Odysseus becomes first US spacecraft to land on moon in over 50 years

Article | Archive

Odysseus is heading for a landing site near Malapert A, an impact crater near the moon's south pole.
NASA describes it like this:
"(A) relatively flat and safe region is within the heavily cratered southern highlands on the side of the Moon visible from Earth."
The space agency said it chose this landing site for Intuitive Machines' first mission because it wanted to learn more about the lunar environment and how communications function in this area.
And there's a key reason why: NASA wants to scout the lunar south pole because the space agency believes it's the best location to set up a future astronaut base.

The US-made Odysseus lunar lander has made a touchdown on the moon, surpassing its final key milestones — and the odds — to become the first commercial spacecraft to accomplish such a feat, but the condition of the lander remains in question.

Intuitive Machines, however, says the mission has been successful.

"I know this was a nail-biter, but we are on the surface, and we are transmitting," Intuitive Machines CEO Steve Altemus just announced on the webcast. "Welcome to the moon."

Odysseus is the first vehicle launched from the United States to land on the moon’s surface since the Apollo 17 mission in 1972.

Mission controllers from Intuitive Machines, the Houston-based company that developed the robotic explorer, confirmed the lander reached the lunar surface Thursday evening.

The uncrewed spacecraft traveled hundreds of thousands of miles from its Florida launch site at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center to the moon before making its final, perilous swoop to the lunar surface.
 
Simple, we're trying right now, so your premise if wrong. The reason is got canceled is high cost to low practical yield with the technology of the time. Tech's catching up though. And we basically have a good understanding by going to the moon on how it formed, the Thea theory. Jeez man. You moon hoaxers are worst than flat Earthers, cause at least that is relatively harmless ignorance.
He still doesn't explain why the USSR, despite their supposed technological superiority regarding space travel, never, ever tried to refute American claims despite the fact we were and probably still are filled with various spies working for Moscow.
 
The biggest problem is that it stopped there, for some reason. If we kept it up dumbfuckistanis could have colonized the rings of Uranus by now.

Borg got like 95% of the way to what I was going to say in reply but then stopped:
During the space race between America and the USSR - which was part of a larger ideological race to prove which was superior, communism or capitalism, The USSR beat America at every milestone.
In contrast, America beat the USSR to the nuke, though Russia carried on building better nukes when it eventually caught up to America.

Like he said the USSR had better delivery systems. Kennedy dressed an arms race that we were running behind in as a frontier expedition that we were ahead in. It was beautiful PR work that got him all the funding and good will he needed. In reality we were both just proofing to each other that we got all the socialists of the national variety we needed to make our rocketry programs viable. Just like a couple of deer in rut showing off their new antlers. Once the arms race cooled off and everyone was sufficiently satisfied that we could blow each other up several times over the funding disappeared.. at least until the shuttle stuff in the 90's and I'm pretty sure that was mostly about maintaining satellite infrastructure.
 
That considered, why, if ideological superiority was so important on every metric, did the USSR - the superior space-farers, give up the ghost on getting to the moon?
Because this was when that stupid fat drunk fuck Brezhnev mismanaged the union into the ground and caused the era of stagnation. They ran out of money.

One fucking bad grain harvest and it leads to them begging on their knees to the united states for grain exports due to his embarrassing mismanagement of the economy.
 
pffft lol

do you guys just never take into consideration the ((((sources)))) that tell you {{{{we}}}} went there? or consider their lack of evidence? or motivation for fabricating such a story

"yeah dude, we totally went to the moon....huh? video? yeah, we threw them away, oopsie" lol.

If you don't trust online sources, charter some time with a research telescope and look at the landing sites with your own eyes.
 

If you don't trust online sources, charter some time with a research telescope and look at the landing sites with your own eyes.
"Although it is impossible to see the hardware that was left behind with current telescopes, the areas where the Apollo missions landed are rich in sights that can be studied using simple instruments."

Spend money on doing nothing to do nothing. Wow, genius. Weird how they can't prove they did what they said they did whenever asked.
 
How do you define 'better'? The USA has and had more advanced nukes. The Trident D5 can hit within 30-60 feet with 475kt. The Russian nukes were always bigger, because the delivery systems were less accurate. When it comes to bang for buck and size, there's no comparison in anything tested. Maybe the yield to size ratio has improved in Russia since the 90s, but I doubt it.
Russia dropped The Tsar Bomba in the late 60's. Supposedly, The Tsar Bomba 2, a chonky 150MT monster, wasn't dropped because the Soviet scientists were worried about the blast knocking the earth's tilt/axis, so decided against it.

Either way, 100MT in the late 60s = best nukes.

Simple, we're trying right now, so your premise if wrong.
Show me a succesful manned moon mission from any other country, or any country after 1975.

The reason is got canceled is high cost to low practical yield with the technology of the time.
You say this
Tech's catching up though.
Then this. Yet, believe that the old, inferior tech, 50 years old, got us to the moon and the new tech can't...just yet.

That's like saying the spinning jenny is the fastest loom in the west because technology got better and can't keep up.
And we basically have a good understanding by going to the moon on how it formed, the Thea theory.
And we know how the oceans are formed. Doesn't stop James Cameron going down there again and again. Or climbing Everest, or dicking about with particles or any discovery a million times over.

But nahh, the biggest, most important scientific landmark in 1.5 billion years is saved for a decade long period of a handful of trips involving only two-dozen people from one country. It doesn't make any sense or follow any logic that we as a species adhere to. None.
Jeez man. You moon hoaxers are worst than flat Earthers, cause at least that is relatively harmless ignorance.
Moon hoaxer? I'm asking questions, nothing more. Don't be so quick to pigeon hole rather than step back and think.

If you want my personal theory, i believe that the Russians got to the moon first, but none of them could re-enter Earth without dying. The USSR gave up before a media shit-storm hit them making communism look worse.
The yanks gave it a blast, killed their crew, then decided to fake it all in a studio based on what the suicide mission had told them.


1708704702257.png


The comments speak for themselves but does the body language of these three men give you the vibe that they have just completed the greatest feat in the history of the known universe?
 
Very cool stuff. Was nice to listen to while designing my level 3 rocket for the next NAR launch. Soon, I can go experimental class with Tripoli and I can shoot off my own APCP rocket fuel.
And I keep looking at the v2 rocket schematics freely available online thinking "I wonder if I could replace the steam turbine and gas generator with an electric motor"
Boy howdy do I want to play with a liquid fueled engine.
 
Why is this a big deal? We’ve sent people to the moon several times before:smug:

What’s weird is why it took over two hours to send data (and where are the pictures?). The Venus landers were able to send data immediately (they had to, they were quickly crushed by the atmosphere).
 
I’m here to back up my Asian nigga @Otoya Yamaguchi .

The Apollo 13 Challenger (got too excited) disaster was definitely faked considering all of the astronauts who supposedly died in the explosion…. were found alive!

I would love to see someone argue against the evidence in the link above.

As far as the other shuttles are concerned, let’s look at this compilation photo from Wikipedia:

1708707096497.png


Looks like NASA has been reusing the same exact template for its photos with different coloring.

This is not possible in terms of perspective. Discovery is lower to the ground than the others as we see the scaffolding, yet the perspective is somehow the same.

Please present your well-crafted arguments against these two pieces of evidence. It should be easy to refute this, no?
 
Last edited:
I’m here to back up my Asian nigga @Otoya Yamaguchi .

The Apollo 13 disaster was definitely faked considering all of the astronauts who supposedly died in the explosion…. were found alive!

Please present your well-crafted arguments against these two pieces of evidence. It should be easy to refute this, no?
Well since you confused Apollo 13 and the Challenger I'm not sure what more needs to be said.
 
Moon hoaxer? I'm asking questions, nothing more. Don't be so quick to pigeon hole rather than step back and think.

If you want my personal theory, i believe that the Russians got to the moon first, but none of them could re-enter Earth without dying. The USSR gave up before a media shit-storm hit them making communism look worse.
The yanks gave it a blast, killed their crew, then decided to fake it all in a studio based on what the suicide mission had told them.
You have quite a fanciful imagination, maybe consider a career as a fiction writer?

Why is this a big deal? We’ve sent people to the moon several times before:smug:

What’s weird is why it took over two hours to send data (and where are the pictures?). The Venus landers were able to send data immediately (they had to, they were quickly crushed by the atmosphere).
The signal from the lander is weak, maybe the antennas are misaligned? I don't think anyone has put down a lander so close the moon's south pole before.
 
Whoopsie. Fixed. Now, your thoughts on the Challenger disaster?
Well it was my generations 'where you were' memory, like JFK before.

This new probe still hasn't sent pictures yet, apparently there are problems with the transmitting power.
 
"Although it is impossible to see the hardware that was left behind with current telescopes, the areas where the Apollo missions landed are rich in sights that can be studied using simple instruments."

Spend money on doing nothing to do nothing. Wow, genius. Weird how they can't prove they did what they said they did whenever asked.
Article shows what you can do with consumer grade telescopes in 2004, which are far less in power then a research telescope. Here is what a proper research telescope can see from that era:
1708712181072.png

You can't see landing sites. Nothing landed there
I presented an easy and cheap way to prove your conspiracy otherwise, you just responded like a 63 iq nigger instead.
 
Back