Russia's Luna-25 Has Crashed Into The Moon: Tass

[NG Missile Vessels]

 

[Cheepek]

Nervous about ours now, looks like landing on the south pole is really really hard

 

[Skull and Bones]

Nervous about ours now, looks like landing on the south pole is really really hard

True, I hope Russia comes up with another mission shortly.

 

[1ndy]

True, I hope Russia comes up with another mission shortly.

Second space agency

Nervous about ours now, looks like landing on the south pole is really really hard

It failed way before landing attempt... So, you can know if it is hard only after CY3 landing attempt.

 

[SoulSpokesman]

Well, lets keep our fingers crossed.

Regards

 

[legacytiger18]

Nervous about ours now, looks like landing on the south pole is really really hard

there is a reason why nobody could ever land in south poll in the past 60 years , we are all very tensed after this news

 

[hussain0216]

there is a reason why nobody could ever land in south poll in the pass 60 years , we are all very tensed after this news

The reason is no o e really cares

The U.S, Russia, China have all sent probes to the moon

Do you think the U.S 50 years after landing a man on the moon couldn't?

The point is why would they spend money doing so?

 

[Cheepek]

The reason is no o e really cares

The U.S, Russia, China have all sent probes to the moon

Do you think the U.S 50 years after landing a man on the moon couldn't?

The point is why would they spend money doing so?

Name one country which has landed it's probe on the lunar south pole.

 

[serenity]

there is a reason why nobody could ever land in south poll in the pass 60 years , we are all very tensed after this news

So far only India and recently Russia have tried to do this.

It is not that it is difficult to land in the south pole of the moon.

Name one country which has landed it's probe on the lunar south pole.

None. But only one attempt in the past have been made by India and recently, two more attempts - one from India and one from Russia.

This does not equate to landing on the south pole of moon being overall more difficult than other landing that landed at the site they aimed for.

What you are saying is implying that lander x landing at site y being unique must mean it is somehow better. It would be akin to US claiming that because no one has ever landed precisely at the spot they landed any of their lunar landers, that they hold some sort of superiority. If you can control your orbiter and lander to land at site you designated, you can land at the south pole of the moon.

 

[Cheepek]

This does not equate to landing on the south pole of moon being overall more difficult than other landing that landed at the site they aimed for.

Proof?

 

[serenity]

Proof?

You have to prove that south pole landing is especially more difficult than any other lunar landing that lands at where the planners decided where they wanted to land. It is your implied claim after all. I'm certain neither of us are experts in orbital mechanics to prove either positions. It would however strike me as odd that south pole landing would be any more difficult than landing at a designated site.

Essentially the difficulty is in controlling where you land the lander. You can aim at site x and that x can basically be anywhere on the surface of the moon. The difficulty is in landing it at site x. If you can do that, you can land it at south pole... replace site x with some designated position at the south pole. Orbiters can maneuver around with thrusters and position themselves to land wherever they are designated to.

 

[Cheepek]

You have to prove that south pole landing is especially more difficult than any other lunar landing that lands at where the planners decided where they wanted to land. It is your implied claim after all. I'm certain neither of us are experts in orbital mechanics to prove either positions.

Everyone says it's hard, you claim something extraordinary here. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs, so where's your proof that landing on polar south is same as landing on other part of the moon?

Moon's South Pole is Full of Mystery, Science, Intrigue - NASA

Lee esta historia en español aquí.

www.nasa.gov

 

[serenity]

Everyone says it's hard, you claim something extraordinary here. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs, so where's your proof that landing on polar south is same as landing on other part of the moon?

Moon's South Pole is Full of Mystery, Science, Intrigue - NASA

Lee esta historia en español aquí.

www.nasa.gov

Who says it is hard? Your link says absolutely nothing about landing at south pole being harder than landing at a predesignated site x.

 

[Cheepek]

Who says it is hard? Your link says absolutely nothing about landing at south pole being harder than landing at a predesignated site x.

"At the lunar South Pole, the Sun hovers below or just above the horizon, creating temperatures upwards of 130°F (54°C) during sunlit periods. Even during these periods of illumination, soaring mountains cast dark shadows and deep craters protect perpetual darkness in their abysses. Some of these craters are home to permanently shadowed regions that haven’t seen sunlight in billions of years and experience temperatures as low as -334°F (-203°C).

Even using advanced sensors, the combination of terrain and lighting conditions will make it difficult to tell what the ground looks like from a vehicle descending to the lunar South Pole, and some systems may be vulnerable to rising and plummeting temperatures."

More here, since you can't open the link-

Astronauts descending to the lunar surface will be able to manually take control of a lander’s onboard automated guidance system if necessary, as Neil Armstrong did when the Eagle’s guidance system steered them four miles off course, heading toward a field of boulders. Armstrong had a clear, sunlit view of the Moon below, but Artemis astronauts will have a disrupted view, with long dark shadows hiding important terrain features. To help them navigate, they will have the advantage of preloaded maps providing topographic details from robotic missions like the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) along with advanced training using technology not available to Apollo crews.

 

[serenity]

"At the lunar South Pole, the Sun hovers below or just above the horizon, creating temperatures upwards of 130°F (54°C) during sunlit periods. Even during these periods of illumination, soaring mountains cast dark shadows and deep craters protect perpetual darkness in their abysses. Some of these craters are home to permanently shadowed regions that haven’t seen sunlight in billions of years and experience temperatures as low as -334°F (-203°C).

Even using advanced sensors, the combination of terrain and lighting conditions will make it difficult to tell what the ground looks like from a vehicle descending to the lunar South Pole, and some systems may be vulnerable to rising and plummeting temperatures."

I think perhaps you are opening this up to interpretation too much.

This article is not claiming that it is any more mechanically difficult to land on the moon's south pole.

Landers are able to withstand these sorts of temperature changes. After all the orbiters and lander modules circle around the moon, into sun's cover and behind the moon which means the temperature change is not an issue for orbiters and landers. No systems that are able to orbit and land on the moon's surfaces would have issue due to south pole's temperature differences since they already move into and out of the sun's cover by orbiting the moon during orbit and landing phases. Not American, Chinese, Russian, or Indian systems.

Visibility of dark shadows etc is talked about because the context of the article there is about "Earthlings to land, live, and work" as a combination i.e. settlement around the south pole due to its intrigues.

None of this refer to the actual mechanics of landing. But to each their own interpretations. Such an argument over interpretations would be pointless as much as we have already stated our case.