3 ms·

https://www.intuitivemachines.com/post/intuitive-machines-im-2-mission-lunar-lander-encapsulated-and-scheduled-for-launch https://www.intuitivemachines.com/post

by tekla 2y ago

https://www.intuitivemachines.com/post/intuitive-machines-im-2-mission-lunar-lander-encapsulated-and-scheduled-for-launch https://www.intuitivemachines.com/post/intuitive-machines-im... Look at the lander. Pray tell, if you want it shorter, where is everything supposed to go?

aylmao 2y ago
It could be two landers, one stacked on top of the other for takeoff, but separate for landing EDIT: or a horizontal lander, packed on it's side for takeoff. I'm sure it's more complicated than that, but landing something this tall seems quite complicated too in the first place.
- rolph 2y ago
  go bigger this could be a pancake stack that separates into a swarm of puck like units according to some sequence
  - throwup238 2y ago
    You’d be paying the extra mass cost of landing gears for each pancake - something has to absorb the impact of landing or they’ll just break apart. These landers already operate at the margin.
    - ForOldHack 2y ago
      You do not need as many landing gears. No meat bags to protect, but you would need separate propulsion units, less the fuel for return trip. Landing gear is light weight. What was the landing gear ratio in other NASA unmanned probes? How did the asteroid interception land? This is probe #2 from the company - NASA did not get there until Apollo 11 they are not the same... Computers are almost a billion times faster.
  - ForOldHack 2y ago
    This is off the hook out side the box. If you landed functional units and the had some mechanism to connect them back up, you could reduce the force of landing... Oh wait.. this is exactly the plan for colonisation. Seriously read digital apollo
- ForOldHack 2y ago
  This is really thinking outside the box. Please read digital Apollo. It's that good.
itishappy 2y ago
That doesn't look space constrained to me. The core looks like it would almost fit on it's side without modification, "just" move a few things around so it's flat and wide instead of tall and thin. Here's exactly that: https://x.com/SERobinsonJr/status/1879361461002371351 https://x.com/SERobinsonJr/status/1879361461002371351 Nova-C (Intuitive Machine's platform) is 3x2x2 meters, and fits in a Falcon 9. Blue Ghost is 2x3x3 meters, and fits in the same fairing. Here's a comparison (note that the Blue Ghost platform is currently the only one to succeed at it's intended mission, though IM1 did technically land safely but sideways): https://i.ytimg.com/vi/PVz5912B1iQ/maxresdefault.jpg https://i.ytimg.com/vi/PVz5912B1iQ/maxresdefault.jpg

by tekla 2y ago

aylmao 2y ago

It could be two landers, one stacked on top of the other for takeoff, but separate for landing EDIT: or a horizontal lander, packed on it's side for takeoff. I'm sure it's more complicated than that, but landing something this tall seems quite complicated too in the first place.

rolph 2y ago
go bigger this could be a pancake stack that separates into a swarm of puck like units according to some sequence
- throwup238 2y ago
  You’d be paying the extra mass cost of landing gears for each pancake - something has to absorb the impact of landing or they’ll just break apart. These landers already operate at the margin.
  - ForOldHack 2y ago
    You do not need as many landing gears. No meat bags to protect, but you would need separate propulsion units, less the fuel for return trip. Landing gear is light weight. What was the landing gear ratio in other NASA unmanned probes? How did the asteroid interception land? This is probe #2 from the company - NASA did not get there until Apollo 11 they are not the same... Computers are almost a billion times faster.
- ForOldHack 2y ago
  This is off the hook out side the box. If you landed functional units and the had some mechanism to connect them back up, you could reduce the force of landing... Oh wait.. this is exactly the plan for colonisation. Seriously read digital apollo
ForOldHack 2y ago
This is really thinking outside the box. Please read digital Apollo. It's that good.

itishappy 2y ago

That doesn't look space constrained to me. The core looks like it would almost fit on it's side without modification, "just" move a few things around so it's flat and wide instead of tall and thin. Here's exactly that: https://x.com/SERobinsonJr/status/1879361461002371351 https://x.com/SERobinsonJr/status/1879361461002371351 Nova-C (Intuitive Machine's platform) is 3x2x2 meters, and fits in a Falcon 9. Blue Ghost is 2x3x3 meters, and fits in the same fairing. Here's a comparison (note that the Blue Ghost platform is currently the only one to succeed at it's intended mission, though IM1 did technically land safely but sideways): https://i.ytimg.com/vi/PVz5912B1iQ/maxresdefault.jpg https://i.ytimg.com/vi/PVz5912B1iQ/maxresdefault.jpg