Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Thursday September 19 2019, @07:39PM   Printer-friendly
from the landers-don't-bounce-well dept.

https://spacenews.com/lunar-lander-failures-offer-a-warning-to-commercial-missions/

The apparent failure of an Indian spacecraft to land on the moon this month is providing a reminder to NASA and its commercial partners of the challenges of not only the missions themselves but sharing data on problems they experience.

If Vikram crashed during landing, as many fear, it will be the second spacecraft this year to fail to land on the moon intact. Beresheet, a lander built by Israel Aerospace Industries for SpaceIL, suffered a malfunction during a landing attempt in April, causing the spacecraft to crash to the surface. Unlike Vikram, the mission team declared the landing unsuccessful shortly after losing contact.

Those failures are taking place as NASA is working with nine companies in the Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) program on robotic lunar landers that can carry NASA research payloads to the surface of the moon. Two of those companies, Astrobotic and Intuitive Machines, have awards from NASA to carry payloads on missions scheduled for launch in 2021.

None of the nine companies have yet to fly their landers, and the recent failures provide a reminder of how difficult it is to soft-land on the moon.

"From a management perspective, we just know this is hard and it's clear that our contractor pool has a steep challenge on their hands," said Camille Alleyne, deputy manager of the CLPS program at NASA's Johnson Space Center, during a Sept. 12 panel discussion at the American Astronautical Society's Wernher von Braun Memorial Symposium in Huntsville, Alabama.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by ElizabethGreene on Thursday September 19 2019, @08:57PM (8 children)

    by ElizabethGreene (6748) Subscriber Badge on Thursday September 19 2019, @08:57PM (#896253) Journal

    When considering India and Israel's difficulty in landing on the moon, also keep in mind America's Ranger program [wikipedia.org].

    Spoiler: We lost Ranger 3,4,5, and 6 before a successful impact mission.

    The moon is hard. Soft landing is really hard.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=2, Informative=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 19 2019, @09:13PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 19 2019, @09:13PM (#896259)

    The technology is getting better. Much better computers, ion engines, etc. There are many previous examples to learn from. So more governments and private entities should be getting it right on their first try.

    China got it right on their first try in 2013 with Chang'e-3. Chang'e 1 was an orbiter deliberately crashed into the surface and Chang'e 2 was redirected to explore an asteroid.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 20 2019, @12:00AM (2 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 20 2019, @12:00AM (#896294) Journal

      So more governments and private entities should be getting it right on their first try.

      Clearly, they're not using enough unicorn poo in the fuel mix.

      Since when has lunar landings been something you get right on the first try?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 20 2019, @12:33AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 20 2019, @12:33AM (#896309)

        You have powerful computers and software that can simulate the entirety of the mission.

        You have a number of examples of past failures and successes. You can see where others messed up and learn from their mistakes.

        Private companies are now trying to land on the moon. A private company may have monetary incentives to get it right that governments didn't have.

        This isn't the 1950s. Every part of launching and landing a spacecraft on the moon is something that has been done before. The achievement is less spectacular when you just have to copy someone else's work.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday September 21 2019, @02:37AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 21 2019, @02:37AM (#896704) Journal
          And yet, the problem remains. None of the things you mention actually helps that much. Computer simulations are only as good as the simulation, which hasn't been tested in your use case. Past examples of success and failure are of limited utility when you're doing something new. Incentives are merely incentives. They don't insure that your efforts will succeed.

          This isn't the 1950s. Every part of launching and landing a spacecraft on the moon is something that has been done before. The achievement is less spectacular when you just have to copy someone else's work.

          One thing that hasn't changed from the 1950s is that you still need to do something in order discover how to do it right.

  • (Score: 2) by Snotnose on Thursday September 19 2019, @11:39PM

    by Snotnose (1623) on Thursday September 19 2019, @11:39PM (#896290)

    I was 11 when Neil and Buzz landed on the moon. I had a stereo reel to reel tape deck recording, with a mic on both sides of the TV (yeah, I didn't quite get stereo. It was 1969 and I was 11, deal with it). Whatever, I was a space nut.

    This is the first I've heard of the Ranger program. Thanks for the link.

    --
    Why shouldn't we judge a book by it's cover? It's got the author, title, and a summary of what the book's about.
  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday September 19 2019, @11:54PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday September 19 2019, @11:54PM (#896293) Journal

    I thought the moon was harsh. Nobody said anything about hard!! :^)

  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 20 2019, @12:00AM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 20 2019, @12:00AM (#896295) Journal

    I do recall the Ranger program, but only very sketchy details. The bits I heard at the time had no real impact on me. The manned missions were the only thing I cared about!! The same was probably pretty true of the media.

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 20 2019, @12:22AM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 20 2019, @12:22AM (#896302) Journal
    That whole stretch before the Apollo missions is roadmap for doing unmanned missions right. Twenty missions which methodically got important technology and research right while simultaneously exploring a bit of the Moon.