Posts: 50975 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 08-10-2023 04:47 PM
Please use this topic to discuss Russia's Luna-25 mission, the country's first moon mission in almost 50 years.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 50975 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 08-10-2023 04:51 PM
Roscosmos live video
On August 11, at 02:10:57 Moscow time [7:10 p.m. EDT Aug. 10], Luna-25 will depart from the Vostochny Cosmodrome to the natural satellite of the Earth.
Together with RT, we are preparing a special broadcast for this event: live broadcasts from the Vostochny cosmodrome and the Cosmos pavilion at VDNKh!
The start of the live broadcast is August 11, 01:00 Moscow time [6:00 p.m. EDT Aug. 10].
issman1 Member
Posts: 1108 From: UK Registered: Apr 2005
posted 08-20-2023 05:15 AM
Most unfortunate.
SpaceAholic Member
Posts: 5267 From: Sierra Vista, Arizona Registered: Nov 1999
posted 08-20-2023 08:29 PM
To the extent the mission was essentially a political competition to buttress Russia's standing in the international community, this outcome was welcome.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 50975 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 08-20-2023 10:27 PM
Without negating that perspective, we should also remember that the people working on the mission — including engineers and scientists who have devoted the past 20+ years to sending this probe to the moon — have little to do with the leadership of the country and because of the failure, may be looking at the end of their career in so much that it involves working on robotic probes.
OLDIE Member
Posts: 354 From: Portsmouth, England Registered: Sep 2004
posted 08-21-2023 03:52 AM
If the Russians had put more effort into their space programme, instead of their warmongering escapades, then they might have had more success.
Lasv3 Member
Posts: 468 From: Bratislava, Slovakia Registered: Apr 2009
posted 08-21-2023 04:47 AM
To say that the Luna 25 mission was "a political competition" is simply ridiculous. It was a mission as any other sent by any other nation or agency. Maybe these other missions are scientific endeavours but the Russian mission is political?
I do not understand how can anybody celebrate or be happy or satisfied when some space probe fails to reach its goals.
dom Member
Posts: 1052 From: Registered: Aug 2001
posted 08-21-2023 04:55 AM
I think the Schadenfreude comes from the fact that this noble scientific mission would have been hijacked by Putin’s rabid propaganda machine. I have to admit I’m not sad it failed…
Lasv3 Member
Posts: 468 From: Bratislava, Slovakia Registered: Apr 2009
posted 08-21-2023 05:58 AM
Before I take the liberty to a comparison from the past I have to say that I am a 100% fan and enthusiast of the Apollo program which is the greatest manned space program ever.
Apollo 8, which "saved the 1968" for the US, the year of Vietnam war, political demonstrations, human rights clashes, political assassinations, etc., will it be marked as "political" as well? And it was also used by the state propaganda, which, by the way, I do not see anything wrong with it.
Domestic circumstances were similar, so where is the difference?
dom Member
Posts: 1052 From: Registered: Aug 2001
posted 08-21-2023 07:47 AM
If you’re trying to equate the USA in the 1960s (which had many faults but was basically a civilised democracy) with Putin’s morally corrupt regime you’ve already lost the argument with the likes of me. As I said Russian science will have its day on the Moon again but I for one am glad this incident embarrassed the Kremlin.
MartinAir Member
Posts: 312 From: Registered: Oct 2020
posted 08-21-2023 08:32 AM
The prestigious, government run programs have always served as a morale booster and/or propaganda so the outcome in this case was indeed welcome.
Wasn't ESA also involved before the invasion?
Lasv3 Member
Posts: 468 From: Bratislava, Slovakia Registered: Apr 2009
posted 08-21-2023 08:32 AM
Well I think the Apollo 8 comparison fits perfectly but let´s agree that in the atmosphere of the global rusophobia our opinions cannot meet.
Axman Member
Posts: 133 From: Derbyshire UK Registered: Mar 2023
posted 08-21-2023 08:55 AM
I think it is a shame that Luna-25 failed.
Luna-25 was in no way a political mission.
I am angry that Putin launched a "special military operation" against Ukraine. Putin is a "tosspot" of the first order.
I am flabbergasted that so many rational people do not see that the breakup of a superpower and the establishment of "nations" where ethnicity and language overlap artificial borders did not lead to an even bigger conflagration and warmongering.
The above are all my sincerely held opinions, but they are all different arguments. They should not be conflated. But I'm not surprised they have been.
dom Member
Posts: 1052 From: Registered: Aug 2001
posted 08-21-2023 09:12 AM
I’m certainly not Russophobic, as there is much to admire about that culture but the fact remains that the country is now run by a criminal regime that would have highjacked the “science” of Luna 25 for its own sick propaganda. Thankfully circumstances have prevented that outcome. I’ll be routing for future Russian missions when Putin is long gone…
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 50975 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 08-21-2023 09:31 AM
quote:Originally posted by MartinAir: Wasn't ESA also involved before the invasion?
ESA wasn't involved in Luna 25, but JAXA and then ISRO were both one time partners (or almost partners) in the mission. JAXA had intended to deploy penetrators near two of the Apollo sites, while ISRO would have combined efforts with its Chandrayaan program.
Headshot Member
Posts: 1238 From: Vancouver, WA, USA Registered: Feb 2012
posted 08-21-2023 11:04 AM
Getting away from the politics of this mission, I would like to point out that pinpoint landing near either of the lunar poles is somewhat more complicated than the previous near equatorial missions (previous Lunas, Apollo, Surveyor, and others).
So far only three spacecraft have successfully soft-landed beyond 40 degrees from the lunar equator. Two were Chinese (both near 45 deg) and one was from the USA (Surveyor VII, near 41 deg). Surveyor was direct descent, with no time in lunar orbit and not a pinpoint landing mission.
Until we have an intact lander safely on the ground within 5 degrees of a lunar pole, I will withhold comments concerning Russian competency.
Axman Member
Posts: 133 From: Derbyshire UK Registered: Mar 2023
posted 08-21-2023 12:20 PM
It should in theory be no more difficult to land a probe on the lunar poles than one on the lunar equator.
It would take more energy to do so, and the mid course corrections would need to be more precise, but overall not a great more difficult.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 50975 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 08-21-2023 01:31 PM
This has no relevance to why Luna 25 failed, but landing at the moon's south pole is more difficult than landing at the equator due to the difference in terrain, visibility and temperature.
Equatorial landings can target wide open seas (mare) that are well lit. The same conditions are not available at the lunar south pole, at least not within the vicinity of the ice that is the primary reason to go there.
Axman Member
Posts: 133 From: Derbyshire UK Registered: Mar 2023
posted 08-21-2023 01:49 PM
With all due respect, visibility of ground conditions is not the reason the Luna-25 mission failed.
I understand that landing on a house sized boulder is not ideal, and that targeting a continent sized 'flat' mare is statistically more likely to end in a successful outcome. But, the basins of the huge craters on the poles are not particularly dangerous in comparison to where the Surveyors and Apollo's landed.
The major problem with a lunar polar landing is the lack of equatorial lift into Earth orbit prior to a boost against the sun's gravity gradient, and needing a pinpoint lunar capture orbit at greater than 60° i.e navigation. The sole reason Luna-25 failed was due to an incorrect/failed course correction burn - a burn too far.
As for temperature, that only becomes a factor AFTER a successful polar landing. Temperature played no part in the failure of Luna-25 to land.
Axman Member
Posts: 133 From: Derbyshire UK Registered: Mar 2023
posted 08-21-2023 02:12 PM
Sorry if I sounded harsh there.
I've often been annoyed by terrible Sci-fi stories wherein we colonise the moon and establish polar bases to mine the permafrost ice in the permanently shadowed basins!
All these stories ignore the fact it would be economically, ergonomically, and ecologically more efficient and sustainable to establish a base on the equator and then construct a highway due south to the pole!!!!
The raisond'ettre for Luna-25 et al is to explore the potentiality of the southern basins, and as such, as in all pioneering adventures, they encounter the utmost difficulty.
Luna-25 failed because it is difficult to navigate a landing on the lunar surface from a 90° angle to the plane of the ecliptic.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 50975 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 08-21-2023 02:22 PM
You'll note that my reply began: "This has no relevance to why Luna 25 failed..."
I wasn't commenting on Luna-25, but rather on your general statement that landing at the south pole should "be no more difficult" than landing at the equator. As you've since acknowledged, that is just not the case, whether it be the need for a more robust propulsion system to reach the south pole or a more precise hazard detection system once on final approach.
Establishing a highway between the equator and pole sounds like a terrific idea — if you want to settle the moon. NASA describes the Artemis landings as being "sustainable" but there are no plans for the U.S. to be on the moon for even as long as humans have occupied the International Space Station. NASA wants to be on its way to Mars in less than 20 years and leave the moon to be industrialized by companies and other nations.
Axman Member
Posts: 133 From: Derbyshire UK Registered: Mar 2023
posted 08-21-2023 03:09 PM
I know the topic is up for discussion, but do we want to widen it to Mars colonisation?
And if we do, then isn't it an already given that NASA proposed a moon base at the lunar south pole precisely because of the probable water deposits. Water deposits in this case not as life giving sustainability for human colonies, but as extremely cheap fuel for Mars going supply vessels...
NASA may well be abandoning the moon to companies and other nations, but if Luna-25 had indeed managed to discover massive water deposits at the south pole I think NASA would be rethinking that strategy.
Blackarrow Member
Posts: 3621 From: Belfast, United Kingdom Registered: Feb 2002
posted 08-21-2023 03:55 PM
A small technical point: neither the Russian nor the Indian probe has been sent to "the lunar south pole" at 90 south. Both landings were planned for around 70 south: in Earth terms, that's like the difference between Barrow in northern Alaska and the North Pole. As I understand it, the landings were both expected to take place in regions with sub-surface water deposits which both nations hoped to sample. Landing in sunlight at 90 south is a whole different ball game.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 50975 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 08-21-2023 03:59 PM
If Luna-25 had been successful in collecting and analyzing lunar water/ice samples, would Russia have shared those results in any great detail with the world? And would a scientific paper out of Russia hold enough clout alone to affect NASA's plans?
Like how many licks it takes to get the center of a Tootsie Roll Pop, the world may never know...
SpaceAholic Member
Posts: 5267 From: Sierra Vista, Arizona Registered: Nov 1999
posted 08-21-2023 04:08 PM
175 according to this study.
OLDIE Member
Posts: 354 From: Portsmouth, England Registered: Sep 2004
posted 08-22-2023 04:40 AM
Robert, I like the comparison with a Tootsie Roll Pop (though I've never tried one). A similar comparison can be made with "How many angels can dance on the top of a pin?"
Axman Member
Posts: 133 From: Derbyshire UK Registered: Mar 2023
posted 08-22-2023 12:36 PM
quote:Originally posted by Blackarrow: A small technical point: neither the Russian nor the Indian probe has been sent to "the lunar south pole" at 90 south.
Yes, I was using the term "lunar south pole" in a similar manner to "Antarctic" - not meaning precisely the South Pole but the area situate within the polar regions.
And yes the landing zones were at approx 70° lunar latitude, but the orbit would need to be inclined at a steeper lunar longitudinal degree to achieve that landing. Hence why I was talking of a 'polar' (90°) orbit. I should have been more precise.
On a secondary (Robert's) point - I don't think Russia could have hidden the fact of massive water deposits even if they had tried. You wouldn't need to buy a popsicle to find out, it would have melted in the limelight (a terrible analogy for which I apologise for 😎).
SkyMan1958 Member
Posts: 1312 From: CA. Registered: Jan 2011
posted 08-24-2023 06:29 PM
Unfortunately I'm guessing that the plutonium based RTG that was to warm the spacecraft during lunar nights has been splattered around the landscape at the crash site.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 50975 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 08-31-2023 04:08 PM
NASA release
NASA's LRO Observes Crater Likely from Luna 25 Impact
NASA's LRO – the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter – spacecraft imaged a new crater on the Moon's surface that is likely the impact site of Russia's Luna 25 mission.
Above: This GIF alternates between LRO views from June 27, 2020, and Aug. 24, 2023 – before and after the appearance of a new impact crater likely from Russia's Luna 25 mission. (NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center/Arizona State University)
During its descent, Luna 25 experienced an anomaly that caused it to impact the surface of the Moon on Aug. 19.
Roscosmos, Russia's space agency, published an estimate of the impact point on Aug. 21. The LROC (short for LRO Camera) team and the LRO Mission Operations team were able to design and send commands to the LRO spacecraft on Aug. 22 to capture images of the site. The sequence began on Aug. 24 at 2:15 p.m. EDT (18:15 UTC) and was completed about four hours later, at 6:12 p.m. EDT (22:12 UTC). The LROC team compared images taken prior to the impact time and the sequence taken after and found a small new crater.
Above: During the descent to the surface, the Russian spacecraft Luna 25 experienced an anomaly that caused it to impact into the southwest rim of Pontécoulant G crater on Aug. 19, 2023, at 7:58 a.m. EDT (11:58 a.m. UTC). This image is 1,100 meters wide, and lunar north is up (LROC NAC frame No. M1447547309R). (NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center/Arizona State University)
Above: LROC NAC image enlarged four times centered on the likely Luna 25 crater. Image width is 275 meters; north is up (Frame No. M1447547309R). (NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center/Arizona State University)
LRO's most recent "before" image of the area was captured in June 2022 (frame No. M1410024427R); thus, the crater formed sometime after that date. Since this new crater is close to the Luna 25 estimated impact point, the LRO team concludes it is likely to be from that mission, rather than a natural impactor.
The new crater is about 10 meters in diameter and is located at 57.865 degrees south latitude and 61.360 degrees east longitude at an elevation of about minus 360 meters. The impact point was on the steep (greater than 20-degree grade) inner rim of Pontécoulant G crater, about 400 kilometers short of Luna 25's intended landing point at 69.545 degrees south, 43.544 degrees east.
posted 08-10-2023 04:47 PM
advertisement