Yes. doesn’t look entirely successful… they’re playing some sombre
music !
And now twice:
I do wish the team congrats as it looks like they’re worked out the issues and will probably have a reliable vehicle. Nevertheless, I still think the rocket was obsolete by three generations even when it was announced. At least it means Europe has a heavy-lift vehicle available for cost-insensitive payloads. Isn’t going to be cheap enough for competitive LEO constellations, but better than nothing.
Very similar to the first landing. Their lander is fairly tall and tippy compared to most other designs. And as came up last time, stuff on the moon is six times as tippy as on Earth. That is, it takes basically 1/6 the force to tip something over on the Moon. And it gets worse the smaller you go, so these mini-landers are particularly sensitive.
Too bad that reaction wheels aren’t nearly as powerful in real life as they are in Kerbal Space Program. I’ve saved many a lander just by rotating it back upright (sometimes requiring some back-and-forth).
I listened to the press conference. They are in the right region, but probably outside the 50m target ellipse. No real info on orientation, but based on everything else, it is not upright. (I’m pretty sure of this)
Brian
If they want to cut off their nose to spite their face, they might boycott SpaceX over unrelated issues with Musk or his other businesses; regulations about the platform formerly known as Twitter or some such. So what if it’ll cost 20x as much?
Without reusability, they have to build the entire supply chain to be that much larger. Are they really going to build their factories to handle several dozen launches per year? The solid rocket motor manufacturing in particular seems capital intensive and not easy to scale up and down.
Sure, they could do all this–it’s just a matter of money–but it seems very unlikely to me. Reusability isn’t just cheaper; it makes the business less sensitive to changes in demand.
Yeah, I never heard a really straight answer on orientation but it does seem like it’s tipped and they know which side is up.
They did mention they went through some effort to lower the center of mass. So maybe the tippiness isn’t the actual factor here.
Scott Manley has suggested that one leg landed on a rock, and when the engines shut down the rest of it fell and tipped. Speculative but certainly possible. I imagine their target ellipse was picked to have few rocks, but if they landed outside of that then who knows.
Some people value morals more than money.
Like how Europe continued to funnel billions to Russian Soyuz vehicles well after they annexed Crimea in 2014? And continue to send them tens of billions for gas imports? That Europe?
SpaceX has reduced dollars going to Russia in at least three independent ways.
First, back in roughly 2014, ULA (SpaceX’s competitor) was buying their engines (the RD-180) from Russia for their Atlas V. There were various calls to end this but without a credible competitor, it was basically impossible to end the imports–the government needed the rocket. The existence of SpaceX made it possible to end use of the Atlas V. They had to sue the Air Force to be considered at all for national security payloads. Thankfully the USAF relented and the US no longer had to depend on these engine imports.
Second, after the ending of the Shuttle program, the US had to depend on Russian vehicles to get to the space station, paying ~$100M for each seat. The Crew Dragon gave the US crew capability, ending any need to pay the Russians for a ride, and also eliminating any market they had for private missions.
And third, they’ve been the alternate provider for multiple missions after the 2022 invasion made Soyuz untenable. They haven’t shown any sort of preferential behavior, flying payloads even for their direct competitors.
Europe on the other hand never even paused their purchase of Soyuz rockets even after 2014. It was only in 2022–when Russia actually seized the payloads themselves–that they were forced to go to competitors.
There is zero question as to who has funded the Russian war machine and who has done the most to reduce it, at least when it comes to space activities.
I’d like to think that Musk isn’t day-to-day mucking with Space X. Maybe when he’s done DOGEing (if ever) his first priority should be Tesla trucks going on fire - fires that are really hard to put out due to the composition of the batteries.
Anyways, this is why you do test flights. Get the heavy-lift going and work out the logistics of getting to Mars (or more prudently, the Moon) first and then we can debate planting flags on Mars and claiming sole-rights.
The issue is whether SpaceX rushed the repairs too quickly after the 7th test flight without completely understanding what had gone wrong with that flight and likewise if the FAA was irresponsible in allowing the flight so quickly and thus risking civil aviation in the area.
You mean the FAA that was gifted to Musk on a silver platter? SpaceX is above the law now.
Land craft on moon (again), fall flat on face (again).
Athena spacecraft declared dead after toppling over on moon | Space | The Guardian
The failure of Athena, which was packed with scientific probes and experiments that Nasa was relying on as it prepares to send astronauts back to the moon for the first time since 1972, was almost identical to IM’s first moon landing in February 2024.
The Odysseus spacecraft became the first private mission to reach the moon, but skidded across the surface, broke a leg and toppled over. Athena had the same tall, thin design that some experts had feared could lead to a repeat of the accident.
Lost with the Athena lander were hundreds of millions of dollars worth of equipment, including Nasa’s Trident regolith drill, which was to have excavated soil in a search for water and other life-supporting constituents.
If required, the place to cut is manned space flight (Moon and Mars).
Pretty cool picture:
Leaning back, legs up, just hanging out on the Moon…
“I’ve fallen, and I can’t get up…”
New Blue Ghost update:
Brian
There was never any risk to civil aviation in the area. There were always keep-out areas defined well in advance, both for a nominal trajectory and in case of anomaly, and planes get rerouted as soon as there’s notice of an anomaly. The areas have very generous margins (plus the probability of an impact is very low anyway).
The flight plans were always designed to keep the probability of injury below a threshold under the assumption that an anomaly happens.
If there was some evidence that the craft scattered debris outside of the predefined zone or that it somehow left its flight corridor without triggering the flight termination system, etc., there would be serious questions, but none of that happened.
Elon may have a word for this.
I hope it is “fuck”.