Z is an axis that exists in our 3d world, and a required value for any relative position, which means it DID NOT know where it was, relative to the moon.
But all three are important.
Related - I’m not clear how the article can describe that landing as “not crashing”. If that was not a crash, what was it? Will they call it a crash only if there are Hollywood-style explosions?
Relevantly, it sounds like this lunar spacecraft was still functioning after the hard (non-)landing. The only reason it died after that was because of debris settling on the solar panels, which made it run out of power.
I mean if my car lands on the side and one of it’s wheels fell off that’s a significant crash.
https://www.theregister.com/2025/03/07/intuitive_machines_la...
> At his press conference earlier today, Altemus defended the design, saying the spacecraft doesn’t have a high center of gravity because most of its cargo attaches to the base of the vehicle. He said there were no plans for a radical rethink of his company's design.
(We see this in returning F9 first stages, as well.)
Just wait for SpaceX to start trying to land starships on the moon. Also vertically. Also doomed to tip over whenever the surface is slightly out of spec.
We can send small probes to image the moon in incredibly high resolution. It's a big place I'm sure there is a perfectly flat rock somewhere they can use.
SpaceX has done it. To date, other nation-states have tried and failed to replicate their achievements in this domain.
IM’s design is wrongly optimised and probably requires a rethink. That the CEO won’t contemplate this isn’t a great sign for the company.
SpaceX has landed Starship on the moon?!
Put another way, just because SpaceX has done it doesn't mean the same problem carries the same risk for a team like IM's.
Sure. I'm not trivialising the problem in an absolute sense. Just going from floating barge or chopsticks to Moon is a simpler set of problems than reïnventing the sort of translational velocity and attitude control needed to get to first base.
In other words, they've proven they have the control systems in place for placing a craft at a precise location, with a precise velocity. What requirement do you see outside of this that are far outside of placement and velocity? Autonomous mapping and adjustments for approach maybe?
Let's not assume they're going to try to use their current earthly landing legs.
> land on some random beach,
They did this I believe two starships ago, when they landed in the ocean. Came to zero xyz velocity some target distance above the water, and hovered for a bit. Unfortunately, the surface tension of the sea couldn't support the weight once they lowered for touchdown.
The heavy bits are at the bottom.
Because it keeps falling over?
So engineers at Intuitive Machines had checked, and re-checked, the laser-based altimeters on Athena. When the lander got down within about 30 km of the lunar surface, they tested the rangefinders again. Worryingly, there was some noise in the readings as the laser bounced off the Moon. However, the engineers had reason to believe that, maybe, the readings would improve as the spacecraft got nearer to the surface.
Visual demonstration of being at the wrong altitude in the right spot: https://www.f-16.net/f-16-news-article968.html
Hard landing, skid, tip.