E. J., If there are perhaps 3 relay satellites positioned between the moon and earth, with the closest to earth having multiple communications options for ground and or satellite interactive like StarLink or others, the options would be greatly multiplied without the need for dramatic changes in antennas. The moon is basically a general fixed position, so communications from the surface is fairly simplistic. The communications contact from the earth's surface is also fairly simple because there are several satellite systems strategically placed around the globe with access for hire. Yes, there are connection rules for F.C.C., F.A.A., and so on, but easy enough to be accomplished. As different operations begin to be established on the moon for a launch station and or whatever, more perimeter satellites can be added to expand the network.
The old UK police phone boxes were quite large. They measured 9 ft 4 in (2.84 m) tall, and 4 feet 6 inches (1.37 m) wide. Still nowhere near the sizes they are saying.
IDC how many times B.O has flown NS and landed it. Fuel is diff, size is diff and most importantly the speeds are much different. How many times did starship blow up on landing? And how many successful falcon 9 landings had they done? It's a huge jump from a sub orbital hop to a med/heavy lift orbital class rocket.
Moving parts break more often than fixed parts. The IM-1 presumably intended to land with its fixed antenna facing in the rough direction of the Earth, which should be just above the northern horizon. However now that antenna is pointed either near vertical or toward either the eastern or western horizon. Even if it had a motor on the antenna it could not be turned toward the northern horizon. Rather than a movable antenna a phased-array antenna on the intended north side of the vehicle would be a compromise.
Weren’t The covers meant to be removed after filling with fuel aboard Falcon9?? Was that a SpaceX issue or the companies ships (Intuitive machines). When we get to SpaceX I recon they need wider legs and more side boosters as well as cameras. If they intend this manner of landing. The soaceX vehicle is roughly proportionate to this small lander. Just some thoughts.
Accessing the payload after fuel load is not possible with Falcon as it does not use storable propellants. The covers would have to be removed during integration.
The rocket was filled with propellant on top of Falcon9 in situo. They especially added on a fuelling system for the article the carried into space. It flew on the same propellant as Falcon9 (A first for any vehicle landing on the moon) Their concern had been overheating and boil off resulting in an issue during landing. They in fact measured the fluid while the ship was on it side. SpaceX had especially built a door into the side of the covers for the propellant to be done just prior to liftoff. Apparently someone failed to tick off “Removal of that cover post fuelling and preceding “Cover-door closure”,prior to Falcon9 fuelling. If you look carefully you will see the side door on the cover. And at the top of the Strongback and extra fuelling pipe for the “Object they were taking into space to eject towards the moon “. This was the issue which arose about the ship as it came to landing. It’s ejected independent camera was meant to bounce a lazer from the camera to the ship to assist in landing due to regolith messing with the landing to ground issues which arise with anything landing on the moon. It was to be used by future flights to judge distance to the moons landing s in the future since it was meant to be close to the S.Pole of the moon where future programs will be landing in the future.
32:06 - LRO's orbit was reconfigured to have its perigee at 12 km over the south pole (and an apogee of 100 km... with progression and lunar-mass-distribution warping to have tweaked that slightly since that orbital maneuver).. so this target should be in its sweet spot. Additional resolution can be achieved, through image processing, if multiple frames can be taken.
Transfer tube is correct name here . Downcomer usually defines the reversal of fluid flow means fluid was flowing up and then flowing down, and none of that is happening here.
I wonder in the person or people who forgot to remove the cover on the laser rangefinders, while it was being integrated, have been let go yet by Intuitive Machines! 😉
Aren't "Remove before flight" pieces bright red? They shouldn't need a check-list. Eaglecam was expected to be launched horizontally at an altitude above 10m. From 10m it would take 4 seconds to fall to the ground. But now it presumably is less than 2m above the surface and will last less than 1.5s, although it will impact at less than 2m/s where it will probably survive, but where will its camera be pointing?
Starship will never land on the moon. NASA itself will confirm that within a year from today. You need to start considering SpaceX's options if I'm right about that. Because I am.
@realmstupid-on8df- Bro the moon is covered in dead volcanoes and deep craters, making it very difficult to find a flat landing spot. Just the fact that it landed and wasn't destroyed can no way be considered a failure! That's like telling a skydiver or paratrooper that when they don't land on their feet standing up straight that they failed. Give credit where it's due bro!!!
Battle Bots (Discover Channel, Las Vegas) have self righting mechanisms. NASA and the companies that they give contracts to should have to build Battle Bots so they know how to right a lander. This mission was too big to fail and the messaging (from both IM and NASA) to the public is based upon that. E.g. In the press interview you like, it took them 15 minutes to admit that the lander is on its side. What is next, will we find that the lander is in two pieces.
A mechanism like that would drastically increase the mass of the lander... and for small landers like this, mass is at a premium. Mass fraction was so important it limited how many antennas they could put aboard... A stage in Las Vegas is very different than the surface of the moon. -Das
NONSENSE WAITING FOR AN IMAGES; the space industry should have “first” placed at least 100 communication internet satellites around the Moon before they sent the IM - 1 Lander, so we would have HD video/audio. This mission is very primitive compared to 1969 Apollo 11 video/audio capability. MORE TAXPAYER MONEY WASTED !!! Send “My Favorite Martian” guy with the antennas sticking out of his head to the Moon, you might get better reception.
If yall were around in the seventies there is a no brainer fix so that it dont land sideways. Yall dont remember curb feelers! Guess yall never noodled catfish either?
Intuitive Machines is very intuitive when they don't have multiple redundancy to ensure success. How arrogant to think that their only system would automatically function flawlessly. Just because there are no human beings on board doesn't mean you just wing it. Stuff always fails, so redundancy is a necessary element for success. I am so not impressed and the more they reveal, I would be so furious as an investor to find out just how careless they were on this project. The adulations about how they managed to make a success is such a disappointment. Fortunately the NASA experiments which are interactive thus capable to interact with the module. I would suggest a much more open communication with SpaceX to repair their now quite severely damaged reputation. The difference between SpaceX and every other organization is extreme and repeat testing.
@@JoeShmoism This is not Apollo 13. There is no reason for not having multiple cameras and telemetry modules, they are small and weigh almost nothing. Of course size and weight are limiting factors, but these are critical function devices. They literally could not land because someone didn't take the cover off of the only camera for flight visualization??? How many millions of dollars were spent on this craft, but itcould land because of a few hundred dollars worth of extra cameras. At every point in the press conference the excuses for why this didn't happen that were just lack of solutions. The very reasons the craft in on the moon were to take pictures and video... and they only put one camera aligned for the task? The obvious reason for their issues is taking the chance. The exact same thing applies to the ULA complete loss of the rocket and payload. Just chance to save money and be first, but it cost them everything. SpaceX is successful because they have done the excessive testing with multiple systems on board every launch and flight. The exact same rocket launches multiple crafts repeatedly, so there is no excuse for the shortcuts because size was only limited by Intuitive Machines and their choice of designs. If Falcon 9 can carry 24 satellites in the exact same cargo space the size limitation was a choice not an actual factor. This craft had no personnel on board, just compact components which means there was more than enough cargo space for a much larger craft. The limitations were in the design of craft, types of fuel being used, guidance systems for communications, navigation, and the obvious lack of alternative visual aides and antennas for the reality of less than ideal landing scenarios. There is no excuse, especially after the Japanese craft situation, that should have been the very thing to make someone at IM say, hey we need to double check all of our procedures and make sure we haven't forgotten anything, but they clearly didn't.
@@JoeShmoism With simple redundancy, they could fire control vectoring thrusters to correct their position, but they don't actually seem to have that ability. Perhaps they will get a better communication signal to assess their options if there are any protocols for such possibilities, but it didn't sound like there were many options. We will have to wait and see what happens.
