JoeSchmuckatelli Posted February 24 Share Posted February 24 8 minutes ago, tater said: Friend at NASA kind of annoyed they are calling it a success. In somewhat harsher language. LOL Another friend via text: We unloaded your new refrigerator in your kitchen, ON ITS SIDE. We successfully landed your airline flight ON ITS SIDE. We dropped the dumpster in your driveway ON ITS SIDE. You are describing my whole post save and reload KSP career. ...as long as it's not a crater and can 'do science' it's a success. Rite? Rite? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunlitZelkova Posted February 24 Share Posted February 24 I’m surprised the US and Japan have had so many issues. In contrast, China and India have had success in the past couple years by comparison (Chang’e 5 and Chandrayaan 3). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted February 24 Share Posted February 24 (edited) 12 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said: I’m surprised the US and Japan have had so many issues. In contrast, China and India have had success in the past couple years by comparison (Chang’e 5 and Chandrayaan 3). Well, the US landers were developed commercially, while JAXA seems to have proven a design (materials) problem with their engines. China is a more mature program, and India is the exception that proves the rule that space is HARD. Edited February 24 by StrandedonEarth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted February 24 Share Posted February 24 36 minutes ago, tater said: Friend at NASA kind of annoyed they are calling it a success. In somewhat harsher language. LOL Another friend via text: We unloaded your new refrigerator in your kitchen, ON ITS SIDE. We successfully landed your airline flight ON ITS SIDE. We dropped the dumpster in your driveway ON ITS SIDE. The thing is sitting on the Moon, is working just fine, it isn't in a million pieces, and it was going less than a thousand miles an hour when it hit the ground. This is a "soft landing" accomplished in my book. Of all the milestones to fail during a moon landing, tipping gently over at the very end is the least concerning. They'll figure out what happened, and if the next one doesn't stand proudly upright they can just build wider landing legs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 24 Author Share Posted February 24 1 minute ago, cubinator said: The thing is sitting on the Moon, is working just fine, it isn't in a million pieces, and it was going less than a thousand miles an hour when it hit the ground. This is a "soft landing" accomplished in my book. Of all the milestones to fail during a moon landing, tipping gently over at the very end is the least concerning. They'll figure out what happened, and if the next one doesn't stand proudly upright they can just build wider landing legs. They were not in the doghouse. Landing 101. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted February 24 Share Posted February 24 (edited) Another article: IM-1 lunar lander tipped over on its side - SpaceNews One tidbit that I don't recall being mentioned in this thread (emphasis mine): Quote 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. So in other words, a pre-launch (closeout) checklist failure/omission. I'm assuming there was a checklist, but that the switch was not on said checklist. Too bad the switch could not be flipped remotely.... Edited February 24 by StrandedonEarth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PakledHostage Posted February 24 Share Posted February 24 2 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said: Too bad the switch could not be flipped remotely.... For want of a nail... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthgently Posted February 24 Share Posted February 24 (edited) 3 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said: Another article: IM-1 lunar lander tipped over on its side - SpaceNews One tidbit that I don't recall being mentioned in this thread (emphasis mine): So in other words, a pre-launch (closeout) checklist failure/omission. I'm assuming there was a checklist, but that the switch was not on said checklist. Too bad the switch could not be flipped remotely.... Make it a DPDT switch such that if isn't flipped on, a blinking red LED in a conspicuous location blinks incessantly and brightly Better yet, just make it a big red plastic part that slides between contacts that power the laser. The red plastic part is so big that it looks silly sticking out the side of the lander. The lander won't even fit in the fairing with it in place. Edited February 24 by darthgently Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDE Posted February 24 Share Posted February 24 20 hours ago, cubinator said: I wonder if they can get that third-person video of the landing and tipover, from that camera that they apparently launched out of the side(?). That would be especially exciting. From what I've read, they're planning to try and launch that now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted February 25 Share Posted February 25 On 2/23/2024 at 6:40 PM, StrandedonEarth said: Well, it is still sending (whispering?) data. Call it a partial success. Certainly not a full success if some instrumentation wasn't working on descent. Sort of the equivalent of "Any landing you can walk away from" More like the equivalent of a landing you can crawl away from, with two broken legs. Like, it *could* have been worse, but not by very much. 16 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said: Too bad the switch could not be flipped remotely.... Manual lockouts are intentionally unable to be flipped remotely. They didn't want any chance that somebody was staring into a non-eye-safe laser when somebody remotely flipped a switch to turn it on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDE Posted February 25 Share Posted February 25 12 hours ago, mikegarrison said: More like the equivalent of a landing you can crawl away from, with two broken legs. Like, it *could* have been worse, but not by very much. Well, somebody has probably made that joke, but anyway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 25 Author Share Posted February 25 13 hours ago, mikegarrison said: Manual lockouts are intentionally unable to be flipped remotely. They didn't want any chance that somebody was staring into a non-eye-safe laser when somebody remotely flipped a switch to turn it on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 26 Author Share Posted February 26 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 26 Author Share Posted February 26 They only expect it to work til tomorrow? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 On 2/24/2024 at 4:23 AM, tater said: They were not in the doghouse. Landing 101. Change the lander design, falcon 9 fairing is 5 meter wide I think, its easier to hit an barn than an dog house. This is my standard KSP lander, later version replace the legs with wheels. Yes KSP is not real world, one issue is heat from the engine and mass constrains is much more strict but an flatter lander makes sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthgently Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 Too bad the surface plume experiment was a no go on Odysseus. Here is a string of Twi/X posts by Dr. Phil Metzger about why the plume experiment is so important. I got the thread unrolled at this link for easier reading. I hadn't realized CFD had this Achilles heel, but yeah, no pressure, no viscosity. No viscosity, no Navier-Stokes https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1761726379115045095.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geonovast Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 Starting to think these companies trying to land on the moon should take a page from pathfinder's book and build the thing so it has to open up and will right itself automatically no matter which way it lands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 28 Author Share Posted February 28 This one seems like maybe it would have worked if they had, you know, prepped the vehicle properly prior to launch. Instead of something that had to be added, maybe a non-conductive pin holding a switch open with a "remove before flight" tag? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PakledHostage Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 1 hour ago, tater said: This one seems like maybe it would have worked if they had, you know, prepped the vehicle properly prior to launch. Instead of something that had to be added, maybe a non-conductive pin holding a switch open with a "remove before flight" tag? Yeah, bit of a rookie mistake, it seems. Lockouts should be obvious, not latent. But that being said, the fact that they were able to salvage the landing (and the mission) to the extent that they did is impressive. By the sounds of it, it required a spectacular bit of engineering and software development under extreme time pressure to achieve the result that they did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 28 Author Share Posted February 28 Can see broken leg strut. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PakledHostage Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 A bunch of years ago, I hosted a KSP forum challenge to reach the munar surface from LKO with miminum delta-V. The winning entry shaved off 100 m/s from what everyone thought possible by touching down at that horizontal speed and rolling to a stop. This kinda reminds me of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 29 Author Share Posted February 29 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 29 Author Share Posted February 29 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minmus Taster Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 4 minutes ago, tater said: Yikes, how far is it from the lander? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 29 Author Share Posted February 29 2 minutes ago, Minmus Taster said: Yikes, how far is it from the lander? Yep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.