India Acknowledges Lunar Lander Crashed(npr.org)
npr.org
India Acknowledges Lunar Lander Crashed
https://www.npr.org/2019/11/26/782890646/2-months-after-failed-moon-landing-india-admits-its-craft-crashed
35 comments
Condolences on the failed landing. That it got as far as it did continues to be a fantastic achievement. Space is hard. Good to hear that enough data was recovered to establish the cause of failure; that means it wasn't a total loss. Nothing to do but learn from it and move forward.
Landing on the moon is very hard.
Landing on the moon without a human at the controls is even harder.
Landing on the moon without a human at the controls is even harder.
That's arguable, the Soviets landed a rover in 1970 and it worked for about a year. Nobody regarded that as a greater achievement than American landings on the moon - and probably because it isn't.
You forget with the Apollo mission, the fleshy bits came back instead of staying on the moon.
It's really incredibly hard to understate just what a phenomenal accomplishment the Apollo mission was. I consider it one of the greatest accomplishments in the history of mankind. Not just sending a human on a rocket to the moon, but with enough finesse to make it a round trip. The bravery of the astronauts blows my mind. The risks were extreme.
And it was accomplished in 1969 — engineering with a slide rule. I wonder what was different with American culture 60 years ago that enabled such an achievement?
>I wonder what was different with American culture 60 years ago that enabled such an achievement?
You should read Peter theil's book zero to one then. In the book, he highlights how the culture have changed from taking deterministic risks to placing non-deterministic bets all over the place to minimize risks. This pessimism according to him came due to the numerous bubbles like dot-com bubble, the real estate crisis, and the clean energy bubble that have gone bust due to over optimism.
You should read Peter theil's book zero to one then. In the book, he highlights how the culture have changed from taking deterministic risks to placing non-deterministic bets all over the place to minimize risks. This pessimism according to him came due to the numerous bubbles like dot-com bubble, the real estate crisis, and the clean energy bubble that have gone bust due to over optimism.
If we're talking specifically about the Apollo 11 mission, there are quite a few other differences as well. The obvious one was that it was entirely fueled by politics to "beat the Russians." The other fact that few people seem to talk about today is how incredibly dangerous it was. There were many individual components that had known failure rates - some of them as high as 50% - and if any of them failed everybody would 100% die. Now combine all of these. Based on the limited testing they did (and don't forget the first Apollo crew died in training), there was at best a 1/6 chance of the mission succeeding.
If you had the chance to go to the moon but knew you had about a 10% chance of success (the odds improved substantially with later missions), would you do it? And keep in mind, you literally watched your colleagues - the original crew that was supposed to be the first on the moon - burn to death.
For all intents and purposes, going to the Moon was a military campaign. We had to do it, even if we killed people in the process (the Russians killed way more people than we did in their attempts). Americans (I cannot speak for other countries and cultures) just don't have that mindset anymore, for better and for worse.
If you had the chance to go to the moon but knew you had about a 10% chance of success (the odds improved substantially with later missions), would you do it? And keep in mind, you literally watched your colleagues - the original crew that was supposed to be the first on the moon - burn to death.
For all intents and purposes, going to the Moon was a military campaign. We had to do it, even if we killed people in the process (the Russians killed way more people than we did in their attempts). Americans (I cannot speak for other countries and cultures) just don't have that mindset anymore, for better and for worse.
> Russians killed way more people than we did in their attempts
I doesn't seem that support for that can be found in Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_ac...
"not included are alleged unreported Soviet space accidents, which are considered fringe theories by a majority of historians."
Maybe you refer to the overall conditions of all those involved in the projects (construction workers etc)?
Otherwise, I agree with your premise of a military campaign, the moon landing just wouldn't have happened without all the earlier development of nuclear missiles. Everything about the rockets, their propulsion and their navigation was first developed to successfully bomb the planned targets with the nuclear and thermonuclear warheads.
I doesn't seem that support for that can be found in Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_ac...
"not included are alleged unreported Soviet space accidents, which are considered fringe theories by a majority of historians."
Maybe you refer to the overall conditions of all those involved in the projects (construction workers etc)?
Otherwise, I agree with your premise of a military campaign, the moon landing just wouldn't have happened without all the earlier development of nuclear missiles. Everything about the rockets, their propulsion and their navigation was first developed to successfully bomb the planned targets with the nuclear and thermonuclear warheads.
> Maybe you refer to the overall conditions of all those involved in the projects (construction workers etc)?
This is what I meant, but I worded it very poorly. I appreciate the correction :)
This is what I meant, but I worded it very poorly. I appreciate the correction :)
> there was at best a 1/6 chance of the mission succeeding.
If you had the chance to go to the moon but knew you had about a 10% chance of success (the odds improved substantially with later missions),
That doesn't seem very plausible, given that six missions brought astronauts to the moon (plus one that famously failed but returning all the crew to earth alive).
If the initial odds were under 1/6, what brought them so much higher in the following missions that you had seven in a row without loss of human life?
That doesn't seem very plausible, given that six missions brought astronauts to the moon (plus one that famously failed but returning all the crew to earth alive).
If the initial odds were under 1/6, what brought them so much higher in the following missions that you had seven in a row without loss of human life?
I agree with you it seems so implausible that I question it myself. I do not know what upgrades were made to parts between missions. I believe a better understanding of atmospheric conditions can explain a lot of risk mitigation, but I can't imagine it being that significant.
Since I never actually mentioned it, my source is a documentary on Netflix (I don't remember which one, and it very well may no longer be there). Buzz Aldrin was describing how they were testing components, and one part in particular was tested 6 times and failed 3 times. There were some other parts he mentioned, and when you multiplied the cascading failures it came out to a 1/6 chance of success (he didn't calculate that number, and he mentioned there were other parts as well where he didn't list the failure rates - my 10% number is a fuzzy guess).
I admit memories are fuzzy, but I distinctly remember him saying there was a single component with a 50% failure rate. I assume they upgraded this part (as well as others) for future missions.
Since I never actually mentioned it, my source is a documentary on Netflix (I don't remember which one, and it very well may no longer be there). Buzz Aldrin was describing how they were testing components, and one part in particular was tested 6 times and failed 3 times. There were some other parts he mentioned, and when you multiplied the cascading failures it came out to a 1/6 chance of success (he didn't calculate that number, and he mentioned there were other parts as well where he didn't list the failure rates - my 10% number is a fuzzy guess).
I admit memories are fuzzy, but I distinctly remember him saying there was a single component with a 50% failure rate. I assume they upgraded this part (as well as others) for future missions.
With all due respect to Buzz, I think there was a bit of “and the fish we caught was this big” in his storytelling. The moon landing is amazing enough on its own without him shooting off about parts that failed half the time. It just fuels conspiracy theories when one of the astronauts can’t help but (probably) exaggerate. Again, massive respect to the guy, but if he’s wondering why conspiracy theories exist, stories like this help fuel them.
Also let me be clear, the moon landing conspiracy theories have been debunked pretty thoroughly, and the landing has been documented in painstaking detail, but we should be mindful that such an incredible accomplishment will inspire incredulity. Like how some people think the great pyramids were made by aliens because how could such an ancient civilization build them. Our reaction to conspiracy theorists should be to debunk them and educate them, not to call them crazy. In this case, they aren’t crazy, because if someone tells you they went to the moon and returned, you are right to ask questions. (I’m not talking about bad-faith people who will deny all the evidence)
Also let me be clear, the moon landing conspiracy theories have been debunked pretty thoroughly, and the landing has been documented in painstaking detail, but we should be mindful that such an incredible accomplishment will inspire incredulity. Like how some people think the great pyramids were made by aliens because how could such an ancient civilization build them. Our reaction to conspiracy theorists should be to debunk them and educate them, not to call them crazy. In this case, they aren’t crazy, because if someone tells you they went to the moon and returned, you are right to ask questions. (I’m not talking about bad-faith people who will deny all the evidence)
My option is that it was extreme belief in the superiority of humans.
The rise of the environmental movement made people feel like they are harmful just by existing, so people should "duck their head" as it were.
i.e if you want to do something better make sure it has no impact on anything.
The rise of the environmental movement made people feel like they are harmful just by existing, so people should "duck their head" as it were.
i.e if you want to do something better make sure it has no impact on anything.
Also, probably because of propaganda.
The first lunar landings were in 1966, and didn't have computers on board. Certainly, it was possible to land without a human or even a computer.
Not having a human to support or return massively simplifies the process.
Not having a human to support or return massively simplifies the process.
> The first lunar landings were in 1966, and didn't have computers on board. Certainly, it was possible to land without a human or even a computer.
Are you saying that the first lunar landings where made without humans or any sort of computer? I think the first landings without computers or humans were mostly impacts, not actual landings where the vessel is still intact afterwards.
Are you saying that the first lunar landings where made without humans or any sort of computer? I think the first landings without computers or humans were mostly impacts, not actual landings where the vessel is still intact afterwards.
It takes courage to admit failure.
Appreciate the transparency.
They were literally coerced to making the admission by lawmakers, if it weren't for them they'd still be "analysing data".
Being from India myself, I always believed these funds would be better spent on helping the less fortunate.
No my friend. On the contrary, this is how a country becomes rich. Space missions have hundreds and thousands of parts and services. If even half of these are sourced locally this gives a boost to the industry meaning a richer economy with more scientists and engineers and more engineering jobs. And when you have a rich competitive economy, you can fund a social safety net.
I suggest you read this: http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/08/why-explore-space.html?...
manderley(3)
Interesting. But I have personally witnessed poverty and people dying of hunger in front of my very eyes. I’d rather help those people than invest in failed moon missions.
I've seen this argument come up a lot. It inevitably comes up with regards to foreign aid as well, expeditions, and all sorts of pursuits.
The thing is, sending things to the moon is part of that fight too. Pouring every last cent into say, food, isn't the best approach. To build an economy to greater heights, there has to be demand and motivation for great things. Think of all of the industries and support that is stoaked as part of an effort like that. There's downward effects that ripple outwards for many, many degrees. New problems to be solved from just "how do we build a better flange?" to "how do we feed a staff located at a remote site?". I'm not talking trickle down economics here, but real impacts on a nation's economy. And a government can do this very effectivally (provided it does so with integrity).
The other part to this of course, is that there has to be something to take pride in, something to point to as an accomplishment, something visible and concrete. Something your kids can aim for and strive to become. As important as tackling say, poverty, or homelessness is, those are long term struggles that are hard to point to and say "see, that!" except over long periods of time.
So, really, I wouldn't feel bad they tried. They should. Yes, India has many problems to solve. And there's direct ways they can and should tackle those. But pursuing endeavors like this is important to, and has an impact on those immediate problems as well.
I genuinely hope they keep trying and we (the rest of the world citizenry interested in pushing mankind's exploration starward) hope they succeed next time. Space travel is hard. Really hard. But they'll get there, and the planet will be better for it.
(P.S. Read the link to that letter above again.)
The thing is, sending things to the moon is part of that fight too. Pouring every last cent into say, food, isn't the best approach. To build an economy to greater heights, there has to be demand and motivation for great things. Think of all of the industries and support that is stoaked as part of an effort like that. There's downward effects that ripple outwards for many, many degrees. New problems to be solved from just "how do we build a better flange?" to "how do we feed a staff located at a remote site?". I'm not talking trickle down economics here, but real impacts on a nation's economy. And a government can do this very effectivally (provided it does so with integrity).
The other part to this of course, is that there has to be something to take pride in, something to point to as an accomplishment, something visible and concrete. Something your kids can aim for and strive to become. As important as tackling say, poverty, or homelessness is, those are long term struggles that are hard to point to and say "see, that!" except over long periods of time.
So, really, I wouldn't feel bad they tried. They should. Yes, India has many problems to solve. And there's direct ways they can and should tackle those. But pursuing endeavors like this is important to, and has an impact on those immediate problems as well.
I genuinely hope they keep trying and we (the rest of the world citizenry interested in pushing mankind's exploration starward) hope they succeed next time. Space travel is hard. Really hard. But they'll get there, and the planet will be better for it.
(P.S. Read the link to that letter above again.)
Being from India as well, i think that sentiment does more harm
That’s a naive perspective. A few million dollars chafes very little in any other space.