Russian Moon Probe Crashes, Fails

a reply to: stevieray
Today, Revit lets you pick all your building products from an endless catalog as you draw them in the design drawings, then does your complete cost estimating instantly.
We used to have a 30 volume set of -500 page books called Sweets, which you would dig through forever to find your products.
Used to have similar sets of books for cost estimating called RS Means. You had to pick through thousands of unit costs down to nuts and bolts, economic conditions, different cities’ costs, then go crazy for dozens of hours with pencils and calculators.
Crazy changes. In every phase you feel like it can’t get more streamlined but it always does. You can truly be an efficient one-man firm now, if you master all of these softwares.
You can even 3-D print buildings now if that’s your specialty.

originally posted by: Ilikesecrets

originally posted by: TDDAgain
a reply to: Ilikesecrets
No, but they also bought it with a lot of lives and material, with a general disregard for human life and safety.

That has to be noted, too.

Also note that we lost 3 astronauts all at once in a capsule before launch.

Ha ha, always fight the good fight against America, down to the granular and single happenings over decades.
We suck ! Everybody else is better !

a reply to: ElGoobero

Enough Aerospace Specialists here. I'm not a specialist, but I have the feeling that after more than 50 years people should do better. Branson and Musk ... misfortune. Government promises (check) ... never fulfilled ... I have the feeling that the moon has become a 'no go' for manned missions. Because, if unmanned flights fail to land safely, what about the promised manned flights (which should have been routine for a long time). So many people die in war, car accidents an so on ... I don't think 'they' care a lot about the fate of the astronauts. But then again I am no expert ...

A shocking truth? www.evawaseerst.be...

a reply to: ElGoobero

End of the day it's a shame because it could have returned some interesting results given the area it was supposed to land, which would have been a first or so I'm led to believe

Not much going right at all for Russia right now i suppose.

a reply to: ElGoobero

Space is super difficult, we just make it look easy by sending rovers to Mars and flybys much farther.

Russia could do this but they won't succeed using Russian tech. They need Western, lighter, faster, better technology. Everything they make is still too heavy for space travel.

originally posted by: TDDAgain
US buys Russian rocket engines for example. Russians build better rockets than the US, otherwise the US would built their own and not buy from Russia.

The Russians have more balls to test dangerous things without breaking a fingernail. That's why their rockets could achieve the thrust potential that the Americans couldn't. They just weren't reliable though so they were sidelined instead of repurposed and then shared with new friends. Crazy Eh!

originally posted by: TDDAgain
a reply to: putnam6
The far side is also more challenging because of radio contact that is needed to remotely steer the craft. I imagine the antenna has to be readjusted by the onboard computer, as it comes back from the moons far side.

I heard a better description once but what we're really doing is shooting a bullet towards a greater bullet, both moving in 3D space and hoping that the bullet comes in a trajectory that allows the fired bullet to align with the same speed and then make that bullet slower until it lands.

That's one hell of a job to do with all the distances and extremes involved. I would compare it to a scuba dive at night where all you have is your compass and you pray and hope to end up where you want to be. In full isolation, in a different weightless environment with one extra dimension.

Good that it was remote, no one had to die.

Most definitely orbital mechanics and maneuvers are a bitch and a half, it has to be precise as hell. Go look at the lunar insertion of Chandrayaan3 at some point ground control can no longer make adjustments. When it's in the polar areas there is definitely less of a window for communications and error correction.

www.isro.gov.in...

a reply to: putnam6
Not very intuitive to understand, orbital mechanics. All I know yet is that in order to get out of earth's gravity field, it's speed that matters, not height, as height is a byproduct of the speed. So, the faster you can go, the higher you can go. You're not faster because you're higher, you're higher because you're faster.

Sort of like this

Calling it a day

Has it been verified by other sources that there is a crashed lander that went splat? It is a tricky job where even a minor mistake somewhere makes it all go bad. This kind of work does have a high failure rate.

There is also a big deep state political thing going on as well when it comes to matters of disclosure. What if there is already some base or other anomaly picked up in the landing region. The public gets the story communications are lost and the project ended, while is some deep dark backroom somewhere the mission carries on.

Just a thought from a skeptical mind.

a reply to: putnam6

I am on your side too about someone on the dark side not wanting us to land! Or Elon will send up a EV craft and we are all doomed!

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
Valves, Diodes, capacitors, and good old-fashioned maths seemed to work a treat back.

You're on to something there. As more complex something gets, the more that can (and will) go wrong. Hence why we'll still see budget cars from the 70's and 80's on the road in fifty years but there won't be a single 2023 Tesla on the road.

It's not unheard of, of old cars having close a million miles on the clock but still running like they should. Plus, heck of a lot easier to work on a straight six with no electronics VS a start stop electronically controlled 4 cylinder.

originally posted by: UpThenDown

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
a reply to: ElGoobero
They maybe should have gone with '60s tech instead of this new fan-dangled quantum computing technology.

Valves, Diodes, capacitors, and good old-fashioned maths seemed to work a treat back.

And some people believe Alien tech could be ours.

have you seen Russias 60s tech

pretty sure it would fail just going shopping here on earth

Lunokhod 1

Are you aware NASA has been using Russian rockets for almost 30 years now? Up until 2022 that is. Many American satellites were put in orbit by Russian technology developed during the cold war.
Source

It took a private citizen(Elon Musk) to build a more effective rocket. Stories like this are why I always laugh when people mock Russian technology.

originally posted by: stevieray
a reply to: TDDAgain
More evidence that Russia and China don’t do anything all that well.
The can almost keep pace by stealing everything they can get their hands on from America, but most of what they try to claim as original, totally sucks.
Sputnik, AK’s, MiG’s, furry hats ….. not bad. But I’ll bet they were stolen from somebody lol.

Didn't Russia go to Mars when we were trying to get to the moon?

My top guess is there is evidence of something amazing on the moon and we haven't developed any bases there as once expected because we want the public to think it's a boring dustball unworthy of attention. But what if there's evidence that a technologically advanced civilization of humans from before the last pole shift put structures there? What if aliens left the kind of artifact that could lead us to the next level? a reply to: putnam6

a reply to: rounda

They were trying to get to our rocky neighbours, as were the USA, at the same time as attempting a lunar mission.

They finally landed something in 1971 after several failed attempts.

originally posted by: Kammlersgrdaughter77
My top guess is there is evidence of something amazing on the moon and we haven't developed any bases there as once expected because we want the public to think it's a boring dustball unworthy of attention. But what if there's evidence that a technologically advanced civilization of humans from before the last pole shift put structures there? What if aliens left the kind of artifact that could lead us to the next level? a reply to: putnam6

I'm open to all possibilities, just a few things. When you look at missions to the moon, the world has had significantly more failures since 2018, than from 2018 all the way back to 1976. It's like something changed, even the failures from 58 to 76 seem to be launch failures. Whereas those since 2018 have been mostly spacecraft failures. Since most of these have been unmanned missions, it's almost as if we can't replicate what Apollo seemed to do routinely. Either that human element is crucial and probes and landers can make instantaneous course or speed adjustments. Or we didn't land on the Moon as often as has been portrayed. Can't discount the lack of atmosphere influence either.

My intuition thinks there is something more going on here, have no idea what it is that is spurring the renewed interest. You would think China would be on the up and up and would share more images and data.

en.wikipedia.org...

Something seems to be up with all the different attempts being made, almost as if it's a competition or something, LOL, and now we are failing miserably. Find it hard to believe all the renewed interest in Luna is just based on exploiting its resources like H3. Cause if we can't nail the landing consistently there will be no exploitation of the resources of the moon. Look at how many are planned from now till 2030...

just early morning thoughts.

Here WION discussing India's Chandrayaan 3: ISRO ready with Plan B, reserves landing day for Vikram Lander. They are already thinking of pushing back the landing day.

Could there be another reason for all these flurry of missions and failures? Beyond we forgot how to do so, which is essentially what Russia blamed their failure on.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

In the 1960's the first 6 RANGER Missions to take close up photos of the moon failed do to problems in the Atlas Agena booster and issues with the spacecraft

en.wikipedia.org...

Two of the 1960's SURVEYOR 2 of the lunar landers failed, SURVEYOR 2 a thruster failed during a mid course maneuver causing the craft to tumble , SURVEYOR 4 lost contact during descent, possibly because of a retro rocket failure

en.wikipedia.org...

The Russians (Soviet) had several failure trying to return samples moon, including LUNA 15 which was launched at same time as APOLLO 11 It crashed into moon

Took Russians several other tried before succeeding on sample returns

en.wikipedia.org...

Its not called ROCKET SCIENCE for a reason ..............

originally posted by: TDDAgain
All I know yet is that in order to get out of earth's gravity field, it's speed that matters, not height, as height is a byproduct of the speed. So, the faster you can go, the higher you can go. You're not faster because you're higher, you're higher because you're faster.

S

It's so true TDD. Discovered the same in many a dance club in the 90's

a reply to: ufoorbhunter

That made my night lol, thank you for the chuckle I really had use for it.

a reply to: ElGoobero

hahaha
As # as their armed forces and country