Israel lands on the moon

[brian100]

One of my theories is if you were to land a craft on the moon that you would not be able to slow it down and crash. B/c you're in a vacuum with no brakes.

 

 

Edited September 17, 2019 by brian100
typo

[Tatetopa]

brian100 that is what retro rockets are for.  Have you taken any science classes?  These are good questions to ask a teacher.

[brian100]

You wont be able to control orientation. That's why it flipped.

 

And do you see those craters?

Edited September 17, 2019 by brian100
add more

[ChrLzs]

May I suggest you pick topics that you have an interest in, and at least a basic understanding of?

To slow down in a vacuum, you just turn your spacecraft (or it's nozzles) so that the rockets fire ... go on have a guess! ....backwards.

It's not exactly difficult rocket science, and frankly, if you were even vaguely interested in space travel, then that is something you would know...

My suspicion is that you are not interested, in anything other than trolling.

 

Just now, brian100 said:

You wont be able to control orientation. That's why it flipped.

That's not correct.  It's wrong.  And rather silly.  IF the software works properly and the rockets fire properly, it's perfectly doable.  If you have an astronaut on board, they can do it. {cough}Apollo{/cough}.  Would you like a long list of spacecraft that have used that technique successfully?

Get off your lazy backside and look it up.

[brian100]

1 minute ago, ChrLzs said:

If you have an astronaut on board, they can do it. {cough}Apollo{/cough}

So that's the secret.

[brian100]

Israel first has to land the lander to make sure they can land a man. Make sense to me.

[brian100]

Quote

Indian spacecraft launched last month is now orbiting moon

 

Chandrayaan will continue circling the moon in a tighter orbit until reaching a distance of about 100 kilometers (62 miles) from the moon's surface.

The lander will then separate from the orbiter and use rocket fuel to brake as it attempts India's first moon landing on a relatively flat surface between two craters in the south polar region on Sept. 7 — an area where no moon landing has been attempted before.

The success rate of landing on the moon is only 37%,

https://news.yahoo.com/indian-spacecraft-launched-last-month-062019651.html;_ylt=AwrXnCZ6VYBdewMA7CHQtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTByYnR1Zmd1BGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--

 

Delayed by a week so we get to find out again.

Edited September 17, 2019 by brian100
add more

[brian100]

Oh bummer  (yeah why am I surprised)

 

Quote

Why Is It So Damn Hard to Land on the Moon?

• On Friday, Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) lost contact with its Vikram lander shortly before it was scheduled to touch down on the moon.

• ISRO officially announced on Twitter that it has located its Vikram lander and is trying to reestablish contact.

• Here, aerospace engineers explain why landing on the moon is so difficult.

• Millions watched Friday as India attempted to set its Vikram lander down near the moon’s south pole. After separating from its orbiter earlier in the week, Vikram sped toward the lunar surface at a top velocity of roughly 5,381 feet per second. In order to land safely, it would have to come to a near full stop in a matter of minutes.

  And then, suddenly, just a mile above its destination, silence.

https://news.yahoo.com/why-damn-hard-land-moon-162800759.html;_ylt=AwrXoCAuV4Bd_FcADw7QtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTByb2lvbXVuBGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--

Edited September 17, 2019 by brian100
add more

[Peter B]

22 minutes ago, brian100 said:

You wont be able to control orientation. That's why it flipped.

 

And do you see those craters?

Controlling orientation is pretty straightforward, and it's used by spacecraft in orbit as well as those landing. This is technology which was sorted out by American and Soviet rocket engineers by the early 1960s and is very well understood.

Spacecraft are fitted with accelerometers which measure rotation in each of three axes (up-down, left-right and forwards-backwards). Any unwanted rotation in a spacecraft as it's landing is managed by a Reaction Control System - small rockets which point in those three axes. If the spacecraft starts to "flip" this is detected by the accelerometers and the appropriate combination of RCS rockets fired to counteract the movement.

Obviously problems can arise if an accelerometer malfunctions, or an RCS rocket malfunctions.

But keep in mind the Americans and Soviets landed unmanned spacecraft on the Moon in the 1960s. And China has managed it in the last few years too.

[brian100]

Peter I just showed 2 nations trying it.

[brian100]

Oh wow...

Quote

Vikram sped toward the lunar surface at a top velocity of roughly 5,381 feet per second.

I guess the retro rockets don't work?

[Peter B]

6 minutes ago, brian100 said:

Peter I just showed 2 nations trying it.

And I just named three nations which have succeeded in landing unmanned spacecraft on the Moon. In two cases countries on opposite sides of the Cold War succeeded.

[brian100]

8 minutes ago, Peter B said:

But keep in mind the Americans and Soviets landed unmanned spacecraft on the Moon in the 1960s. And China has managed it in the last few years too.

Maybe a parashoot would work better? But lol there is no air.

[Peter B]

1 minute ago, brian100 said:

Oh wow...

I guess the retro rockets don't work?

Yes, that's another way failure can occur.

And those craters you mentioned in an earlier post can be a problem too.

That's the thing with landing unmanned spacecraft on the Moon - everything has to go right for the landing to succeed, and if anything goes wrong then the spacecraft will crash. In the case of manned spacecraft then aborting the landing is always an option.

[brian100]

4 minutes ago, Peter B said:

And I just named three nations which have succeeded in landing unmanned spacecraft on the Moon. In two cases countries on opposite sides of the Cold War succeeded.

Nice, can you post any pictures of the lunar surface for me.

 

 

Edited September 17, 2019 by brian100
add a video

[Peter B]

2 minutes ago, brian100 said:

Maybe a parashoot would work better? But lol there is no air.

*sigh*

If that's a joke you forgot the smiley.

No, obviously with no air a parachute is pointless. In the case of landing on the Moon, rockets are your only option.

[brian100]

Wow this looks drastically different.

 

 

[Gwynbleidd]

51 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

brian100 that is what retro rockets are for.  Have you taken any science classes?  These are good questions to ask a teacher.

LOL you're so lovely and patient Tat

[Peter B]

Just now, brian100 said:

Nice, can you post any pictures of the lunar surface for me.

 https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/surveyor/

Just to be clear, that's the front page. You'll have to click on the links labelled "Surveyor # Images" to see the images.

Knock yourself out.

[brian100]

Here one of the high rez photos that china sent back

[brian100]

That's way different looking. This looks cool!

[brian100]

Absolutely incredible! You can see the galaxies!

[brian100]

[Peter B]

28 minutes ago, brian100 said:

Wow this looks drastically different.

 

 

Different from what, and in what way?

[Peter B]

16 minutes ago, brian100 said:

Absolutely incredible! You can see the galaxies!

I see you've uploaded an altered image from The Enterprise Mission, with no information about its source. I wouldn't pay too much attention to The Enterprise Mission if I were you. And you don't gain much from looking at such a drastically altered image anyway, particularly if we don't know where it's from.