[HN Gopher] Private company landing on the moon today
___________________________________________________________________
Private company landing on the moon today
Author : SigKill9
Score : 353 points
Date : 2024-02-22 10:15 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.intuitivemachines.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.intuitivemachines.com)
| adityaathalye wrote:
| The private lander's mission control looks like the proverbial
| two-pizza team.
|
| Would it that the silent revolution in spaceflight, hidden under
| the glamour of reusable rockets, is incredibly sophisticated
| telemetry, communication, on-board automation? A computing stack
| that's making the 1x mission control a 10x mission control?
|
| I understand there will be other teams elsewhere (delivery
| vehicle, remote sensing etc. etc.). But that image is rad too ---
| from one or a few space agencies co-orchestrating a program to
| multiples more doing so.
|
| Obviously some version of this has been going on for decades, but
| somehow the imagery on their website struck a chord.
| JonChesterfield wrote:
| Linkedin suggests about 250 people. Lots of them with software
| in the name. Company looks very lean relative to the
| semiconductor monsters I'm more familiar with.
| datadrivenangel wrote:
| JAXA has done rocket launches with a ground crew of less than
| 10.
|
| Obviously the extended support staff is much bigger than that
| to enable so few people to launch a rocket, but the number of
| people required when things are ready to go can be very small.
| kragen wrote:
| better, lighter-weight computing stacks have been a huge boost;
| that's what made cubesats possible. but the much bigger deal is
| the dramatic drop in launch costs driven by spacex, even though
| so far that's only a factor of 3.4
| https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cost-space-launches-low-e...
|
| with lightweight computers driven by the cellphone industry, it
| became possible for a small team or even individual to launch a
| low-power ham radio satellite or weather satellite. but they
| can't launch a high-resolution space telescope, earth observing
| satellite, or high-power communications satellite, nor can they
| do laser communication pointcasting. and lightweight computers
| are a crucial enabler for starlink-style communications
| constellations, but there's only one of those, because that's
| still a big-money kind of project
|
| suppose that, instead, you had 01980s computing power, but the
| cost of space launch dropped by a factor of 100. if you need to
| launch a 200-kg satellite to get the sky-observing optical
| aperture you're looking for so diffraction doesn't cremate you,
| you don't care if the onboard computers weigh 1 gram or 10
| kilograms. (i mean, you do care, because it lets you cut your
| launch budget 10%, but it's not a dominant determinant of
| viability.) with saturn v or zenit 2, according to the plot
| linked above, that launch would cost you a million dollars.
| today, at falcon heavy's 1500 dollars per kg, it's 300,000
| dollars, which is already a radically more feasible project
|
| spacex's 'starship' is supposed to carry 150 tonnes to leo for
| 10 million dollars. that's 70 dollars a kilogram. our
| hypothetical 200-kg aditya athalye space telescope satellite
| would then cost 14000 dollars to launch. it becomes a hobby
| project comparable in cost to an engine lathe or a camper van.
| this would change the economics of space in a profound way, far
| beyond what cellphone chips have done
|
| for comparison, the csis aerospace security project number for
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scout_(rocket_family) on that
| chart was 118500 dollars per kg in 01961. (but of course you
| couldn't launch a cubesat on it for that price; it was a
| military thing.) by 01967 saturn v had brought that down by a
| factor of 22. after that it remained constant for 43 years
| until falcon 9 in 02010. starship, if it works, will reduce
| launch costs by that same factor of 22 over the current falcon
| heavy number i described above, and by a factor of 73 over
| saturn v
| HeadsUpHigh wrote:
| The decline in price per kg from Falcon 9 has made a big
| difference and yet it's nowhere near as impactful as Starship
| is going to be... falcon 9 is either too powerful for LEO
| missions and limited by fairing volume( so can't really
| launch space stations on a falcon 9) or too weak to push
| further into GEO and into the solar system. Starship will
| enable a lot of LEO applications previously unthinkable.
| idlewords wrote:
| The big improvement is not launch costs, but miniaturization
| and automation. A university team can make a credible lunar
| rover or cubesat today using off-the-shelf components. Unlike
| launch vehicles, that technology did not exist in 001960, or
| even 002000, at any price.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| Curious question: as a private company, how do you determine your
| lunar orbit parameters after a burn?
|
| Are they leveraging Earth/orbit-based radar? Or satellites around
| the moon? Or something else?
| vardump wrote:
| Maybe star (and moon/earth) tracking and radio signals to
| earth?
| dylan604 wrote:
| I don't understand the "as a private company" qualifier. The
| math is the same, and doesn't care if it's private/public.
| martincmartin wrote:
| But observations need powerful domestic telescopes. If you're
| NASA, you own and have access to them.
| jebarker wrote:
| Do you mean optical telescopes? I would have thought they
| used earth based radar plus star tracking onboard to figure
| out where they are in orbit, but I don't know.
| dylan604 wrote:
| No, as an American, you own them. NASA just administrates
| them for you. If you're a space faring private company, you
| contract out the various parts of the mission. You didn't
| build a rocket, you hired SpaceX. You didn't build the
| relay network, you licensed access time. You don't build a
| space observation platform, you license time to use them.
| tzs wrote:
| Which of those, or what else instead, did the specific
| company in this case do for this specific mission? That
| is what ethbr1 was asking.
| datadrivenangel wrote:
| Almost certainly NASA.
| sneak wrote:
| If I owned them, I would get to use them. I don't, so
| logically I must not.
|
| By this logic, there are huge amounts of land that I also
| "own" that guys with M16s (or, more accurately, M4s) will
| keep me from walking on if I try to go there. Half the
| year I live in southern Nevada, so this distinction has
| some direct practical consequences in my life.
|
| It's deceptive. Government property is not owned by
| citizens, it is under the exclusive control of the state
| --i.e. not you.
| dylan604 wrote:
| You conveniently left out the part of licensing the time.
| You can license with the BLM for access to government
| control land. Ranchers do it all the time. Special events
| like Burning Man also do it. You just have to contact the
| correct agency to do it. But of course, it so much easier
| to make a know it all sarcastic filled internet rant than
| do anything approaching useful information to a
| conversation.
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| Do you not see how that just furthers the parent's point?
| If I have to license usage of something, I don't actually
| own it.
| dylan604 wrote:
| I think we have a basic misunderstanding of private vs
| public ownership. When we all own it, you can't just do
| whatever you want like build a house, but withe proper
| permit, you can use it. If it was private, I could never
| do something with what you owned.
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| In the case of public ownership, _I_ don 't own it
| though. The entire public does. I'm willing to say "the
| people own" these telescopes, but that isn't what you
| originally said. You said "as an American, you own them"
| which isn't true.
| dylan604 wrote:
| pedants going to pedant
| xpe wrote:
| Ownership rights and various kinds of access rights are
| not identical and often conflated.
|
| For example, if I own a water well, I don't necessarily
| have the rights to do whatever I want with it. Some
| jurisdictions might let me pump out as much water as I
| want, but even those will punish me for blatantly
| polluting it (one would hope).
|
| What some people think of as something akin to "total
| ownership" -- completely unlimited access -- would be
| tantamount to putting one's "rights" above everyone
| else's. Even dictators usually have some limits on their
| power, whether by laws, norms, or geopolitical pressures.
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| I would say that in your example, the well is really two
| things: the water table (which you don't own), and the
| pump you use to draw water (which you do own).
| patmorgan23 wrote:
| This is a pretty silly pedantic point. Public property is
| owned and controlled by governments for the benefit of
| the public. That does not mean each individual member of
| the public has traditional ownership rights to said
| property.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _as an American, you own them. NASA just administrates
| them for you_
|
| Across public and private spheres, the word "ownership"
| loses meaning. (Nobody "owns" NASA or the U.S.
| government, though they do "belong"to we the people.)
| That's why, in ownership disputes between nations and
| under the law, the operant term is "control."
| andyjohnson0 wrote:
| I'm not the person you replied to, but I assume they meant
| something like "as a non space agency". Ie how are they
| tracking the lander? How are they sending and receiving
| telemetry? What resources did they use for mission planning
| and site selection?
|
| Perhaps they've built their own comms system for example -
| maybe even a multi-site one that enables continuous contact -
| or maybe they're using NASA/ESA/JAXA assets. It would be
| interesting to know.
|
| I'm not aware of any commercial providers for lunar
| communications.
| maronato wrote:
| Their website has all that info. They have their own
| satellites for comms, and lots of other stuff too.
|
| They seem to either own or co-own all of the hardware
| ooterness wrote:
| Ground infrastructure is important for space missions.
|
| Intuitive Machines is operating under a NASA contract for
| Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) [1]. As such, they can
| negotiate access to NASA resources such as DSN and NEN for this
| mission. Intuitive Machines has also built several ground
| stations of their own [2]. These allow communications with the
| spacecraft as well as the range/velocity measurements needed
| for accurate navigation.
|
| I'm the longer term, the Artemis program plans to build out
| LunaNet [3] for improved communications and GPS-like navigation
| services.
|
| [1] https://www.nasa.gov/missions/artemis/clps/intuitive-
| machine...
|
| [2] https://www.intuitivemachines.com/post/commercial-lunar-
| netw...
|
| [3] https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/lunanet-empowering-
| arte...
| dpflan wrote:
| Thanks for these great details. Is there a fee for using the
| NASA resources (I assume there is, I just don't know how this
| works)?
| ooterness wrote:
| Yes, there is a fee. The largest antennas (i.e., the
| absolutely gigantic 70 meter dishes) can be $5k per hour.
| Further discussion on StackOverflow [1] and the NASA MOCS
| guide [2].
|
| [1] https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/21005/what-
| makes-t...
|
| [2] https://deepspace.jpl.nasa.gov/files/6_NASA_MOCS_2014_1
| 0_01_...
| ethbr1 wrote:
| You are awesome! Thanks for all the links and info, to an
| open-ended question.
|
| The process of bootstrapping to Earth-space-parity is
| fascinating to me.
|
| One thing in the 1960s, when there was no GPS and terrestrial
| net assumption, but now you're going from everything we've
| built here to... if you don't bring it, you don't have it.
|
| The accretion of Mars support satellites has also been
| fascinating.
| mlhpdx wrote:
| The name LunaNet made me think of GPS cubesats and ground
| transponders that would make precise positioning lunar
| equipment/missions without the latency of coupling to earth
| systems. It's not that, it seems. Anyone want to start a
| location-based service company? ;)
| CartyBoston wrote:
| The spacecraft has an ad prominently displayed on itself, it's
| depressing.
|
| We will never reproduce the experience of 10 year old me watching
| the moon landing with my dad. It's all just egos and
| entertainment now.
| ordu wrote:
| Experience is irreproducible. It depends on too many factors,
| we even don't know the full list of them, and some of them
| change irreversibly with time passing. You will not be 10 years
| old anymore. It is not a good reason for a depression, you can
| experience world now like you couldn't being a 10 year old boy.
| Loughla wrote:
| Actually one of the absolute best things about having kids,
| that is not reproducible for no-child lifestyles, is seeing
| everything for the first time through their eyes.
|
| All the other stuff people say about parenting can be
| reproduced via service or volunteering or something else. But
| that experience absolutely is unique.
|
| Magic is real. The world is wild and exciting, and it's all
| there for that kid. It's amazing to watch and be a part of.
|
| So, while you can never go back to being at 10 year old boy,
| you absolutely can get a taste of what that's like via
| adoption or having your own. In my opinion, that is.
| ordu wrote:
| Ahh yes, empathy can give us experiences we are unable to
| get ourselves.
| bravetraveler wrote:
| > not reproducible for no-child lifestyles
|
| I see what you did there, heh!
|
| Just here to both support and counter this a bit. Kids are
| absolutely a great way to see joy in the world again!
|
| ... but they don't have to be yours. I've supervised those
| for my peers, played temporary dad, all of it.
|
| Sure, it's time-boxed, but that may be the goal. Trading
| seeing "everything" new, for "plenty"
| simmonmt wrote:
| How dare they attempt to defray their costs.
| austinjp wrote:
| How dare they put an ad on the moon.
|
| We are truly spreading the worst of humanity into the cosmos.
| Good job it's only us that appear able to witness it.
|
| Defraying costs by using ads is a strawman. If you can't
| afford to do something, maybe don't do it. If you really,
| really want to do it, maybe ask yourself if the world
| genuinely needs what you're doing. If it does, find a way. If
| the only way you can do it is by selling advertising, you've
| taken as mis-step.
| ewjt wrote:
| That's an extreme position to take that rests on the claim
| that sponsorship/advertising is objectively bad.
|
| Media & journalism have been underpinned by advertising for
| over a century. Tons of educational and informative
| services are available to the public for free because of
| advertising. Sponsorship has built art galleries, hospital
| wings, research centers, etc.
|
| In this case, there's a relatively innocuous logo on a
| robotic lander that is 230k miles away on a desolate rock.
| It's not like this is a billboard in a nature preserve.
| samatman wrote:
| > _If you can 't afford to do something, maybe don't do
| it._
|
| Clearly they can afford to do what they just did.
|
| Oh, you don't like how they raised money? Good, pay
| attention to something else, they aren't doing things for
| your approval.
| dbrueck wrote:
| It's almost as bad as when they put the Castile flag on the
| Santa Maria!
| Loughla wrote:
| I get where you're coming from with the AD on the spacecraft.
| It's gross to see an ad for a clothing company on the moon.
|
| But, NASA is predominately displayed on all of the original
| moonshot crafts. That's an advertisement for that organization.
| . .
|
| And, I'm 100% sure ego had nearly everything to do with the
| original space race. Beating the Russians and what-not. That
| seems, in hindsight, to be very ego driven?
| alan-hn wrote:
| I think saying "this organization built this craft that went
| to space" is a bit different than "buy shit from this other
| company"
| nlarew wrote:
| The Columbia logo on this craft is both. They're
| advertising the brand in a very cool and unique way AND
| they contributed significant heat shield technology to the
| craft itself.
| treyd wrote:
| It's about self-identification not advertisement. And NASA
| isn't a privately-owned for-profit corporation. It's like
| putting "US NAVY" on a battleship, except instead it's a
| vehicle furthering mankind's technological development.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| NASA is an organization that represents the collective
| efforts of Americans (and others!). Columbia clothing is a
| private business that maximizes profit.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| This feels unnecessary cynical. I could understand if the
| spacecraft said "Drink Ovaltine" or something else just
| advertising with paid placement, but the brand marks on it are
| just highlighting the organizations the _actually built the
| thing_. I was originally confused /skeptical about Columbia,
| but they did actually contribute to the design and construction
| of the lander, even if this press release is a little puffed
| up: https://investor.columbia.com/news-events/press-
| releases/det....
|
| Also, you say "It's all just egos and entertainment now." What
| do you think it was in 1969? Is "beat the Russians" somehow a
| more noble goal than "sell a product"?
| dylan604 wrote:
| Eventually, spacecraft will look like a NASCAR paint job.
| jjkaczor wrote:
| Back when I used to help organized and run a technology-
| specific usergroup, where we were constantly working
| corporate sponsors for donations to pay for food/beverages,
| I joked that on meeting nights I would gladly wear a NASCAR
| style jumpsuit, emblazoned with every sponsor brand
| logo/slogan. At least we would be honest shills. Sigh... no
| one took me up on the offer.
| dylan604 wrote:
| I still think that politicians should wear a jumpsuit
| with all of their corporate sponsors
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Perhaps briefly. Eventually they will look like cargo
| ships.
| dylan604 wrote:
| What makes you think a cargo ship can't have a NASCAR
| paint job?
| dylan604 wrote:
| I wonder what kind of analytics the adtech will bring them, and
| how invasive to their privacy it will be
| rossdavidh wrote:
| The US flag on the early moon landings, was absolutely an
| advertisement; the whole thing was done as a propaganda riposte
| to the Soviet Union's Sputnik. Doesn't mean it's not awesome.
| azinman2 wrote:
| There is a meaningful difference between national pride and 2
| for 1 at Dominos.
| silvester23 wrote:
| True, for instance no wars have yet been fought over 2 for
| 1 at Dominos.
| umeshunni wrote:
| Not yet
| Integrape wrote:
| This is the first step.
| PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote:
| 2 for 1 at Dominos has also, strangely enough, never
| protected anyone.
|
| Odd that.
| FactKnower69 wrote:
| Diseased worldview
| johnwalkr wrote:
| In 2001 Pizza Hut actually had its logo on a Russian
| rocket, and delivered pizza to cosmonauts on ISS as part of
| a robotic resupply mission.
| jdelman wrote:
| That's because you were a child at the time. A child now will
| most likely have the same sense of awe and wonder you had, not
| the cynical point of view you've developed over time.
| mikercampbell wrote:
| I'm just glad it's not something "too on the nose" comedically,
| like for Coca-Cola or something that makes me think of Wall-E.
| At least it's a hiking/adventurey brand and not KFC.
| me_me_me wrote:
| The first Mars colonizers will stick a coca-cola flag in and
| everyone but few PR people will sigh collectively
| krapp wrote:
| We planted an American flag on the moon. An advertisement for
| the Coca-Cola of American imperialism versus the Pepsi of
| Soviet communism. The entire space race was literally nothing
| but ego and propaganda.
| kragen wrote:
| the moon landing rocket said "usa" on the side and had flags.
| that's the same thing, just a bigger corporation
| sgt wrote:
| Where is the live stream?
| TrueGeek wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IarunZ9Ykas
| pugworthy wrote:
| Nice background music - not jarring.
| sp332 wrote:
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Dg2ffigGcYM
| ArunRaja wrote:
| Is this the first time for pvt company...?
| NedF wrote:
| Landing in ~ 8 hours.
|
| "The Odysseus moon lander is aiming for a 5:30 p.m. EST (2230
| GMT) lunar landing"
|
| https://www.space.com/intuitive-machines-odysseus-moon-landi...
| obelix150 wrote:
| The landing time has been updated to 1524 CST.
|
| https://www.intuitivemachines.com/im-1
|
| There will be a live feed on the Intuitive Machines site above
| and mirrored on NASA TV+ here: https://plus.nasa.gov/scheduled-
| video/intuitive-machines-1-l...
|
| The coverage on both live feeds will begin around 1400 CST.
| mosselman wrote:
| Pretty cheeky of Columbia to sponsor this. They couldn't even
| make the shoes I bought that were 'absolutely waterproof'
| actually waterproof. A super light rain would result in wet
| feet. This didn't even happen in normal sneakers.
|
| But it is all about image I guess.
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| Columbia is known for incredibly good lifetime warranty-
| contact them and get something that works for free.
|
| I use mostly Columbia gear for some pretty serious outdoor
| adventures, and generally consider their waterproof tech,
| especially outdry rain shells to be the best you can get at
| any price. However, I don't (and wouldn't) use any of their
| footwear.
|
| For waterproof footwear, breathable membranes don't work well
| in my experience, they quickly tear and leak. The membranes
| are just too delicate for the forces and flexing on a boot. A
| really well built traditional leather boot with external
| waterproofing like Sno Seal applied daily is both more
| breathable, and more waterproof. Failing that, heavy rubber
| boots like commercial fisherman wear are really the only
| totally waterproof footwear.
| jdelman wrote:
| It's interesting how this feels like a big deal; when I learned
| of this yesterday, I almost forgot that there have been almost 30
| missions to Mars (which I assume is much harder and more
| expensive) in the years since the last moon landing.
| JonChesterfield wrote:
| I'm more excited about the moon. Being that much closer is a
| big deal. This company is looking to make sending stuff to the
| moon (not sure about getting stuff back) a reliable & vaguely
| cost effective thing to do.
|
| There's probably valuable stuff on the moon and even if not,
| it's learning a load of things about going further afield. Lots
| of science fiction about the asteroid belt beyond mars.
| danavar wrote:
| It is a big deal!
|
| While just landing on the moon is definitely much simpler than
| a Mars mission, this lander is a part of the Artemis program;
| it's one of the first steps towards developing the Artemis base
| camp on the moon.
| gwbas1c wrote:
| > which I assume is much harder and more expensive
|
| Manned space missions are significantly more expensive (and
| complicated) than robotic missions. (Otherwise, we'd be sending
| a lot more people into space.)
|
| Let's do a little bit of back-of-the-envelope Googling:
|
| From https://www.planetary.org/space-policy/cost-of-apollo
|
| > The United States spent $25.8 billion on Project Apollo
| between 1960 and 1973, or approximately $257 billion when
| adjusted for inflation to 2020 dollars.
|
| From https://www.planetary.org/space-policy/cost-of-the-mars-
| expl....
|
| > The Mars Exploration Rover (MER) mission cost $1.08 billion.
| Of that amount, $744 million was spent on spacecraft
| development and launch; $335.8 million was spent on 15 years of
| mission operations.
|
| So it looks like "manned" space missions cost at least 100x the
| cost of sending a robot.
| idlewords wrote:
| The post you're replying to is comparing robotic missions to
| Mars vs. the moon.
|
| Mars is orders of magnitude harder to land on because of its
| atmosphere, stronger gravity, and the need to keep your robot
| healthy on the long trip over.
| Someone wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuitive_Machines_Nova-C#Eagl...:
|
| _"EagleCam to record lunar landing
|
| Just before landing, at approximately 30 m (98 ft) above the
| lunar surface, the Odysseus lander will eject the EagleCam
| camera-equipped CubeSat, which will drop onto the lunar surface
| near the lander, with an impact velocity of about 10 m/s (22
| mph). From the surface the EagleCam will attempt to capture the
| first third-person images of a lunar landing. The EagleCam will
| use a Wi-Fi connection to the Odysseus lander to relay its images
| back to Earth."_
|
| That CubeSat is student built. I wonder what camera they have and
| how hard it will be to make it record the landing. Will it orient
| itself during that six-ish second drop or can it move the camera
| after landing? Does it have a fisheye lens to increase the
| likelihood of the lander being in its field of vision?
|
| Unfortunately, their project page (https://erau.edu/eaglecam)
| seems to be light on such details.
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| I always assumed that space was noisy enough that things like
| wifi wouldn't work on the lunar surface.
| dspillett wrote:
| If basic radio worked for talking between suits and the
| landing craft in '69, it surely shouldn't be a surprise that
| modern frequency-hopping, error corrected, wireless comms,
| with much more sensitive equipment would work well?
| Izkata wrote:
| The walkie-talkie toys I had as a kid in the 90s had at
| least 10x the range of modern home wifi routers. Not to
| mention how far radio stations broadcast. I'm guessing
| that's the context they're working from.
| adastra22 wrote:
| That's because of different frequencies and power caps
| that are enforced by the FCC. If your WiFi broadcast with
| the same power, the frequency space would be unusable by
| your neighbors for their WiFi. The range of WiFi is very
| purposefully sabotaged to make it useful for more than
| just you.
| dreamcompiler wrote:
| And also because our kid-era walkie talkies were VHF (or
| at least mine were) which is a much lower frequency band
| than wifi. At a given power level, lower frequencies
| travel farther (i.e. around obstacles) but can't transfer
| as many bits as wifi.
| ThrowawayTestr wrote:
| I wonder how much power the wifi antenna on the cubesat
| is pumping out.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| Assuming you are talking about FCC Part 15 regulations
| for 2.4 GHz, you couldn't be more wrong. There is no
| 'sabotage'
|
| The EIRP is 4 watts in 2.4 GHz band. More than enough to
| wipe out your neighbors. Also more than enough to get
| absolutely tremendous range in line of sight conditions.
|
| I can purchase and install an unlimited number of 2.4 GHz
| Part 15 devices, rendering the band useless to anyone so
| long as I am attempting to use those devices in a manner
| consistent with their application. As another Part 15
| user, you have no recourse. If a licensed user complains
| to the FCC, they may decide I have to stop using them and
| notify me as such. Note: one of my neighbors does this,
| by having an AP on every 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz channel.
|
| Newest Wifi 6 stuff in the US has a power limit on some
| spectrum and some usages, but nowhere near as low as what
| I was hoping for.
| redavni wrote:
| > Note: one of my neighbors does this, by having an AP on
| every 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz channel.
|
| Sounds like a fun and ethical excuse to DOS some WIFI
| routers.
| adastra22 wrote:
| Why isn't the limit 40 watts? Or 400? Why is there a
| limit at all?
|
| You can pedantically criticize the use of the word
| "sabotage", but then you'd be entirely missing the point.
| pfdietz wrote:
| If you're above the frequency at which the ionosphere becomes
| reflective (around 30 MHz), why should space be noisier than
| the Earth's surface? Anything propagating there will reach
| down here (unless it's something really short wave absorbed
| by molecular bands in the atmosphere.)
|
| In practice, it's going to be noiser down here, because of
| all the sources down here.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Noise you can correct for with directional antennas, filters,
| and/or more signal processing voodoo. Meanwhile you benefit
| from space being _actually empty_ - no pesky atmosphere in
| the way to attenuate signals (though also no layers to bounce
| the signal off), and no other transmitters in your area.
| Inverse square law works to your advantage in this context.
| _just7_ wrote:
| The simplest way to do it is probably just to have a high
| quality 360 camera, that way you mostly get around the problem
| of orientation
| Someone wrote:
| Yes, but even that isn't simple, I think. They'd not want to
| land on top of it, so they'd have to push it out from the
| lander or have it propel itself away from the lander. If they
| push it out and it doesn't have a way to stabilize itself,
| keeping the lens pointing upwards then will require tight
| control over that push.
|
| So, I guessed (see below) you'd need power to make the sat
| orient itself.
|
| However, I googled a bit more, and found this:
| https://mynews13.com/fl/orlando/space/2024/02/21/embry-
| riddl..., which says:
|
| _"EagleCam will be spring ejected from the Nova-C class
| lander Odysseus about 30 meters above the lunar surface
| during the final descent. It will take three images a second
| from each of its three cameras (a total of nine images a
| second), capturing its six-second freefall to the surface and
| Odysseus' descent and soft landing. About an hour after
| landing, our team will receive the five images of our
| choosing. During descent, Dr. Henderson and I will be timing
| events in landing sequence to match to image numbers to
| choose the first five images we bring back to Earth. Once we
| have those images, I will post them directly to @eraueaglecam
| on Instagram. Shortly after that, they will also be available
| on @spacetechnologieslab on Instagram and @SpaceTechLab on X
| (formerly Twitter)."_
|
| So, it isn't a 360 camera, and they're making 50-ish images
| and hoping for the best. Doesn't look like the sat has
| rockets or that they're trying to make it possible to make
| more photos after impact on the moon.
|
| If my guesses/intuition is right we won't see the actual
| touchdown (still cool to have anything, of course), but
| corrections welcome.
| adastra22 wrote:
| Have two. One on each side. Doesn't matter if one ends up
| in the regolith.
| volemo wrote:
| It'd surely land sidewise. :D
| adastra22 wrote:
| Which is fine. 360 degree camera.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Have three, 120 degrees apart. They'll double as backup
| landing legs.
| adastra22 wrote:
| Wouldn't be any better. You'd need 4 to be able to
| reliably land with one pointed out of the regolith.
| That's probably pushing it in terms of mass. 3 wouldn't
| be any better than 2 though.
| adolph wrote:
| > push it out from the lander
|
| Selfie stick sounds simpler.
| sdwr wrote:
| That's an impressive school project! First university to land
| on the moon
| lukan wrote:
| Unless they would have build and operated the rocket themself
| (and not SpaceX), I would consider that a false clickbait
| headline.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| A decade ago, maybe. Today? SpaceX is commoditizing access
| to space - we're at the point we can start treating Earth-
| orbit delivery as a given, i.e. just a service you pay
| money for.
| lukan wrote:
| Earth orbit maybe. But here we are at earth-moon. And the
| lander is not build or operated by the school/university
| either.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| Flying to the moon is the easy part. Landing is the trick.
| lukan wrote:
| Flying is not so easy either, and the landing is done by
| the private company, not by the school.
| th0ma5 wrote:
| Funny that the student project will be the first private
| landing followed by the commercial vehicle?
| nightski wrote:
| I was a part of this project over a decade ago when I attended
| ERAU! At the time the goal was just to take pictures of earth.
| It is so cool to see how the scope has expanded over the years.
|
| Our student group drove down to Cape Canaveral to pick up and
| haul a clean room back to the university that NASA donated for
| use to build the satellite. I will never forget those
| experiences.
| acefaceZ wrote:
| I believe they are part of the recently setup homesteading
| program similar to what Alaska setup in the 80s. If they can put
| a stake in the ground they get 20 acres around the stake.
| psd1 wrote:
| Reassuringly anachronistic to use acres as a unit of measure on
| the moon.
| p1mrx wrote:
| For historical reasons, a moon acre is approximately 16.7%
| smaller than an earth acre.
| samatman wrote:
| It's an official unit of the only flag on the Moon to date.
| What else would you suggest?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| It's not the only flag.
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20220725003858/https://www.spac
| e...
| strombofulous wrote:
| This reminds me of countries who send pregnant women to
| antartica to (somehow) strengthen their land claims:
| https://medium.com/good-to-know/why-11-babies-have-been-born...
|
| Like antartica, I'm sure someone with guns will tell us who
| really owns the moon as soon as it actually becomes relevant.
| consumer451 wrote:
| FYI, they have a subreddit:
| https://old.reddit.com/r/IntuitiveMachines/
| photochemsyn wrote:
| The next stage in this project is the ice-drilling PRIME-1 -
| which might rely on the success of this stage? Details:
|
| > "The [Odyssus] Nova-C Lander is a tall hexagonal cylinder on 6
| landing legs. It is capable of carrying 100 to 130 kg of payload
| to the surface. It uses solar panels to generate 200 W of power
| on the surface. Propulsion and landing use liquid methane as fuel
| and liquid oxygen as an oxidizer. The PRIME-1 mission has two
| primary components, The Regolith and Ice Drill for Exploring New
| Terrain (TRIDENT) and the Mass Spectrometer observing lunar
| operations (MSolo). TRIDENT is an augering drill approximately 1
| meter long. The drill is able to stop at any depth as commanded
| from the ground and deposit and deposit its sample on the surface
| for analysis. MSolo is a commercial off the shelf (COTS) mass
| spectrometer modified for spaceflight and lunar operations. Total
| PRIME-1 payload mass is about 40 kg."
|
| https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraft/display.action?id...
| Anduia wrote:
| It is the size of a Tardis
| dghughes wrote:
| > the Odysseus lander will eject the EagleCam camera-equipped
| CubeSat, which will drop onto the lunar surface near the lander
|
| So the first non-government device to land on moon will be viewed
| trying to land by a device also non-government (but part of the
| lander) that lands on the moon first? I guess that evens out.
| ngneer wrote:
| The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
| AlbertCory wrote:
| Wallace and Gromit did it a long time ago.
| lacoolj wrote:
| does someone have a telescope pointed at the moon so we can have
| a third, third-party view of this landing?
| dang wrote:
| See also https://www.reuters.com/technology/space/us-nears-
| attempt-fi...
|
| (via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39468115, but no
| comments there)
| wesselbindt wrote:
| This is great, it really proves that the free market can be just
| as innovative and efficient as the public sector. They managed to
| get there less than 50 years after the taxpayer funded space guys
| did. No small feat! Imagine all the things they must've learned
| along the way!
| JoeDaDude wrote:
| You do realize this mission is taxpayer funded. Intuitive
| Machines is getting paid as part of a contract to NASA under
| the Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLIPS) program.
|
| https://www.nasa.gov/commercial-lunar-payload-services/
|
| https://www.nasa.gov/missions/artemis/clps/intuitive-machine...
| FactKnower69 wrote:
| No way!! I thought private enterprise didn't need government
| handouts?
| wolverine876 wrote:
| It's poor people and small businesses who don't need
| government handouts.
| thisisauserid wrote:
| This is not a hoax.
|
| But won't we soon have a real fake moon landing?
|
| What a world.
| mastermedo wrote:
| Their desk in the middle of the control room is proof that earth
| is a flat disk. Surely they would have a spherical desk had the
| earth been a sphere!
| albchamo wrote:
| That moon lander carries several private projects, one of them is
| the Lunaprise Mission, by SpaceBlue. This mission aims to create
| a Lunar Museum, so it carries Art on a golden harddrive. Movies,
| music and the full XPunks NFT collection. I am amazed that my PFP
| is landing on the moon tonight!
|
| https://spaceblue.club/projects/lunaprise-mission
| malkia wrote:
| I didn't know about them. I recently watched the whole
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_All_Mankind_(TV_series) and was
| mesmerized by it - it's alternative reality fiction, where a
| private company comes to land on Mars!
| rkagerer wrote:
| Yeah, For All Mankind is a great show for people who are
| excited about this kind of stuff. It's an alternative-history
| fictional drama exploring "What if" the space race never ended.
| krasin wrote:
| Yep. Highly enjoyed its Season 1, but I wished I never
| watched any further - it feels complete at this point and the
| later seasons destroy the impression. Kind of like with The
| Matrix.
|
| Note: some people have an opposite opinion, that the
| interesting stuff starts at Season 3.
| malkia wrote:
| I loved them all - but I can see your point!
| rkagerer wrote:
| Agreed, Season 1 was by far the best. I'm re-watching the
| whole thing with my spouse and in some ways it's more fun
| the second time around (surely biased because of the shared
| experience).
|
| Some shows are like that - I didn't think Star Trek Deep
| Space Nine was all that hot first time around, appreciated
| it much more years later on a rewatch (the supporting
| characters are awesome). Maybe in part it's adjusted
| expectations ;-).
| rkagerer wrote:
| Ridiculous this isn't more prominent in mainstream news. Eg. I
| open Google News to stories of killers and a new real estate tax
| and some sort of scandal by an actor. This is why I come to HN
| instead.
| saagarjha wrote:
| It was on NPR today if that makes you feel better
| godelski wrote:
| It's on the front page of Reuters. See the right part of the
| image https://imgur.com/VpGAIBl
| qwertox wrote:
| Now to the problem with YouTube, and I'm sick and tired of
| reporting this, because by now they should have an automated
| solution for this, look at this link:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/hashtag/im1
|
| Channels named "SpaceX [LIVE]" [0], "SpaceX" (which is actually
| @uyenmusic with 148.000 subscribers), and so on.
|
| Most of these channels have no videos except for that single live
| stream, occasionally inserting QR-codes with crypto-scams. Like
| the first one I mentioned.
|
| > Huge crypto-giveaway during to the launch!
|
| > During this unique event, you have the opportunity to take a
| share of 1.000 BTC & 10.000 ETH & 100.000.000 DOGE & 10.000.000
| USDT. Have a look at the rules and don't miss out on this. You
| can only participate once!
|
| And the most interesting thing about this video is that they are
| _using AI to make Elon Musk say that you should scan the QR-code
| and that you will get the crypto_. 100% sounds like him.
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toDNnSBzgEU
| defenestration wrote:
| That livestream [0] looks like a pretty convincing scam to me,
| with 22k people viewing at the moment. And it indeed sounds
| like him. The real username is hidden behind the visible
| SpaceX[Live] name.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-02-22 23:00 UTC)