SpaceX's Starship Launch Tower Mystery Finally Revealed, and Odysseus Moon lander is tipped over!

So.... A second Moon lander lands.... On it's side... Lovely.... 😒, MAYBE, designing a lander with a wider foot pad, or lower center of G? 😎🇬🇧

Hey Marcus Michael here 0:42 the reason for the aborts is because we had pressure issues as we were filling the tanks the pressure wasn't indicating correctly Annnnnnd we were worried about a fuel leak so the big ol red Abort button was smashed launch date is still good we're just gonna pressurize the different sections find that pesky leak and get everything rolling again they might do a small static fire on SS28 we love your videos keep up the good work :)

Marcus, I think you are the first space news presenter I've ever seen that mentioned that that space debris image is not to scale. Thank you. I appreciate it.

This is truly the second golden age of space exploration.

Lessons learned. Not just the experiments planned, but the entire trip. And Nova-C even got your Tasmania in the photo. Growing up just a hundred miles away from the Cape in the 60s, I find it amazing that every week now I'm getting space news from a dude in Tasmania. Keep it up mate.

From SpaceNews: "Fortunately, the only payload mounted on the side of the lander now facing the surface is a static payload: an artwork provided by artist Jeff Koons." So minus "some antennas", seems they got lucky.

Can't start a Saturday without a Marcus House video. Thanks again for helping document history!

Fascinating stuff about the Odysseus payloads. Thanks again Marcus for the updates.

Love your use of graphics that support your rapid information sharing. Seeing quickly the referenced object in the video, using your moving arrows, really adds to the quality of your presentation. And your inclusion of a variety of ‘info-graphics’ including animations, object dimensions, and cutaways make my Saturday morning presentation the highlight of my space-news week. I’m sure that takes more effort and coordination than just talking and adding clips to a video timeline. I generally don’t post comments on YouTube but your presentation required it. Excellent job!

Thanks for the update! 16:38 "at some point in the past it has done 3 other flights [on] another booster." It would be 3 only if it was replaced for this booster's maiden flight. On the other hand, if it was replaced on this flight, that means 18 flights on other booster(s). So without knowing when the replacement occurred, no way to guess the flight distribution of the engine.

“ stoked” a very Australian and NZ word. They are now using it here in Scotland. Great update team. Love every second.

When you say the same size as the Tardis, are you thinking of the Tardis's exterior dimensions or its interior dimensions?

we had perfect weather in socal to see the starlink 7-15 launch out of vandy on Thursday. Everything even went just right so that I managed to catch the booster's entry burn before it went behind the trees/hills. First time seeing with my own eyes was pretty exciting. Only "complaint" is the launch time didn't allow for the beautiful "jellyfish" effect.

It still blows my mind what SpaceX has done. Boosters approaching 20 flights, engines with over that. The reusability of the old shuttles was impressive but doing it with boosters has totally changed the game. Just imagine if they get Starship working how much they will be able to lift to orbit routinely.

Love it when I hear Australia in space news. Thank you MH

Thank you for sharing, Marcus!

I always enjoy your upbeat assessment as always, thank you Marcus!

Those evaporators remind me of the binary load lifters I used to work on!

Those little disk feet seemed way too small. Probably would sink right into the moondust! Why not use inflatable pad feet, kind of like the emergency rafts that are used on airplanes, when they have to make an emergency water landing? That way the feet would be very compact until time for them to deploy. But then they’d be big and “raft-y” once needed. Even if they were to land on shifty powder, the lander feet shouldn’t sink if it has big, inflatable feet. Only three feet should be needed for balance, but 6 would be better in case some didn’t deploy right. Alternatively, maybe some inflatable pontoons (long cylinders) would work better (like a catamaran boat’s stabilizer). Or long (non-inflatable) ski-feet, which would be pretty easy to stow for flight, then deploy out in an X-shape. Just make the skis wide enough so they won’t sink into the dust. Or, just assume it WILL probably tip over, and plan for that. Make it so that a tipped landing won’t damage it, and have a self-righting mechanism that will be able to re-orient it however it landed. And make sure it has enough power on-board to handle that maneuver, because it likely won’t get adequate solar panel power till it’s oriented right. Hobbyists have been making self-righting Batttlebots for years, so it really shouldn’t be that difficult for moon lander engineers to do too. All this effort to land stuff on the moon, yet they don’t seem to be putting much thought into the landing and prevention from tipping over. Should be a no-brainer to work harder on this part, considering it is hard to find a big, completely flat, non-sloped, rocky (not shifting dust) place to land. They need to have something that can land on a slope, or on a boulder field, or on shifty dust, or whatever. If they can do that, then finding a place to land should be a lot easier, because they won’t have to find a perfect spot. Or maybe they can just bring their own landing pad with the mission? Deploy it first while main lander is still orbiting. Just a big flat pad that will un-roll or inflate on the surface, without a bunch of delicate electronics in it. Then the lander can come down and land on it, like a falcon 9 first stage lands on a drone ship.

enjoy all your work!