Skdas
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2017
- Messages
- 204
- Likes
- 427
Is that a standard or announced before hand assuming that this would occur?4 hours for moon dust to settle, let’s hope for the best.
Is that a standard or announced before hand assuming that this would occur?4 hours for moon dust to settle, let’s hope for the best.
Its more of a technical issue than a budget issue.I'm not broken up about failure. It happens. It's rocket science.
What I'm afraid of is ISRO probably having to justify its budget again to the snakes at home.
Estimate given by ISRO, when every thing goes according to plan. The lander only starts operations only when the dust settles down because of engine thrust. That is 4 hrs from landing.Is that a standard or announced before hand assuming that this would occur?
Budget not an issue in this case...............I'm not broken up about failure. It happens. It's rocket science.
What I'm afraid of is ISRO probably having to justify its budget again to the snakes at home.
Plausible.If we analyze the projected trajectory to the actual, we see that the horizontal component of velocity was reduced more than projected. That means the lander will land in a different place with different elevation(probably?). If the the elevation is higher then the lander can strike hard and the shock could trigger a safety shutdown. Let's wait.
I mean the usual "does our country need expensive space programmes when we have so many problems" tripe.Its more of a technical issue than a budget issue.
The lander was supposed to map the terrain and Chose it's landing site. So all talk of trajectory deviations is mute. It could have been the autonomous decision of lander .Plausible.
Because at the end of "Hard Braking" it was over speeding at a lower altitudes... A very small deviation from the central green optimum path. As a feedback loop the thrusters over compensated with a bit more thrust , hence reducing the horizontal component a bit more than needed. The "Fine Braking" phase then tookover. That was the reason we missed the landing spot by a km or so...
But I don't think it hit a moon mountain or something, probably it has landed but on a side of a crater wall... I just don't want it to roll over post soft touchdown.
Rocket science is easy (we know all the theories relating to rocket science have extremely good predictive capabilities and are well understood), rocket engineering on the other hand, is difficult.I'm not broken up about failure. It happens. It's rocket science.
What I'm afraid of is ISRO probably having to justify its budget again to the snakes at home.
Modi already said, he supports ISRO, no need to worry in this regard.I'm not broken up about failure. It happens. It's rocket science.
What I'm afraid of is ISRO probably having to justify its budget again to the snakes at home.
Anybody who makes that argument should be fucked sideways with a wooden stick , still attached to the forest it came from....I mean the usual "does our country need expensive space programmes when we have so many problems" tripe.
This failure (if) would be showcased as money sunk by opposition, especially since the budget was raised on account of this mission.
How can you say that chance of crash is 99% when we had nominal trajectory after hard breaking? There is equal probability of a crash and comms failure.Deviation was within acceptable limit. orbiter will make it clear what happened, chances of crash are now 99%.
Nope opposition won't question space program. This poor india trope is by socialist writers in news and foreign press duo output.I mean the usual "does our country need expensive space programmes when we have so many problems" tripe.
This failure (if) would be showcased as money sunk by opposition, especially since the budget was raised on account of this mission.