Chandrayaan-2's Orbiter Is Still Going Strong (space.com) 31
An anonymous reader quotes Space.com:
India's Chandrayaan-2 orbiter attempted to drop a lander named Vikram near the lunar south pole yesterday afternoon (Sept. 6), but mission controllers lost contact with the descending craft when it was just 1.3 miles (2.1 kilometers) above the gray dirt. As of early Saturday morning (Sept. 7), the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) still had not officially declared Vikram dead. But comments by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi leave little room for optimism...
But Chandrayaan-2's journey isn't over yet, because the orbiter is still going strong. In fact, its yearlong moon mission has barely begun; the spacecraft slipped into lunar orbit just last month. Since then, the Chandrayaan-2 orbiter has been studying Earth's natural satellite with eight different science instruments, from an altitude of 62 miles (100 kilometers). The probe's data should eventually allow researchers to compile detailed maps of the lunar surface, revealing key insights about the moon's elemental composition, formation and evolution, ISRO officials have said.
Some of these maps will attempt to assess the moon's stores of water ice. A decade ago, Chandrayaan-2's predecessor, the orbiter Chandrayaan-1, showed that water is widespread across the lunar surface, especially at the poles... Vikram was supposed to deploy a rover named Pragyan, which would have mapped out the elemental composition of the landing site, potentially providing up-close information about ice in the area.
But Chandrayaan-2's journey isn't over yet, because the orbiter is still going strong. In fact, its yearlong moon mission has barely begun; the spacecraft slipped into lunar orbit just last month. Since then, the Chandrayaan-2 orbiter has been studying Earth's natural satellite with eight different science instruments, from an altitude of 62 miles (100 kilometers). The probe's data should eventually allow researchers to compile detailed maps of the lunar surface, revealing key insights about the moon's elemental composition, formation and evolution, ISRO officials have said.
Some of these maps will attempt to assess the moon's stores of water ice. A decade ago, Chandrayaan-2's predecessor, the orbiter Chandrayaan-1, showed that water is widespread across the lunar surface, especially at the poles... Vikram was supposed to deploy a rover named Pragyan, which would have mapped out the elemental composition of the landing site, potentially providing up-close information about ice in the area.
Impressive (Score:2, Insightful)
If we are going to escape this rock stuck in a gravity well in space, we will need many more missions like this one.
Re: (Score:2)
no these types of missions are pointless, chemical rockets to moon, of which we already know composition, do nothing of the sort.
Missions to other planets will do that. We'll need a different propulsion than chemical to have colonies elsewhere. Chemical rockets are useless for colonizing any other planet or asteroid belt.
Re: (Score:1)
Chemical rockets are useless for colonizing any other planet or asteroid belt.
I'm thinking if we colonize any other planet, whatever is living there will say, "There goes the neighborhood".
Or even non-living minerals will think the same.
Re: (Score:3)
most planets are lifeless and the universe is huge
the solar system has no other thinking creatures in it, it's ours, and it's over two light-years in diameter. Full of resources and free energy.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
no these types of missions are pointless, chemical rockets to moon, of which we already know composition, do nothing of the sort.
Missions to other planets will do that. We'll need a different propulsion than chemical to have colonies elsewhere. Chemical rockets are useless for colonizing any other planet or asteroid belt.
That's an interesting - if incorrect - viewpoint.
A mere ten years ago, this mission's predecessor discovered water on the moon. Sure, we suspected it previously, but only a decade ago did it get confirmed, by a similar mission to this one. That's a pretty big deal. This isn't sending galleons West from Spain to see what's out there. This is still a chemistry and geology frontier with discoveries to be made.
That said, the technologies we use will need to evolve. But really, solar sails won't work ve
Re: (Score:2)
Water on moon was confirmed and found by Soviets with Luna 24 in 1976. Old news, "mere ten years ago" is "fake news"
solar sails are also useless for manned missions, thrust too low.
so, as I said, these types of missions are pointless, nothing new to be gained but bragging rights.... if they can ever not crash.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
We need a space elevator and ion propulsion. Better start research on that harder-than-diamond string, and make hundreds of kilometers of it.
Re: (Score:2)
We will need tens of thousands of kilometres of the string, geosync is 40,000Km up, and we need to go further for the counterweight
Re: (Score:2)
no these types of missions are pointless, chemical rockets to moon, of which we already know composition, do nothing of the sort.
We know something about the moon, therefore we know everything about the moon?
Also, I don't think the Chandrayaan-2 orbiter used a chemical rocket. Can't find specifics anywhere for it's propulsion module, but from the mission profile it really looks like it's using an electric thruster, not a combustion engine.
So, yeah, not a chemical rocket to the moon of which we only know a little about its composition.
Chemical rockets are useless for colonizing any other planet or asteroid belt.
This is why Musk keeps saying "we'll just have to go there to convince the skeptics".
Re: (Score:2)
Even Musk says nuclear thermal rockets would be best on July 22nd. Not for liftoff from Earth as an accident could be disastrous, but instead for the thing to be assembled and made critical in orbit. Chemical rockets would be for getting to it.
For chemical rockets he was envisioning many refueling of a craft. That including a fuel production system on Mars. Won't happen in the next two decades.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Where'd you find that? I couldn't find those details anywhere?
Re: (Score:2)
"We"... that's a whole lot of rockets off the planet.
Or are you proposing some sense that people who aren't you or me, are you or me?
Earth has lots more to offfer (Re:Impressive) (Score:2, Informative)
This rock still has vast unpopulated areas remaining to be settled. The entire continent of Australia has what, five medium-sized cities? The other continent of Antarctica has none. Canada is unpopulated too, as is Russian Siberia. America's Midwest has towns offering free land [morningchores.com] — and, sometimes, even houses to would-be settlers. Vast deserts in Africa, Asia, and North America need only water to become bread-baskets.
Earth can double or even triple in population and we'll still be comfortable — an
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, there are resources on the planet to support all the people we have and more but not in the fashion we are used to. The haves would have to come down a fair piece to even out the distribution of resources. The political situation in a lot of places would need to be resolved so that resources can be shared among the diverse groups, warlords give up their shares, etc. Better sources of energy would be needed to avoid global warming and such.
The real problem is that Man is not really any different from
Re: (Score:2)
Earth can double or even triple in population and we'll still be comfortable
If you're only looking at square miles, perhaps. There are many types of resources that we are using up faster than the replacement rate.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt it strongly and you aren't offering citations. "Peak Oil" much?..
Re: (Score:2)
For helium the replacement rate is estimated at 3000 metric tons of helium per year throughout the lithosphere - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The same article gives a ballpark figure for what we release into the atmosphere every year (from where it eventually heads into space) - 169 million standard cubic meters were used in 2008.
3000 metric tons is about 18 million cubic meters - http://www.airproducts.com/Pro... [airproducts.com] - so even if we could capture all the helium generated by radioactive decay, we are still
Re: (Score:2)
Neither of your examples are germane to the discussion: getting to Mars or Moon — the only two bodies being close-to-medium range future — would get us neither more helium nor coal.
As I asked about oil earlier: "peak helium" much?
In short, there is no need for urgency or any drastic action. We don't need an oppressive government to spend tangible percentage of GDP on a space program (as we did on the pointless Moon landing). India is repeating our earlier
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but all those places can be inhabited by regular people. I am an elite tech bro who makes six figures coding web sites. I want it to be exclusive.
Look on the brighter side of life (Score:2)
There's something you've forgotten
And that's to laugh and smile and dance and sing
When you're feeling in the dumps
Don't be silly, chumps
Just purse your lips and whistle - that's the thing
Clarification upcoming (Score:2)
A decade ago, Chandrayaan-2's predecessor, the orbiter Chandrayaan-1, showed that water is widespread across the lunar surface, especially at the poles...
So, we might get a more definitive scientific proposal on why Earth has water at all. Many hypotheses seem as un-Occam as how sexual reproduction supposedly came into existence. Still a lot of science out there to "settle".
Re: (Score:2)
This is 10% science and 90% pissing contest on the part of India.
Or said another way: "We're a major power too like America, Russia and China because we can fling shit at the Moon also. Oh and by the way, this is totally for science: we desperately want to study water on the moon. Or unicorns. Or whatever."
from the glass-half-full dept (Score:2)
Well technically they did "land on the moon" (Score:2)
Unfortunately, it looks like it was not a safe landing. So I guess India could claim that they are the sixth country on the moon (US, Russia/Former USSR, Japan, China, European Space Agency and India). Although India already had the probe Chandraayan-1 on the moon which landed March 2009.
Re: (Score:2)
NEWS FLASH ! (Score:2)