darthgently

If this KSP stuff applies, then they need more tanks and drain the aft tanks first to keep the CoM to the fore as the props drain. Though this only applies when aero forces are high typically. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

May not be quality, could be newer design, or recent changes

I wonder, given it was at the end of the burn, it is unclear if the engines that shut off did so too soon, or did the lit vacuums not shutdown? May be a valves not closing issue.

Aaaasrgh

Missing one engine Still nails it

So initial landing burn will have to be different if those two engines are still not playing Look at that hot stage ring!

All engines bright yet not exploding. Check.

I’m a bit giddy

lol. Could be. Though accelerometers are very simple and while the moon would have a lower magnitude it would still just point down.

They just mentioned that this lander has much lower CoM than the previous with all the heavy stuff down low. So they learned from the Sideways One lander. I do not envy the IM ppl in the hot seats in this presser I gotta say that it seems crazy to me they can’t verify the attitude. A $0.50 cell phone accelerometer chip would probably do it in a pinch. Shell out 20x that for “lunar grade” and it would still be a great deal. I’m guessing on the cost but can’t be off horribly

Clearly they need KSP overpowered reaction wheels to right the lander. Duh. We’ve all been there; sort of. In our special KSP way, ha ha In the ongoing live press conference, also on YouTube as well as X, they are saying the attitude ranging laser was not behaving well during descent so I’m leaning a bit further to the ground coming up quicker than perceived by the software perhaps https://www.youtube.com/live/q-mMJxIttBc?si=u5as2ofvNxPk7XOy

Indications are strong that Athena is “not in the correct attitude” on the surface. Ouch. A lot of ppl saying it is too skinny and tall but I’m betting on the guy who thinks they aren’t cancelling enough horizontal prior to touchdown. Either touchdown is occurring before they think it should or there isn’t enough gimballed cosine thrust leftover for the horizontal cancellation after the required vertical deceleration takes its bite out of the budget or similar. I have no particular reason for leaning this way other than it doesn’t seem like the lander is all that tall and skinny given the stance of the legs

The X posts from Dr. Phil Metzer I posted here goes into a lot of that. It will likely end up in international agreement on how much is too much and compensation for damage etc.

Wind and gusts at ground level are definitely appearing marginal but upper level winds would likely play a larger role in a launch scrub. But ground level winds and gusts could really have a big effect on catch attempts so I have to wonder about a launch without a catch if it is too crazy

Fingers crossed

And skates…

Nice image to twiddle your thumbs to while waiting for 8.

More details

This is fine for very tall landers like HLS, but you’d need a rocket mount tower on typical landers to get them up high enough. No atmosphere means no turbulence diffusing the force of the plume so I’m wondering if even high rockets won’t present a 2km/s debris spray also. Just less focused as the plume diverges with height

Tomorrow again?

This is a big deal. Until landing pads are in place that are designed to exclude dust and debris with deflectors at the perimeter to direct plume flow up and over the surrounding terrain and any craft or structures each landing would be a terror for any unprotected craft or structures nearby

Joke on X was that the big chunk of debris going ballistic on touchdown was the ghost of Alan Shepherd’s golf ball as he played through the LZ.

Firefly landing video has been downloaded from zee Mooon