Intuitive Machines Lunar Lander Reaches Moon, Status Uncertain

Intuitive Machines' Athena lander touched down near the lunar south pole Thursday but may have toppled during landing, jeopardizing its scientific mission. "We're trying to evaluate exactly what happened in that last bit," said Tim Crain, Intuitive Machines' chief technology officer. Data from an inertial measurement unit suggests the 15-foot robotic spacecraft is lying on its side.

The landing issues mirror problems faced by the company's Odysseus spacecraft last year, which also toppled after touchdown. Noisy data from laser altitude instruments likely contributed to the landing complications, officials said. CEO Steve Altemus reported the spacecraft isn't generating expected power, probably because its solar panels are improperly oriented. The company believes Athena landed somewhere on Mons Mouton, though outside the planned landing zone.

The $62.5 million NASA-contracted mission carries several payloads, including a drill to search for frozen water, three small rovers, and a rocket-powered hopping drone. NASA officials indicated some experiments might still function despite the lander's orientation. Intuitive Machines' stock fell 20% Thursday following reports of the spacecraft's problems.

UPDATE: Athena Spacecraft Declared Dead After Toppling Over On Moon

Upgrade?

[crunchy_one]

Clearly upgrading from a lost, murderous sailor (Odysseus) to a goddess of war and wisdom who sprang fully armored from Zeus's head (Athena), things are still not working out for Intuitive. Odd, that.

Lander Tipping?

[StatureOfLiberty]

Lander tipping? Mooooo!

Re:

[nightflameauto]

Lander tipping? Mooooo!

Yup. Those moon kids are just mischievous little bastards.

Use a mechanical arm to push itself upright?

[yog]

Given this is now twice that this company's lander fell over after making it all the way to a soft landing on the Moon, maybe they should implement robotic arms to simply push the craft upright. It would cost money and development time, but seems worth it if it salvages a $65 million project.

Alternatively, an array of attitude jets could prevent the problem, unless the craft landed partially on a crevice, in which case... launch up a couple of meters and float to a new spot?

Re: Use a mechanical arm to push itself upright?

[RightwingNutjob]

Any idiot can coast on a ballistic trajectory. It's starting and stopping one that pays the big bucks.

Re:

[Pascoea]

Technically, stopping a ballistic trajectory is rather simple as well

Re:

[rickb928]

How about showing us your work?

I know I could not without a year of copy and paste from more than three websites.

Re:

[Pascoea]

I never said it would be easy to do it SUCCESSFULLY, but that wasn't part of the requirements in the post I was replying to. A new crater in a random spot can absolutely be the end result of stopping a ballistic trajectory. And assuming someone else got the hard part (starting the trajectory) correct, a random smoking crater is all but guaranteed to be the end result of letting me do the "end" part. (My original reply was intended to be tongue-in-cheek.)

Re:

[rickb928]

"Technically, stopping a ballistic trajectory is rather simple as well"

Well, it would be accurate to calculate an intercept course and crash the darned thing. I just calculated you weren't that disingenuous. But you missed the simplest method of all. Don't bother to launch.

Well, this is /.

Re:

[Pascoea]

Don't bother to launch.

What's the fun in that? Then I wouldn't get to have sarcastically pedantic conversations about crashing into the moon with a random stranger on the Internet.

Re:

[rickb928]

Well, when you put it that way, how may I help you further to harvest mod points?

Re:

[Pascoea]

No need, I already have 15. I rarely use them when I get them. I should get better about that, but I'd rather engage in the discussion. Sometimes it's actual constructive participation, sometimes I just feel like being a smartass. (To be clear, I wasn't calling you a sarcastic pedant. That was directed at myself.)

Re:

[rickb928]

I got that. I use mod points regularly, but I do not go in and beat on pedants when I'm not interested in the thread, or it makes less than no sense to.me.

Mind you, I can go years without mod points. It happens.

Re:

[Pascoea]

Fair enough. Cheers!

Re:

[Pascoea]

8 year old could take a crayon and draw a huge robot arm on a lander too.

You can't tee that up and not expect someone to take a swing. [wikipedia.org]

Re:

[Koyaanisqatsi]

That's a good option too! When I read the summary I was inclined to suggest that they bolt the experiments on the next iterations to the sides of the craft instead of the floor. Just in case, you know :-)

Re:

[dbialac]

I was inclined

While the craft is inclined, you didn't have mimic the craft to make the same point.

Re:

[dbialac]

Or hire somebody from the original moon landing crews. They got it right.

Re:

[Sergey Cheban]

It's not only about money and development time, it's also about mass (AKA weight). You can only deliver the specific amount of equipment to the Moon by one rocket launch, and no more. If you add an arm, you have to remove something.

Seriously?

[NovusPeregrine]

With it having been recently proven you can get a bloody GPS fix on the moon, it seems more than a little suspect they can't even tell if the thing IS on its side. Nothing screams incompetence like 'umm, our space drone might be sideways. Maybe. We aren't sure...'

Re:

[PPH]

Perhaps the antenna needed to provide telemetry on the craft's status is face down in the dust.

Maybe Change the Design

[Flaming Cowpie]

Didn't the last one also look like a refrigerator with legs, too? Maybe copy the other lander that came down earlier this week and opt for a more stable design? I'd tip over too if I was built like that.