots on the ground... Y'know, that funding that was later converted into massive subsidies for private entities, so they can reap the benefits without any return for YOU, the taxpayer, that is still paying the same money for space exploration as before, just under a different label! "Luckily" they defunded education, too, so you wouldn't notice that sleight of hands...

[@darryllandry9904]

May sound frivolous, however I would suggest these people study some episodes of Battlebots. A self righting mechanism is pretty important.

[@michaeldeierhoi4096]

That would definitely add to the budget and weight of the vehicle. There is always a process what to keep and what to leave out based on budget and other factors.

[@nuance9000]

No. They should have double checked their checklist

[@corwin.macleod]

​@@michaeldeierhoi4096 Yeah, so a device that can save your whole payload and mission in case anything goes slightly wrong is not a top priority in that list. Over 9000 IQ engineering.

[@SoundsLegit71]

We ain't seen nothing yet wait until Elon tries to send people to Mars.😂

[@tanagra2]

Not frivolous at all it’s a great point. But they may start with building something that is squat with better legs, I can’t get over what a poor design it is, surely someone noticed it was bound to tip over. The people who talk about weight, well at least it would achieve something instead of chewing the dirt.

[@alkimball8920]

Next mission, they will be sending a moon crane.

[@luddity]

But when will there be another manned mission? With astronauts walking around on the surface and all?

[@hiachengteck8366]

What happens if the moon crane landed upside down?

[@russa6010]

🤣🤣🤣

[@neilpickford8841]

@@hiachengteck8366Good point, Cranes regularly fall over on earth when not absolutely stabilised.

[@gcburns4]

Sounds like a Boeing idea, pre planned.

[@twotone3471]

I do wonder, did anyone read the Odyssey? Like the Greek book describing Odysseus's journey? The poor guy didn't exactly have a pleasure cruise. Add to it, the name was also taken by the Command Module of Apollo 13....yeah THAT Apollo 13. Stunning lack of historical knowledge, perhaps name the next one "Titanic" while you are at it?

[@Dooguk]

Are you suggesting names are unlucky?

[@twotone3471]

@@Dooguk A total lack of awareness of history is rather unlucky, I'd think.

[@Dooguk]

@@twotone3471 You are inferring that the word odyssey or the name Odyssey/Odysseus is somehow cursed, are you not? Any other names or words we should stay away from, how about numbers or dates?

[@delphicdescant]

@@Dooguk Bro don't be such a stick in the mud. Naming things is important to humans, and it's a funny coincidence that they named it something "ill-fated." Does the fact that I called it "ill-fated" mean I actually take the idea of "fate" completely seriously? Of course not. But I'm not going to sit around shaming people for caring about names. Names have power, even if that power only holds influence in our minds.

[@Dooguk]

@@delphicdescant So it's all bollocks like I said. Glad you agree.

[@stanlynch5642]

Maybe if they would’ve spent as much time and money as they did on the computer generated images of what the lander was supposed to do, and put that into the actual machine itself maybe it would’ve been a success

[@JohnLRice]

Like another day to complete the pre-launch check list reviewed by every group involved and then checked off by each group before launch? "Item #632: remove protective lens cap from landing navigation" 🤦‍♂

[@aungaisum8654]

😅😅😅

[@plainText384]

I can guarantee that the budget for animation/ advertising was an insignificant fraction next to the RnD spent on this lander. It would have changed nothing.

[@jamesfehr2071]

​@@plainText384 You can't "guarantee" anything, stop lying.

[@plainText384]

@@jamesfehr2071 NASA paid ~$100M for the lander (pretty cheap for a moon lander), I GUARANTEE the cost of the animation was an insignificant fraction of that. Their visuals weren't even that good.

[@PrimeRibb69]

2 images. You guys are killing it.

[@orthicon9]

And only one was from the lander itself. 🙄

[@ddouglas3687]

Where's your lander? 😂

[@MrGlenspace]

Even SpaceiL from Israel with a shoestring budget had better results and multiple pictures from orbit and a few before it crashed.

[@hunnyjar8937]

At least it's more than zero. Iirc the lander isn't communicating with it's main antenna, it's using a backup, which broadcasts a signal in all directions instead of a focused beam. This takes more energy to send less information, since you're shouting in all directions yet only one direction is where the receiver is.

[@cheese-qw9vd]

THANK YOU, in 1969, NASA provided more pictures and video. Fast forward 50 years and the lander tips over. Great work team 🤷‍♂️

[@ronaldlebeck9577]

It seems the current trend is to make landing craft tall and narrow. Maybe they ought to go back to the early soft lunar landers that were short and squat. Just a thought. 🤔

[@JohnLRice]

Agreed! This is 50% joke and 50% serious: maybe so many aliens build saucer shaped space craft is because landing tall skinny ships in unknown environments is too difficult and unwise? 😅👽👍

[@mathewferstl7042]

it's tall because it uses a fairly light weight fuel, methalox. Because of that, it needs more volume for fuel storage

[@mariadelia7945]

Eh, hogwash. It's just Stupid.@@mathewferstl7042

[@manifold1476]

You mean the ones with a pilot on board who had a window to look out of and a joystick to steer with?

[@WilliamPollard]

Agree. Center of gravity. The position it is in now, not intended, could have been the original design. Lower center of gravity. And what about the Mars lander? Ball shape, which helped it survive landing, then deployed successfully its payload.

[@sailorman2617]

Great stuff! I’ve said it before but it’s worth repeating… thanks for narrating your videos with your own voice.

[@jasons44]

This is KZbin

[@xFKNTOOLx]

@@jasons44aitube

[@vegansoy]

Now if he would breathe while he's talking lol

[@TG-rf2iu]

You can’t know what’s real and what isn’t now with the new ai voice tools. You read a series of sentences and the ai takes over

[@vegansoy]

@@TG-rf2iuI think you are correct, and I know very little about the state-of-the-art of voice simulation for narration.

[@grantgre]

"help I'm fallen and I can't get up"

[@CrankyGrandma]

😂

[@slowery43]

huge fail on trying to be funny

[@BryanChance]

Guys, we did it 8 times over 50 years ago!! Perfectly. And it had 2 astronauts in it. Didn't tip over.. didn't go sideways..and it even took-off from the moon!!! I'm sure the old designs, specs and engineering data are available. You do have them right? ;-)

[@michaeldeierhoi4096]

Sigh. It's clear that there is much that you don't know. Why for example would you compare a lander touching down on the moon with 2 men able to make small adjustments to speed, and finding a safe place place to land. Plus they had a large budget to work to resolve any contingencies. Then compare that to a small company sending an autonomous lander to the moon in their first mission and on a small budget. With better funding maybe they could have tested the backup landing software for example. The bottom line is no vehicle sent into space is ever assessed only for its final result. The entire mission is evaluated and this lander had a lot of firsts that can be built while they correct the problems.

[@DarkFox2232]

No, sorry. Incinerated together with studio set. But making those things again would cost pennies today. Computer they used for navigation had less computational power and precision than modern, cheap calculator. $2 Arduino clone is overkill. Material technologies made unbelievable progress. Both in weight, resistance to external forces. Same goes for heat and radiation shielding. Fuel weight/trust efficiency again is not even comparable. Our ability to send and receive signals... I hope you are laughing.

[@philipberry2704]

Man has never landed on the moon NEVER !!!

[@waynemasters8673]

😂 Thanks for keeping your thoughts in outer space on YouthTube where they belong

[@tylerl6589]

Anything can be done right in a studio with multiple takes..

[@TheStarzzguitar]

You mean MY CELL PHONE takes better pictures than this multi-million dollar spacecraft, and they never thought the top-heavy thing could tip over?

[@Dooguk]

It tipped over because it was still moving laterally when it touched down, not because it is top-heavy.

[@tom5051666]

@@Doogukwell that is a program fail

[@Dooguk]

@@tom5051666 Before it launched, someone forgot to disabled a safety feature on the lasers used for measuring altitude and lateral movement. It can only be done manually, so put it down to human error, not programming.

[@badvlad9861]

@@Dooguk with landing gear designed to dig in and tip over with any horizontal travel.........maybe the wind blew it off course, hahahahahha.

[@Dooguk]

@@badvlad9861Nobody said it dug in did they? It would have struck one of those big rocks you see scattered all over the Moon. Is that easy enough for you to understand? Shall I draw a picture for you?

[@xunyifan1418]

Keep it up, there is a long way to go to catch up with 1969s

[@Cowdog1]

Best comment!😂😂😂😂❤

[@aungaisum8654]

😂😂😂

[@jimrobinson4609]

Those moon photos are almost as good as the ones we got from 1969.

[@discovernow1015]

In the future when they invent the digital camera we might start to see some realistic images from the moon.

[@cheese-qw9vd]

50 years after Apollo sucessfully lands and it tips over

[@michaeldeierhoi4096]

No mission into space is ever rated by the end result only, but by all the events that led up to the end. This is actually a basic principle of life.

[@gcburns4]

@@michaeldeierhoi4096 True, but if we started with the thing failed and it's science objectives will also likely fail due to landing failure.. I'd be much more accepting of the principles of life that guide us. People need to stop smoothing over fail.

[@michaeldeierhoi4096]

@@gcburns4 The science objectives of the Odysseus lander didn't start with a perfect upright landing where all of its systems could function as intended. The science objectives started when the lander separated from the second stage of the Falcon 9 rocket and began its journey to the moon. This lander used a methlox cryo fuel which was a first for any vehicle traveling beyond Earth's orbit. This was also the first lander designed and built by a private US company. And this was its first mission. Then the fact that the lander touched down in one piece within 2 kms of its target that was also a win. There was a software problem which led to landing in an awkward spot. It fell over and its instruments compromised. When I look at how much went right vs wrong I consider this more of a success than a failure because I'm not just looking at the end result, but the whole mission.

[@jefffrazier2465]

​@michaeldeierhoi4096 Seriously, dude? Are you defending this failed piece of crap? This is a major embarrassment!

[@Le10White]

Apollos were human driven in real time and didnt need much autonomy. There is a latency built into remote control. Imagine sending a command to Voyager and getting conformation 28 days later.

[@eveb446]

Very helpful. Thank you for sharing.

[@vegansoy]

Failure is the new success.

[@HowDareUbuddy]

Its all a scam on the taxpayers. Remember when JWST was going to GOD himself? lol

[@geraldjunior4235]

True Learn From It See What Can We Can Do To anak It better landing data from getting into orbit

[@philfyphil]

@@geraldjunior4235Do you want to rewrite that in English?

[@philfyphil]

White is the new black?

[@nonegone7170]

@@HowDareUbuddy The only scam on taxpayers was the money that paid for your education, lol.

[@Oblivionsurveyor]

purposely giving us extremely low quality images and not deploying a planned camera system seems to be very suspicious

[@stargazer7644]

How hard is it to understand? The lander flipped over and its antennas are not pointing at Earth. The signal is very weak, and the bit rate is very low. They're barely getting any data back.

[@derp8575]

Where's all of the video footage prior to the point in which it flipped over? Surely they can afford a used Gopro camera, right? Who would not want to see it? @@stargazer7644

[@brucewagner4394]

Thank you for sharing your endeavors.

[@ree9056]

why didn't they design a lander with a lower center of gravity?

[@andrewbstevens]

From what I understand the fuel tanks are stacked one on top of the other. This is preferred to having them side-by-side because the fuel is used at different rates, which would cause an imbalance to the center of gravity.

[@ree9056]

@@andrewbstevens i can agree with that. then, maybe legs more spreaded out?

[@carcinogen60yearsago]

​@@ree9056 The legs are the widest they could have been to fit in the falcon 9 faring.

[@Dooguk]

@@ree9056 If it was still moving when it touched down as it was stated, it was ineveitable it would fall over in low gravity.

[@vercingetorix3086]

It’s over .

[@Sgt_Bill_T_Co]

I'd call it a failure.

[@michaeldeierhoi4096]

That's because you have a narrow perspective between what is success and failure. So for you simply because it fell over and its instruments are mostly unusable you call it a failure!! That perspective ignores that getting to the moon and landing in one piece is really difficult. The Russian lander crashed on its attempted landing. Your perspective also ignores that a methlox cryo fuel was used for the first time ever on a lunar lander. In other words you don't know how much you don't know in order to make an informed decision on the success or failure of this lander. It was some of both which they can learn from and build on.

[@corwin.macleod]

​@ldeierhoi4096 you have some misconception about the word "success". While "result" is always benefitial regardless of it being positive or negative, "success" cannot be negative, negative success is a failure. Also nice mental gymnastics overall. Cheers.

[@ashleymcclain315]

Would you call the Russian lander a success. Of course not the intention isnt crashing on the moon​@@michaeldeierhoi4096

[@cplcabs]

@@michaeldeierhoi4096 whats the success here then?

[@thedbcooperforum]

@ldeierhoi4096 Sure new things were tested but in it's totality it's a fail..this happens with new projects on anything. You admit yourself it was partially a failure and you try and scold someone who disagrees with what you admit, you might want to check yourself pal..

[@nicolamastascusa8173]

If we can't even land a lander upright, we probably can't land a crewed mission in two years time.

[@michaeldeierhoi4096]

Intuitive Machines will never do manned vehicles anyway so your point is not relevant.

[@doug8515]

They have to figure out how to protect the crew from radiation first, they're still at testing stage

[@Dooguk]

The two things are not connected.

[@thomaskalbfus2005]

It was a low budget mission, the falcon that launched it is reusable, it would launch another one, so treat this as a test flight, they can find out what went wrong and correct it for the next mission, maybe landing at the same sight.

[@nicolamastascusa8173]

The mission is part of the CLPS program. It supports the Artemis Program. You're right though, it's up to SpaceX to get the Starship HLS up and ready. I trust SpaxeX to do amazing things, just not in time.@@michaeldeierhoi4096

[@SebastianWellsTL]

Excellent update!

[@gagibakija4825]

Images are great - but the CGI is greater

[@WWeronko]

It has been said any landing you can walk away from is a success. Using that low bar, Odysseus was a success. The lack of updates make it difficult to determine the condition of the lander. Did IM get the radio and antenna's to stop cycling back and forth? What is the quality of the signal? Did any of the payloads upload any data? Without details, it is hard to conclude that at best this landing attempt was a good first start. Hopefully, solutions will be found and implemented and try number two is much more productive.

[@mikeomolt4485]

Despite having 6 legs, it still wasn't a landing to walk away from. Any landing you can walk away from, is a landing where you're back on your feet soon afterwards.

[@johnny_fatz]

Using that low bar, it was NOT a success. People would have died or been shipwrecked.

[@meltdown6165]

It boils down to how much science data they can get back for their customers...

[@thomaskalbfus2005]

@@johnny_fatz A person onboard would have probably been able to land it better.

[@Gary-Seven-and-Isis-in-1968]

The company went quiet because they know it's GAME OVER for them. They wanted to sell a lunar landing service that worked.🤷🏼‍♂

[@planetluzzo9079]

They played golf and drove a jeep around on the moon 50 years ago? Yeah right

[@sinabarzyar5766]

Yep, they did, well.. The golf part was a bit small, and it's called a rover mate, not a Jeep.

[@planetluzzo9079]

@@sinabarzyar5766 thanks mate. Call it whatever you want. You missed the point

[@damiann123]

people don't realize how crazy they sound. Theres no difference between manned spaceflight, and manned spaceflight with a rover in the rocket. 50 years ago we still had good enough rockets to make it to the moon and back. The thing is we dont need to send a man to the moon, not now at least, it would literally be a bad thing to do

[@brianmcrock]

Good update. Thanks!

[@clausbohm9807]

I wonder if you make it a shape that doesn't care how it lands and then have the interior adjust after touch down.

[@outsider5617]

You should work there.

[@airgunningyup]

yea, the shape was dumb for landing on rough terrain

[@ghost307]

Like in "First Men In the Moon".

[@Urbicide]

"Weebles wobble but they don't fall down!" I bet an old toy company could pull it off.

[@ronaldlincoln2935]

Apparently you are NOT a DEI hire.

[@donwyoming1936]

Someone on the ground left the manual safety on the LIDAR's laser. It was doomed before it was launched.

[@toastedtarantula1701]

Systems Engineering 101, "Follow and EXECUTE a pre planned and peer reviewed checklist" ... ask any pilot.

[@Le10White]

​@@toastedtarantula1701Fookin lense cap.

[@rbspider]

Didn't operate as planned. Actually, it didn't operate.

[@danadirectmarketing]

Huh, we were told they'd be running out of Sun and it's life would end on Tues? Not sure where the news is here. Appreciate your channel.

[@PrometheusZandski]

I can excuse a poor landing that resulted in the lander falling on it's side. What I can't excuse is the lack of onboard cameras and zero external cameras. This is 2024. We have cameras everywhere, just not on the most important space craft for the US since the 70's.

[@RunnerLogan]

Exactly, welcome to the age of the ubiquitous camera. We need footage nowadays dammit

[@Truthrevealed4022]

All for a reason! They didn't return for 50 years for no reason.

[@aungaisum8654]

I can accept any excuses, but I cannot accept excuses for decades of human moon landing lies lol.😅😅😅

[@PrometheusZandski]

@@aungaisum8654 And there it is. It took less than a day for the basement dwelling conspiracy theorists to crawl out and peep about a hoax.

[@stargazer7644]

The lander has about a dozen cameras on it. Why would you not know this?

[@braxxian]

Funny that we can’t do things today that they could do so well back in the 60’s. So much for progress.

[@Truthrevealed4022]

There is a reason!

[@markbarnett1962]

​@@Truthrevealed4022 racism? 😂

[@Truthrevealed4022]

@@markbarnett1962 nope. Far from it.

[@stargazer7644]

We spent 250 BILLION dollars in the 60s. They spent 180 million dollars on this mission. That explains the difference.

[@usaturnuranus]

Help! I've fallen and I can't get up!

[@RunnerLogan]

Unfortunately they forgot to disable the safety on the Medic-Alert button before launch.

[@richdobbs6595]

The expected loss of communication is Feb 27. It shows up on the IM-1 livestream. Right now it is reading Expected Loss of Communication 0 days 12 hours, 49 minutes, 1 second.

[@johnsmith1953x]

*"I've fallen and I can't get up!"*

[@Bellshazar]

Is there a second lander planned. I imagine (assuming they correct or improve everything that went wrong this time) a second attempt would go pretty well.

[@zander_the_space_nerd]

Yes, later this year, I think Q3, they also have a 3rd mission planned for early 2025 or very late 2024.

[@ohitsjustsomeguy4156]

Don't be silly, theyve allready gone there and seen what there is to see, no need to go to the same thing again for another 50 years

[@jackfrost8439]

Perhaps with a wider base on the next one.

[@MoriartySan]

​@@jackfrost8439apparently this is the absolute widest base they could do due to size constraints of the falcon 9 fairing

[@andysedgley]

The next lander will incorporate Weeble tech.

[@Alanoffer]

Somehow expected a bit more after fifty years ,

[@davidstevenson9517]

All Western space programs suffer from lack of finance and political will.

[@DaftDrunk24]

Assuming it has an onboard battery, perhaps they could push a software patch that puts it into a power saving mode and fully power back up after the lunar night.

[@Andrew-13579]

That’s what I was thinking. But it doesn’t sound like it if they were only expecting…was it 7 to 10 days of service life? I would think they’d make a design that would last at least 6 months…maybe 12 days of operation and 16 days of hibernation each month. But there must be technical challenges too great to do that? Extremes of temperature in which batteries just cannot survive? I don’t know. It looks to most people like its design is top-heavy. Although, we wouldn’t be questioning that if it had landed upright. I can only assume they evaluated all sorts of configurations and decided this was the best. Maybe all would have been fine if its laser range-sensors had worked.

[@waynemasters8673]

😂 Have another drink. 😂 No battery will survive that cold 😂😂😂

[@Andrew-13579]

@@waynemasters8673 Until some group designs a system that can preserve the batteries that long.

[@trainmaster0217]

Extreme low temps is a problem for the lander.

[@longboardfella5306]

@@waynemasters8673however the Japan SLIM has just woken back up which was unexpected so you can get lucky

[@ohitsjustsomeguy4156]

I mean, if they cant show us video footage of just 1 continous orbit around Earth from ISS, when they have had a 24/7 365 days a year video stream going for multiple years in a row, then they prob aren't gonna be able to show you much footage from the moon either. 🙄

[@Truthrevealed4022]

They can't show the real moon!

[@user-rb7jm9tv9f]

They either don't or can't. We put HD camera 24/7 on ants and insects,sci-fi movies make tons of money,space got a soft spot in our hearts and hopes...I seriously don't understand this indifference politicly correct thing.

[@raymeloy6555]

Do they have any maneuvering thrusters they can be used to try and right itself?

[@ghost307]

Probably nowhere near powerful enough.

[@brianc.2839]

We need to make sure all craft have the ability to 'self-right' or 'climb out of' predicaments encountered on their journeys. This is not the first time millions of dollars have been wasted due to inability to 'self-right' or 'climb-out' . All of It must be fully thought through & rigorously desert tested. Considering how cold most places are in space ... perhaps we need the ability to dig out and de-ice ... the abilty to dust-off ( lenses or panels) in places like dusty Mars. Huge challenges , before we even get to specific science ! 🇨🇦

[@michaeldeierhoi4096]

I don't think millions of dollars were wasted at all as this lander accomplished many of its objectives including landing in one piece. Landing on the moon using a methlox cryo fuel which was a first. Designing and building a lander which on its first lander achieved most of its goals. Much can be built on going forward.

[@stargazer7644]

Or maybe you should just make sure to land vertically in a flat area with no major rocks. Kind of like we did all the other times.

[@michaeldeierhoi4096]

@@stargazer7644 And they probably would have if they weren't having difficulty with the laser rangefinder. If the software patch had been more thoroughly tested as a back up which they didn't do.

[@wolfbear7]

Never Give Up!

[@agriperma]

Never surrender !

[@waybee100]

nasa should.

[@ohitsjustsomeguy4156]

Yay thats the spirit! Go Nasa. This is so inspiring. We have a bright future ohead of us! What a historic day 🎉

[@Dooguk]

@@ohitsjustsomeguy4156 It wasn't NASA as you know full well . But you are obviously a bit hard of thinking.

[@RunnerLogan]

​@@agriperma I knew that was coming 😂

[@Davidsweirdness]

This should've been a 2 second video that said "fail"

[@ThouSirKingsly]

It’s always best to have the payload next to the fuel tanks because it creates a lower center of gravity so easier landing

[@ghost307]

Even better if they can put the tanks above the payload. That way as the tanks empty the CG gets even lower.

[@dmartinez5117]

@@ghost307 The landing gear didn’t extend on one side. CG wouldn’t matter.

[@ghost307]

Landing gear was fixed in place before launch. No deployment necessary.

[@dmartinez5117]

@@ghost307 THanx foRe tHE ClariFukAsHeN. 😂

[@Republic3D]

I've wondered many times, why do they not build two modules / vehicles on super important missions like this? The man hours and materials cost is likely under 15% on a project like this. The highest cost is R&D and the launch itself. You build two similar machines, if the first one fails at some point, you figure out what went wrong, adapt the second machine and launch that one. Launch costs would be expensive, but probably worth it if the mission is important enough.

[@michaeldeierhoi4096]

Nobody does it that way because it doesn't make sense and is not cost effective, so nstead of making an exact copy the current thinking is launch the first vehicle evaluate what went right and what went wrong and then build the next one with improvements. The evolving development in sophistication of the Martian rovers is a good example.

[@Republic3D]

@ldeierhoi4096 You're forgetting time as a component. Imagine if James Webb telescope blew up because of some minor detail. It would be a 10 year setback (for science in general) unless there was an identical copy built that could be adapted to circumvent the issue.

[@liamlidle6943]

Yes, but it's worth noting that a significant amount of cost is in the payload itself. Sure, it gets cheaper per launch which is why some of the Mars Rovers a very similar or why there were multiple moon landings. It kinda just plans on the mission overall, which NASA does plan on landing more uncrewed payloads in the near future. @@Republic3D

[@ronaldlebeck9577]

I like the line from the movie, "Contact"... S.R. Hadden: "First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price?"

[@Dooguk]

This is built and funded by a private company not NASA.

[@havocdogg]

Given that this kind of mission requires a lot of precision calculations I have to wonder if not deploying the landing camera was the cause of the tip over. This would make the lander heavier on top while landing. If this mass change was not accounted for I could see that easily throwing the maneuvering and thrust calculation off. Even more so when it wasn't using the intended equipment data set.

[@trivialinsignific]

thats great ! just think of all the money that was spent and all the work that was involved just so you could drop the ball at the last minute - reminds me of UPS, OR FEDEX

[@odysseusrex5908]

Can anybody tell me what I'm seeing in the on board picture tat looks like a spherical mirror?

[@hbh3144]

Wide angle lens. This way they can see left/right/up/down without turning the camera around.

[@craig620]

If there are 14 (earth) days of daylight once every 28 days on the moon, why is the mission over when the current lunar day ends? Why can't the lander hibernate until the next lunar day begins and then power back on?

[@ghost307]

My question exactly.

[@electricflyer81]

The extreme cold (at least -150F) and inablility to heat them over lunar night will burst the batteries, thus causing a power failure.

[@TheOrigamiPeople]

That’s too logical

[@azdp5331]

Lunar night is nearly 300 degrees below Zero F, and daytime highs can be near 250F. And apparently, IM did not design/build the lander to survive a lunar night.

[@davidstevenson9517]

Odysseus is a cheap prototype vehicle; as it was landing anyway, why not throw a few cheap experimental packages on board? (and Artwork of dubious style and taste)🛰💱📡🕹🌚

[@MrGlenspace]

With the moon being so close I knew it had failed when pictures not beamed back in a few minutes. Mars pictures always come back fairly quickly. So the moon should have been only a few minutes at best.

[@NoahSpurrier]

Mars missions have relay satellites in orbit to boost signals between Earth and the mission craft. This is the Mars Relay Network, which consists of five satellites in orbit around Mars.

[@Nocturnal_Mind]

It sucks about it landing on it's side but at least we are ramping up on the space race again.

[@Corey_Wrangler]

Im not at all knocking their attempt. Super well done! My question is around the landing navigation software failing. Given the assumed thousands of tests they did on this, surely it's got to be super unlikely / unlucky that it would fail to switch itself on for the one time it really mattered?

[@ffggddss]

Correction, ≈ 5m10s: The lunar "day" length is the synodic period, 29.53 days; not the sidereal month, 27.32 days. Nor "28.3 Earth days," which isn't any kind of lunar "day." That said, thanks for this quite informative report! Fred

[@Le10White]

Come again? Does/ doesnt the moon spin on its own axis it spins on earths axis, but not geosynchronous...right?

[@ffggddss]

@ite Yes, Earth and Moon each rotate, wrt the distant stars (sidereal period; abbreviate it SP). Earth's SP is 23h 56m 4s, or 0.99727d; Moon's SP is 27.32166d. But because both bodies also revolve (in the same direction as their rotations) around their light source, the Sun, in 365.256 days (the sidereal year), each one's "day" length is a bit longer than its SP; for Earth, 24.0000h = 1.00000d; for the Moon, 29.53059d. I.e., standing on Earth, the Sun's rise&set cycle is 24.0000h = 1.00000d; standing on the Moon, the Sun's rise&set cycle is 29.53059d, which is what on Earth we see as its cycle of phases - new Moon to new Moon.

[@Geekofarm]

Is there any indication at all that IM have successfully transmitted commands that were correctly received by the lander?

[@michaeldeierhoi4096]

Mission control was communicating with the lander from the time it touched down. The details have only partially been revealed.

[@Geekofarm]

@@michaeldeierhoi4096"Communicating" yes, but is it stated that they have active up and downlinks? That's not the same as communicating, which is merely the conveyance of information and can be one-way only.

[@michaeldeierhoi4096]

@@Geekofarm Go ask the company involved in this lander. I don't have the details.

[@jbdelphiaiii7637]

Six legs are a lot of needless mass. One, articulated, spear like landing leg might make the most sense, along w some minimal gyrostabilization. Airbags around the 'spear' might work, as a shock absorber. Four legs, like Apollo, means any one leg fails - the landing fails. Apollo needed it as the landing platform *was* the launchpad. (Might as well be 3; add the 'saved' mass back by extending their length, improving stability.)

[@aurora7207]

Cool control room, really innovative. Should've saved some of that money for the design phase of the lander.

[@NOM-X]

What are the next 2 missions coming up (3 &4)? And why is everyone saying that the camera was fully deployed, and has images of its stance along with its integrity? There is allot of questions to be answered.

[@mikaljan316]

why not use the thrusters on the top of the lander to flip itself upright?

[@hbh3144]

Those thrusters likely don't have enough power. Even if it did risk making it worse is higher then possible reward.

[@mikaljan316]

@@hbh3144 better then just give up without trying

[@stargazer7644]

Because you can't lift 700 pounds of spacecraft with 10 pounds of thrust.

[@mikaljan316]

@@stargazer7644 That's not the case here, it turned out that the landing gear was broken, nothing could be done. kzbin.info/www/bejne/rWqkd5R9iZV7Y5Y

[@jerrygold6813]

yoh, dude.. why didn't we go and land where we last left the 1972 dune buggies...How much fun would it have been to see those?

[@petergibson2318]

On Nov 19th 1969 the Apollo 12 lander touched down within sight of (600 Meters) the Surveyor 3 craft which had landed on the moon 3 years previously. The astronauts retrieved instruments from Surveyor and took some “selfies” with it and the Apollo lander in the background. They returned to earth with the instruments. It seems they were more advanced 55 years ago, in a craft with FAR less computing power than a TV remote control has nowadays.

[@ClTn4]

Something is weird about the whole thing right?This is an eye opener!

[@Truthrevealed4022]

People are starting to wake up.

[@Truthrevealed4022]

@@ClTn4 watch moonfall don't take the whole thing literally but there is insight in that movie.

[@MarinaR-nb8vi]

Great photos.

[@vc7393]

What I found interesting was that one announcer said there wouldn't any pictures or camera video from the unit because it didn't have them on it. Now we are getting pictures.

[@nadiamiller3639]

No photos or videos. It would give up their game😂

[@vc7393]

@@nadiamiller3639 My feelings exactly. It made no sense.

[@stargazer7644]

You probably should go back and listen again.

[@geraldjunior4235]

Getting as much data as you can before it power down

[@441rider]

They already stole enough cash dumping stock they don't care they made millions lying total sketchy company.

[@blablablabla4236]

How about building a lander that doesn’t tip over.

[@TheEvilmooseofdoom]

If it was only as easy to do as it is to say.

[@Dooguk]

How about coming up with a design of humans that don't trip or fall over while your at it?

[@davidstevenson9517]

Our "expert" has an appropriate avatar: blablablabla...🤡

[@aungaisum8654]

Learn from China

[@Dooguk]

@@aungaisum8654 This is a mission paid for by a private company, not a government.

[@ringo688]

This evidence wouldn't hold up in a court of law. Highly suspect.

[@Truthrevealed4022]

It's for a reason. Do a lol research and you'll find out what's really going on.

[@Wayoutthere]

@@Truthrevealed4022 stop talking

[@Truthrevealed4022]

@@Wayoutthere hushhhhh lil boy! That's the problem not enough people talking. So people are out here like zombies.

[@ringo688]

@@Truthrevealed4022 I have done, care to share your opinion? Genuinely interested.

[@Gilliboy]

Reminded me of my landing attempts in ksp. The classic tip over ….

[@nolimitbanks7318]

Holding strong adding

[@spokes28]

NASA should work with Boston Dynamics.

[@Urbicide]

Or with Elon Musk.

[@theaterlon]

try taking whichever downward facing thrusters there are and stand it back up

[@comedyshane123]

Has it not got RCS thrusters? If so can they not try to right the space craft? Just an idea

[@sinabarzyar5766]

Yes, it does, but it ain't KSP mate, those RCS thrusters are specially sized and designed for that space craft, the moon also has well.. Gravity, therefore the thrusters don't have enough power to tip it over.

[@ohitsjustsomeguy4156]

Making great progress go Nasa! 🎉

[@Thrakerzog]

Forgive me if I'm wrong but I seem to remember something about 55 years ago when actual astronauts landed on the moon and returned safely to Earth. So after that many years of improvements in technology and crap-tons of money spent, this is the best that can be done? Yeah, I think we're safe from an AI take over. 🙄

[@nixl3518]

Those were people back then, that landed the machine on the moon! This time, the machine tried to land all by itself, and the people that designed it couldn’t figure out how to do that!

[@doug8515]

Oh behave please, people in handstiched 'spacesuits' jumping around in the dust in slow motion in a Torr -12 vacuum..? Get real!@@nixl3518

[@michaeldeierhoi4096]

There are several factors you haven't taken into account. This was the first lander this company attempted to land on the moon and they did it for 118 million $ which is actually quite cheap. It is harder to land a spacecraft autonomously on the moon then it is for humans who can make the necessary adjustments on descent. It's also noteworthy that NASA had considerable funding to make Apollo happen compared to the tiny budget this company used. It's a fools errand to compare two totally different landings on the moon as if all things being equal when in fact almost nothing is equal between the two!!

[@ohitsjustsomeguy4156]

Oh be patient, this is incredibly progress by Nasa. This is an jistorical day. Oh so inspiring

[@ohitsjustsomeguy4156]

@@nixl3518exactly, this is 10x harder. People need to stop asking irrational questions and just trust the science. They know best.

[@seriouslyepicparanormal]

2nd lander ends up on it's side, maybe they should look for some self righting device to be fitted to future landers.

[@Urbicide]

They need training wheels.

[@RunnerLogan]

Go in with the thought that it will tip over and engineer it so in any orientation it can self correct antennas and solar panels

[@Urbicide]

I think that they should re-name this lander after Joe Biden.

[@michaelcockrell1785]

They should have just stuck a few 5ft lawn darts out of the bottom. Then they would just stick in the ground to hold the equipment upright in the event the legs become compromised. It would forever be stationary I guess. But still useful.

[@Keeazul]

SLIM: “Hey, buddy! Long ride done. Let’s lie down a bit!” Odysseus: “Yeah, why not!”

[@jade4r4]

Incredible ❤❤❤❤❤

[@nemopoint1254]

SLIM( Japan ) is re-start. It's really wonderful ! You have proven the excellence of Japanese parts. UK will going to start betting on how many nights survival. Odysseus, you have USA guts. You're going to give it your all in this difficult situation !

[@DJvincedavinci]

with all the Technology and great cameras all you got is those measly pics?!?!

[@komnsenz]

The entire multi-million dollar mission was not about pictures for KZbin. It was a great success with a few issues - much like most early space projects.

[@RunnerLogan]

Yeah but pics are a good way to keep the populace interested and interest in space. Pics help

[@Dooguk]

@@RunnerLogan This is a privately funded mission not a government funded NASA one. There is no need for a PR exercise.

[@ScratchGlass9]

God Bless Commander Armstrong and the men of the Mercury GEMINI and Apollo crews and staff. Those guys were incredible !

[@THEWEIM]

amazing that you can see stars on this landing .. but not on the other landings

[@ConcealedCourier]

All this shows is that we are probably better off using beachballs like the CNSA or the skycrane method and just tuning it to lunar gravity.

[@ree9056]

I tought about this It was the perfect solution imho

[@grugbug4313]

Solid! Top KEK! Peace be with you.

[@jodajackson4489]

Nah, you’re alright mate. Just press the medic-alert button and when they answer say you fell and you can’t get up.

[@Koenshakuable]

That one blurry pic reminds me of the one I took of bigfoot making out with a unicorn.

[@claudetowery6227]

It would be helpful and clearer to add a “SIMULATION” caption to the video images, when indeed a simulation image is being shown. Thank You ! ! !

[@softwarephil1709]

The laser rangefinder wasn’t working, because they left the switch turned off before launch. Human error.

[@andrewp7509]

Oopsy

[@veryunusual126]

Is that true????? Are you kidding me?????

[@alkimball8920]

@@veryunusual126 Yes... it is true. They didn't engage the interlock switches before they launched. No laser rangefinder. Most laser I've worked with need to be manually toggled into operation... they didn't bother to check.

[@agriperma]

Yep, human error, if that part was working, we would at least have eagle cam footage, and very likely, a better landing. feel sorry for the guy, that had the responsibility to turn this thing on. I know this was done on a budget, but, status indicators, should have been implemented on this, it should not be about having one guy remember, I work in manufacturing and quality control and assurance goes through various checks/inspections. a simple 50 dollar micro controller, that checks, on/off - go/no-go status of every onboard system before launch, is all that would have been needed.

[@veryunusual126]

This is so fucked up, man, wtf????!? Why do those engineer-wannabes even get money??? It's like, we have to RELEARN everything!🤦🤦🤦

[@seshspot]

You mean they didn't bring a dune buggy this time with big wheel tires and a camera man?

[@computerdepot3373]

I have better cameras on my model airplane. WTF?

[@lwaldron9745]

So this is only a "successful landing" in the sense that it did hit the Moon, rather than some other astronomical feature.

[@georgeboyd6580]

OK, let's say there was a lot to be learned from this. I have a couple to suggest. A mobile device is a lot more satisfying than a stationery device. A 360 degree camera is handy. Bonus; the technology to withstand lunar nights exists.

[@michaeldeierhoi4096]

The technology to withstand lunar exists, but to also withstand lunar days as well greatly complicates the design and construction of the vehicle. If a company has a certain budget to work with and this being their first mission then they will take a more conservative approach. Common sense!

[@georgeboyd6580]

@@michaeldeierhoi4096 🆗 I'm easy; small budget, fine. But common sense, I have a struggle with that one. Too many failures to get a common sense approval. Engineering includes calculating failure probability and redundancy required for success.

[@derp8575]

Common sense suggests that the entire event would be filmed using multiple 360 cameras. @@michaeldeierhoi4096

[@georgeboyd6580]

@@michaeldeierhoi4096 🇯🇵 Japan's SLIM lunar lander also landed on its side. It managed to survive a lunar night and is working now.

[@kennywatts4212]

I was watching it live and I even said something will go wrong

[@berndm9743]

Could they try to right the lander using the maneuvering thrusters??

[@michaeldeierhoi4096]

There maneuvering thrusters are only helpful in fine adjustments. They could not help in righting the lander.

[@geraldscott4302]

The next lander needs to be completely redesigned. It needs to be significantly larger in diameter than its height. Just look at the unmanned Surveyor craft, 5 of the 7 sent to the moon between 1966-1968 landed successfully. They are very wide and short. That prevented them from tipping over, even using 1960s technology.

[@aungaisum8654]

Be real dude.😅 You believe 1960 technologies can land on moon?😅

[@geraldscott4302]

@@aungaisum8654 It did. Eleven times.

[@gpetheri]

That person who realised they'd left the landing laser safety interlock in place... oops... That's one to add to future pre launch checklists.

[@stargazer7644]

Or maybe just buy some red "remove before flight" ribbons?

[@jjgreek1]

They should send someone there to stand it upright

[@jamescobban857]

Maybe SpaceX will deliver a Cybertruck and an Optimus Robot which will drive over to the Odysseus and turn it upright. However its electronics will be long dead by then.

[@donbranch87]

They should have bought a Triple A membership.

[@RunnerLogan]

Good idea.

[@IrisCorven]

@@jamescobban857 Even in 1/6th Earth gravity, I remain highly skeptical of the Cybertruck's capacity to tow or push anything.

[@davids2501]

I'm sorry, but this is a huge fail. I have all the respect in the world for the incredible feat of getting a craft intact on the surface of the Moon, but if you ever want to do it again, you have to win the PR battle as well as the technical battle. Apollo XI broadcast good-quality video from the ship in transit, in Lunar orbit, on descent, and on the surface. Fifty-five years later we get cheesy animation and three or four pictures of such poor quality that you have to tell us what we're supposed to be seeing. Every kid with a dirt bike has a Go-Pro that can transmit KZbin-worthy video to a cell phone. It is not reasonable to most people that the signature adverb for this mission has been "unfortunately". After a while, it just doesn't seem like bad luck any more. It seems like poor planning followed up with poor execution. Enthusiasts for this mission were disappointed. Skeptics feel vindicated. Even the nut bags are pointing to this as further 'proof' that we couldn't possibly have gone to the Moon in 1969. Do better next time. If there is a next time.

[@issyissy194]

I know its appalling spend all that money and no decent pictures or video

[@4570highwall]

As soon as I saw a picture of this lander it looked top heavy and would easily tip over.

[@stargazer7644]

The lander isn't top heavy and it didn't just fall over.

[@peteswanson1846]

The collective consciosness is rising thankx to evens like these.

[@derp8575]

Not quickly enough. Oddly enough, the people casually vomiting the term "conspiracy theorists" are usually the most propagandized and deceived.

[@dawidderkacz]

Funny that over 50 years ago we could send live feed from moon landers, but now barely a picture 😂

[@Dooguk]

Find out what is going on before making ignorant comments.

[@StevieRayLou]

It's like they hadn't landed on the moon before. Opps.

[@luisvictorf]

the light/shadow of the drone seems off, compared to the light/shadows of the surrounding terrain features...