Odysseus status update 

They hid that information until the stock market closed then opened up right after. They knew it was on it's side from the get go. Clowns

Good one

That was the plan. The landing didn’t go according to the plan :-)

The Sun's radiation is fully received by the Moon's soil (as Moon lacks a magnetic field), so it ionizes the soil's particles, which interferes with radio communication, so there is no proper communication with the lander in the last meters. And since the "safety pin" on the lander's own navigation laser radar (which prevents burning out somebody's eyes) was accidentally not disabled while still on Earth (it should have been disabled before launch), therefore the engineers wrote an extra code in the software so that the lander navigates primarily with the NASA LIDAR (which was a payload on board). The lander was continuously communicating with the ground control, the engineers, so it could not land correctly autonomously, and the communication could have been interrupted in the last meters, maybe that is why they could not reduce the horizontal speed to 0.

One question does it have a rover or not????...

No rover on this mission.

😅😂

I don't know what is happening to these companies......and how India just did not landed once but twice means hop landing......

Florida state trooper is being dispatched with a breathalyzer 😂😂😂

​@@bikashkr.choudhary4572because indians don't rush things up, they take their time, learn from mistakes and make perfect machines without wasting money.

Becuase moon dosent have atmosphere and less gravity makes moon landings harder than Mars landings

The shapes and masses are vastly different and presumably the center of gravity also. As another commenter stated, less gravity makes it easier to bounce on touchdown. Don't let the distance to the celestial body fool you. Things that are closer can be much more complicated. Finally keep in mind that this was a low budget mission compared to national governments missions.

@@LoyalHacketActually...Mars landings are WAY more difficult than moon landings. On the moon it's purely propulsive landing only where Mars requires multiple devices due to the atmosphere and the necessity to deal with reentry heating from the much greater approach speeds which doesn't exist on the moon. Instead of being 3 seconds away from transmission to return you have 6 minutes....so any landings must be purely autonomous where moon landings can be monitored and adjusted up to the very last few minutes. Only in our present society where 'everyone gets a trophy' can a soft landing that tips on its' side be considered a 'success'. Yes it landed softly enough that it didn't scatter across the surface...but for sure it didn't go as planned. I know people will immediately counter with 'what about SpaceX failures' with the Starship??? They are doing things that have NEVER been done before while landing a small craft on the moon is trying to duplicate what was done 50+ years ago. Plus...SpaceX is spending THEIR money so incremental improvements that get them closer to the goal are considered progress where taking someone else's money to do a job...that fails....well, that's just not the same thing.

This was a private company with a lot less money than a government agency

One of the main differences is that NASA's Mars rovers were not powered soft landings (arguably the most difficult). They were either bounce-and-roll or lowered by flying crane. Add to that the huge difference in budgets, and it's not too surprising. Kudos to IM for doing it, though!

As they say

​@@CiptyTv🤦‍♂️

I had thought of Weebles myself.

@@louf7178They need to pay You and I the big money.

Yeah, IVE played Kerbal Space Program. Soon we will be able to buy the next tier rockets guys, MUN OR BUST!

Hey, it is a soft landing on the moon, isn’t that a success?

But apparently they are trying to get the cameras working so hopefully we get photos soon

日本のSLIMのほうは越夜に成功したようです。昨日通信が回復しました。

If we were transported back to the 70s we would have live stream😂

Many problems on releasing the photos and videos side. Back then it was about proving to people that they did it. Now everyone (except christian space deniers) knows they can, but releasing the footage has other implications that they know of. There will probably be footage soon, atleast I hope there is some.

@@aksvinss What are these many problems and implications?

This lander tipped from rough terrain and too much horizontal velocity whereas SLIM tipped from a thruster error.

This pilot of many years says, any landing where you don't wind up on the landing gear is most definitely NOT a successful landing. But mostly, the lack of any photos and radio silence from IM to match the lander itself is very discouraging. But I wish IM well and hope they try again.

Lot's of excuses and bizarre circumstances. There's something strange about the whole deal. Guess one can only wait and see.

​@@AerialRCFunits not "strange"

But at least it is still working and did not get destroyed. 😮‍💨

Never heard of an “E” rating.

@@wkh4321music A best. E worse

F for failure, what a waste of time and money

@@nzmeateater What exactly do y'all classify as a failure? The lander being upright? Sure, it was designed to land that way, but if it can complete five out of six of its science objectives regardless, it absolutely is a huge win for Intuitive Machines, NASA, and the Artemis program. You have to remember, the Commercial Lunar Payload Services task order is to conduct science on the surface of the moon through technology integration and data collection. If the lander can still complete its mission, it has performed its function. While it might not be a 100% win, I'd definitely classify it as an 80%, easily. The NDL payload proved instrumental in this "soft"(albeit, tripped up) landing. It was used functionally as a critical landing element, which NASA never even intended - it was supposed to be a technology demonstration/prototype test. And it worked well enough to keep the lander from full-on crashing into the moon at a terminal velocity. It takes the technology readiness level(TRL) and pushes it forward through government its government classifications. That is HUGE. The RFMG payload was easily provable in transit, as they probably took readings from that instrument to measure their propellant levels after every engine firing. Their LN1 payload was probably used in-transit as well, for orbit determination. SCALPSS might be recoverable if they can get the data in the next week or so - it may even give them exactly what happened when the vehicle landed. ROLSES - probably not going to happen. LRA can probably be pinged from certain angles by the lunar reconnaissance orbiter. You can read about their payloads on their website, go to IM-1 and scroll all the way down. Forget EagleCam. It was likely a publicity stunt they didn't have the time to entertain when faced with real in-mission decisions. Listen - it wasn't perfect. But not a single organizational entity has ever had a perfect first try. I'm sure they'll learn from this and honestly? Being this close on their first try? They'll nail the next attempt if they take the lessons learned and apply them to their IM-2 mission. They built a custom engine, proved in-flight usage of that engine - on the first try, I might add. Using cryogenic methane and liquid oxygen has long been theorized as a much more thrust-to-weight-efficient ISP than hypergolic fuels when used in a space vehicle. They are probably REALLY happy about that. That in and of itself is a celebratory achievement. Also, get this: no private company has ever landed a space vehicle in a functional state on a different celestial body - hell, Astrobotic(another CLPS company) couldn't even fire their engine and get out TO the moon, their propellant tank exploded in the opening hours of their mission. And they were supposed to land on the moon and conduct science too. Doesn't matter that Odysseus didn't land upright: it landed, and the lander is functional and able to carry out its mission. That's success. Maybe not from a PR standpoint, but functionally, yes. It may not be perfect, and they should certainly strive for perfection, but missions never go the way you think they will, and that I have definitely learned from my time in the military. No plan survives first contact with the enemy. Also, since you idiots love to compare this to the Apollo program - give Intuitive Machines Apollo's budget and see what happens. Go ahead and Google the numbers. See what NASA had to work with 50 years ago, adjust it for inflation today, and compare it to Intuitive Machines' budget for this single lunar landing attempt. You will then maybe understand that the two are not even close to comparable from a budgetary standpoint. It's fucking mind-blowing that they got this close on their first attempt. AND WE GOT PICTURES. Maybe not all the pictures we wanted(some shots of the lunar surface definitely would have been sweet), but we definitely got a lot. NASA doesn't even put cameras on most of its probes. I will say though, the tweet confirming they landed vertically is embarrassing from a PR standpoint. Their CEO had to publicly admit that that was incorrect. And 100% they should have retracted that as soon as they had the information that that was not the case.

@@W4r10ckm4n its a failure, dont try n paint it as if its not, I would be conducting some major sackings and reeming peoples ear drums out if I was in charge, all been done before with plenty of experience to tap into with moon landings and mars, and on asteroids,,,,,, its a failure, and a huge waste of money, I bet mr Musk is rolling his eye in the background.

It didn’t detach, it might be deployed this weekend to take images of the lander.

I was thinking the same thing!

It might blow up

But if it is working then why even try to make it go upright?

@@lucasread1743 Is it working. The producers said it's too dark to take video. How can it sample for topical material on its side?

I’m quite sure they built it that way and every other lander the last 60 years that exact way for a reason.

@@nsxmatt I think you may want to take a look at the Surveyor and Viking landers.

@@gtv6chuck 2 out of 75 successful landers on planets and moons. And they were low profile because of the limited size. It’s always humorous when the self proclaimed rocket scientists come out on RU-vid trying to discredit people like they know more.

@@nsxmatt And guess what - none of the other landers looked like this. I was correct about the stability of the lander and they weren't. It fell over. Oftentimes when something looks wrong, it is wrong.

@@gtv6chuck except for most all Russian Luna, venera, Vega, and every other probe. Just stop. Go back and eat donuts on your couch and leave space exploration to us over here on the space coast.

Wasn't theirs upside down?

*we've had a problem. Use the real quote

@@RocketPal *Kouston... (+ KSP backgroud music) :) It’s a pity that there are difficulties with landing devices based on new technologies. Apparently this is an inevitable period of time.

@@RocketPal Well sooooooory Mr. Pedantic.

Yeah, for sure. Where the hell is Space Force in all this? You’d think they had a tow cable laying around.

I think it will be fine. The most important thing is that it’s working.

You mean after they declared it was upright to pump their stock price then admitted it actually feel over after market closed?

@@vlhc4642 hmm, in this world, that wouldn't surprise me

when? @@vlhc4642

That's not how those thursters work

That might be a possibility provided the thrusters can overcome even the small amount of gravity on the moon.

@@batcollins3714 Witam ponownie, więc co proponujesz merytorycznie. Masz jakąś idee by postawić ten lądownik, czy jest inny sposób by to wykonać. Jak na razie nie widzę innej możliwości. Przypomnę że mniej więcej taką sytuację mieli japończycy. Oni uruchomili silniki manewrujące i udało. Myślę że intuitive tak samo uda się ten manewr. Chyba że masz inną idee- chętnie poczytam co ty byś zrobił w tym wypadku. Sytuacja jest trudna ale moim zdaniem do uratowania. Pozdrawiam serdecznie z polski.

@@Elwood470 Witam ponownie, masz zupełną rację tak jest i teraz pytanie czy intuitive to przewidziała czy są ba taką ewentualność przygotowani. Moim zdaniem chyba im nic innego nie pozostaje tylko tak spróbować bo jak inaczej- masz jakąś idee? Japończykom się udało i sądzę że intuitive też się ten manewr uda. Zresztą nic innego nie oczekuję tylko sukcesu ameryki. Mam takie pytanie na koniec: ponieważ piszę tu po polsku mniemam że tłumaczenie na angielski jest OK i działa lecz z angielskiego na polski tłumaczenie nie działa. Jestem trochę zawiedziony you tube że nie robi tego automatycznie. Pozdrawiam serdecznie z polski życzę miłego dnia.

Witam, z wszystkich mitologii możesz się dowiedzieć że bogowie miewają kaprysy i widzi mi się. Więc bym na bogów nie liczył a szczególnie tych starożytnych bo oni takiej zaawansowanej techniki nie rozumieją i nie pomogą. Tu potrzebna jest wiedza i zdolność przewidywania takich sytuacji. A w tym lądowniku takich krytycznych sytuacji było dwa. Pozdrawiam

Impossible

@batcollins3714 How so? I think with enough precision from the ground team they could do it.

Maybe make it a sphere.

Well it’s still working and that’s what’s most important.

Its those Rascal Moonikins old Buzz warned us about... They don't like Uninvited Guests.

@@Shivaho I have a feeling that they will be conquered, eventually.

Problem w tym że tuż przed wylądowaniem mieli pierwszy poważny problem a mianowicie żyro kompas im wysiadł, pytanie jak oni to sprawdzają że za takie pieniądze dochodzi di tak poważnych błędów i dlaczego nie wszystko jest w takich misjach wzięte pod uwagę np awarie, przewrotki złe ustawienie lądownika. Niech włączą silniczki korekcyjne i ustawią go prawidłowo jedyna rada. Pozdrawiam

They said it was upright, many people like myself bought. They then announced after hours that it wasn't upright. Now me and many are down thousands.

Yeah I thought that was pretty sketchy how they worded it all. If they’d said right off the bat, “there is an 80% chance that it’s on its side” I’d have more respect for them. But they hid the truth. “technically we landed in the moon”. It will make me question every future announcement from them. This was an incredible achievement nonetheless. Great work.

@@bar8393gm Witam, To jest bardzo duży problem wizerunkowy i teraz trzeba z niego jakoś wyjść z sukcesem. Moim skromnym zdaniem jedyna metoda ponownego ustawienia lądownika to uruchomienie silniczków korekcyjnych, poderwanie lądownika do góry na odpowiednią wysokość i ponowne wylądowanie na powierzchni księżyca. Problem w tym że bez sprawnego żyro kompasu będzie to bardzo trudne, niestety przyczyną feralnego lądowania jest zepsuty żyro kompas. Może kamerki pomogą wykonać ten manewr w bardzo powolnym tempie. Za takie miliony wydane na misję należy uwzględnić takie nieprzewidziane sytuacje. Liczę na to że amerykanie uporają się z tym problemem i będzie sukces na co liczymy. Życzymy intuitive sukcesu! Pozdrawiam sedecznie.

Witam, i właśnie ciś mi się zdaje że inżynierowie odpowiedzialni za projektowanie lądowników księżycowych nieco nonszalancko podchodzą do projektowania takiego lądownika i wyposażenie gi w instrumentu sterowania i komunikacji na wszelkie wypadki nie przewidziane podczas manewru lądowania. Coś za szybko te instrumenty odpowiedzialne za sterowanie i lądowanie psują się zaraz po starcie. Możliwe że wibracje się do tego przyczyniły podczas startu rakiety nośnej. A to oznacza że lądownik został za zbyt delikatnych materiałów zbudowany. No bo przecież podczas testów wszystko niby działało- zgadza się? Teraz jest pytanie takie; dkaczego zaraz po starcie ulega awarii tak ważny instrument. To już druga taja awaria pierwszy lądownik nawet nie ruszył w stronę księżyca mowa o Pellegrine- to zaczyna być dziwne, czyżby projekty nie były testowane podczas budowy lądownika. Pozdrawiam serdecznie.

It was not deployed, they are assessing its deployment now to take images of the lander.

It's like a plane that has a rough landing but all the passengers are all right...this was Intuitive Machines very first try to land on a position on the Moon that only India has tried to land on...that's not bad at all...this is very new to the entire planet trying to land on the Moon's south pole...all the rest of lunar landings have taken place along the Moon's equator.

@@markb2773Yes, it is much more difficult and also more expensive to get a lander to a trajectory towards the poles and land it there, landing close to the equator is much easier.

If the lander is not destroyed on impact and can send data, it is a successful landing.

@@billyturner1784 Then why ever put legs on them?

@@paulmurgatroyd6372 Because if the lander remains on its legs it's an even more successful landing. And on a manned mission the only successfull one.

That's because they're the science community. Science is done in metric.

They did, that’s why it failed to land properly :-)

Failed 😂 America failed

No images, camera didn't deploy.

Exactly!

If it didn’t fail it succeeded. Landing sideways does not mean a failure

yep

@@llllll-mp1zr I never said it was normal. I was saying that just because one thing goes wrong doesn’t mean the mission is a failure despite the fact that the lander still works it is just on its side. A partial success would be more accurate.

What about what is right? The craft is almost 100% operational!

It fell over and is lying on it's side according to the latest news.

​@@Afterburner it tipped off!

1:35 in the video

No its not its tilted and its not going to given invented result this mission is to land the it perfectly like india and China@@Afterburner