Odysseus, the first US-built spacecraft to touchdown on the moon in more than half a century, is tipped over on its side, according to an update from Nasa and Intuitive Machines, the company that built and operated the lander.

The robotic lander descended on to the south polar region of the moon on Thursday at 6.23pm ET. But several minutes passed before flight controllers were able to pick up a signal from the lander’s communication systems.

As it landed, Odysseus “caught a foot in the surface and tipped” said Intuitive Machines CEO Steve Altemus, ending up on its side.

Still, the lander is “near or at our intended landing site”, he said. Nasa and Intuitive Machines said they have been receiving data from the lander and believe that most of the scientific instruments that it is carrying are in a position to work.

  • IndiBrony@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    9 months ago

    The average person may well scoff at the idea that we can’t land on the moon properly even though we could do it 60 years ago, but your average KSP chads are just amazed we’ve managed to actually land on the mun and not waste billions on making penis rockets that crash 10ft away from base.

    • zurohki@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      9 months ago

      your average KSP chads are just amazed we’ve managed to actually land on the mun and not waste billions on making penis rockets that crash 10ft away from base.

      Bro, why did you have to call me out like that.

    • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      9 months ago

      To be fair, the recent bunch of failed or partially successful landers have mostly been countries that haven’t landed on the moon before, or private companies that haven’t done it themselves and have an incentive to save money during the design process, or Russia, which has been letting their space program decay for some time now.

  • FollyDolly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    9 months ago

    So Japens moon lander landed upside down, and Americas fell over. This isn’t looking too good for the future of space exploration.

    • uphillbothways@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      9 months ago

      Need to start launching from Australia at this rate. Maybe then they’ll show up in the correct vertical orientation.

    • Bonehead@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      9 months ago

      We have multiple countries sending moon landers, and a few planning to return people to the moon to start a launching pad to Mars. A few accidents involving unmanned probes is nothing to worry about.

      • Ranvier@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        9 months ago

        And this one wasn’t even a country per se, but a company. Though NASA has some experiments they out on the craft.

        • Badabinski@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          9 months ago

          I’m much less worried about human piloted craft. It’s very difficult to program complex decision making and discernment. The astronauts present in the first landers will have been intensively trained in how to avoid catastrophe and will likely be able to come up with solutions on the fly if unanticipated things happen. Still dangerous, but hopefully less so.

          It will be much easier to land completely automatically once we have landing pads, radar tracking, and other infrastructure present on the surface. It’s just hard to land a robot on an airless moon with a bunch of rocks and hills and shit everywhere.

    • AlphaOmega@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      9 months ago

      A few years back one crashed because the European team used metric and the American team used imperial. They are getting better…

      • Transporter Room 3@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        9 months ago

        AGAIN!

        Because miscommunications on standardized measurements is apparently a recurring theme in aerospace engineering.

        I’m in the US, I almost exclusively use imperial, but all my CAD models are metric, all my hobbies are geared for metric.

        The fact that companies involved in multi-m/billion dollar endeavors can’t figure out “measure twice…”

  • DarkMessiah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    9 months ago

    You know… I think naming a spaceship (or any ship, really) after a man who took twenty years to return from his voyage might not be the best idea to avoid jinxing it.

    • beltsin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      NASA funded lander built and operated by Intuitive Machines, launched on a SpaceX Falcon 9, delivering NASA scientific payloads.

    • Jkosmonaut@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      There are several! Instead of funding one large, expensive NASA mission, they took the unusual approach of funding many small and new companies a relatively small amount of money to develop their technology and attempt a landing with some NASA payloads under the Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) program.

      The idea is that they know some are going to fail, especially their first attempt. The NASA administrator in charge of the program has described the strategy as “shots on goal.” These are basically startups with untested technology using “cheap” stuff instead of traditional aerospace materials because that’s all they could afford. But the payoff could be huge if they do actually succeed and they’re getting closer and closer to that! Here’s a rough schedule:

      https://www.planetary.org/space-missions/clps

      So yes, these are all private companies that received NASA funding to help develop their landers, but the funding was small for a mission of this scale and most the companies bid at a loss in order to win their missions.