U.S. lands unmanned Odysseus spacecraft on moon

Yahoo! ^ | Thu, February 22, 2024 at 6:08 PM CST | Dylan Stableford and Caitlin Dickson

[Red Badger]

An unmanned, robotic lunar lander launched by a private U.S. company landed on the moon Thursday evening.

“We can confirm, without a doubt, that our equipment is on the surface of the moon,” said Stephen Altemus, CEO of Intuitive Machines, the Houston-based company that operated the Odysseus spacecraft. “Welcome to the moon.”

As it approached the surface of the moon, Odysseus lost contact with NASA, resulting in several anxious minutes for those who worked on the joint project. But after approximately 15 minutes of searching, officials confirmed that they were once again receiving signals from the spacecraft.

“A commercial lander named Odysseus, powered by a company called Intuitive Machines, launched up on a Space X rocket, carrying a bounty of NASA scientific instruments and bearing the dream of a new adventure, a new adventure in science, innovation and American leadership, well, all of that aced the landing of a lifetime,” NASA Administrator Bill Nelson said after contact had been reestablished. “Today for the first time in more than a half century, the U.S. has returned to the moon.”

Altemus had estimated that Odysseus had an 80% chance of successfully landing on the moon, citing previous failed attempts as an advantage. “We’ve stood on the shoulders of everybody who’s tried before us,” Altemus said.

It was the first American mission to land on the moon since Apollo 17 in 1972 and the first private spacecraft ever to make a soft landing there.

While it was a private mission, NASA paid Intuitive Machines $118 million to deliver six instruments to the moon. And the U.S. space agency provided streaming video of the landing.

[cgbg]

You can research all of this for yourself.

I am not going to micromanage your education.

Focus on the Apollo 11 press conference.

Just stop evading and just do it.

If you are unable to master the details of that press conference there is nothing to discuss.

[cgbg]

If you do get around to watching and listening to the press conference and they start talking about the on board computer on the lunar module on the moon (I believe Aldrin does that) this is the link you need:

https://www.aulis.com/pascal.htm

It proves he was lying.

[Freedom4US]

What are you on about? I can’t “research” what you already believe.

Is it your contention that humans cannot leave earth orbit? I already know that this indeed must be the case. What’s the show stopper?

I watched the press conference again, as much as I could stand, again, a half hour maybe. Boring. The Apollo 11 crew is a little “dry” at times, compared to the others. At least, Neil Armstrong was. I would agree he had almost no perceptible personality - at least in public. LOL. If you’ve watched as many films on NASA personalities as I have, you’d know this already. I always thought maybe Pete Conrad or Jim Young or Frank Borman should have maybe been the first crew. Or Lovell, Borman Hayes. A bit more approachable.

You can see this characteristic right from the beginning when Armstrong was picked up in the Group 2 astronauts aka “The Next Nine” in 1962. You ask Neil a question, and he would just stare, almost as if he didn’t hear you. Right at the point you feel like repeating the question, then he would start gushing out this lengthy, convoluted yet perfectly precise response, almost like a computer. He was a very private individual. Not a recluse, a private individual. None of those guys cared too much for the press or any of that nonsense.

[cgbg]

You gave the standard explanation.

There are so many great details in that press conference.

I just gave you a link showing the computer was a fraud.

There are also several mentions of “simulation”.

Collins has a hilarious comment about “we were closer than it seemed” to Earth.

I could go on and on.

It is all there—you just have to pay attention—if you are capable of quieting your mind—tossing away the brainwashing—and focusing on what they are saying.

Listen to their discussion of the footprints, then later of the depth of the print of the lunar module.

Listen to their vague and hilarious comments about what scientists will do with the moon soil samples.

It just goes on and on—it is right there waiting for you to find it.

[Freedom4US]

OK, so we’ve established in your mind it’s all bullshit. Got it.

What’s the showstopper to getting out of earth orbit, in your opinion? Is it safe to assume they are still faking this in the upcoming Artemus program as well?

[cgbg]

Artemis is trying to do it.

They are having many problems.

They have outsourced the crew quarters (equivalent of the command module and lunar module) to the European Space Agency and they are totally stumped. They don’t even know where to start.

The best hope (imho) is Elon Musk because he is willing to take some big risks to make it happen.

My view is he will figure it out—but there will be dead astronauts—because this stuff is really difficult.

[Freedom4US]

It’s interesting you suggested that link about the DSKY, I read that the other night.

Now, you offered that as proof it could not have happened. I went through it, and I must admit I did not understand it. And I also admit, that I do not understand the NASA website (or the MIT documents of the source code that explain it).

This is getting into what is called Epistemology. On the one hand, we have thiusands of people who were involved in making this software work for an intended purpose. They thought it would work. They think it worked. Armstrong quipped in a speech at the Draper lab at MIT that the DSKY itself “cost more than a small country”.

On the other hand, there is one individual who says it couldn’t possibly have worked, it didn’t have the capability to do certain things, and here’s why. Except, I don’t understand any of it. I have to take their word for it.

Do you understand the software coding involved? Have you independently confirmed his conclusions yourself? Why do you believe him, and not MIT?

I mean maybe, but that’s probably not the way to bet. Correct me if I’m wrong about your coding abilities or DSKY familiarity, but we’re left with the argument that I should believe NASA faked the moon landings, because you say this guy over there on that website is really smart.

[ifinnegan]

“ So. All the lunar orbiter reconnaissance photographs are fake too? Yes or no.

India, and China landers were fake too? Yes or no.”

I’m sure this guy cbgb will say they’re all fake except China.

[Freedom4US]

OK cgbg. I am still interested to know your opinion, why you believe the Pascal fellow claiming it was not possible for the DSKY and software to effect navigation or a landing for Apollo program.

I fully admit I’m not smart enough to understand it. Are you? So at this point there’s one guy versus Draper lab at MIT. I mean, maybe he’s correct. But that’s probably not the way to bet.

[Freedom4US]

Mea culpa, replied to meself. You won’t see that.

See where I’m going with that? What makes you qualified to judge the relative merits of software coding of orbital mechanics? It’s way out of my wheelhouse. We can choose to believe what we want, or who we want, but is there something that sticks out for you?

[cgbg]

Thanks for asking the question.

This was the official NASA schematics for the on-board command module and lunar module navigation computer.

The schematics are a “Potemkin village”—a computer that looks like a computer on the outside but it is not functional.

This is not exactly state of the art technology so it hardly makes sense for NASA to hide the “secret sauce” of the 1960s computer.

That leaves us with two alternatives:

(1) The schematic is legit—the computers were fake—the missions never happened.

That is my view.

(2) The schematic is sabotaged by whistleblowers terrified to come forward but leaving the message for posterity that the missions were faked.

That is possible—because if you dig deep into the very extensive literature (that obviously is new to you) there are a lot of interesting OOPAs (out of place artifacts) in the record that could only be caused by whistleblowers.

---

I will give you one other example to chew on—different Apollo missions:

https://www.aulis.com/rover_fenders.htm

The rovers on Apollo 15, 16, and 17 could not have been on the moon.

The absolute proof of this lies in the pictures on the very bottom of the article showing the identical oil leak from the left rear wheel.

The “whistleblowing” part would be some clever photographer in the studio choosing to take a picture showing that specific portion of the rovers.

[Freedom4US]

[i]The schematics are a “Potemkin village”—a computer that looks like a computer on the outside but it is not functional.[/i]

How do you *know* that?

What is your expertise in this area. We “know” it was functional, (because it is self evident we landed on the moon 6 times). Are you smarter than the guys and gals at MIT? Maybe. But …. that’s probably not the way to bet. I know I am not.

You’re the one making the claim here, so it is up to you to prove your case, in detail.

Show your work.

[cgbg]

Work backwards from the tires on the rovers.

Any of us understand that you don’t get identical oil leaks on three different vehicles that went to the moon.

Lol.

[Freedom4US]

No, you brought the computer up. You don’t get to pivot here, and you don’t get to change the subject. Good try.

What are you qualifications to opine on the DSKY and associated software? If you have any, by all means. But we both know you don’t. That’s a big fail, sparky

Show your work, or STFU.

I am watching the press conference again, the latter half where the actual press conference is quite good, and they seem to be cracking some pretty good zingers against the press.

I think part of the problem, younger people are no longer used to seeing mature, competent and intelligent individuals as a matter of routine. These were exceptional individuals no doubt - but their comportment was what was expected. Even Pete Conrad, a well known practical jokester knew when to play it straight. All those guys watched their classmates get killed routinely in training or combat. Just another day at the office.

“Die like an aviator” They really did set the standard for that. Big Cajone to strap on a rocket like that.

How did you make your living? Anything comparable? Just curious.

[cgbg]

I caught crooks for a living.

It was my job to dig through boxes of files and find the deception.

The Apollo record would have been a ridiculously easy fraud to spot.

When you have an oil leak that is big enough to see do you just ignore it and drive on....

Now imagine you are on the moon.

Lol.

That is a catastrophe of the first order. It must be repaired immediately or you return to the capsule immediately.

The astronauts could not care less.

They were safe in a studio playing with a toy.

Three times.

C’mon—this is too easy.

[linMcHlp]

Why NASA’s First Landing On The Moon in 50 Years Matters - It’s Commercial, Cryogenic & Confused
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wynBeg7BYr0

[linMcHlp]

Laser Ranging Retroreflector
NSSDCA ID: 1969-059C-04

Mission Name: Apollo 11 Lunar Module / EASEP
Principal Investigator:Dr. Carroll O. Alley

https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/experiment/display.action?id=1969-059C-04

Description:

The laser ranging retroreflector (LRRR), which was left on the lunar surface by the Apollo 11 crew, was a retroreflector array with a folding support structure for aiming and aligning the array toward earth.

The array was built of cubes of fused silica.

Laser ranging beams from earth were reflected back to their point of origin for precise measurement of earth-moon distance, motion of the moon's center of mass, lunar radius, and earth geophysical information.

[cgbg]

Here is the rebuttal—it is kinda technical—bottom line is they lied:

https://www.aulis.com/PDF/lunar_ranging2.pdf

[Red Badger]

And comical.......................

[linMcHlp]

Kettering Grammar School, Northamptonshire, England

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettering_Grammar_School

Space Research

EXCERPTS

In the 1960s, Geoffrey Perry, head of the school Physics department experimented with using satellite signals and the Doppler effect as an aid to teaching. The activity soon grew into regular monitoring of Soviet launched satellites and expanded into an international collaboration that became known as the Kettering Group.

In 1966 the project went international when Swedish student Sven Grahn contacted the group with a recording of the signals from Kosmos 104.

The same year it discovered Soviet launches from Plesetsk Cosmodrome, officially unacknowledged until 1983.

In 1969, a group used simple radio equipment to monitor the Apollo 11 mission and calculated its orbits.

According to the group, in December 1972 a member "pick[ed] up Apollo 17 on its way to the Moon".