The sad thing is the critical mistake began at stage 0 even before the mission began.A simple switch not being turned from safe to instrument On.They didn’t review their safety checklists throughly enough going through a countdown to Launch.

As a engineer with large experiency in Industrial Steam Power Plants I can´t imagine any switch not having its status feedback and interlocked with control system when needed. Furthermore, if such switch is so important it should be possible to be controlled remotelly turning on/off. At least such switch operation should be in the Launch Check List Procedure. It's a shame for such complex mission.

IM-1 was a heck of a good pathfinder mission! The next one will be much better.

8:43 So many things to keep track of? These operations have two-person checklists, the operator and a QA assignee. Each step gets initialed. After a checklist is complete both sign it. After every checklist is complete the launch director goes over the binder of checklists and signs that off. This is standard practice. Somehow this practice got waived.

Finding experts like this to talk in depth is really great stuff and bound to grow the channel! Really interesting! Thanks❤

That one control room engineer that was playing galaga instead of monitoring logistics ! 😛

Any commercial or military pilot will tell you that if one item is critical--it had better be on the preflight ckecklist. This is a gross failure of aviation, not a simple mistake. It is also a failure of engineering. If that system MUST be engaged before landing, then there'd damn well better be a redundancy in the programming to automatically engage that gear during the landing process. Probably before a "commit to landing" decision is made.

Thanks Again Ellie. And Dr Phil. Interesting comments.

You would think there would be check list on job completion signed off by a team leader, then maybe the range finder would have been able to work.

Great video as usual, Ellie. With reference to the cost, it'd be more reasonable to compare Odysseus to a single Lunar Surveyor mission than the entire Apollo program.

Isnt this why those red and white REMOVE BEFORE FLIGHT tags exist? At least it wasn't as big of a blunder as that time a Proton rocket crashed because a sensor was installed upside down. Forcefully. With a hammer.

Fascinating report Ellie, this is why I love your channel. Amazing coverage as always!

IM breaking its leg induced traumatic flashbacks for Ellie. Stay strong Ellie.🙂

This is similar to what happen to the Hubble Telescope. The focal length of the main mirror was off but it was fixable with added lenses.

I can't believe how much data Phil was able to get out of a single photo.

One thing for sure they won't ever forget to arm the equipment ever again, LOL tough lesson

The IM1 mission has gripped me for the last couple of weeks and this excellent interview truly evaluates the merits of Odie's design and how successful it was, thanks Ellie and thanks Dr. Phil.

Starliner ended up having 80 corrections necessary after OFT-1. Now, there's been a few wiring issues with Orion for Artemis 2, albeit very internal and not made public. Things happen more than we'd like to admit. People are human and the best we can do is develop better redundancy for quality control over the final checkout process. But yes, not pulling a safety block for a lunar lander BEFORE ITS SEALED IN THE VEHICLE sucks very bad.

What kind of software that validates readiness doesn't see a switched-off system function? There is more than one problem here.

Ellie, you are "the real deal" and a great space journalist. A most informative interview.

Ellie Content GOLD once again 🚀🚀

Enjoyed the deeper dive in the pool..

Regarding cryo boil-off, what I heard said by IM is that they don't allow boil-off at all - rather they built the tanks strong enough to contain the gas so long as the temperature stayed below a limit. That converts the problem to one of insulation versus refrigeration power to keep it cold enough.

"Do we need a checklist?" "Neh, we can handle that intuitively". 😊 Next time: "Step 495: remove the laser safety" "Check ... I'M BLIND!" 😮

Great talk Ellie, thanks for the update.

Great video Ellie, keep up the great work sweety.

Another excellent interview. Worth the wait. A lot of good information and supposition.

In grad school I was an engineer at the University's Laser Institute… we used and owned all kinds of lasers and almost all of them come equipped with a laser safety interlock switch. This tells me that IM bought and utilized off the shelf lab-grade lasers for their navigation components, rather than do the engineering themselves (why reinvent the wheel). And there is nothing wrong with that really... unless you forget about the switch. Oh well, lesson learned. Me, I would have removed the safety feature... and voided the warrantee lol.

Feel bad??? You mean…”You’re Fired.”

Without question Odysseus is a success. A crash landing, yes but still survived and returned science!

The height of the lander isn't random, it's a combination of engineering tradeoffs. I know zilch about the IM-1 lander, but I suspect that they stacked their propellant tanks in a vertical stack to ensure a minimum width--they have to fit inside the Payload fairing-- and keep the mass symmetrical around a vertical axis passing through the center of the spacecraft. I'm also sad we don't have the plume/regolith interaction. That is going to grow in importance very quickly as we send ever larger landers. One of the IM-1 payloads was something to measure the fuel in a tank. You know quantity of propellants you use to fuel the vehicle. There is some uncertainty in measuring how much of your propellants you use when you use your engines. As mentioned in the video, it is really hard to contain hydrogen, so for hydrogen, there is an additional source of uncertainty. You can only delay landing as long as you have enough fuel for a safe descent and the extra uncertainty with cryogenic propellants makes using them more complex. The bottom line with IM-1 is that they did a great job of managing that, and I hope the results of propellant measurement are positive.

I feel an affinity for IM-1 as I watched the landing with a broken leg too. 7 weeks in and 4 weeks to go.

Great video again!! Thanks for the info! Glad you back home (in time for IFT-3)!!

Super interview. I have to get over the "required" KZfaq thumbnail/title stuff. I know Ellie product will be good, and is not clickbait.

To avoid tipping, you could have some kind of ball wheel or castor, allowing the lander to roll upon landing. After that, the wheel can be locked if necessary.

Great information!

Good reporting Ms Ellie bright eyes!

thanks for this great connvo

That margin added is called the Bogus Fudge Factor!

Wow a single switch! Usually throughout aviation and space people people use checklists - so no need to remember. Was there not a checklist that includes the switch?

Failure The Lem was 100% successful landings 50 years ago. Successful the first-time, no long winded excuses. TD Atlanta

It struck the ground to hard because it thought it was much higher than it was.

If Odysseus can send back the data it was sent for to get then I don't care if it even landed upside down in a ditch. Then the mission was a success. BUT, if the data getting back is only worth a penny due to a bad landing then the mission was a complete failure. I would like to know what "data" exactly we will/did get back to determine whether this mission was really a success. So far everyone just says that its been a success. We have not seen any proof yet except for a couple of moon surface pictures. Are they busy with a cover-up ? Even in the interview he says he has no idea what data they got except for how cool he thought the dust was blowing around and the colour of a crater during the "crash". This was NOT why Odysseus was sent there !

Sign near the door of the assembly building, " ATTN: IM Employees!! Would the last person to leave please TURN ON the Lights!!"

Use the Mars landing beach ball system. 😊

Boil off biggest in LEO and later in LLO during transition, can be zeroed out

Let's gooo! 🔥🚀😀

Why is there a physical switch on the lander? With today's computer power and electronics, it seems the switch should have been either programmed or the lander receive a signal to turn that system on.

You probably don't have to guess whether NASA got its money. CLPS contracts pay out by milestone completion. NASA will have to evaluate which of these was met. If this is not confidential data, you could ask NASA or IM how the mission evaluation. Personally, I think IM kicked butt, ahem, was clearly successful.

Great video! Love the lashes

Does the lander have a robotic arm? Could it right itself? Seems like a method to right the craft needs to be part of the project.

❤️❤️❤️

Why don't they catch the falcon to prove it can be done

Why no 3rd person picture of the Lander?

Who is they? SpaceX or the rideshare owner? Who was responsible for throwing the switch?

Sure, nothing to do with top heavy mini fridge mounted on chicken leg's. First math problem in Engineering is calculation of centroid of mass.

You look good, I like your top.

Can you pass along to mayb put a leg or two to on the outsides of the landers of the future the idea it to right itself in effect push itself back over

Why are all the images fisheye? Why can’t the cameras just be normal?

When is the next mission schedule? TKS

You can bet the launch process list of steps is going to have that step highlighted and in bold 😂. But seriously, for all of NASA’s overpriced faults they would have the most comprehensive set of checklists and wouldn’t have missed that one. IM-2 and 3 are going to be a breeze in comparison.

I'd call it a qualified success*. 😅

so you think 55 years ago we landed on moon with the help of just rocket fuel and nothing else?

Was a bad design... Science fair Rocket Enginerds strike again. Basically they managed to hit the Moon with some trash... I wonder how many missions before the Lab coats figure out Murphy can also be a Lunar effect? And start thinking in terms of worst case when designing....

You missed a comic opportunity, to cut in R2D2 falling over.

Grata

11:00 To argue about a tall lander is pointless. That's like arguing why we don't have a fifth wheel on a car in case someone forgets to put on a wheel. The problem is someone forgot to do something the design needed.

Use “a” when followed by word beginning with vowel, a fellow engineer.

Maybe do the airbag design they used on Mars...that seemed to work out okay... anything is better than a top heavy refrigerator with short weak legs 🙄

Its comical that you're both trying to say "that person must have felt so bad" for not flipping the laser on. Complex systems like this dont come down to single person errors. It's a huge team mistake and overrides by cost driven managers skipping process that caused this. It's an HR problem hiring rookie or ego driven managers.

The company is a PR disaster. Instead of trying to gaslight the public, they could have handled it a lot better

Ellie, there’s someone on X pretending to be you and trying to scam fans through investments. Maybe let X know about it.

maybe a gofundme is in order then they could hire china to drive their rover over there and set the lander on its feet!!!!!

Great episode, thanks for seeking out expert info. I enjoy your enthusiasm and personableness as an interviewer. A couple thoughts that would make it nicer for me...don't know about others: 1. Not sure why you always display so much cleavage. I would appreciate a 75% reduction. 2. This episode is about the expert - he should have 85% of the screen and you just a small 15% corner. This would reduce your distractive actions of your big eyelashed eyes watching other screens, and your often playing with your hair. Review the broadcast with these items in mind, and you might see the distraction it can be. I hope you take this as a suggestion , you do a GREAT job!! I just want to help you be perfect because you are a significant provider of often unique topics and interviews that no one else thinks about or is able to land. So thanks, may you continue to keep up the good work. Ken, from your old stomping grounds in SLC. A 78 yr old heavy construction engineer manager and dream of being an astronaut since I was 14 but @ 6'4" was too tall for them. So now I live the dream, still, via great youtubers like you, Marcus, Felix, Tim, and space x. Thanks for all your efforts.

Not much you can add at this point

I hope NASA and SpaceX were paying attention to the whole taller landers tip over easier thing. LOL

Let's be honest now. you have private company that put profits before the mission. They intentionally skipped steps to SAVE MONEY and they failed because of it. period.

So Spacex couldn't pull off a propulsive landing but Apollo could flawlessly half a century ago

I was right - Ellie in space, means all space. Spacex is not the domain of gravity travel nor zero gravity pursuits.

apollo is fake ! how many money nasa use to make cardboard paper starship with aluminium foil 😂

Ellie, you sound like a journalist. Not a compliment. IM -1 mission success is not yes or no. They've already learned and proven most of what they intended. But yes, they experienced two problems.

We put men on the moon for crying out loud and now we cant even land a probe......

This will happen unless you stop let immigrants be part of these valuable programs. Goodluck for the future if you have any!!

"almost"? Come on. They DID lose this lander. The mission is a failure. Let's be grownups here. Why am I coming down so hard? Because of the enormous propaganda put forth by NASA and Intuitive to SPIN this failure into a 'historical' 'victory'. It's so damn cringey. And so damn dishonest. And it's a lie. So let's get back to sobriety, and good science, and just call this what it is. A ridiculous failure, and embarrassing one... and learn from it, and move on, and do BETTER on the next mission. Shame on NASA, the Media, and Intuitive for this sham propaganda push. We are smarter than their lies. Let's call them on this, and make sure this lying doesn't become a trend. Sheesh.

Gotta love American bias. Congrats for getting to the moon but this is an epic systems failure

Sorry but Michael is trying to divert attention away from the focus of this mission, how badly the landing went and if the instruments onboard are all fully functional. He is talking a lot of crap. Get back to the point dude. There are instruments onboard and we want to know if they are working/going to work or not at all. We know nothing survives a looner night. I'm very sceptical of this mission. I fear the worse !