totm dec 2019 Russian Launch and Mission Thread

[SunlitZelkova]

What a bad start to the China-led International Lunar Research Station (ILRS) project, which Luna-25 was considered part of in the promotional and exhibition materials displayed in previous events.

I could see the ILRS ending up about as “international” as Tiangong- experiments from various countries are flown there, but every piece of hardware is otherwise Chinese.

Do we even know if Luna-26 is going to be a thing now that this has happened? Or if it was even concrete at all?

[K^2]

48 minutes ago, Minmus Taster said:

I wonder where it crashed, probably not on the far side since they probably wouldn't want to preform one of the burns out of range from earth. Probably near one of the poles if I had to guess.

The report of lost contact was pretty close to the burn. The anonymous information that the burn was 1.5x longer than it should have been also sounds a lot more credible since it's been confirmed that an incorrect burn led to the crash. In combination, it tells me that it was a very steep dive, and the impact would be on the same side as the burn, so yeah, near side is very likely.

Doesn't help us search for it, though. No ground-based telescope is going to be able to resolve it, and orbiters don't care where it happened. If we get true information about the burn duration that actually took place, and nothing else deviated from the plan, it should be possible to predict the trajectory well enough to direct an orbiter to search for the impact site. So maybe we'll get an image eventually. But we need the precise burn duration first.

28 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Do we even know if Luna-26 is going to be a thing now that this has happened? Or if it was even concrete at all?

25 was started pre-war and it already had a lot of troubles getting to launch. Luna-26 is an impossibility for the near future.

[Scotius]

Too bad we don't have any functioning seismometers on the Moon anymore. Those left by Apollo missions were turned off in the 1970'ties. There would be valuable data to obtain from relatively high-speed crash.

[kerbiloid]

2 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

What a bad start to the China-led International Lunar Research Station (ILRS) project, which Luna-25 was considered part of in the promotional and exhibition materials displayed in previous events.

Don't worry.

Hakuto-R, Beresh'it _{admins! you have to do something with the word filter!}, Chandrayaan-2...

Luna-25 has a good company.

15 minutes ago, Scotius said:

Too bad we don't have any functioning seismometers on the Moon anymore.

The first wise comment in this discussion.

[DDE]

3 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Do we even know if Luna-26 is going to be a thing now that this has happened? Or if it was even concrete at all?

Luna-26 is supposed to be* an orbiter, I don't see how Luna-25's failure should affect it, as opposed to Luna-27.

* given the effect on Luna-27, it would be logical to expect a Luna-25 redux, potentially scratched together from the more sophisticated test stands and spares, to be inserted into the program schedule, which would upset the number scheme

"Move fast and break things". You'll at least manage 14 times out of 45.

[Codraroll]

4 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Do we even know if Luna-26 is going to be a thing now that this has happened? Or if it was even concrete at all?

I would think they have planned the program in advance, and that each mission is not dependent on the success of the previous one. Even before they launched Luna-25, they must have known there was a certain chance it would not succeed, and take that into account when planning the way forward.

If Luna-26 has any concrete plans at all, there's probably a whole chapter about what happens if Luna-25 does not deliver as intended.

Edited August 20, 2023 by Codraroll

[DDE]

1 hour ago, Codraroll said:

I would think they have planned the program in advance, and that each mission is not dependent on the success of the previous one. Even before they launched Luna-25, they must have known there was a certain chance it would not succeed, and take that into account when planning the way forward.

Unfortunately, Luna-25 was the lunar landing demonstrator. Given that Luna-27 is supposed to land as well, preferably not as an impactor, Luna-25's failure creates a rather stark problem.

[Codraroll]

27 minutes ago, DDE said:

Unfortunately, Luna-25 was the lunar landing demonstrator. Given that Luna-27 is supposed to land as well, preferably not as an impactor, Luna-25's failure creates a rather stark problem.

Aha, that complicates matters.

Still, it can easily be un-complicated. Just remove that preference from the mission parameters for Luna-27. Make it an optional goal instead.

Edited August 20, 2023 by Codraroll

[CatastrophicFailure]

Sigh. Space is hard, Moon is harder.  Do svidanya, Chibi-Luna-25. 

[darthgently]

Space is hard.  Remotely landing accurately and gracefully from space, is the hardest part of space being hard going by lander and  rover history

 

[RizzoTheRat]

Loving the quote from Roscosmos, we've all been there...

 

Quote

Preliminary findings showed that the 800kg lander had "ceased to exist as a result of a collision with the surface of the Moon", it said in a statement.

 

[FleshJeb]

10 hours ago, K^2 said:

And yes, failures happen. Learning from mistakes and trying again is part of the industry. But patting oneself on the back and calling this a partial success is peak apologist behavior. It's bad manners, bad image, and leads to bad decisions down the line.

Someone less rude/more credible than me needs to say this in the SpaceX thread.

ALSO: Good luck to RosCosmos on the next one. Successful scientific missions are good for everybody.

Edited August 20, 2023 by FleshJeb

[darthgently]

45 minutes ago, FleshJeb said:

Someone less rude/more credible than me needs to say this in the SpaceX thread.

Yes, it is strange that someone more credible hasn't seen the need to though.

 

46 minutes ago, FleshJeb said:

ALSO: Good luck to RosCosmos on the next one. Successful scientific missions are good for everybody.

Absolutely!

[DDE]

5 hours ago, DDE said:

"Move fast and break things". You'll at least manage 14 times out of 45.

To quote a certain sniper on Telegram, Luna-25 wasn't just built by people who'd never built a planetary lander, the people who taught those people never built a lander either. They would've just barely caught the builders of Luna-24 and the various Marses retiring. A two-generation gap is combined with the desire to make every mission an overcomplicated Flagship-class because anything less wouldn't safisfy even formal funding criteria.

And I bet they also face a similar problem to the defense industry, who have such strict price controls for cost-plus comtracts that they have to either fudge the books to operate at above costs, or invent endless R&D that isn't as tightly scrutinized...

[FleshJeb]

20 minutes ago, darthgently said:

Yes, it is strange that someone more credible hasn't seen the need to though.

It's funny how expecting hostility from rabid fanbois stifles critique. Almost like the hype is purposefully engineered that way... Organizations that do this lose contact with reality and are setting themselves up for failure. NASA lost contact with reality (although with different symptoms) and they lost two shuttles because of it.

I enjoy picking on SpaceX, but in general, organizational culture as a failure mode fascinates me. One, because I've experienced it. Two, because it's independent of engineering talent. I used to work with a former Soviet engineer, and she's amazingly talented, but one of the reasons she emigrated is that she was tired of the culture of obfuscating mistakes.

[StrandedonEarth]

2 hours ago, RizzoTheRat said:

Loving the quote from Roscosmos, we've all been there...

 

Quote

Preliminary findings showed that the 800kg lander had "ceased to exist as a result of a collision with the surface of the Moon", it said in a statement.

 

Error 404: Probe not found.

[K^2]

2 hours ago, DDE said:

A two-generation gap is combined with the desire to make every mission an overcomplicated Flagship-class because anything less wouldn't safisfy even formal funding criteria.

I'm sure people who built the lander did the best they could with what they had and there is no shame in failure. I hope they get to work on other projects under better conditions. Unfortunately, the mission itself also became a political talking point, and people who used it as such clearly do not understand how these constraints impact mission success. My schadenfreude is directed entirely at them.

[DDE]

6 hours ago, K^2 said:

Unfortunately, the mission itself also became a political talking point, and people who used it as such clearly do not understand how these constraints impact mission success.

No more or less than any other space mission. It's been thoroughly forgotten until about two years back.

PR limelight is PR limelight.

Edited August 21, 2023 by DDE

[DDE]

Progress MS-22, deorbited as planned

https://ria.ru/20230821/gruzovik-1891187415.html

[darthgently]

10 hours ago, FleshJeb said:

 

I enjoy picking on SpaceX, but in general, organizational culture as a failure mode fascinates me

I like your honesty.  But I judge SpaceX by their record of successes alone, not on whether I enjoy picking on them or not picking on them.  It simply isn't personal and I don't see anything to gain by making my response to SpaceX based on my personal enjoyment.  Are they putting more payload to orbit than anyone else?  Are they doing it for less cost per kg to orbit?  Are they innovating?  Are their errors entertaining and educational?

[kerbiloid]

11 hours ago, K^2 said:

I'm sure people who built the lander did the best they could with what they had and there is no shame in failure. I hope they get to work on other projects under better conditions. Unfortunately, the mission itself also became a political talking point, and people who used it as such clearly do not understand how these constraints impact mission success. My schadenfreude is directed entirely at them.

+1

I believe the space agencies of Russia, Japan, Israel, and India should meet and discuss, what goes wrong with their lunar programs.

P.S.
When anyone's else lunar lander fails, it's an engineering problem. They'll try again better next time.
When the Russian one does, it's a political apocalyptical, indeed.

13 hours ago, DDE said:

To quote a certain sniper on Telegram, Luna-25 wasn't just built by people who'd never built a planetary lander, the people who taught those people never built a lander either. They would've just barely caught the builders of Luna-24 and the various Marses retiring. A two-generation gap

I would remind that Apollos, Luna's, and nuclear bomb were constructed by fulll n00bs in rocketry and nuclear physics.

So, the gap is not an excuse for lack of attention or lack of book reading.

It's btw about all four listed countries, and the SpaceX engineers together.

[kerbiloid]

The head of Roscosmos Yuri Borisov said that the Luna-25 abnormal mission termination was caused by the engine malfunction.

Instead of the cyclogram, it worked until shutdown, 127 s instead of 84.

https://www.interfax.ru/russia/917157

[Minmus Taster]

37 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

The head of Roscosmos Yuri Borisov said that the Luna-25 abnormal mission termination was caused by the engine malfunction.

Instead of the cyclogram, it worked until shutdown, 127 s instead of 84.

https://www.interfax.ru/russia/917157

So an issue with the navigation system caused the engine to overburn? Would make sense considering they removed the ESA nav components and didn't test it afterwards.

[kerbiloid]

14 minutes ago, Minmus Taster said:

So an issue with the navigation system caused the engine to overburn?

There is no single word in his speech about the navigation system. He just told about the engine which hadn't stopped in time.

Edited August 21, 2023 by kerbiloid

[Minmus Taster]

4 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

There is no single word in his speech about the navigation system. He just told about the engine which hadn't stopped in time.

Well a cyclogram would probably be part of the navigation system right? If there was an issue of some kind then the engine would default to the shutdown time mentioned in the article. It also makes sense they didn't mention it given that it was probably the results of not having ESA's planned landing equipment and having to rework the lander.