The Odysseus Moon Lander Is Officially Out of Power 

LOL

Good one !

Next is Colossus 😉

And Frozen temple, .. Vikram 😅😅😅

You think it's real 😂

CEO - "Successfully ran out of power!"

"Aw, man! My jet pack's busted.", Lt. Doolittle "Dark Star" (1974).

"These solar kids"

But I'd still rather visit the Titanic than board a rocketship to the moon...

the insurance people are not going to buy that

Can you imagine going to work on Monday and being told, The Boss is looking for you...

@@firstlast-pt5pp , the voiceless American tax-payer is the "insurer" of Federal failure...

So another flop

@@jasonrae9190 , if a man can "be" a .>WOMANSUCCESS

they treasure their "participation" trophies and ribbons....

Most of the scientific instruments were able to get data and send back to Earth.

It's on the moon south pole as intended, mostly intact, returning data, first attempt.

it's easy if you lower your standards and insist on higher contract rates.

This is not the problem. The problem was landing with horizontal velocity. Even with a wider lander, which may not fit into most launch vehicle payload bays, the legs would likely have sheered just the same and the lander tipped just the same.

SCENARIOS

It's a commercial payload lander project, not human rated and never will be

😂

How about higher than 99% lol

That is genius. Why didn't nasa think of that. Very smart.

It's still only February. . . .

Them pesky aliens.

That’s because the people building these things aren’t as smart as 50 years ago during the Apollo program

The technology 50 years later is light years ahead of what nasa had and yet it has proven extremely difficult to land on the moon. I wonder how nasa was so capable when space technology was so primative back then.

@@Freedom_from_imp Isn't it because the South pole has more rugged terrain than the Apollo landings

These people were fired from spacex

Not having reviewed a pre flight checklist is a capital mistake.. at such high cost at stake unforgivable and no success.. 😢😢

The Kids that designed The Eagle Cam which was originally going to be ejected to land on the surface and take images and video of the Odysseus touching down. They must have been absolutely gutted, that their brilliant technical invention was shelved, although Odysseus managed to spit it out, and it did take an inhibited image of part of the stricken lander just before its power was depleted. It's such a shame that their Camera Module Eagle Cam which was scrubbed from the mission due to the pin enablement for the original geo proximity landing software, which was overlooked as you correctly said on the preflight checklist. was the reason it was scrubbed from the mission. Hopefully it will still be used on I.M.-2

Gotta give him credit, that is funny...

I thought the same thing, a short burst might right the craft again, what can they lose?

It actually puts a huge, huge question mark on the veracity of the Apollo 11 moon landing claim. There're a lot many questions that remain unanswered till date.

Rather than doubting humanity's incredible scientific progress maybe you question the claims of the Apollo missions...........

@@DANNY40379 Yes indeed! If you come to think of it closely and logically, the 1969 event does seem to be fake and kinda laboratory / studio job...a very clever job!

60’s had human pilots. Mars has an atmosphere. This was autonomous in no atmosphere. That’s the difference.

Sure.

It appears they didn't think at all.

Ahh, The dreaded moon trolls... I thought it might be the Chinese having a little fun.

Maybe make the next one by engineers that know what they're doing

CEO - "It successfully tipped over!"

radioisotope generators are very expensive, very heavy, and very large.

We only make about 1.5 kg of pu238 per year. There just isn't enough world supply to use it on most missions.

Are you talking about mistakes or about success? Because the moon landing in 1969 was a success! or was it? The second biggest scam in the history of mankind made in Hollywood style big celebration. It is a dormant volcano in Iceland where the tracks are still visible from Google Earth where that big production was executed. Want to know which volcano was it? You are on your own my friend, because I’m not gonna tell you which was it.

Like Brandon !?

@@ronhobyak9902 If you have to depend on the USA for basic things like youtube, you need to learn how to speak English.

Ich glaube, ich spreche ganz gut Englisch, danke.@@ChadwickTheChad

@@ronhobyak9902 True, everybody outside of the US is confused.

They have to sell payloads, if their lander doesn't work people won't buy slots. Failure with customers on board isn't a good thing you know

@@mathewferstl7042The mission was mostly a success though.

@@mathewferstl7042 That’s actually a very fair argument. Thanks for bringing that up.

@@bluesteel8376 So was the Hindenburg, it made to it's intended destination in New Jersey it's first try!

@bluesteel8376 half half, some payloads were compromised and couldn't collect data properly or at all and the landers operational time in the surface was cut short. But no, it wasn't a full failure and I'm not suggesting it was.

Probably a bunch of moron engineers problem

The laser telemetry switch was off. All experiments by the customers were still conducted. So mission success

⁠Actually, with all the poor planning and lack of acknowledgment of the things that can go wrong… I’d say that was a very unsuccessful moon mission. Japan, who has a LOT less experience, was able to get their moon lander to land upright and correct!! Their lander’s legs didn’t break due to cheap and poor quality leg construction. They had a cheap heater that kept their circuits alive. So yes… this is a pretty good and accurate assessment. I’m embarrassed for NASA and the American people.

There was a child safety switch for the lasers that were supposed to guide the landing. They neglected to disarm the switch before take-off. They realized this before the actual landing. So then they did a whole lot of program re-configuring through a sleepless night and used a NASA -designed laser they had extra onboard that was going to be used for data collection . It wasn’t designed to help land the craft but it did good enough to keep it from crashing. That part was a miracle Hail Mary. But the craft kept moving forward by forces they don’t completely understand and tipped over a rock in its path.

50 years ago, think about that.

My friend if you really believe that those crew landed on the moon than you have to think again. Think about the technologies in 1969. I watched on TV and never could understand the differences of the decoupling from the main module and the quality on the surface of the moon. I know that in the space everything work differently than on the surface of the earth. But shouldn’t work different in a less gravitated surface as the moon has. As we know, the moon has less gravitation than the earth and the moon doesn’t have Oxigen filled surface air, which could make the stars winkle or made the background shimmer. It was just a badly executed Hollywood production.

View from human eye is totally different from robotic eye.

​@@bubamaranovichok4901Google... Dunning Kruger. You're it.

​@bubamaranovichok4901 it's a God thing you don't work for NASA or some other space agency. You clearly lack the IQ to work there.

It is difficult and expensive. This mission was done with a very small budget.

Are you a nimrod. The only point of the mission wss to show proof of concept. The lander is supposed to die so they can try to turn it bsck on after 2 weeks. Every journalist in media and youtube knows nothing about the company or the mission or the purpose for its existence.

You know it. 😂

Hard to blame them. Perhaps next time they will record the entire event from launch to touchdown on video. Who wouldn't love to see it?

What's even funnier is the chorus of excuses from Apollo Moon Landing Believers 🤣

The lunar surface gets intense (4 times Earth's surface, IIRC, but Google it) sunlight for two weeks and deep darkness for two weeks. These periods are called lunar day and lunar night. Lunar night is not only very dark--remember, the moon doesn't get moonlight--but it's very cold. Without heat, electronics, batteries, etc, get significant mechanical stress, which can lead to permanent failure. So, you really want to try to keep things from getting cold. For this type of spacecraft, this usually means electrical heaters. However, though I'm sure I've never done this, well, not too many times, it's like leaving your car on overnight. The heaters are driven by power from the batteries and they need to supply that power not for just overnight, but for two weeks. That requires bigger, and heavier, batteries. Since the cost of a launch is primarily driven by weight, if there is no mission requirement to last out the lunar night, the choice is usually to avoid the big batteries. However, engineers in programs like this tend to want to check back in with the spacecraft once lunar day arrives. We certainly don't know which things may fail and the exact conditions. JAXA's SLIM lander woke back up. I expecr rhere were a few very surprised engineers, and a team's worth of excitement. As payloads get more demanding, you can expect requirements that spacecraft can overnight reliably. And, battery power is not the only way to do this. Plus, we're just going to learn more about conditions durning lunar night and how to design spacecraft so they don't freeze to death.

The lunar surface gets intense (4 times Earth's surface, IIRC, but Google it) sunlight for two weeks and deep darkness for two weeks. These periods are called lunar day and lunar night. Lunar night is not only very dark--remember, the moon doesn't get moonlight--but it's very cold. Without heat, electronics, batteries, etc, get significant mechanical stress, which can lead to permanent failure. So, you really want to try to keep things from getting cold. For this type of spacecraft, this usually means electrical heaters. However, though I'm sure I've never done this, well, not too many times, it's like leaving your car on overnight. The heaters are driven by power from the batteries and they need to supply that power not for just overnight, but for two weeks. That requires bigger, and heavier, batteries. Since the cost of a launch is primarily driven by weight, if there is no mission requirement to last out the lunar night, the choice is usually to avoid the big batteries. However, engineers in programs like this tend to want to check back in with the spacecraft once lunar day arrives. We certainly don't know which things may fail and the exact conditions. JAXA's SLIM lander woke back up. I expecr rhere were a few very surprised engineers, and a team's worth of excitement. As payloads get more demanding, you can expect requirements that spacecraft can overnight reliably. And, battery power is not the only way to do this. Plus, we're just going to learn more about conditions durning lunar night and how to design spacecraft so they don't freeze to death.

What? When will those big shut investors, scientists,politicians realize, that we are just little worms in the universe locked on this little planet? We are destined to be born and die here, and those who do want to go out there, please use most of our stupidly earned money to discover what is under the seas and not what kind of dangers awaiting us out in space.

Well, they could have saved all costs by not going... and the result would have been the same.

@@3366larryandrews not really true. Many of the science probes worked fine and lots of new data was collected. And when daylight comes back in two weeks it might be brought back. The question is can the batteries survive the lunar night. There is no guarantee so we will see. The thing is to learn and solve the issues.

EXACTLY!!

Cause it's B.S., buddy.

Sure ... I never forget to grab my coffee off the roof of my car in the morning ... 34 times and counting. ... 🤣

And even farther back we built pyramids ... Really !

Take your meds

​@@otal0721says the guy who thinks australians are spinning upside down...

Lol! For real. Any thinking person would question why they did not video record the entire event from launch to touchdown. Who would not want to watch that?@@ThePhilosophicalOne

No air in the Moon.

This should give intuitive a leg up on the competition.

Braun also published a book in 1952. It was about a man named Elon who would guide humanity to Mars.

You don’t know much history do you? 😂 🤭