5 ms·

NYTimes: "India Loses Contact With Chandrayaan-2 Mission During Moon Landing Attempt" https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/06/science/india-moon-landing-chandrayaan

NYTimes: "India Loses Contact With Chandrayaan-2 Mission During Moon Landing Attempt" https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/06/science/india-moon-landing-chandrayaan-2.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/06/science/india-moon-landin... Edit: NYTimes subtitle says "The country will likely have to wait for a future mission to join the elite club of nations that have landed on the moon." Wikipedia for Chandrayaan-1 says "On 14 November 2008, the [Chandrayaan-1 probe] struck the south pole in a controlled manner, making India the fourth country to place its flag insignia on the Moon" .. huh? Edit 2: Ah, impact landing vs soft landing.

dmix 7y ago
Apparently Russia was supposed to build the lander but backed out after one of their other landers crashed, which they were basing the Indian one on. So India built their own. > Although ISRO finalised the payload for Chandrayaan-2 per schedule,[37] the mission was postponed in January 2013[38] and rescheduled to 2016 because Russia was unable to develop the lander on time.[39][40] Roscosmos later withdrew in wake of the failure of the Fobos-Grunt mission to Mars, since the technical aspects connected with the Fobos-Grunt mission were also used in the lunar projects, which needed to be reviewed.[39] When Russia cited its inability to provide the lander even by 2015, India decided to develop the lunar mission independently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrayaan-2?oldformat=true https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrayaan-2?oldformat=true
rhcom2 7y ago
Chandrayaan-1 was an impact lander, so it landed on the Moon in a "controlled manner" (ie on purpose). Apparently the lander was painted with the Indian flag[1]. 1: https://web.archive.org/web/20090112054329/http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ET_Cetera/Tricolours_4th_national_flag_on_moon/articleshow/3714959.cms https://web.archive.org/web/20090112054329/http://economicti...
- exhilaration 7y ago
  What's the point of an impact lantern?
  - detaro 7y ago
    You still get video and sensor readings from the flight, you get a dust plume to analyze from a distance (especially with bigger impactors also giving you data about what's below the surface).
  - fromthestart 7y ago
    Even making it that far is a testament to the prowess of your space organization. It's a cheaper first step which probably directly and indirectly tests some 75% of the components needed for an actual landing.
gourabmi 7y ago
NYT seems to have taken BBC's place in throwing shade towards the Indian space program. From the article: "...The outcomes of the Indian and Israeli missions highlight that lower costs can mean higher risk of failure, which NASA will need to adjust to as it pursues a lower-cost approach...."
- randyk 7y ago
  It’s not shade, it’s called reality
- bubblethink 7y ago
  Sites like NYT or BBC are highly inept at reporting anything remotely technical in nature. They are good for general political coverage to an extent, but that's where it stops. This is more apparent when the subject matter is closer to our areas of expertise, but even otherwise, it is not too hard to tell that they are out of their depth.
  - satya71 7y ago
    I'm not even sure they do political coverage too well. From the outside it appears the editors live in an insular world that doesn't feel anything like the one outside. They do cover a lot of things, I feel they'd do better if they focused on fewer things but more depth.
  - Torok 7y ago
    (For the BBC at least) Even with the political coverage there seems to be bias that creeps into their reporting
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- whenchamenia 7y ago
  Its pretty factual tbh. If they wanted to throw shade, they could hve brought up indias deplorble acts producing tons of space junk recently.

dmix 7y ago

Apparently Russia was supposed to build the lander but backed out after one of their other landers crashed, which they were basing the Indian one on. So India built their own. > Although ISRO finalised the payload for Chandrayaan-2 per schedule,[37] the mission was postponed in January 2013[38] and rescheduled to 2016 because Russia was unable to develop the lander on time.[39][40] Roscosmos later withdrew in wake of the failure of the Fobos-Grunt mission to Mars, since the technical aspects connected with the Fobos-Grunt mission were also used in the lunar projects, which needed to be reviewed.[39] When Russia cited its inability to provide the lander even by 2015, India decided to develop the lunar mission independently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrayaan-2?oldformat=true https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrayaan-2?oldformat=true

rhcom2 7y ago

Chandrayaan-1 was an impact lander, so it landed on the Moon in a "controlled manner" (ie on purpose). Apparently the lander was painted with the Indian flag[1]. 1: https://web.archive.org/web/20090112054329/http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ET_Cetera/Tricolours_4th_national_flag_on_moon/articleshow/3714959.cms https://web.archive.org/web/20090112054329/http://economicti...

exhilaration 7y ago
What's the point of an impact lantern?
- detaro 7y ago
  You still get video and sensor readings from the flight, you get a dust plume to analyze from a distance (especially with bigger impactors also giving you data about what's below the surface).
- fromthestart 7y ago
  Even making it that far is a testament to the prowess of your space organization. It's a cheaper first step which probably directly and indirectly tests some 75% of the components needed for an actual landing.

gourabmi 7y ago

NYT seems to have taken BBC's place in throwing shade towards the Indian space program. From the article: "...The outcomes of the Indian and Israeli missions highlight that lower costs can mean higher risk of failure, which NASA will need to adjust to as it pursues a lower-cost approach...."

randyk 7y ago
It’s not shade, it’s called reality
bubblethink 7y ago
Sites like NYT or BBC are highly inept at reporting anything remotely technical in nature. They are good for general political coverage to an extent, but that's where it stops. This is more apparent when the subject matter is closer to our areas of expertise, but even otherwise, it is not too hard to tell that they are out of their depth.
- satya71 7y ago
  I'm not even sure they do political coverage too well. From the outside it appears the editors live in an insular world that doesn't feel anything like the one outside. They do cover a lot of things, I feel they'd do better if they focused on fewer things but more depth.
- Torok 7y ago
  (For the BBC at least) Even with the political coverage there seems to be bias that creeps into their reporting
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
whenchamenia 7y ago
Its pretty factual tbh. If they wanted to throw shade, they could hve brought up indias deplorble acts producing tons of space junk recently.