Russia's Luna-25 Has Crashed Into The Moon: Tass

[Cheepek]

I think perhaps you are opening this up to interpretation too much.

This article is not claiming that it is any more mechanically difficult to land on the moon's south pole.

Landers are able to withstand these sorts of temperature changes. After all the orbiters and lander modules circle around the moon, into sun's cover and behind the moon which means the temperature change is not an issue for orbiters and landers. No systems that are able to orbit and land on the moon's surfaces would have issue due to south pole's temperature differences since they already move into and out of the sun's cover by orbiting the moon during orbit and landing phases. Not American, Chinese, Russian, or Indian systems.

Visibility of dark shadows etc is talked about because the context of the article there is about "Earthlings to land, live, and work" as a combination i.e. settlement around the south pole due to its intrigues.

None of this refer to the actual mechanics of landing. But to each their own interpretations. Such an argument over interpretations would be pointless as much as we have already stated our case.

Why do you compensate your lack of knowledge with tldr; word salad?

You claimed landing on South pole is same as landing anywhere, as is done before. Check

I give you proof that the terrain, temperature, lightning et al is different at South pole than other parts of the moon. Check

You resort to bullshittery with 3x4 sized rubbish not providing even ONE proof how landing on South pole is same as landing on other parts of the moon. Check

Do you have anything else to say? Do you have ANY proof that landing on Lunar south is same as landing on other parts of moon?

 

[serenity]

Why do you compensate your lack of knowledge with tldr; word salad?

You claimed landing on South pole is same as landing anywhere, as is done before. Check

I give you proof that the terrain, temperature, lightning et al is different at South pole than other parts of the moon. Check

You resort to bullshittery with 3x4 sized rubbish not providing even ONE proof how landing on South pole is same as landing on other parts of the moon. Check

Do you have anything else to say? Do you have ANY proof that landing on Lunar south is same as landing on other parts of moon?

It is not the same as landing on other parts of moon! But it is also not necessarily more difficult!

The only major mechanical difference is the inserting into polar orbit or synchronous orbit before descent. The mechanical difference is simply in how you slow down the orbiter to match velocity so relative velocities are within parameters of designed equipment to manage the landing.

In that respect, it would not be any more challenging to land a lander on the south or north pole of the moon for countries that have landed on the moon because they have proven they can slow down and speed up their orbiters to achieve whatever slow down or speed up is required to put their orbiter and lander modules within those parameters required for landing at any predesignated site.

Anyway you are convinced south pole landing is somehow harder due to a NASA website talking about temperature differences between shade and sunlight. That is fine.

 

[Krptonite]

Why do you compensate your lack of knowledge with tldr; word salad?

You claimed landing on South pole is same as landing anywhere, as is done before. Check

I give you proof that the terrain, temperature, lightning et al is different at South pole than other parts of the moon. Check

You resort to bullshittery with 3x4 sized rubbish not providing even ONE proof how landing on South pole is same as landing on other parts of the moon. Check

Do you have anything else to say? Do you have ANY proof that landing on Lunar south is same as landing on other parts of moon?

Theres a difference between landing something and surving on a particular spot.

Given the technological advantages the US, Europe, China and Russia have, it is not wrong to assume that these nations have the capability to land there. Its just that no one has tried it before.

No one tried to do so before does not equate to it being hard to do so, just that we would be the among the first ones to do so.

 

[serenity]

"At the lunar South Pole, the Sun hovers below or just above the horizon, creating temperatures upwards of 130°F (54°C) during sunlit periods. Even during these periods of illumination, soaring mountains cast dark shadows and deep craters protect perpetual darkness in their abysses. Some of these craters are home to permanently shadowed regions that haven’t seen sunlight in billions of years and experience temperatures as low as -334°F (-203°C).

Even using advanced sensors, the combination of terrain and lighting conditions will make it difficult to tell what the ground looks like from a vehicle descending to the lunar South Pole, and some systems may be vulnerable to rising and plummeting temperatures."

More here, since you can't open the link-

Astronauts descending to the lunar surface will be able to manually take control of a lander’s onboard automated guidance system if necessary, as Neil Armstrong did when the Eagle’s guidance system steered them four miles off course, heading toward a field of boulders. Armstrong had a clear, sunlit view of the Moon below, but Artemis astronauts will have a disrupted view, with long dark shadows hiding important terrain features. To help them navigate, they will have the advantage of preloaded maps providing topographic details from robotic missions like the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) along with advanced training using technology not available to Apollo crews.

Armstrong landed Apollo 11 back in 1969. My point being that all modern moon landing missions already do not use Mk1 eyeballs to perform landing. Thus your claimed extra difficulty caused by visible light not being an available thing for this landing mission is not actually another difficulty.

Every lander has used some method not relying on humans eyeballing it. Not Chandrayaan 2 or 3, not American landers, not Yutu missions, not Lunakod missions etc. That article in that quoted part is referencing human landing and talking about how heroic those astronauts managed to save their mission using eyeballing when guidance systems steered them off. Chandrayaan is using guidance systems not human control from Earth I believe.

Theres a difference between landing something and surving on a particular spot.

Given the technological advantages the US, Europe, China and Russia have, it is not wrong to assume that these nations have the capability to land there. Its just that no one has tried it before.

No one tried to do so before does not equate to it being hard to do so, just that we would be the among the first ones to do so.

Thank you. The main issue with Cheepak's post #2 and #8 is the implication that south pole landing is really really much harder than other landings and that because no other country has done it, it is exactly due to no other country being able to do it.

Of course such a logical fallacy is fair to be pointed out.

And yes, SURVIVING at south pole would be more difficult than other rovers performing tasks in those other areas. That much is fairly absolute.

 

[Cheepek]

But it is also not necessarily more difficult!

Didn't I ask you the proof of same in my first reply?

The only major mechanical difference is the inserting into polar orbit or synchronous orbit before descent. The mechanical difference is simply in how you slow down the orbiter to match velocity so relative velocities are within parameters of designed equipment to manage the landing.

What has landing on moon got to do with the orbiter inserting itself in xyz orbit, are you a mor0n?

In that respect, it would not be any more challenging to land a lander on the south or north pole of the moon for countries that have landed on the moon because they have proven they can slow down and speed up their orbiters to achieve whatever slow down or speed up is required to put their orbiter and lander modules within those parameters required for landing at any predesignated site.

Again orbiter, are you a ch*tiya? Does the lander depend only on the orbiter?
What do you think a lander is, a block of rock that the orbiter throws at a certain speed, altitude or orbit?

Theres a difference between landing something and surving on a particular spot.

Given the technological advantages the US, Europe, China and Russia have, it is not wrong to assume that these nations have the capability to land there. Its just that no one has tried it before.

No one tried to do so before does not equate to it being hard to do so, just that we would be the among the first ones to do so.

Where did I claim these countries don't have the "capability" to land there?

 

[serenity]

Didn't I ask you the proof of same in my first reply?



What has landing on moon got to do with the orbiter inserting itself in xyz orbit, are you a mor0n?


Again orbiter, are you a ch*tiya? Does the lander depend only on the orbiter?
What do you think a lander is, a block of rock that the orbiter throws at a certain speed, altitude or orbit?

No i'm not a ch*tiya or Mor0n. I'm actually an engineer. Just not an aerospace engineer so I'm not going to pretend I can prove quantitatively that there are no GRAND differences in managing the mechanical performance parameters between landing at site x and landing at site south pole. Where other landers on the moon couldn't have done. One can look at the total payload weights and available energies to have a clue After all, landing at any site on the moon, ANY site is a question of orbital mechanics of which all other successful landers have pulled off perfectly and mastered (there is only one set of orbital mechanics required for this) and their respective energies and total mass of equipment. Higher the energy and payload mass (with all other factors equal ie miniatiurizing of systems) the better the basis for performing "more impressive" feats.

Apologies for ruffling your feathers for not being able to supply the required proof. I'm sure some out there may know.

Of course I agree there are differences. I've never stated otherwise ... if you reread what I wrote instead of calling it tldr word salad, you will notice that I am trying to say that it is not necessarily harder to land on the south pole than it is to land at a predesignated spot. Nations that have been able to land at a predesignated spot on the moon with heavier landers and orbiters than Chadrayaan 2 and 3 can also land on the south pole. There is nothing limiting nations who have landed on the moon from landing on the south pole. Just because they never aimed to do so in the past does not equate to what you have implied, that they cannot.

I'm just stating your post #2 and post #8 are fallacious and trying to imply something rather ... well immature, silly, and most importantly, inaccurate.

 

[Krptonite]

Didn't I ask you the proof of same in my first reply?



What has landing on moon got to do with the orbiter inserting itself in xyz orbit, are you a mor0n?


Again orbiter, are you a ch*tiya? Does the lander depend only on the orbiter?
What do you think a lander is, a block of rock that the orbiter throws at a certain speed, altitude or orbit?


Where did I claim these countries don't have the "capability" to land there?

You're asking for proof that its not hard to land at the south pole.

Its highly improbable that such a proof exists. Absent that we can assume that nations with higher tech development can in fact land there. Therefore, relatively, if many can do it, then it would either be more harder than other spots or not hard at all.

Asking for a proof of negative is impossible and the first thing taught on what not to do while forming an hypothesis, to give you an example, if i were to ask you to prove the sun is not in fact a candy ball youd have no data to say so other wise.

Civility is the standard for exchanging ideas, even when parties are in disagreement. I can understand passions getting heated here with all the negativity thrown across but that still does not excuse the use of profanity.

 

[Cheepek]

Just not an aerospace engineer so I'm not going to pretend I can prove quantitatively that there are no GRAND differences in managing the mechanical performance parameters between landing at site x and landing at site south pole

1) You can't prove anything.

Apologies for ruffling your feathers for not being able to supply the required proof. I'm sure some out there may know.

2) Thanks for the admission, I am not really interested in opinions. Haven't I been asking for PROOF of your opinion?

I'm just stating your post #2 and post #8 are fallacious

3) They are not fallacious, those are my observations. You don't bring make belief opinions to counter observations.

You're asking for proof that its not hard to land at the south pole.

Its highly improbable that such a proof exists.

If you think such a proof doesn't exist, why are you trying to bulldoze your own fancy opinions on my observations?

Absent that we can assume that nations with higher tech development can in fact land there.

Why are you putting words into my mouth again?

Asking for a proof of negative is impossible and the first thing taught on what not to do while forming an hypothesis, to give you an example, if i were to ask you to prove the sun is not in fact a candy ball youd have no data to say so other wise.

No, a proof is NOT impossible. It's simply that you are NOT EQUIPPED to provide a proof.
I have enough data to prove sun is NOT. A candy ball, don't be stupid.

Civility is the standard for exchanging ideas, even when parties are in disagreement. I can understand passions getting heated here with all the negativity thrown across but that still does not excuse its usage.

Thank you for the prep talk daddy.

 

[hussain0216]

Name one country which has landed it's probe on the lunar south pole.

But for what????
You don't think the U.S couldn't do it in the last 50 years

Or the Russian's,

Hell even China could have done it



What's the point or purpose, beyond a PR exercise for idiots

 

[Cheepek]

What's the point or purpose, beyond a PR exercise for idiots

US has planned to land astronauts in the same area by 2025, China by 2030.
I am sure it's just PR excercise for the dunderheads.

 

[hussain0216]

US has planned to land astronauts in the same area by 2025, China by 2030.
I am sure it's just PR excercise for the dunderheads.

Yeah but don't have abject poverty, hunger, mass communal hatred even on their worst day, it's better then India

 

[CallSignMaverick]

You neither have a space program, have poverty and communal hatred much worse than India as well.

Yeah but don't have abject poverty, hunger, mass communal hatred even on their worst day, it's better then India

 

[Cheepek]

Yeah but don't have abject poverty, hunger, mass communal hatred even on their worst day, it's better then India

I am not sure how a few hundred million $$ can eradicate all that, prolly take a few hundred million out of those billions you are getting as loans in Pakistan and teach us please?

 

[CallSignMaverick]

I am not sure how a few hundred million $$ can eradicate all that, prolly take a few hundred million out of those billions you are getting as loans in Pakistan and teach us please?

India's space industry is directly and indirectly feeding more people than the money spent on it's projects ever will.

 

[LeGenD]

@Cheepek

You need to calm down.