SpaceX F9 - IM-1 Nova-C Lander - LC-39A - Includes Post Launch Discussion

[ecarfan]

I’m tempted to send a copy of this book to Intuitive Machines: The Checklist Manifesto, How to Get Things Right by Atul Gwande.

We live in a world of great and increasing complexity, where even the most expert professionals struggle to master the tasks they face. Longer training, ever more advanced technologies—neither seems to prevent grievous errors. But in a hopeful turn, acclaimed surgeon and writer Atul Gawande finds a remedy in the humblest and simplest of techniques: the checklist. First introduced decades ago by the U.S. Air Force, checklists have enabled pilots to fly aircraft of mind-boggling sophistication. Now innovative checklists are being adopted in hospitals around the world, helping doctors and nurses respond to everything from flu epidemics to avalanches. Even in the immensely complex world of surgery, a simple ninety-second variant has cut the rate of fatalities by more than a third.

I highly recommend it. Gwande is a wonderful writer (his Cutting for Stone is fantastic).

A proper checklist could have saved the IM-1 mission. It’s not that complicated.

 

[Electroman]

What science can it do now, resting on its side ?

 

[bxr140]

Sleep analytics?

 

[ecarfan]

Apparently many of the instruments are operational according to news reports. The batteries are getting some solar power but not the designed for amount due to the “napping” position of the vehicle (my term for it ;-).

Unfortunately the little rover is stuck inside and won’t be coming out.

As of this writing IM has not released a mission update since yesterday morning. It would be nice to have more publicly available information.

 

[ecarfan]

Scott notes that IM is a commercial company and is not obligated to release any more information then they decide to release, but…this mission would not have happened without NASA support and that means US taxpayers funded the mission, so…

 

[ecarfan]

Was this image from IM-1 taken taken during descent? I can’t find any specific information about the image.

 

[JB47394]

Scott notes that IM is a commercial company and is not obligated to release any more information then they decide to release

Well, they're obliged to release any information called for by the NASA contract, but I have no idea what that might entail. The contract was to deliver payloads and to a degree they failed at that, so they have to at least explain what happened to NASA. Whatever they tell NASA can be hidden from the public if it involves company private information, just like SpaceX redacted sections of the WB-57 footage of the second Starship launch.

Was this image from IM-1 taken taken during descent? I can’t find any specific information about the image.

Here's the original tweet. The lander was still 10 km up.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1761170012847456573

 

[scaesare]

 

[JB47394]

NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter located IM-1 on the surface. Be aware that the still image and the blinking image are not at the same orientation. The blinking image is rotated counterclockwise by about 45 degrees.

It looks like the lander skidded and/or bounced.

NASA’s LRO Images Intuitive Machine’s Odysseus Lander - NASA

On Feb. 22, Intuitive Machines’ Nova-C lander, called Odysseus, completed a seven-day journey to lunar orbit and softly landed near crater Malapert A in the

www.nasa.gov

 

[ecarfan]

Odysseus came to rest at 80.13 degrees south latitude, 1.44 degrees east longitude, 8,461 feet (2,579 meters) elevation, within a degraded one-kilometer diameter crater where the local terrain is sloped at 12 degrees…Odysseus marks the first successful soft landing of NASA’s CLPS

More NASA PR deflection; yes, those statements are all factually correct, but no mention of the final orientation of the lander.

The landing can be fairly described as “soft” but it is arguable as to whether or not it was “successful”.

I am reminded of the great Chico Marx; “Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?” (Usually misattributed to Groucho.)

As to whether the lander slid or bounced; it appears that the lander is casting a shadow(?) and at the far end of the shadow there is a small bright spot. Do you think that is disturbed lunar regolith indicating the point of impact?

I would like to know at what angle the vehicle impacted the surface slope of 12 degrees.

 

[JB47394]

As to whether the lander slid or bounced; it appears that the lander is casting a shadow(?) and at the far end of the shadow there is a small bright spot. Do you think that is disturbed lunar regolith indicating the point of impact?

Bleh. Clearly, I failed photointerpretation school. I was seeing all those craters as mounds. Because, you know, there are so many mounds on the Moon and so few craters. I had the sunlight coming from the other direction. Now things make more sense, and yes, think that the bright patch that isn't the lander is the point of impact. It's either a skid mark or it's where the engine impinged the lunar surface and cleared an area. Or both.

Scott Manley's video mentioned that they had equipment that was intended to see how the lander landed (Eagle Camera) as well as an imager to look at the impingement of the exhaust on the surface. The camera couldn't be released, and they don't yet have data from the imager. If they had pulled this off cleanly, it would have been an awesome sight to behold. Perhaps all because of a safety not being removed.

I would like to know at what angle the vehicle impacted the surface slope of 12 degrees.

I assume you want to know which direction the lander was drifting as it reached the ground. It seems very likely that it drifted pretty much straight into the slope, flipped and landed on its side, supported by the slope. They initially thought it was resting on a rock because of the rest angle, but resting against a slope would explain the lander being roughly horizontal after landing.

Looking at the image, I'd say that the direction of drift on landing was from one bright spot to the other, and that makes the slope more or less in line with that. Interestingly, the lander body looks to be canted about 45 degrees off of the line that leads back to the impact spot. If I'm reading the few available pixels right.

We'll have to send HLS Starship up there with a crew to take a look.

 

[ecarfan]

I was seeing all those craters as mounds.

Oops! I was doing the same.

Looking at the image, I'd say that the direction of drift on landing was from one bright spot to the other, and that makes the slope more or less in line with that. Interestingly, the lander body looks to be canted about 45 degrees off of the line that leads back to the impact spot.

I only see one bright spot, which I assume is the lander based on the adjacent shadow. And now that I have the shadows right, I cannot make out a separate point of impact, the resolution of the image is simply not adequate in my opinion.

So one pixel = about 2m? If so, I do not think it is possible to identify a landing leg impact point. The vehicle may have simply tipped over on touchdown and not slid at all. I don’t think it will ever be known for sure unless IM has telemetry they are not releasing publicly.

 

[JB47394]

I only see one bright spot, which I assume is the lander based on the adjacent shadow. And now that I have the shadows right, I cannot make out a separate point of impact, the resolution of the image is simply not adequate in my opinion.

Open the blink image in a new tab and zoom in to about 250%. It'll be easy to see the second bright patch slightly right and down (about 135°). In fact, zoomed in like that, there's even some kind of change visible left and above, but adjacent to the lander body. I would assume that's either a reflection illuminating the surface or displaced material when the top of the lander dug in. I'm guessing the latter, based on the rough fan shape.

 

[ecarfan]

Thanks, now I see it. And yes, the lighter fan shaped area that appears adjacent to the lander may well be a spray of disturbed regolith as the upper part of the lander impacted the surface.

So on touchdown one leg hit first because of the 12 degree slope and due to the 2m/s horizontal velocity and the much greater 6m/s vertical velocity the vehicle tipped but also rebounded, coming to rest on its side maybe 4-5m away.

 

[ecarfan]

Eric Berger in Ars: Odysseus has less than a day left on the Moon before it freezes to death

Originally, the company had hoped to operate its privately developed lunar lander on the surface for a week or longer. But now, that will no longer be possible due to the limited ability of Odysseus to gather solar energy and remain powered on. As the Sun dips closer to the horizon, and with the two-week-long lunar night coming, the spacecraft will, effectively, freeze to death. The shorter-than-anticipated lifetime is due to the lander's position on the surface.

 

[ecarfan]

Berger’s thoughts on the mission:

for reasons that Altemus [IM CEO] did not entirely explain, the lander came down a bit faster than anticipated—6 mph (2.7 m/s) instead of 2 mph (0.9 m/s). Still, this pace, about the same as a moderate walk, was within the tolerances of the vehicle's landing legs and structures to withstand. The problem is that the vehicle also had a lateral motion of about 2 mph, when it was supposed to come straight down.

It is very inaccurate to describe 6mph as that of a “moderate walk”. That is actually quite fast. See this published research which says that a “maximal” walking speed for humans is 1.79m/s which is 4mph. So I would challenge Eric, and NASA (because they made the same claim during the press conference) to try to walk at 6mph. It’s not possible. That is jogging speed.

Berger continues:

Is Odysseus a success or a failure? The mission has achieved some notable firsts. No privately developed spacecraft has ever made a soft landing on the Moon before, and it is important that Intuitive Machines has been able to maintain contact with the lander for several days. And at 80 degrees south, no spacecraft has ever made a soft landing so close to a lunar pole. Although Intuitive Machines is not going to achieve all of the mission's objectives, getting down to the Moon in one piece was, unquestionably, the achievement by which Odysseus and its builders should be judged.

I am not convinced. What I do call a success was the cryogenic propulsion system, which appears to have performed well.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Berger’s thoughts on the mission:

It is very inaccurate to describe 6mph as that of a “moderate walk”. That is actually quite fast. See this published research which says that a “maximal” walking speed for humans is 1.79m/s which is 4mph. So I would challenge Eric, and NASA (because they made the same claim during the press conference) to try to walk at 6mph. It’s not possible. That is jogging speed.

Maybe they're assuming giant steps. (Giant steps are what you take, walking on the moon.)

 

[ecarfan]

Brief video from Scott Manley about the lander design being tall and narrow and the reasons for that.

 

[ecarfan]

Update yesterday from IM including a new image.

Odysseus continues to communicate with flight controllers in Nova Control from the lunar surface. After understanding the end-to-end communication requirements, Odysseus sent images from the lunar surface of its vertical descent to its Malapert A landing site, representing the furthest south any vehicle has been able to land on the Moon and establish communication with ground controllers...Flight controllers intend to collect data until the lander’s solar panels are no longer exposed to light. Based on Earth and Moon positioning, we believe flight controllers will continue to communicate with Odysseus until Tuesday morning.

 

[scaesare]

According to the articles. there's a chance they'll use the remaining time to try and perform most science missions... which I guess still seems possible despite its wonky position...