You are not logged in.
This topic is offered for NewMars members to track the numerous parts of the complex mission just launched by Intuitive Machnes towards the Moon.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/26/science/ … 0657663765
The article at the link above provides details of the components, and a number of photographs.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
This post is reserved for an index to posts that may be contributed by NewMars members over time.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
Reports indicate the Athena machine is down and charging batteries, but little else is known yet, including whether it is upright. It might not be: to me it looks rather tall compared to the span of its landing legs.
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
Like button can go here
Latest reports indicate they think (think!) it might be on its side.
Looking at an image of it, the height from middle of the rectangular solid main body is slightly more than the physical span between landing legs. That violates the stability criterion that worked from Surveyor-3 on.
I have to wonder why Intuitive Machines does not know about that criterion for surviving very rough field landings. But apparently they don't.
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
Like button can go here
I saw a confirming report today (Fri 3-7-25) that Athena is on its side, and unable to charge batteries. Both Intuitive machines ended up on their sides making rough field landings on the moon. Both of the Intuitive machines were too tall for the minimum leg span dimension, thus violating the rough-field design criteria that worked since Surveyor 3. The Firefly machine met the criterion, and is upright.
Amazing how that design criterion correlates with results, isn't it?
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat old mistakes made before.
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
Like button can go here
For GW Johnson.... re #5
Athena images: https://mashable.com/article/moon-landi … ines-image
My guess is that the engineers who built these systems were perfectly well aware of the wide legs successes.
My guess is that they thought they were smart enough to dispense with the tired, worn out advice from yellowed text books.
We don't have any information to go on at this point, so it is speculation,
I think that mind set was at work when the uber-bright young people were given the task of building a heat shield for Artemis.
Why use a tired old method just because it was successful with Apollo?
***
Thanks for pointing out the changes between Starship 6 success and the two subsequent failures.
It sure does look as though the longer tanks pushed the system into instability.
I wonder if anyone at SpaceX will decide to go back to Starship 6 as you suggested.
I'll bet there is a ** lot ** of heated discussion going on.
The success of the Heavy is a balm for what would otherwise be a pretty gloom mood there.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here