▲ 231 points
back
267 comments
Here's the hole it fell into:
Great shoutout to Arizona State University for the images. I like to see when someone or some group gets some recognition for work they have performed in relative obscurity for a very long time. Years of craft, getting better and better at something most don't bother with. Then suddenly your expertise gets a spotlight in a meaningful way.
(Yes, I suppose there are many other sources that could provide images. These happen to be from ASU.)
There's a mote on the crack on the Mössbauer spectrometer on the instrument arm on the rover in the hole in the bottom of the sea of tranquility
Related. Others?
Athena spacecraft declared dead after toppling over on moon - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43292471 - March 2025 (340 comments)
The Moon Lander Athena's Fate on the Lunar Surface Is Uncertain - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43283136 - March 2025 (1 comment)
Welp, I worked on this one. Specifically, I worked on the laser rangefinders which are under so much scrutiny. I no longer work at Intuitive Machines, but I'm certainly interested in finding out what happened to the lasers this time.
Ooo. Not sure if you can tell us anything. If you can’t I totally understand.
But in case you can: Was a radar based altimeter considered?
How do you guys deal with kicked up regolith? (I have seen first hand how hard heavy snow is on lidars, and would imagine that regolith “shower” is similar, but what do I know.)
some of the comments here are suggesting the lander chose that spot, as opposed to crashing and skidding across the surface before settling in the spot purely due to inertia, what's the merit to that?
Still unclear what happened. Did they not anticipate a big moon hole or did navigation fail when the rangefinder failed?
Scott Manley has a great video explaining what he thinks happened.
https://youtu.be/ISZTTEtHcTg?si=0LZFyiCysBiFZrMz
I'm not sure what you find unclear. Navigation was fine - "Athena knew where it was relative to the surface of the Moon" - but without a working altimeter it was kinda fucked for actually touching down.
Hard landing, skid, tip.
It touched down with a large horizontal velocity component
> As a result, the privately built spacecraft struck the lunar surface on a plateau, toppled over, and began to skid across the surface. As it did so, the lander rotated at least once or twice before coming to a stop in a small, shadowed crater.
Oh yeah, we've all Kerbaled it in like that at one point or another.
If you take the time to study the documentation from the 1950s & 1960s, the engineering culture of that era appears to be markedly different from the engineering culture prevalent today. And I think it's deeply rooted in the symbiotic relationship between computing, Baumol's cost disease and our obsession with precision, results-oriented, MBA-style-min-maxing, "good enough for government work" engineering.
Robert Truax, the designer of the Sea Dragon, loved to promote the design paradigm of Big Dumb Boosters. Instead of many small, sophisticated rocket engines, what if we made one big robust one that can take a lickin' and keep on kickin'.
The idea was to relax the mass margins and to create big. dumb. boosters. It's the approach TRW explicitly followed for the Lunar Module engine,
> "There was an amusing but instructive side to this program. TRW farmed-out the fabrication of the engine and its supporting structure, less the injector that they fabricated themselves, to a "job-shop" commercial steel fabricator located near their facility . The contract price was $ 8000. Two TRW executives visited the facility to observe the fabrication process. They found only one individual working on the hardware, and when queried, he did not know nor care that he was building an aerospace rocket engine."
> " I had arrived late to witness the test, and only saw the firing. I was told by others who witnessed the entire test procedure that the engine was pulled out of outdoor storage where it lay unprotected against the elements. Before it was placed on the launch stand, the test crew dusted off the desert sand that had clung to it. This unplanned inlcusion [sic] of a bit of an environmental test also demonstrated hardware ruggedness of the kind no other liquid rocket eingine [sic] could approach."
These programs had a lot of capital behind them. Some components required precision engineering, but there's a very clear through line and embrace of the "we gotta make stuff that can take a lickin' & keeps kickin'" philosophy.
Modern engineering approaches seem to be the opposite of that. I think we've become so accustomed to living in a silicon driven world where our personal devices are engineered at microscopic level that we've forgotten how to do things the Apollo-era way.
For example, to the best of my knowledge, IM-2 doesn't use RADAR — they're using LIDAR and optical navigation instead. Perhaps it is to save on mass and power so that more payload reaches the surface. Perhaps optical navigation was declared to be "good enough." Perhaps it doesn't make sense from a minmaxing of capital perspective. But this philosophy may not be suited to an untamed frontier.
China adopted the Surveyor / Apollo-era philosophy. Their first successful lander, Chang'e 3, used the same hover & fall technique as Surveyor.
> The vehicle will hover at this altitude, moving horizontally under its own guidance to avoid obstacles, and then slowly descend to 4 m above the ground, at which point its engine will shut down for a free-fall onto the lunar surface. The landing site will be at Sinus Iridum, at a latitude of 44º.
The follow up missions up-ed the ante every time, but they seem to have consistently focused on the robustness of their craft over precision, MBA-spreadsheet-oriented minmax-ing.
> "I think we've become so accustomed to living in a silicon driven world where our personal devices are engineered at microscopic level that we've forgotten how to do things the Apollo-era way."
This is a really interesting point. I think a practical issue in modern times as well is that companies are being inspired by SpaceX while forgetting that it took SpaceX alot of work to get to the point of being able to do things like casually land a 20 story tower in the middle of the ocean on a barge, let alone the even more ridiculous 'stunts' they're doing with Starship.
Apollo was starting from the perspective of trying to do something where it was even debatable about whether it was possible. And so I think there was a lot more 'humility' in design, for lack of a better word.
You're criticizing the prioritization of cost, not the concept of trying to solve for constraints. Engineering is about constrained optimization to meet customer needs.[1] Learning this is a core part of the curriculum at my accredited engineering school.
> Engineering design is a process of making informed decisions to creatively devise products, systems, components, or processes to meet specified goals based on engineering analysis and judgement. The process is often characterized as complex, open-ended, iterative, and multidisciplinary. Solutions incorporate natural sciences, mathematics, and engineering science, using systematic and current best practices to satisfy defined objectives within identified requirements, criteria and constraints.
> Constraints to be considered may include (but are not limited to): health and safety, sustainability, environmental, ethical, security, economic, aesthetics and human factors, feasibility and compliance with regulatory aspects, along with universal design issues such as societal, cultural and diversification facets.
It's not an MBA philosophy but is intrinsic to the profession. Apollo didn't go up because of vibes, it went up because engineers knew the goals going in and to figured out how much fuel was needed to go to the moon. It also went up because the United States was willing to spend over a quarter of a trillion dollars (adjusted for inflation) on getting there,[2] and ignored the arguments that it was a giant waste of money while there were social problems at home.[3]
[1]https://egad.engineering.queensu.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/...
> If you take the time to study the documentation from the 1950s & 1960s, the engineering culture of that era appears to be markedly different from the engineering culture prevalent today. And I think it's deeply rooted in the symbiotic relationship between computing, Baumol's cost disease and our obsession with precision, results-oriented, MBA-style-min-maxing, "good enough for government work" engineering.
I wonder how much of that is because of public attitudes to government spend. Like if a SpaceX rocket blows up, they're taking innovative, risk-taking approaches to rocket development. If a NASA rocket blows up they're wasting tax payer funding.
Similarly the pressure on NASA to have fewer programs for cost saving is similar. If NASA has two rocket programs, one of which is at a "good enough" level for launching satellites economically into space and one of them is a "safety conscious" rocket for manned launches at a higher per-mission cost, then people look at this and think why is NASA duplicating work and spending. So now they get only one program, so then even launching a GPS satellite is the expensive, human-safe rocket.
> China adopted the Surveyor / Apollo-era philosophy. Their first successful lander, Chang'e 3, used the same hover & fall technique as Surveyor.
Dropping the last 4 metres isn't a sign of having a ruggedized, over-speced "takes a lickin' and keeps on kicking' approach". In lunar gravity, you could drop a raw egg from that height and not perturb the chick inside.
Instead the aim is to avoid throwing up too much moon dust with retro rockets.
Luna 9 (1966) really did need to withstand a bit of a bump, but it was 22km/h, comparable with a fast running pace or a car in first gear, not a high speed impact.
It is all downstream of the loss of the manufacturing industry in America. In the 50s you could entrust a random guy to build a liquid rocket engine in a dusty garage because he spent every day of his career building various pipes and combustion chambers. All of these guys are now dead or retired so when you try to build hardware today you get new grads who settle on LIDAR and computer vision not because it is the best choice but because it is literally all that they are familiar with; the old solutions have all ceased to exist within the minds of employees and classrooms.
This reads like a “comment” version of Destin’s speech to a NASA group a few years ago [0]. The loss of institutional knowledge and fundamentals philosophical differences seem like they’ll need to be overcome.
> Perhaps it is to save on mass and power so that more payload reaches the surface.
It doesn't matter how much mass was saved and how much more payload that allowed to reach the surface if the landing isn't successful. Successful landing is mandatory for anything else to matter. The obviousness of this baffles me that it is taken so haphazardly.
>It chose the terminal landing sites with the help of LIDAR and its cameras, but it relied on RADAR and a suite of sensors to have robust navigation.
I think this is the smoking gun. RADAR is usually successful, while LIDAR has a poor record.
If you look at Change 5 and 6, they seem to do the same image processing based landing control. This doesn't seem to be a cost cutting measure, since the image processing is computationally much more complex than using a radar altimeter.
If they can fit 10x the payload for 1/100 the price, then maybe it's okay if some of them fail? Quantity has a quality of it's own.
Dumb question, but why can't it have a few simple telescopic sticks which extend to flip it over if it lands upside down.
Seems it's the second time they fail in this mode.
Definitely not a dumb question. The first lander to land on the Moon (after many failures) is pretty amusing. [1] The Soviets a designed a lander that'd be launched right into the Moon but, just before impact would jettison the lander which itself was a highly reinforced ball that was then designed to simply pound into the Moon at 54kph, but survive the crash. The egg then unfurled and finally humanity had achieved a 'soft' landing on the Moon. Somehow it kind of makes one think of a really elaborate egg drop contest paired with a 'what happens if you jump right before the elevator crashes.'
Like another comment mentioned, complexity and size are big issues. Some more are power/mechanics (fluids, such as for hydraulics, and -280F aren't gonna play well together) and then there's the fact that there's not even a guarantee it'd work. Your legs could get damaged, you might end up in an orientation where none of the legs are appropriate, and so on. So you may be adding a whole bunch of complexity for stuff that might not even save you in the situation it was designed for!
Just give the RCS thrusters enough power to lift it sideways. Works every time in KSP.
the altimeter? Surely you would put three on there?
Is there any reason why we couldn't have some rudimentary GPS-like satellites around the moon? That could help out these kinds of landers, no?
This company's PR team is doing incredible work getting all this type of coverage out of a 0/2 track record with a design everyone else seems to think is obviously flawed.
Kinda explain why Neil Armstrong burned up all their fuel except for a few seconds scoping out the landing site in paranoia.
Instead of building all these expensive to launch big landers, why not get some pizza-box sized probes into earth orbit AND THEN do like a slo-mo golf shot arcing to where the moon will be for a super slow/soft landing?
Some will fail but if you launch 100 and get 20-30 working, there you go.
As technology progresses, get it down to a shoe-box sized probe and then in 10 years smartphone sized (in 100 years tic-tac sized).
Scott Manley put together a great analysis of why it tipped over: https://youtu.be/ISZTTEtHcTg
TL;DW: It had far too much sideways velocity immediately before touchdown, likely due to some guidance-system failure. It would have crashed even if it was crab-shaped instead of tower-shaped.
How can you have temperature without a medium? The lander would have steadily lost temperature through heat radiation, but it's not like the vacuum had a temperature in the crater.
Is there any sort of international body with regulatory power over the moon, or is it completely lawless and unrestricted?
This startup has already crashed two pieces of space junk onto the lunar surface. Can any startup able to get there do whatever they want?
At what point do you just fire your entire "Land on Moon" software team, and hire a couple young Neil Armstrong wanna-be's, who can hand-land your spacecraft remotely? (In spite of the moon-earth-moon signal lag.)
Can someone ELI5 why it's at that temperature?
I mean, because it's in the dark I'd expect it to reach equilibrium with space background thermal radiation which is around 3K. Yet its 100K. Where does that heat comes from? It radiates from earth? Conduct through the floor coming from the inner of the moon itself? (Is there some kind of geothermal gradient on the moon BTW?)
Space is one of those rare fields where partial success actually counts as genuine progress.
This is horribly disappointing but I'm surprised the altimeter failed as I'd have thought this would have been one of the more reliable aspects of the mission.
How does its altimeter work, exactly what tech does it use? It's worth remembering that radar-type altimeters have been around for a long time and are well developed. For example, Little Boy that was dropped on Hiroshima 80 years ago used radar altimeters in a redundancy arrangement (four devices) and that worked on first attempt.
So what went wrong? Second question, was redundancy employed in the altimeter's design? Third, if the altimeter employed redundancy then why weren't its multiple sections of different designs to allow for the possibility that the reflected signal may be weak and noisy?
(The strength of a returned wave from a radar transmission depends on various factors including its wavelength and the properties of the surface it's being reflected from. If there's any doubt the returned signal's S/N would be such that noise could be a problem it'd make sense for a redundant system to employ multiple wavelengths whose frequencies are far enough apart to take advantage of the fact that the moon's surface would reflect different wavelengths in different ways and at different signal strengths.)
> For the second mission in a row, the lander's altimeter failed
That's a bummer. Altimeters are relatively simple and defined hardware as far as I know. Send a ping, receive a ping, calculate. Too bad they didn't incorporate a backup solution.
the second pic reminded me of the pale blue dot... it's a long way from home...
Why people make temperature in space a big deal? It's mostly vacuum and has no heat capacity. Sun radiation is the real threat, but the concept of temperature can't even be applied to vacuum.
> The Athena spacecraft was not exactly flying blind as it approached the lunar surface one week ago. The software on board did a credible job of recognizing nearby craters, even with elongated shadows over the terrain. However, the lander's altimeter had failed.
> So while Athena knew where it was relative to the surface of the Moon, the lander did not know how far it was above the surface.
This is really crappy writing. That second paragraph sounds like a self-contradiction. Unless "the lander" is a separate entity from "Athena"? Some publications refuse to use the same term twice, even if it introduces ambiguity as here.
[stub for offtopicness]
To be clear, I am in no way a conspiracy theorist, at all. Seriously, not just a bs disclaimer. That said, all of the recent photos of the moon that have come out in the last month or so look, to my eye, super CGI. Just uh, overly smooth and lacking in detail?
Is there a reason for this or am I just tripping?
> this mission was largely a success. What can he possibly mean by that?
> Compared to the company's first spacecraft, Athena flew smoothly.
Reminds me of the comedian opining on the flipped over airplane.
“Did you know the pilot was a woman? [hecklers] Woah woah, I’m not saying women cant be pilots, thats not even accurate. She flew perfectly….. what I am saying is that she can’t drive”