The Surveyor Program 1966-1968
Scott Manley (March 6, 2024)
https://youtu.be/4BmJNx4e8_Y
17:12

Since it probably tipped over due to insufficient altitude data ( https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/odysseus-tip-over-likely-caused-because-it-landed-without-good-elevation-data/#comments ), most likely due to forgetting to remove a cover, I am going to update my questions to: Human sloppiness? Improper closeout procedure?

A prime goal of the Surveyor program was to help NASA and partners design and build a lander to safely put astronauts on the moon.
Yet if the Apollo 11 LM had been landed autonomously it would have crashed! It succeeded because Armstrong was there to take over and land it by hand.

Edward said it better than I. My interest in Bob Z’s theory peaked because I’d just been amazed thinking about the end of Ingenuity’s flights and impressed by how it succeeded beyond expectation even though it was developed by a small team with a limited budget. A team that grew up with computers.

Joe: SLIM at least had a low wide orientation above those three landing feet. Odysseus seems to be very tall for this purpose, with a relatively high center of gravity. I didn’t notice it before but after this landing it became obvious immediately.

Mitch S. noted: “Look how SpaceX blows things up that aren’t fully sorted out. Sometimes it’s better to take a chance and launch it instead of spending another 10 years raising money and doing testing to be sure it works first time. And SpaceX doesn’t shy away from modern tech and complexity when it suits their purpose. The booster recovery is a complex ballet that didn’t work immediately.”

Robert responded: “Nonetheless, the number of quality control problems across all these missions is disturbing, as such problems are irrelevant to budget. They instead point to a human sloppiness. They also suggest an over-dependence on software and modern technology that is blinding people to disciplined and careful work.”

We should allow our companies and national space programs the same latitude that we gave the U.S. and Soviet space programs, learning by doing, taking a chance because we think we already know what we are doing. Mitch S. also noted that these modern attempts did not cost as much as the early U.S. and Soviet attempts, which means that many of the previous lessons were learned and incorporated.

We should not be landing the same equipment on the Moon and Mars as had been previously sent, but we should be modernizing our hardware, software, methods, and processes. This means that we can expect a certain amount of early failure, as we had expected with Starship and the reusable boosters from SpaceX and Blue Origin. Both of these companies thought that their tests could succeed, but allowed for the possibility that they missed something in their new designs. New launch vehicles have a long history of failure on their first flights. I really don’t see why we should be less tolerant with other new companies, with their lack of experience and their new designs.

Quality control is a difficult area. The main function of a quality control department is to ensure that something is built per the design, but it has only slight influence in how correct the design is in the first place. I used to have a quality engineer sign off on my designs, which could help make sure I didn’t miss something simple (and I would get questioned whenever we deviated from design standards, so he was paying attention), but he was not an expert in all the areas of our designs, so he depended upon our knowledge and expertise to assure him that we were doing things right.

— Beresheet failed due to a bad command from the Earth. Human sloppiness?

— Vikram failed just before touchdown when it began to tumble, when it is already too late to regain control and rescue the landing. Not human sloppiness? Insufficient testing?

— Hakuto-R1 failed because a change in landing location was not accompanied by software updates to handle the different terrain features, thus the software became confused and ignored the reality of the terrain. Management sloppiness? Insufficient testing?

— Luna-25 crashed due to quality control errors during construction. Human sloppiness? “Deficiencies in the development or testing“?

— Vikram succeeded on its second landing attempt. Similar to U.S. and Soviet attempts to land on the Moon. Huzzah!

— Peregrine failed due to a valve that failed to properly close. Design issue? Insufficient testing?

— SLIM lost an engine bell just before landing, complicating the landing at a critical time. It landed soft enough, but ended up orientated wrong. Design issue? Oxidizer ratio issue?

— Odysseus landed too fast, survived, but ended up sitting on its side. Design (software) issue? Insufficient testing?

If all we do is Keep It Simple, Stupid, then how are we meant to advance the technology? Can we advance the technology while keeping things simple? Can the new technology help keep it simple? If the tests worked during ground testing, then perhaps we don’t yet understand the extent of testing that we really need for these landings.

NASA requested its commercial landers to set down in specific areas. It had sent its own landers to safer but less interesting areas. The differences are not just financial, and may not be over dependence on technology, they may be that we are landing in areas that are not as smooth and friendly as our earlier landers but in places that frightened the teams that were sending those earlier landers. I recall a scene from the series “From The Earth To The Moon” in which a team was arguing whether to land an Apollo mission in the safe place or the interesting place. The final argument was to explore the grandeur of the Moon, not just the safe places.

So, we have a combination of factors working against these landers. They are new and untried, made by inexperienced teams, testing new technologies, and sent to explore the riskier locations. I’m willing to cut some slack on most of these first attempts. Now we will find out if they learn their lessons, like Blue Origin and SpaceX did.

The Surveyor program totaled seven spacecraft.

Launch costs are much lower now too.

It’s not the budget, it’s the management. IMHO

Not saying you’re wrong, but kids these days really do not need to know how to use a slide rule.

Mitch S: I agree with you, the budget differences certainly have been a factor. Nonetheless, the number of quality control problems across all these missions is disturbing, as such problems are irrelevant to budget. They instead point to a human sloppiness. They also suggest an over-dependence on software and modern technology that is blinding people to disciplined and careful work.

Look how SpaceX blows things up that aren’t fully sorted out. Sometimes it’s better to take a chance and launch it instead of spending another 10 years raising money and doing testing to be sure it works first time. And SpaceX doesn’t shy away from modern tech and complexity when it suits their purpose. The booster recovery is a complex ballet that didn’t work immediately.

PS Even with the huge budget it’s still amazing what NASA and partners accomplished in the ’60s. In 1966 they launched Surveyor to figure out how to do a soft landing. Three years later they were putting people in a lander and bringing them back!

* I started programming 50 years ago. I refuse to call myself or my fellow programmers “engineers” as there are still no formal guidelines or requirements on how to do it right the first time. If it passes QA, then ship it!

J Fincannon: I have corrected the Surveyor 1 reference. Thank you. And thanks for the additional info on the other Surveyors.

J Fincannon-
Good stuff!

GeorgeC-
You are on to some thing. I was just talking with a friend about Erector sets, Chemistry sets, Lincoln logs, Trains, etc. Now, everyone is addicted to their tracking device, and they have no idea how it actually works, like’ zero Idea.
Personally, I highly enjoyed taking things apart as a kid (late 60’s) to see how the Magic happened, although it wasn’t until 1998-ish that I dismantled my 1st computer. (under the theory it was assembled by a 16 year old girl in Asia.) Just be careful dismantling old TV sets with capacitors.

Putting stuff back together however, you need a skilled craftsman., and that wasn’t me….

Surly. Fixed. Thank you. And it isn’t OCD (or cut and paste). It is my fingers no longer consistently doing what my brain commands. :)

Surveyor 5 operated 115 hrs into the first lunar night and operated for 215 hrs into the second lunar night. And then a third night. It operated a short time during the fourth lunar day.

Surveyor 6 and 7 also survived their first 15 Earth day long night to come back to life the next lunar day.

If was simpler, it might have launched months sooner [and I hope IM-2 isn’t, now, delayed].
And failing to removed the safety from lasers changed things, and a big thing is, it caused a lot stress to these guys trying to do it in live broadcast and lack of sleep for the teams was an issue.
And that they had entertain us, live, is not making it, simple.

“No one knows had to collect cash, figure out the change, and track the sales by pen and paper.” to
“No one knows how to collect cash, figure out the change, and track the sales by pen and paper.”

This is just nitpicking on an excellent piece!

IMHO NASA and today’s engineers depend far too much on simulations and modeling and are paranoid of failure. I got a degree in Manufacturing Engineering from Cal Poly where the motto was “Learn by Doing” and my favorite professor taught us the important lesson that “The person who never makes a mistake is someone who never does anything”. Both are words to live by.

Andi: Fixed. Thank you.

F: Change to “systemic.” I had to do some research to realize the word I chose was incorrect. Thank you.

——-

Dr. Jordan Peterson
“Why Do You Curse When Your Computer Crashes?”
or.. “The correct functioning of your computer depends on the stability of the Sun…”
https://youtu.be/A33S2N348WU
12:43

FYI, suggested correction: Replace “systematic” with “systemic” in the second to last paragraph..