Athena didn’t crash. But what did happen to it?

Hours after the 15-foot-tall robotic spacecraft arrived at the moon’s surface, closer to the lunar south pole than any spacecraft has been, it remained unclear whether its touchdown was smooth enough to perform its intended work, or if it toppled over in the process, potentially limiting the mission’s scientific achievements.

“We’re trying to evaluate exactly what happened in that last bit,” Tim Crain, the chief technology officer of Intuitive Machines, said at a news conference.

The spacecraft is almost identical to Odysseus, the lander that the company sent to the moon last year. Odysseus was the first commercially operated vehicle to successfully land on the moon. But that success came with an asterisk when the vehicle toppled shortly after reaching the ground.

It appears that might have happened again.

At a post-landing news conference, Steve Altemus, the chief executive of Intuitive Machines, said the spacecraft had sent back conflicting data about whether it was standing upright or tipped over. But a sensor known as an inertial measurement unit offered a perhaps convincing clue that Athena was on its side.

As it headed to the lunar surface, laser instruments that measured the lander’s altitude were providing noisy data, which may have contributed to the botched landing.

Until that final descent, Athena had performed much more smoothly than the Odysseus lander a year ago, said Dr. Crain of Intuitive Machines. “We were expecting a fully successful landing,” he said.

Mr. Altemus said it was too soon to determine how much of the planned mission could still be salvaged. Athena’s payloads include a drill, three small rovers and a rocket-powered hopping drone.

“When we get that full assessment, we will then work closely with NASA science and technology groups to identify science objectives that are the highest priority,” Mr. Altemus said. “And then we’ll figure out what the mission profile will look like.”

The spacecraft is not generating as much power as it should, probably because the solar panels are not pointed in the correct direction.

Images from cameras on the spacecraft will help Intuitive Machines figure out the orientation of the spacecraft. Dr. Crain said the spacecraft probably set down outside of the planned landing zone but was confident it was still somewhere on Mons Mouton, a high plateau near the south pole that Athena was to explore.

Images from NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, which will pass over the landing site, could pinpoint Athena’s precise location.

It has been a busy week in spaceflight and on the moon. Intuitive Machines was the second company to reach the lunar surface this week, after Firefly Aerospace, another Texas space company, successfully reached the Mare Crisium region of the moon on Sunday morning.

“Any time humanity puts a lander on the moon, it’s a good day,” Dr. Crain said.

The main customer of both missions is NASA under its Commercial Lunar Payload Services program, which hires private companies to take NASA-financed science and technology payloads to the lunar surface. The NASA contract for this mission is worth up to $62.5 million, but Intuitive Machines may not be paid the full amount.

Shares of Intuitive Machines, which trades under the name LUNR after going public in 2023, tumbled after reports of the spacecraft’s problems. Its stock fell 20 percent on Thursday.

The main payload on Athena is a drill for NASA that will extract lunar soil to be sniffed by a mass spectrometer for frozen water and other compounds. NASA officials said it might be possible for the drill to work, even if the spacecraft was not vertical. “It doesn’t have to be directly where I can drill straight down,” said Clayton Turner, the associate administrator for NASA’s space technology mission director. “There are other options we can use, too.”

Also aboard is a rover the size of a small dog that will test a Nokia cellphone network on the moon, and two smaller rovers, one built by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the other by a Japanese company. Intuitive Machines also planned to test a rocket-powered vehicle called a hopper that could explore places not easily reached by rovers.

A parade of lunar landers is expected to continue through the rest of the year.

One of those spacecraft is already in space. The Resilience lander from Ispace of Japan was launched on the same SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket that sent Firefly’s Blue Ghost on its way. But it is taking a longer, more fuel-efficient path to the moon. It will enter orbit around the moon around May 6 and try a landing a month later at Mare Frigoris, or the Sea of Cold, in the moon’s northern hemisphere.

In the fall, Astrobotic Technology of Pittsburgh is planning to try to get to the moon flying a large lander known as Griffin that will carry a commercial rover designed by Venturi Astrolab of Hawthorne, Calif., among other cargo.

The most intriguing lander is the one planned by Blue Origin, the rocket company started by Jeff Bezos. The lander, known as Blue Moon Mark 1, will be the largest spacecraft ever to set down on the moon, even larger than the ones that took NASA astronauts to the moon during the Apollo moon landings more than 50 years ago.

Danielle Kaye contributed reporting.

Dear Tripped Up,

Last summer, I booked a five-day sailing trip with Tall Ship Experience, a company based in Spain. For 1,350 euros, or $1,450, I would be a volunteer on the crew of the Atlantis, sailing between two ports in Italy. But eight days before, I had a bad fall that resulted in multiple injuries, including eight stitches to my face that doctors said I could not expose to sun or water. The Tall Ship Experience website clearly states that I could cancel for a full refund up to seven days before the trip. But the company revealed it was just an intermediary and the Dutch organization actually running the trip, Tallship Company, had different rules, under which I was refunded 10 percent. I offered to take credit for a future trip, to no avail. Finally, I disputed the charges with my credit card issuer, American Express. But Tall Ship Experience provided a completely different set of terms to Amex, saying I canceled one day in advance. The charges were reinstated. Can you help? Martha, Los Angeles

Dear Martha,

This story reads like a greatest-hits playlist of travel industry traps: a middleman shirking responsibility, terms and conditions run amok, a credit card chargeback gone wrong, and the maddening barriers to pursuing justice against a foreign company. However, the documentation you sent was so complete and the company’s website so confusing that I was sure Tall Ship Experience would quickly refund you.

Tallship Company did not respond to requests for comments, but did nothing wrong. It simply followed its own terms and conditions that Tall Ship Experience, as a middleman, should have made clear to you. When you canceled, Tallship Company sent back a 10 percent refund to Tall Ship Experience to then send to you.

That’s why I was surprised that the stubborn (though exceedingly polite) Tall Ship Experience spokeswoman who responded to me on behalf of the Seville-based organization argued repeatedly that although she regretted your disappointment, Tall Ship Experience was not at fault. At one point she suggested you should have purchased travel insurance, even as the company scrambled to adjust and update its website as we emailed.

Before the changes, the site contained two distinct and contradictory sets of terms and conditions: one for customers who purchased via the website’s English and French versions, and another on the Spanish version. (Confusingly, both documents were in Spanish.)

The English/French version — the one you had seen — promised customers a full refund for trips canceled more than seven days in advance. The Spanish one is vastly more complex, offering distinct cancellation terms for each ship. The Atlantis offered customers in your situation only 10 percent back.

Enter the stubborn spokeswoman: “The terms and conditions in Spanish correctly reflected the cancellation policy of the ship in the moment the client made the reservation,” she wrote via email. “We are conscious that at the time, the English version of the terms was not updated, which may have generated confusion. However, the official terms of the reservation were applied correctly.”

In other words, customers should somehow know to ignore one contract and seek out another on a different part of the site, both in a language they may not read.

But I am no expert in Spanish consumer law, so I got in touch with two people who are: Marta Valls Sierra, head of the consumer rights practice at Marimón Abogados, a law firm based in Barcelona; and Fernando Peña López, a professor at the Universidade da Coruña in A Coruña.

They examined the documentation and each concluded independently that Tall Ship Experience had violated basic Spanish consumer statutes. When I passed along their convincing points to the spokeswoman and alerted her that you were considering taking the company to Spanish small-claims court, she finally said it would refund you the remaining €1,215.

I felt a bit sheepish about exerting so much pressure on this small company — actually, an arm of the nonprofit Nao Victoria Foundation, which operates several replicas of historic ships — but the company should have taken much more care when it set up its website, Ms. Valls Sierra told me.

“If in your terms and conditions you say that up until seven days before departure you have the right to cancel,” she said in an interview, “and a consumer comes and says, ‘I want to cancel,’ you have to cancel their trip and return their money. They can’t use ‘Sorry, we forgot to put it on one web page, but we put it on another web page’ as an excuse.”

It is a principle of consumer law, she added, that confusing or contradictory contracts are interpreted in favor of the consumer.

The other troubling issue with the website is that you had no way of knowing that your trip was not operated by Tall Ship Experience. There was no such mention I could find on the website, which relies on marketing copy like this: “On board you will learn everything you need to know that will allow you to become one of our crew.”

Dr. Peña López, the law professor, wrote me in an email that “Tall Ship Experience is obligated to inform the consumer about the service it provides in an accessible and understandable manner, clearly indicating whether it is an intermediary.” He added that Tall Ship Experience “clearly” presented itself as the ship’s operator in this case.

As I mentioned, Tall Ship Experience did begin updating its site almost as soon as I got in touch, calling itself a “marketplace” for experiences and posting the correct terms and conditions (in the correct languages) on its English and French pages.

But Tall Ship Experience agreed to a refund only after I sent the company a compilation of the two experts’ legal analyses. “We are dedicated to creating experiences aboard unique boats, and not to legal matters,” came the spokeswoman’s response. “Regardless of which party is correct in this case, we would like to refund the full amount. We look forward to putting this to rest and to focus on continuing to improve customer experiences.”

You also said that American Express had let you down, by taking the company’s word over yours when you contested the charge. It is true that the document Tall Ship Experience sent to Amex (which forwarded it to you, who forwarded it to me), is wildly inaccurate, including only the terms favorable to the company and saying you canceled only one day in advance.

A spokeswoman for American Express emailed me a statement saying that the company “takes into account both the card member and the merchant perspectives.” But travelers should not mistake credit card issuers for crack investigators who will leave no stone unturned in pursuit of travel justice. A chargeback request works best when the problem is straightforward — you were charged more than you agreed to pay, or you never agreed to pay at all. Asking your card issuer to do a deep dive into terms and conditions is a much longer shot.

And as we’ve seen before (and might be seeing in this case) such chargeback requests often anger the companies involved to the point that they refuse to deal with you further.

If all else had failed, as I told you before the company gave in, you could have requested a “juicio verbal,” Spain’s version of a small-claims-court proceeding, via videoconference. It would not have been easy, said Dr. Peña López. Cases under €2,000 do not require a lawyer, but they do require you to have a Foreigner Identification Number, to fill out forms in legal Spanish (A.I. might help) and to find an interpreter to be by your side.

When I finally told you — in our 39th email! — you’d get a refund, you told me you had been “almost looking forward to a Spanish small-claims experience.” I admire your spirit, although I suspect it would have been quickly broken by bureaucratic and linguistic barriers.

If you need advice about a best-laid travel plan that went awry, send an email to TrippedUp@nytimes.com.

Follow New York Times Travel on Instagram and sign up for our Travel Dispatch newsletter to get expert tips on traveling smarter and inspiration for your next vacation. Dreaming up a future getaway or just armchair traveling? Check out our 52 Places to Go in 2025.