- cross-posted to:
- space@beehaw.org
- world@lemmy.world
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- space@beehaw.org
- world@lemmy.world
- technology@lemmy.world
The unmanned craft was due to make a soft landing on the Moon’s south pole, but failed after encountering problems as it moved into its pre-landing orbit.
It was Russia’s first Moon mission in almost 50 years.
Russia has been racing to the Moon’s south pole against India, whose Chandrayaan-3 spacecraft is scheduled to land on there next week.
No country has ever landed on the south pole before, although both the US and China have landed softly on the Moon’s surface.
No report on whether or not Russia was attempting to use repurposed anti-ship missiles like the ones they use to attack schools and hospitals here on Earth.
You must log in or register to comment.
I didn’t know they have schools on the moon. Or was it a power station?
Maternity ward.
Special lunar operation.
“This is all the West’s fault!”
Obviously it was not a moon rocket, but a Drone aimed for Kiev.
The moon needed to be de-nazified.
Is Moon NATO member?
The moon was standing there, MENACINGLY!
The moon was encroaching on our sovereign territory.
The Moon looked too much like a kindergarten. The lander got confused.
The US should put a lander together out of trash for shits and giggles and have it land perfectly.
A 1979 TV show about a guy who put together a junk spaceship to salvage junk from the moon: Salvage 1.
My teenage self found it entertaining at the time. Hmmm, now where did I leave my parrot? I wonder if he could help me find a copy…
Or just land people in a few years. They’re working on a several hundred ton lander right now!
On the remains of the
sovietrussian oneNot coincidentally none of the space agencies out there that are capable of this would find it worth their time to launch a mission just to teabag another nation.
just to teabag another nation.
Gestures broadly at the space race of the 1950s
None of the space agencies in the 1950s would be capable of landing gently on a crashed spacecraft.
In the 1950s they had the interest but not the capability. Today they have the capably but not the interest.
Well, I mean NASA pulled a spare mars rover out of their R&D testing labs, modified it’s toolset a bit, and sent it to Mars for a second soft landing (didn’t they use a sky-crane for both rover deployments?). I’d say that takes a bit more skill than landing on the Moon. But I don’t play Kerbal Space Program enough to know how much
They are doing it with the artemis mission
What’s the problem. It was a lunar lander. It landed on the moon. Mission accomplished.
Nobody walked away from that landing, so it definitely wasn’t a good one. The fact that there was nobody to walk away from the landing is a mere technicality.
I now have flashbacks to computer games in the early 80’s.
I always suspected that it was just a missile painted like a rocket.
It launched on a soyuz, which has an extremely long history. It first launched in 67. All rockets back then had icbm roots or aspirations. But for a long time all icbms use solid propellent for better long term storage rather than liquid propellant like soyuz.
I hear you saying that they’re very similar platforms. I’m saying that the neccesary differences that would make it a scientific rocket were simply missing, an empty shell, a smokeshow.
What differences? The difference between icbms and rockets to launch to space is usually the time it takes to get the rocket ready to launch, and how long it can be stored for.
Scientific instruments, sufficient navigation technology, communications
That’s on the satellite itself, not the launch vehicle. As far as I know, there’s no commonality between the lander and the multiple reentry vehicle upper stages of rockets. Here’s more about the lander: https://youtu.be/XM8bJsqCLYQ
It seems that a dish washer’s controller isn’t suitable for moon landing after all.
They should’ve upgraded it to the Logitech G F710
If a dishwasher had any chip capable of processing anything at all it would be suitable, which is pretty funny.
Most modern dishwashers have some kind of processor, and yes they’d be perfectly capable of handling the necessary computations.
I take it you haven’t seen the guy that got Doom running on a dishwasher?
As someone fond of science, its kinda heart breaking as many people spends decades of work to make this stuff and their dreams get crushed when these fail. Hope they fix and launch another one.
Failures are a part of science! I hope russian scientist dont lose their funding and can continue to contribute to space exploration.
For obvious reasons, I am surprised they have any funding at all right now.
It’s amazing how the funding for space exploration just magically appears when nationalist pissing contests are a go-go. But healthcare? How could we possibly afford it?
Both should be extensively funded, I think.
Whether they should is a thing unworthy of consideration - if they don’t it means we have no use for states at all. The interesting thing is whether they could if they wanted to. And the answer to that is yes - they could. The fact of the matter is that they do not want to.
Good news:
moon’s no longer haunted
Removed by mod
America good, rest of the world bad
Removed by mod
This is off-topic, but I keep seeing Anglo being used (maybe I just keep running into your comments). Is it suppose to be insulting like in the context of your comment? Is it descriptive? How do you know if someone is an Anglo online? Do you feel like it has any negative connotations being used? Feel free to answer any of the questions or none at all lol, curiosity got the better of me.
Removed by mod
Huh, I was forced in my early years to be raised around very conservative and racist individuals so your use of the word and validation for it’s usage feels very much like my childhood experience. To each their own though, the commonality is just interesting to me when I saw your first comment.
You weirdo, it’s in reference to a famous meme
The russian wording on the mission failure is something to behold. Luna-25 “ceased its existence”.
I’m surprised they aren’t denying it ever existed at all.
You shouldn’t be, I’m quite certain Roscosmos has never denied or hid anything about something that was always open.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Russia’s Luna-25 spacecraft has crashed into the Moon after spinning out of control, officials say.
The unmanned craft was due to make a soft landing on the Moon’s south pole, but failed after encountering problems as it moved into its pre-landing orbit.
The spacecraft was scheduled to land on Monday to explore a part of the Moon which scientists think could hold frozen water and precious elements.
Roscosmos, Russia’s state space corporation, said on Sunday morning that it had lost contact with the Luna-25 shortly after 14:57pm (11:57 GMT) on Saturday.
“The apparatus moved into an unpredictable orbit and ceased to exist as a result of a collision with the surface of the Moon,” it said in a statement.
Russia has been racing to the Moon’s south pole against India, whose Chandrayaan-3 spacecraft is scheduled to land on there next week.
The original article contains 174 words, the summary contains 141 words. Saved 19%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Testing a new lithobraking maneuver.
Special crashing operation.
No mention on a cause in this article, curious what it was
There was a moon in the way
Cutting corners due to the money being spirited away by corrupt officials. This is Russia after all.
Nah, it was obviously sabotage by Western Ukrainian gay Nazis.
NATO’s secret moon base lasers shot it down
Stop…everyone knows it’s moon Nazis. Haven’t you seen Iron Sky?
That’s part of the cause, not the reason why it actually failed. The people at Roscosmos do work pretty hard even though underpaid and understaffed.
Hard to make a rocket when you are afraid of windows above ground floor.
Definitely shouldn’t be depending on what design step you’re working on, these comments are weird and unproductive.
Cause of failure: built in Russia
The burn to slow it down into a low orbit went too long, which made the resulting orbit too low (so low that it intersected the surface).
No word yet on why the burn was too long.
The front fell off.
