Intuitive Machines IM-1 Moon Landing

[MonkeyDoughnut 10234]

The anticipated landing time is currently 4:24 p.m. EST Today (Thursday, Feb. 22)

NASA Link:

https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2024/02/22/intuitive-machines-updates-im-1-landing-time-carrying-nasa-science/

 

[MonkeyDoughnut 10234]

 

[RamjetFDO 10575]

I don't like the "outward facing circle" control center layout.

 

[NAVY 6740]

Exciting! 2 minutes 

[Armybrat 40839]

Got the NASA channel on here. 

[RamjetFDO 10575]

[NAVY 6740]

1 minute ago, RamjetFDO said:

12 old me found that frustrating 

[bmbmd 1027]

I keep expecting Tom Hanks to say hello.

[NAVY 6740]

How about some Gravitar? 
 

 

[Armybrat 40839]

[MonkeyDoughnut 10234]

cmon comms.....

[Armybrat 40839]

3 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

cmon comms.....

AT&T?

[MonkeyDoughnut 10234]

 

[RamjetFDO 10575]

They're a little quick-on-the draw with the self-congrats.  Let's find out exactly *WHAT* landed and in what useful configuration before jumping up and down and patting themselves on the back.

... and goodness.  Bill Nelson looks like the Crypt Keeper.

[RamjetFDO 10575]

I *really* hope everything went exactly as planned (except for the comms outage), but I've seen SpaceX lower the bar on what they call "mission success" too many times to confirm that this is a true success until they can confirm everything.

 

[MonkeyDoughnut 10234]

Based on contact from the high gain antenna it sounds like it landed ok just a matter of not being pointed accurately (off course slightly, etc), something they should "hopefully" be able to correct, especially since they were able to patch the thing in lunar orbit to use a different landing plan.

[RamjetFDO 10575]

I hope you're correct  ... but it's also an assumptive leap from the data we have.  For all we know, it could just as easily be a crumpled mass of junk with only the comms package bleeping out a dying heartbeat signal.

Again - I hope that everything went well, but based on what we know ... we don't know the status or the situation until they have the data feed restored completely.

[The Dude 1244]

[elfenix 34238]

A friend of mine has software on this thing and if it's fucked up  I'm blaming him personally.

[Blotto 23498]

https://cockrell.utexas.edu/news/archive/9797-precision-guidance-for-moon-mission-supported-by-ut-aerospace-engineers?utm_campaign=ENGR_FY23-24_Informational_LunarLanding_EML&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua

CTO of Intuitive Machines is a UT Grad. 

In other news, multiple aggy were arrested for successfully launching a probe inside their sheep after last night's line-dancing lessons at the chicken.......again.

[RamjetFDO 10575]

Good news.

[CycleTex87 2970]

Houston, TX baby.  That’s how we do it in Space City. 

[Handcruser 2805]

Who was our resident nasa dude here?

[Handcruser 2805]

Who was our resident nasa dude here?

Ramjet. That’s right.

[RamjetFDO 10575]

 

Okay - whatever issues they had during landing will be uncovered, but if this is accurate (and I have no reason to believe it isn't), they'll be able to sort this out.  

One possible issue might be orientation of the high-gain antenna.  Unfortunately, in this design, that antenna was not placed at the *top* of the vehicle, but rather on one side, requiring a precise alignment of that lander's orientation on the surface to optimize that high-gain antenna's visibility back to Earth.  It may very well be that it's off-axis enough to have degraded comms and this was the entire issue.  But, again ... until we know everything, I'm staying on the side of *cautious* optimism and not jumping to conclusions.

[Pato del Muerto 52492]

Do we know how much articulation, if any, the module has that can affect the position of the antenna?

[RamjetFDO 10575]

Good question.  I honestly don't know, but why the design was made this way, as opposed to either a more top-mounted antenna or at least redundant antennae (at least two on opposite sides), seems like a pretty obvious oversight.  I don't want to accuse them of hubris by saying "we'll nail the landing orientation, shut up", but I have to wonder the decision process for having a clear alignment failure path like that.

[RamjetFDO 10575]

EagleCam was a no-go during landing.

Quote

Due to complications with Odysseus’ internal navigation system — specifically concerning the software patch to navigation data to include NASA’s NDL (Navigation Doppler Lidar) payload, which is meant to ensure a soft landing — the decision was made to power down EagleCam during landing and not deploy the device during Odysseus’ final descent.

However, both the Intuitive Machines and EagleCam teams still plan to deploy EagleCam and capture images of the lander on the lunar surface as the mission continues.

 

[RamjetFDO 10575]

 

Intuitive Machines CEO Steve Altemus says the lander may actually be on its side? 

Well.  That's not exactly optimal now, is it?

On the plus side, if you look to the left of the lander, you'll see they've discovered water.

[RamjetFDO 10575]

Press conference said they were 6 mph (!!!) down and 2 mph lateral when one of the landing pads either dug into the ground or hit a rock and just tipped right over onto (what they think) is a rock.

[Armybrat 40839]

[MonkeyDoughnut 10234]

NASA/joint group needs to send up a ship with like a dozen landers on it whose sole mission is to test landings and feed data back to be shared with all companies. So much time and money being spent on the equipment and tests on board, yet we still don't have a reliable landing system.

[RamjetFDO 10575]

That's an interesting proposition... And the industrial espionage alone between the competing companies would make for a highly readable thriller!

Hmmm... I want to write a novel now.

[Armybrat 40839]

1 hour ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

NASA/joint group needs to send up a ship with like a dozen landers on it whose sole mission is to test landings and feed data back to be shared with all companies. So much time and money being spent on the equipment and tests on board, yet we still don't have a reliable landing system.

Back in the day when I was a young man, we had a very reliable landing system.

[MonkeyDoughnut 10234]

More info on the last minute update that took place while in orbit.... definitely not something you want to see happen and someone, somewhere feels like crap right now:

 

Fortunately, the only payload mounted on the side of the lander now facing the surface is a static payload: an artwork provided by artist Jeff Koons. Other commercial and NASA payloads are operating, and many of them collected data during the flight to the moon and during the descent to the surface.

One of those NASA payloads may have saved the mission. Engineers were able to use data from the Navigation Doppler Lidar instrument developed at NASA’s Langley Research Center to replace laser rangefinders on the lander that were not working.

Controllers discovered the problem with the lander’s laser rangefinders after going into orbit around the moon Feb. 21 and deciding to use them to more precisely measure the lander’s orbit, which was more elliptical than intended. The lasers, though, did not work, and engineers determined that a physical switch — a safety measure on the ground because the lasers are not eye-safe — was not flipped before launch.

“It was like a punch in the stomach. We were going to lose the mission,” Altemus recalled. Crain then found it would be possible to take the data from two lasers in the NASA instrument and incorporate them into the lander’s navigation system.

“In normal software development for a spacecraft, this is the kind of thing that would have taken a month,” Crain said. “Our team basically did that in an hour and a half.”

That process also provided a greater validation of the NASA payload than originally expected. “The technology performed flawlessly,” said Prasun Desai, NASA deputy associate administrator for space technology. “It acquired range and velocity data well above the required five-kilometer altitude as it was descending.”

He noted the goal of flying the payload was to achieve a technology readiness level (TRL) of 6 on a 1-to-9 scale, validating a prototype of the technology in a relevant environment. With its use on the landing, “we were able to get an operational system now, TRL 9. It’s ready to be used from now on.”

Altemus added it was “fortuitous” that Nova-C was in an elliptical orbit that prompted engineers to activate the laser rangefinder earlier than expected and thus discovered the problem. “That was fortunate and a bit of luck for us.”

In normal operations, Crain said, the laser rangefinders would not have been activated until after the lander began its powered descent to the surface. “We would have probably been five minutes to landing before we realized those lasers weren’t working,” he said.

[Surly Bevo 24908]

3 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

More info on the last minute update that took place while in orbit.... definitely not something you want to see happen and someone, somewhere feels like crap right now:

 

Fortunately, the only payload mounted on the side of the lander now facing the surface is a static payload: an artwork provided by artist Jeff Koons. Other commercial and NASA payloads are operating, and many of them collected data during the flight to the moon and during the descent to the surface.

One of those NASA payloads may have saved the mission. Engineers were able to use data from the Navigation Doppler Lidar instrument developed at NASA’s Langley Research Center to replace laser rangefinders on the lander that were not working.

Controllers discovered the problem with the lander’s laser rangefinders after going into orbit around the moon Feb. 21 and deciding to use them to more precisely measure the lander’s orbit, which was more elliptical than intended. The lasers, though, did not work, and engineers determined that a physical switch — a safety measure on the ground because the lasers are not eye-safe — was not flipped before launch.

“It was like a punch in the stomach. We were going to lose the mission,” Altemus recalled. Crain then found it would be possible to take the data from two lasers in the NASA instrument and incorporate them into the lander’s navigation system.

“In normal software development for a spacecraft, this is the kind of thing that would have taken a month,” Crain said. “Our team basically did that in an hour and a half.”

That process also provided a greater validation of the NASA payload than originally expected. “The technology performed flawlessly,” said Prasun Desai, NASA deputy associate administrator for space technology. “It acquired range and velocity data well above the required five-kilometer altitude as it was descending.”

He noted the goal of flying the payload was to achieve a technology readiness level (TRL) of 6 on a 1-to-9 scale, validating a prototype of the technology in a relevant environment. With its use on the landing, “we were able to get an operational system now, TRL 9. It’s ready to be used from now on.”

Altemus added it was “fortuitous” that Nova-C was in an elliptical orbit that prompted engineers to activate the laser rangefinder earlier than expected and thus discovered the problem. “That was fortunate and a bit of luck for us.”

In normal operations, Crain said, the laser rangefinders would not have been activated until after the lander began its powered descent to the surface. “We would have probably been five minutes to landing before we realized those lasers weren’t working,” he said.

Sounds like somebody is about to land an awesome gig with the City of Austin Water Department 

[CycleTex87 2970]

21 hours ago, Armybrat said:

Back in the day when I was a young man, we had a very reliable landing system.

The nut behind the wheel?

[Pato del Muerto 52492]

19 hours ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

In normal software development for a spacecraft, this is the kind of thing that would have taken a month,” Crain said. “Our team basically did that in an hour and a half.”

Maybe we should look into why something that can be done in 90 minutes normally takes a month. 

[elfenix 34238]

22 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Maybe we should look into why something that can be done in 90 minutes normally takes a month. 

probably gobs and gobs of qc, which they didn't have time to do. 

 

also, meetings that could have been emails

Edited February 25 by elfenix

[thunderlounge 7825]

40 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Maybe we should look into why something that can be done in 90 minutes normally takes a month. 

Well, first anyone that could be impacted by the change has to sign off and acknowledge their preparedness to accept the change. 

Then the scope of the work has to be formalized.

Then the work has to be completed.

Then peer review.

Then basic testing, and onto QA. 

Once QA is done, it gets scheduled for release to prod, and eventually released.

Depending on which department and branch the development falls under, there may be more steps involved.

 

To have that done in 90 minutes is shocking. 
 

But at the same time, it’s a public endeavor. So maybe less red tape. 
 

However, I would be willing to bet it was already in the works “just in case”, which would make the time frame given a bit more reasonable. (Unless we’re talking only changing a few lines, but doesn’t sound like it.)

[Captainant 27661]

On 2/25/2024 at 9:53 AM, thunderlounge said:

To have that done in 90 minutes is shocking. 
 

But at the same time, it’s a public endeavor. So maybe less red tape. 
 

However, I would be willing to bet it was already in the works “just in case”, which would make the time frame given a bit more reasonable. (Unless we’re talking only changing a few lines, but doesn’t sound like it.)

More often than not, engineers and ops folks will have super comprehensive scripts to do sweeping changes to an environment, but they're only approved for nonprod or development use. I'd bet that much of the expedited process was simply cutting through the red tape and QA cycle, since the mission was lost anyways if they did nothing. 

Not the best way to operate indefinitely, but it's very useful during a crisis