Talk:Intuitive Machines Nova-C/archive/archive 2

Intuitive Machines Nova-C Talk page Archive 2 (future) February 14, 2024 - February 26, 2024.

To visit the Intuitive Machines Nova-C current Talk page, please see: To visit the Intuitive Machines Nova-C current Talk page archive index, please see:
 * Intuitive Machines Nova-C current Talk-page.
 * Intuitive Machines Nova-C current Talk page Archive index.

Unreliable source
The article currently includes scheduled launch dates for IM-2 and IM-3, relying on a dubious and unreliable source. Marking them as such. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 07:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

An industry-recognized reliable website, https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/6828 says NET (no earlier than) June, 2024. Ideally the article would reference an even better source reporting current status of the IM-2 lander. A journalist like Eric Berger, Irene Klotz, Joey Roullette, Bill Harwood, Marcia Dunn, Mark Carreau, etc. (Alternately a press release from one of the involved parties.) Something like, "The PRIME-1 payload is currently being integrated with the lander," or "The lander has been transported to Titusville for payload processing." (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 09:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Here's a representative example from the IM-1 mission, dated Dec 4, 2023: https://www.intuitivemachines.com/post/intuitive-machines-nova-c-lunar-lander-arrives-in-cape-canaveral-florida Note that's more than two months before the launch. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 09:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * As best as I am able to recall, when I copied the anticipated launch date from the nextspaceflight.com website, it had an exact number there. Perhaps the nextspaceflight.com website had a typo of their own? Who knows? Thank you for pointing that out. Lighthumormonger (talk) 05:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Production status in infobox
Would the intent of the infobox "production" section be better met at this point if "on order" was 2 and "built" was 1? (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 08:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Lighthumormonger (talk) 05:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Payloads subsection of IM-1 not displayed
As of 10:13 EST February 15, the "Payloads" subsection of the IM-1 mission is not being displayed in the article, leaving an orphaned paragraph about the art payload remaining. Not sure what the problem is. Blainster (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Removing the re-used ref that I had added to the bare launch time in the IM-1 section fixes/restores the Payloads section display. Don't understand why. Blainster (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * That seems to have done the trick. Thanks. Lighthumormonger (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Split the article?
Should we split off an article for the Odysseus and keep this page around for the probe-type? There are going to be two more launches and I fear that this page will feel more like a list of launches, instead of encyclopedic content on the actual probe that was launched. Scu ba (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * That's a good question. I think it might be best to wait until after the IM-1 mission has been successfully completed (hopefully).  Then we'll know what to put in the article about Odysseus. Did Odysseus survive the perilous Moon landing?  Did Odysseus make it to the end when the sun finally went down on the Moon?  What did Odysseus's successful (or calamitous) journey to the Moon mean for the future of NASA, and for the future of human space exploration in general?  Once we better know the answers to a few questions like these, then we can write the article on "The many adventures of the Odysseus lunar lander" (but with a slightly more encyclopedic title than that.) Lighthumormonger (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

You're right, I'm just bringing it up because Odysseus probably has enough notability to warrant it's own article now, even before the landing, due to the massive amount of media coverage of it.

Here are some notable sources about the Odysseus launch:



I usually work in WP:BIO and there the rule is two non-syndicated independent and notable secondary sources warrant notability for a Wikipedia article. Scu ba (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Certainly Odysseus is highly notable. In fact, I think that by the time Odysseus reaches the moon, this may be one of the most watched events in many years, maybe even more than the Super Bowl! Since Apollo 17, America has just been looking up at the Moon and scratching its butt! Now we're finally doing something about it again. If Odysseus has a soft landing, then I believe that it could finally give us something "positive" to focus on for a while.
 * Consider this, I believe that this is a perfect tragi-comedy in the making. If Odysseus survives its first task, the landing that is, then it must go on to its second challenge, to survive on the Moon long enough to face the eternal (or at least very long) lunar night, approximately seven days after landing.  Then I would not be a bit surprised if the company IM may have actually designed Odysseus so that it might be able to come back to life after the first lunar night!  Surprise! An unexpected resurrected Odysseus 2.0! These types of things are the kinds of unexpected little surprises that engineers love to throw out to the public.
 * Still, perhaps we should at least wait until we find out whether or not there has been a soft landing. This one factor of whether or not there's a soft landing is certainly going to set the tone for the whole Odysseus article, however it may be written, no? Lighthumormonger (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I support the idea of an eventual split. Probably best to await IM-1 mission outcome. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 01:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Note the article has been split. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 00:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Nova-C just demonstrated first use of a methane/ oxygen rocket in space
The Odysseus lander just made the very first burn of a rocket in space that uses a methane/ oxygen mixture. This is notable because most long range plans for future travel to the Moon and back, or to Mars and back incorporate methane/oxygen rockets which rockets will hopefully be able to use methane and oxygen generated on either the Moon or Mars. Should we put this noteworthy accomplishment in the article, and if so, where should we put it? Lighthumormonger (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC) Note: I found out that both IM and myself were mistaken in this, so I struck it out. Lighthumormonger (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * IM's phrasing is cagey at best. It was certainly the first spacecraft to ignite a methalox engine in space. Methalox upper stages of launch vehicles have also done this, while the launch was in space but still on a sub-orbital trajectory. IM definitely reached an important milestone because ignition during ascent is different than ignition on orbit. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 01:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

You are right. Actually, I don't think the people at IM realized themselves that the Chinese had already beat them to the punch regarding the methalox! I've since reworded the claim so that it also mentions the Chinese accomplishment, and so that it hopefully puts the IM accomplishment into the right perspective here. It appears that the Chinese rocket did leave the Earth's orbit. It would have had to in order to deliver its upper stage into a heliocentric orbit. Thanks, Lighthumormonger (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)


 * There are rocketry subtleties here. Upper stage ignition during ascent (sometimes misleadingly referred to as "air start") is different from a restart after coasting. IM have a valid claim to notability; the article should reflect that concisely and with WP:NPOV. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 02:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * PS: The topic is the tip of an iceberg, or the entrance to a dark rabbit hole. Related: Earth Departure Stage, J-2X, Delta Cryogenic Second Stage, Advanced Cryogenic Evolved Stage and Centaur III, among others. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 02:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

You're right again, darnit! I think I might have figured out what might make IM's methalox system a first ahead of the Chinese. Please tell me what you think about the way I just re-wrote it if you get a chance. Thanks, Lighthumormonger (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Better! It does seem to conflate 're-usable' with 're-startable.' Obviously Odysseus needs to restart its engine several times; Zhuque-2 did not demonstrate that. Also, please nix the reference to China, and avoid similar in the future. This article is about the lander, not about a renewed Space Race. Linking Zhuque-2 should suffice if any reader has interest. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 03:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Further note: this will all go away once Odysseus restarts its engine in space. That will then be a clear claim to notability, dwarfing this one. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 04:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Diffrentiatining each diffrent mission
i belive that hte patch that has been shown in the article is of the im 1 mission. any recommdations to chage it as an image under subtopic IM-1 or if a new article about it gets created, in there can anyone transfer. thanks. RAZOR-X (talk) 06:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Good question. Once the Odysseus lander's mission has been completed on or about the last day of February, at that point we are currently planning on creating a unique separate article for the Odysseus lander only. At that time, we will probably move the insignia graphic from the current article over to the newly created "Odysseus article." Lighthumormonger (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Very good 👏, thanks for the clarification RAZOR-X (talk) 13:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The To_do page
I've just modified the To_do page a bit. Lighthumormonger (talk) 04:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

List-defined references
It might help with maintenance if the article were converted to using list-defined references. See WP:LDRHOW. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 09:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Started this with some sections. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 01:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Request for article protection
Dear , We believe that the Intuitive Machines Nova-C article will probably have some very heavy traffic over the next few weeks, due to the fact that should the Lander make a successful soft landing on the Moon tomorrow, this event will mark America's return to the surface of the moon after an absence there for over 50 years. Even if there is a crash landing, undoubtedly a lot of people will want to know what happened? So we would like to request if you could, please consider placing a one month "Extended confirmed protection" lock on this article starting today or tomorrow? Thanks kindly, Lighthumormonger (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

It landed
Now we need to change a lot to the past tense :) Stoplookin9 :) Send me a message! 23:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I think it tipped over on a rock...
 * Just a rumor I heard, but it made me laugh. :)
 * JustAnotherUndertaleFrantic -- Talk 14:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It tipped over and so this should be redacted to be accurate? Also, apparently their stocks dumped, because they lied about the success.
 * "Its soft Moon landing is the first for an American made spacecraft since Apollo 17, more than 50 years ago, and the first by a private company". 24.6.1.248 (talk) 04:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)