www.tombraiderforums.com  

Go Back   www.tombraiderforums.com > Community Forums > General Chat

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-10-19, 12:09   #21
Nigel Cassidy
Professor
 
Nigel Cassidy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 4,837
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Catapharact View Post
Unfortunately, the Indian Moon Mission ended in failure:
Or maybe not: this video is of the opinion that the mission was mostly a success:

Nigel Cassidy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-19, 13:59   #22
Catapharact
Tomb Raider
 
Catapharact's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Canadiana
Posts: 22,886
Arrow

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nigel Cassidy View Post
Or maybe not: this video is of the opinion that the mission was mostly a success.
"Mostly" doesn't means that it was a success. Come on... This is not a profession where "participation medals" are warranted . If this was the case then a lot of my company's shelved R&D projects are all successes Lol!

Don't get me wrong, the mission did give India a lot of needed data for another shot at the Moon. But we can't neglect the fact that India has a wealth of information already at its fingertips with the successful U.S, Russian and Chinese Lunar Landings. Lets not kid ourselves; All the unsuccessful Lunar Landings done by each of the respective nations before India were deemed failures by the nations. Did they all learn from their failures and tried again? Absolutely!
__________________
I am sorry for not offending you. Please be patient. I'll get to you shortly.

Last edited by Catapharact; 01-10-19 at 14:08.
Catapharact is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-19, 16:27   #23
Nigel Cassidy
Professor
 
Nigel Cassidy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 4,837
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Catapharact View Post
"Mostly" doesn't means that it was a success. Come on... This is not a profession where "participation medals" are warranted . If this was the case then a lot of my company's shelved R&D projects are all successes Lol!

Don't get me wrong, the mission did give India a lot of needed data for another shot at the Moon. But we can't neglect the fact that India has a wealth of information already at its fingertips with the successful U.S, Russian and Chinese Lunar Landings. Lets not kid ourselves; All the unsuccessful Lunar Landings done by each of the respective nations before India were deemed failures by the nations. Did they all learn from their failures and tried again? Absolutely!
If you had watched the video you would have known that it's main argument is that the media only focussed on the failed landing while ignoring that this was only part of the complete Chandrayaan 2 mission. It consisted of the orbiter and the lander + rover, and while the landing failed the orbiter's mission is succesful and still going strong. He also argues that the lander and the rover weren't intended to function for more than 2 weeks anyway, so it's not that much of a loss. Certainly not the entire mission.

And just because a succesful landing has been done before doesn't mean you can just do it again: there is nothing routine about landing on the moon...
Nigel Cassidy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-19, 16:44   #24
Catapharact
Tomb Raider
 
Catapharact's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Canadiana
Posts: 22,886
Arrow

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nigel Cassidy View Post
If you had watched the video you would have known that it's main argument is that the media only focussed on the failed landing while ignoring that this was only part of the complete Chandrayaan 2 mission. It consisted of the orbiter and the lander + rover, and while the landing failed the orbiter's mission is succesful and still going strong. He also argues that the lander and the rover weren't intended to function for more than 2 weeks anyway, so it's not that much of a loss. Certainly not the entire mission.

And just because a succesful landing has been done before doesn't mean you can just do it again: there is nothing routine about landing on the moon...
But that is what I am arguing about.

The payload portion of the Mission was a success yes but then again, it was the same for the mission conducted by Israel's independently funded Moon Mission. Yet they and everyone universally agreed that it was a failure. The mission was a step by step process to DELIVER the payload to the Moon WITHOUT MAJOR INCIDENT so that important research information can be gathered.

THAT was the MAIN mission objective.

I quote this from the Chaanryan's Main Mission Briefing:

Quote:
The primary objectives of the Chandrayaan-2 were to demonstrate the ability to soft-land on the lunar surface and operate a robotic rover on the surface.
Quote:
The main scientific objective is to map and study the variations in lunar surface composition, as well as the location and abundance of lunar water.
So overall, the main Mission objective wasn't achieved and the Mission was a failure. Any other achievement is just gravy on top. To put it in perspective, its like sending a bombing mission to an objective littered with SAM sites, missing objective of the mission completely and then calling it a partial mission success because you made it back without getting shot by the SAMs.

Did you learn vital information about the location of the SAMs and thus can chart an even more accurate and streamlined pathway towards the objective? Sure. That doesn't negates the fact that the objective of the Bombing Mission still stands.

So yes, lets not dilly dally about it. Overall, the mission was a failure and the media was right to call it for what it is. HOWEVER, that doesn't means that nothing was achieved. They now just need to learn from their mistakes and try again.
__________________
I am sorry for not offending you. Please be patient. I'll get to you shortly.

Last edited by Catapharact; 01-10-19 at 22:06.
Catapharact is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-19, 17:59   #25
Nigel Cassidy
Professor
 
Nigel Cassidy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 4,837
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Catapharact View Post
I quote this from the Chaanryan's Main Mission Briefing:
As far as I can tell, that's from Wikipedia actually:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrayaan-2#Objectives

If not I like to see the link to the actual Chandrayaan website.

Anyway, I am not convinced that the landing actually was the primary objective, or even if they actually had a primary objective or that there just were several parts to the mission. I still do agree with the video that the media has an unwarranted 'glass half empty' approach to this mission or even neglect to mention the successful orbiter at all, and that does not give the Chandrayaan 2 mission the credit it deserves. And if the media did the same to the Israeli mission then they were just as wrong there.
Nigel Cassidy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-19, 18:56   #26
Sir Launcelot
Relic Hunter
 
Sir Launcelot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Slumped in front of my PC
Posts: 6,820
Default

If the mission is to put boots on the ground, and you don't do that, you have failed. Therefore, the Indian mission was a failure.

Getting any craft down onto the surface of a planetary body is a lot harder than just getting into orbit around it, a fact which has been demonstrated by the numerous crashes onto the surface of the Moon, Mars and Venus by various failed probes.

If Neil Armstrong had crashed the Apollo 11 lander onto the Moon and scattered bits of himself and Buzz Aldrin all over the lunar surface, leaving Collins to limp home to Earth in tears, you wouldn't call THAT a success, would you?
__________________
Fancy dropping down for a chat, then?
Sir Launcelot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-19, 22:01   #27
Nigel Cassidy
Professor
 
Nigel Cassidy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 4,837
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Launcelot View Post
If the mission is to put boots on the ground, and you don't do that, you have failed. Therefore, the Indian mission was a failure.
Yeah except I still haven't seen any proof that the sole purpose of the mission was to get boots (or rather: wheels) on the ground. And your Apollo 11 analogy is completely ridiculous since it was Collins' sole purpose at that moment to let the Service Module reunite with the LEM, whereas the Chandrayaan 2 orbiter was meant to gather data for a year (but is now going to do so for seven years because they spend less fuel than expected because things had been going so well, for Christs sake!) whereas the lander would never function any longer than 2 weeks.

I still stand by my statement: that the media is entirely focussed on the part of the mission that failed and does not mention the part that succeeded.

Well there is one I just found: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-49875897
Nigel Cassidy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-19, 22:32   #28
Catapharact
Tomb Raider
 
Catapharact's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Canadiana
Posts: 22,886
Arrow

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nigel Cassidy View Post
As far as I can tell, that's from Wikipedia actually:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrayaan-2#Objectives

If not I like to see the link to the actual Chandrayaan website.
Well here is the funny thing; I decided to pop into the official ISRO website to check out the ORIGINAL mission briefing that was posted up but wouldn't you know it? It has disappeared:

https://www.isro.gov.in/gslv-mk-iii-...yaan-2-mission

Instead of the original mission briefing, we have a modified DE-BRIEFING than kinda Mickey Mouse its way through the failed landing and tries to emphasize the "importance" of the Orbiter and the data it will collect:

https://www.isro.gov.in/launcher/gsl...yaan-2-mission

No surprise there as India tries to save face on this whole issue, but I will concede the point to you on the matter due to there being "not enough evidence" .

Quote:
Anyway, I am not convinced that the landing actually was the primary objective, or even if they actually had a primary objective or that there just were several parts to the mission. I still do agree with the video that the media has an unwarranted 'glass half empty' approach to this mission or even neglect to mention the successful orbiter at all, and that does not give the Chandrayaan 2 mission the credit it deserves. And if the media did the same to the Israeli mission then they were just as wrong there.
Lets say for objectivity sake that the Lander and the orbiter were both part of the Primary Mission Objective. OK, so you STILL had a 50% Mission attrition rate instead of the claimed 95% SUCCESS rate that India is stating.

What a load of bull.

A 95% success rate would mean that the Lander and the Rover suffered damage but wasn't significant enough to impede the operations of either the Rover or the Lander. I would go as far as saying that this was probably a 40% Success outline given the fact that the Orbiter (by default ) couldn't do its secondary mission of collecting the Rover and bringing it back.

So the mission pretty much turned into a modified Chaandryaan 1 profile. Considering that the cost of Chaandryaan 1 mission was about 56 Million Dollars compared to the 151 Million Dollars for the Chandryaan 2 Mission, I would still consider it a major loss.

So yes, I still stand by my point. A VERY IMPORTANT part of the primary objective wasn't achieved and the second part of the Primary Objective was modified as a resulting fallout from the failed first part of the Primary Objective and is way over the cost limit of the modified Mission Parameter.
__________________
I am sorry for not offending you. Please be patient. I'll get to you shortly.

Last edited by Catapharact; 02-10-19 at 01:03.
Catapharact is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-19, 03:45   #29
Sir Launcelot
Relic Hunter
 
Sir Launcelot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Slumped in front of my PC
Posts: 6,820
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nigel Cassidy View Post
Yeah except I still haven't seen any proof that the sole purpose of the mission was to get boots (or rather: wheels) on the ground. And your Apollo 11 analogy is completely ridiculous since it was Collins' sole purpose at that moment to let the Service Module reunite with the LEM, whereas the Chandrayaan 2 orbiter was meant to gather data for a year (but is now going to do so for seven years because they spend less fuel than expected because things had been going so well, for Christs sake!) whereas the lander would never function any longer than 2 weeks.

I still stand by my statement: that the media is entirely focussed on the part of the mission that failed and does not mention the part that succeeded.

Well there is one I just found: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-49875897
You skip lightly past the whole national prestige element, which was the purpose of the Apollo program (to beat the USSR to the Moon), and figures largely in any nation's intent when they send something to the Moon, if for no other reason than to stake a claim in any future exploitation of the Moon.

There is NOT a little lander with the Indian flag on it sitting on the Moon. They just plain failed. They can try again.

Insofar as data gathering goes, that is really not that important now - the moon has been sniffed over a lot, we've landed on it and brought back rocks and dirt from it, for Christ's sake. The next thing is to get people up there, for an extended period of time, so they can explore the Moon right up close.

Right now only China and the USA have plans for that, AFAIK.
__________________
Fancy dropping down for a chat, then?
Sir Launcelot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-19, 12:18   #30
Nigel Cassidy
Professor
 
Nigel Cassidy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 4,837
Default

Since I consider arguing on the internet to be as useless and time wasting as putting wheels on a tomato I'm gonna end it right here, but I am just not impressed by any of the counter arguments to my point. I maintain that the media (with some exceptions) has had a glass half-empty approach to all this and has put that into the minds of the people as well. Which is very typical of the media: disasters make for good stories.
Nigel Cassidy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 00:26.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.