Artemis Moon Program

Not again! Just as I was celebrating that the lander had made it to the Moons surface I got this news on my phone this morning. I do wonder what happened to the lander to end up on it's side like that.
 
A shame if it was top heavy NMaude, will it still be able to carry out experiments though? That was after all it's primary mission.
 
- they hadn't fully canceled yaw rate (or spin)
- the lander had still a bit of forward (or lateral) speed and tripped over.
- they improvised landing at a slightly higher mass when residual motion is non-trivial.

I think, Messieurs, this is a good occasion to lower (again) our hats in a general salute to the Apollo LEM pilots.

Kids today see black and white pictures or funny grainy color footage and they think that's easy.

Easy to get unbroken coms. Easy to land in regolith. Easy to deal with the absence of atmosphere (that act as a damper to unwanted motion for example). Easy to deal with relaxed gravity... Yeah.
 
Last edited:
Space News (comment section) has a blurb about an eye-unsafe laser now being switched back on for launch.
 
Flyaway said:
They also admitted leaving the dust covers on the LIDAR sensors I believe.
Click to expand...

Fuckwits! Didn't they have bright red "Remove before Flight" signs on these covers? No doubt someone has been yelled at for this idiotic fuckup.

Edit: The Space Bucket has uploaded a video concerning the lander's toppling over.


A few days ago on the 22nd the Intuitive Machines lunar lander attempted to touchdown on the lunar south pole. This was quite a big deal as not only was it a private company responsible but this was also the first U.S. lunar landing attempt in over 50 years. However, what was initially reported by the company as a successful and upright landing, has since changed with new information.
Click to expand...
We now know that during its final approach toward the surface, they believe one of its legs got caught in a hole in the ground tipping the entire lunar lander onto its side. It now is horizontal with some of its solar panels now sideways rather than vertical attempting to gather energy. Despite this mishap, teams at Intuivitve Machines and NASA believe it can still complete part of its science mission. Here I will go more in-depth into the landing error, how it happened, what this means for the rest of the mission, and more.
Click to expand...
Full article here - https://thespacebucket.com/what-exact...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Someone had the right idea here for a Mars lander - assuming you have the weight budget for really long legs. I'm not being facetious here in suggesting that maybe the lander should be designed to land on its side - much lower centre of gravity, wider footprint, so it's more stable in one axis anyway. The (rejected) Dynetics lander concept for Artemis illustrated.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_9404.jpg
    IMG_9404.jpg
    658.8 KB · Views: 34
  • ALPACA LAUNCH.jpg
    ALPACA LAUNCH.jpg
    68.8 KB · Views: 17
We have drones encased in spheres so as to prevent damage…perhaps that can be used:
www.indiegogo.com

Droneball The Collision Tolerant Drone

Groundbreaking, big fun, durable ,safe and unrivalled. | Check out 'Droneball The Collision Tolerant Drone' on Indiegogo.
www.indiegogo.com www.indiegogo.com

It would not have to be a rover as here:

www.mdpi.com

Design and Analysis of a Spherical Robot with Rolling and Jumping Modes for Deep Space Exploration

Complex and unknown terrains in deep space exploration present great challenges to existing exploration robots. In this paper, a multi-mode motion spherical robot with flexible motion and strong environmental adaptability is presented. The spherical robot can roll and jump by swinging the...
www.mdpi.com www.mdpi.com

Perhaps an inner sphere with contents that stay upright without regard to which way the outer sphere is directed.

Exhaust resistant inflates perhaps.
 
NMaude said:
Fuckwits! Didn't they have bright red "Remove before Flight" signs on these covers? No doubt someone has been yelled at for this idiotic fuckup.

Edit: The Space Bucket has uploaded a video concerning the lander's toppling over.

Click to expand...
There should be an engineering equivalent to the Golden Raspberry/Darwin Awards - designing a lander with six legs that is still able to topple is almost an accomplishment in itself.
 
Phillip Sloss has just uploaded a new update concerning the status of the Artemis II launch hardware:


Another NASA Artemis update on the Moon to Mars programs to report this time.
Click to expand...
The seventh RS-25 hot-fire test in a Retrofit 3b series of 12 occurred at NASA Stennis Space Center in the afternoon of February 23, with a 550 second hot-fire. Engine 0525 will test a second new production restart nozzle for the remainder of the series.
Click to expand...
NASA Public Affairs posted more pictures of Exploration Ground Systems work to finish stacking preparations for the Artemis II Solid Rocket Boosters. Painting of the NASA worm logo on the center-center segments is complete and work to finish aft assembly buildup is expected to be complete soon. Video of a Mobile Launcher crew access arm swing test at Launch Pad 39B was also published.
Click to expand...
A Universal Stage Adapter test article for the SLS Block 1B Crew vehicle in development was also seen in transport to Marshall Space Flight Center during the week.
Click to expand...

I wonder when the SLS thread is going to be reopened?
 
TomcatViP said:
- they hadn't fully canceled yaw rate (or spin)
- the lander had still a bit of forward (or lateral) speed and tripped over.
- they improvised landing at a slightly higher mass when residual motion is non-trivial.

I think, Messieurs, this is a good occasion to lower (again) our hats in a general salute to the Apollo LEM pilots.

Kids today see black and white pictures or funny grainy color footage and they think that's easy.

Easy to get unbroken coms. Easy to land in regolith. Easy to deal with the absence of atmosphere (that act as a damper to unwanted motion for example). Easy to deal with relaxed gravity... Yeah.
Click to expand...
Yes, the astronauts were well aware of the need for only vertical (Z axis) motion in the final moments of descent. The upper left panel on the LM had a (digitally driven) analog display of cross pointers, which displayed the X and Y rates on the LM. This assisted the LM commander to access the rates and null them out prior to landing.
 
Last edited:
Flyaway said:
Apparently it was a system in the LIDAR to protect people’s eyes on the ground from the laser, but should have been removed before launch but wasn’t.
Click to expand...
There is Reason why certain organizations have and employ extensively detailed procedure instructions and exhaustive checklists, both of which do admittedly cost man hours and money.
 
NMaude said:
I wonder when the SLS thread is going to be reopened?
Click to expand...
Well…some will attack it, I defend..more back-and forth—and locked again.

There, I saved you the trouble :)

At any rate, Starship is now part of Arty, so…this thread is moving along well. I won’t hex it.
 
Last edited:
there reason why you should build your Moon lander like this:

1174px-ChangE-4_-_PCAM_%2851216550288%29.png
 
Michel Van said:
there reason why you should build your Moon lander like this:

1174px-ChangE-4_-_PCAM_%2851216550288%29.png
Click to expand...

There are often competing constraints at play, though. One challenge might be fitting that type of wide format lander inside the existing payload shroud and still carrying the same payload.

There are a lot of "but for" failures at work here. For example, if they had only remembered to pull the eye safe covers off the nav lasers, then they would not have had to improvise a new landing navigation system at the last minute. And with the original nav system, they might have been better at nulling their rates for landing. Or better at picking a landing spot without an obstacle. Etc.
 
TomcatViP said:
- they hadn't fully canceled yaw rate (or spin)
- the lander had still a bit of forward (or lateral) speed and tripped over.
- they improvised landing at a slightly higher mass when residual motion is non-trivial.
Click to expand...
Because they were used a test LIDAR for data because the primary was inop
 
TomcatViP said:
I think, Messieurs, this is a good occasion to lower (again) our hats in a general salute to the Apollo LEM pilots.
Click to expand...
Not really.
A. There was 5 unmanned Surveyors that landed on the moon before them
b. There are/was 5 landers and 5 rovers placed on Mars
c. And more so, there were no LEM pilots, only LM pilots.
 
NMaude said:
Fuckwits! Didn't they have bright red "Remove before Flight" signs on these covers? No doubt someone has been yelled at for this idiotic fuckup.
Click to expand...
It was an enable plug that wasn't installed.
edited
 
Last edited:
martinbayer said:
There should be an engineering equivalent to the Golden Raspberry/Darwin Awards - designing a lander with six legs that is still able to topple is almost an accomplishment in itself.
Click to expand...
No, the design is fine. Problem was using untested experiment as a primary sensor.
 
If you look at the design geometry, it *intuitively* (pun fully intended) appears top heavy, i.e. the dry CG is relatively high in comparison to the maximum distance between individual landing pads, which makes it intrinsically more sensitive to non-vertical touchdowns than stouter configurations.
 
Last edited:
martinbayer said:
If you look at the design geometry, it *intuitively* (pun fully intended) appears top heavy, i.e. the dry CG is relatively high in comparison to the maximum distance between individual landing pads, which makes it intrinsically more sensitive to non-vertical touchdowns than stouter configurations.
Click to expand...
But you don't know the actual mass distribution.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom