Odysseus, the first US-built spacecraft to touchdown on the moon in more than half a century, is tipped over on its side, according to an update from Nasa and Intuitive Machines, the company that built and operated the lander.

The robotic lander descended on to the south polar region of the moon on Thursday at 6.23pm ET. But several minutes passed before flight controllers were able to pick up a signal from the lander’s communication systems.

As it landed, Odysseus “caught a foot in the surface and tipped” said Intuitive Machines CEO Steve Altemus, ending up on its side.

Still, the lander is “near or at our intended landing site”, he said. Nasa and Intuitive Machines said they have been receiving data from the lander and believe that most of the scientific instruments that it is carrying are in a position to work.

18 points

So Japens moon lander landed upside down, and Americas fell over. This isn’t looking too good for the future of space exploration.

permalink
report
reply
16 points

Need to start launching from Australia at this rate. Maybe then they’ll show up in the correct vertical orientation.

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points

Mars landers: are we a joke to you??

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

Sometimes: https://www.nature.com/articles/43974

Okay fine that one was an orbiter, not a lander, but still.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

We have multiple countries sending moon landers, and a few planning to return people to the moon to start a launching pad to Mars. A few accidents involving unmanned probes is nothing to worry about.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

And this one wasn’t even a country per se, but a company. Though NASA has some experiments they out on the craft.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

True! Hopefully the manned missons land right side up.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

I’m much less worried about human piloted craft. It’s very difficult to program complex decision making and discernment. The astronauts present in the first landers will have been intensively trained in how to avoid catastrophe and will likely be able to come up with solutions on the fly if unanticipated things happen. Still dangerous, but hopefully less so.

It will be much easier to land completely automatically once we have landing pads, radar tracking, and other infrastructure present on the surface. It’s just hard to land a robot on an airless moon with a bunch of rocks and hills and shit everywhere.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

A few years back one crashed because the European team used metric and the American team used imperial. They are getting better…

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

>tries science

>uses imperial

???

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

It’s weird to me that nobody noticed earlier

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

AGAIN!

Because miscommunications on standardized measurements is apparently a recurring theme in aerospace engineering.

I’m in the US, I almost exclusively use imperial, but all my CAD models are metric, all my hobbies are geared for metric.

The fact that companies involved in multi-m/billion dollar endeavors can’t figure out “measure twice…”

permalink
report
parent
reply
46 points

The average person may well scoff at the idea that we can’t land on the moon properly even though we could do it 60 years ago, but your average KSP chads are just amazed we’ve managed to actually land on the mun and not waste billions on making penis rockets that crash 10ft away from base.

permalink
report
reply
-7 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

To be fair, the recent bunch of failed or partially successful landers have mostly been countries that haven’t landed on the moon before, or private companies that haven’t done it themselves and have an incentive to save money during the design process, or Russia, which has been letting their space program decay for some time now.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

You gotta consider that when a country doesn’t do something for sixty years, that means basically anyone that actually worked on it has retired. They probably have access to more research and data but it’s probably all stored in ancient formats barely used anymore.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

Yes but a moon landing is fundamentally easier in most respects, while using substantially similar technology, than landing a rocket booster on earth or a rover on mars.

Landing on the moon is, as far as it can be, trivial for a group like NASA. It’s much more challenging for a small private company like Intuitive that has never built a lander before.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

True, a lot of institutional knowledge gets lost. Although we have been landing probes on Mars for a good long time. I can’t imagine the level of precision and complexity required even to crash something on the moon much less land in one piece. No doubt a lot can go wrong. Maybe the lunar surface at the landing site is less even than expected or less even than mars or… Idk.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

your average KSP chads are just amazed we’ve managed to actually land on the mun and not waste billions on making penis rockets that crash 10ft away from base.

Bro, why did you have to call me out like that.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

The Police were asked for their opinion and said: “Giant steps are what you take, walking on the moon.”

permalink
report
reply
3 points

ACAB … including Sting.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

This is my favorite Sting interview.

https://youtu.be/gKFGK-ZE0HE

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

Title forgot “and they call it a success” /s

But my guess this only happens for Japan.

permalink
report
reply
17 points

You know… I think naming a spaceship (or any ship, really) after a man who took twenty years to return from his voyage might not be the best idea to avoid jinxing it.

permalink
report
reply
20 points

Yeah. Should have named it Icarus or Unsinkable 2 or something like that.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Maybe they should have just gone all in and named it Titan after that one famous boat.

Can’t remember what that boat was so famous for tho /s

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

“Unsinkable 2 - For real this time!”

permalink
report
parent
reply

science

!science@lemmy.world

Create post

just science related topics. please contribute

note: clickbait sources/headlines aren’t liked generally. I’ve posted crap sources and later deleted or edit to improve after complaints. whoops, sry

Rule 1) Be kind.

lemmy.world rules: https://mastodon.world/about

I don’t screen everything, lrn2scroll

Community stats

  • 4K

    Monthly active users

  • 1.4K

    Posts

  • 15K

    Comments