Athena and IM-2 Lost After Landing

Intuitive Machines’ IM-2 mission came to an abrupt end after an unsuccessful landing attempt on March 6. Although the spacecraft reached the surface intact, Athena toppled over after touchdown, leaving its solar panels in shadow and unable to recharge its batteries. Less than 24 hours later, the lander was dead, along with its assemblage of science and technology payloads and secondary vehicles. This disappointing outcome provides only partial answers for questions that have lingered over NASA’s CLPS initiative for the past few years.

According to Tim Crain, CTO at Intuitive Machines, the IM-2 mission was calm and uneventful during its brief cruise and capture into lunar orbit. Unlike the troubled IM-1 last year, which juggled constant crises throughout its flight, Athena’s controllers were able to follow their nominal timelines without issue.

As they approached the Moon, however, the team saw more noise than expected in the data from one of their laser altimeters, used to gauge the spacecraft’s altitude. Expecting this to resolve with time, they pressed on, and powered descent began at 11:15 EST, about 14 kilometers above the Moon. However, a second altimeter failed to activate until late in the landing sequence, apparently impeded by an interlock. The sensor had been successfully tested earlier in the mission, suggesting something had come loose while the lander’s engine fired. Together with persistent noise from the other altimeter, Athena drifted from its intended path.

Finally, an expected loss of signal occurred just as the lander pitched upright for terminal descent, obscuring these crucial moments. The team struggled to piece together the fate of their spacecraft using signals echoing off the lunar terrain. Ultimately, they discovered Athena landed hard in a crater outside of its 50-meter landing ellipse, tipping over just as Odysseus had done last year. Rapidly losing power, Athena only had time to transmit limited data from some of its payloads before shutting down. Many of these payloads required an upright orientation, rendering them inoperable beyond simple health checks.

Just before Athena’s launch, Space Scout photographer David Diebold had the opportunity to interview experts on two of the mission’s key payloads: Dr. Janine Captain, NASA’s Lead Project Scientist for the PRIME-1 payload, and Dr. Thierry Klein, President of Bell Labs Solution Research at Nokia.

The PRIME-1 payload, combining a drill and mass spectrometer, is meant to investigate the distribution of volatiles like ice and gas within the lunar soil. However, Dr. Captain stressed the importance of interacting with the regolith at all; even the act of drilling would gather valuable information about its behaviour, helping to inform future resource utilization on the Moon. Dr. Captain also noted that, despite VIPER’s cancellation, her team remained committed to pursuing their initial science goals. Still, she noted they were exploring other opportunities for future flights of the PRIME suite, especially with commercial companies that are independently interested in harvesting lunar resources.

Dr. Klein spoke about Nokia’s Lunar Surface Communications System (LSCS), a “network-in-a-box” meant to demonstrate 4G communications on the Moon. Klein explained that, during field testing in Colorado, their system had already demonstrated capabilities far beyond what would be expected of IM-2. However, the team was eager to validate their models on the lunar surface, particularly as the Micro Nova hopper ventured many kilometers from the initial landing site. Additionally, the network equipment had to be hardened to survive the lunar environment, a feat which could have been confirmed by successful operation on the surface. 

Dr. Klein also expressed his excitement for science opportunities enabled by HD video transmitted over their network, which would allow scientists on Earth to act as “remote eyes and ears” on the Moon—particularly when human astronauts venture to the surface during the Artemis program. He highlighted the special privilege he felt to work on this project; although he and his team will not be travelling to the Moon themselves, creating technologies that enable those missions is an undeniably special opportunity.

Due to Athena’s sudden loss, neither PRIME-1, LSCS, or any of its other payloads had the chance to demonstrate their full potential. Space Scout received a brief update from Lunar Outpost on the status of MAPP, that company’s robotic rover:

Intuitive Machines landing on its side prevented MAPP’s deployment. Our data paints a clear picture that MAPP survived the landing attempt and would have driven on the lunar surface and achieved our mission objectives had it been given the opportunity.

Stories like this one define Intuitive Machines’ second mission to the Moon. Though such a near miss is an impressive technical feat all on its own, it falls far short of the high expectations set for the company’s second attempt. Tim Crain rightfully praised the engineers who made dozens of fixes after IM-1 to give Athena its best shot at landing safely. CEO Stephen Altemus stressed that lessons were already being learned from IM-2, though he noted that its impacts on future missions like IM-3 were not yet clear. Still, the Nova-C lander has now suffered the same kind of landing failure twice in a row, despite significant improvement in the interim. Despite the undeniable talent of Intuitive Machines’ employees, scoring a usable landing may require more work than fixing any one instrument.

Dr. Joel Kearns is the Deputy Associate Administrator for Exploration at NASA’s Science Mission Directorate. In an interview with Space Scout photographer David Diebold, Dr. Kearns noted that CLPS providers should be “highly motivated” to deliver for the sake of their own business. While Intuitive Machines could certainly achieve a more successful mission given enough time and experience, its survival could hinge on its next landing attempt. Besides the IM-3 and IM-4 CLPS task orders with Nova-C, the company is developing a larger Nova-D lander which it hopes could deliver even more important payloads, such as fission reactors or the orphaned VIPER. Intuitive Machines also leads a team competing to create the Lunar Terrain Vehicle for NASA’s Artemis program, and plans to use Nova-D to land the finished product. But for any of these future prospects to bear fruit, Intuitive Machines needs to inspire confidence in its stakeholders.

The IM-2 mission also marks a key milestone for NASA’s CLPS initiative: the program’s first repeat landing attempt. In theory, CLPS relies on commercial companies’ ability to learn from their mistakes to achieve success. Dr. Kearns explained that NASA’s success criteria for each mission depend upon specific milestones and data returns customized to the context of the flight and its provider. Of the risk of failure, he pointed out that NASA strategically distributes payloads across different providers, providing assurance for the agency’s science goals. This strategy also allows NASA to gauge which providers are working well—and which aren’t.

After its second round of landing attempts, CLPS arguably sits at a 25% success rate. Intuitive Machines has managed to carve an edge case of marginal success on both its flights to date, though Athena’s surface mission leans in the direction of abject failure. Meanwhile, at the time of writing, Firefly Aerospace’s Blue Ghost lander has just completed its nominal surface mission, delivering the program’s only unqualified victory.

In a press event following Athena’s landing attempt, Dr. Nicky Fox, Associate Administrator for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate, praised the “heartwarming” collaboration within the CLPS community so far. Intuitive Machines shared data from its first mission with Firefly to aid in Blue Ghost’s landing, and the two companies later worked together to investigate possible signal interference during Athena’s descent. Nevertheless, CLPS has yet to conclusively demonstrate the success of its iterative model. Instead, the program’s results suggest an unforgiving divide: between companies which are up to the challenge, and those which aren’t. Intuitive Machines, alongside its fellow providers, have but a few precious opportunities to prove where they land.

Edited by Nik Alexander