Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_lunar_landings.thumb.jpg.b50378d0845690d8a03305a49923eb40.jpg

Ben the Ignorant

What good are 53 years of progress?

Recommended Posts

i think Israel did well, its not like it isnt one the ways to land on the moon eh, thay should have a best of crash landing on the moon comp ?. charl. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cost of Apollo program $25.4 Billion, cost of Israel's Beresheet program $100 million.  :) 

Jim 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And to be fair there was a couple of cock ups in the Apollo program too. At least there was no loss of life with this one.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Stub Mandrel said:

Use a British engine that fails to restart at a critical moment?

Probably had a Win10 computer to restart it :grin:

Dave

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, saac said:

Cost of Apollo program $25.4 Billion, cost of Israel's Beresheet program $100 million.

I was refering to the first robotic landing the Soviets did in 1966, not the american manned landings. I don't know their budget, I don't know how their currency of the time translates into today's dollars or euros, but they had to invent the tech while they were using it, and had many successes despite some failures due to the Cold War pressure to foolishly go too fast.

Israel and other countries benefit from decades of prior experience and don't succeed, like when China's first lunar rover stupidly got jammed by dust, as if lunar dust was an unknown factor that can't be tested for.

The israeli bot wasn't subjected to more accelaration than other machines, no extraordinary amount of radiation, no harsh solar heat like the Parker probe, no special challenge, no urgent time pressure. Yeah, I read about the british-made engine that didn't work, but that only displaces the question: why such failures when other probes and satellites work fine after years spent in space enduring tougher conditions?

A small engine for slowing down a lightweight probe in the Moon's weak gravity is really not a big challenge for engineers. Millions of car engines made without the individual scrutiny of space gear start and restart all day, so why such a failure when every detail of the machine has hours of quality control and testing? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, xtreemchaos said:

i think Israel did well, its not like it isnt one the ways to land on the moon eh, thay should have a best of crash landing on the moon comp ?. charl. 

True, the prettiest crater, the largest crater, the most artistic abstract pile of debris, they could compete for a lot of honors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ben the Ignorant said:

I was refering to the first robotic landing the Soviets did in 1966, not the american manned landings. I don't know their budget, I don't know how their currency of the time translates into today's dollars or euros, but they had to invent the tech while they were using it, and had many successes despite some failures due to the Cold War pressure to foolishly go too fast.

Israel and other countries benefit from decades of prior experience and don't succeed, like when China's first lunar rover stupidly got jammed by dust, as if lunar dust was an unknown factor that can't be tested for.

The israeli bot wasn't subjected to more accelaration than other machines, no extraordinary amount of radiation, no harsh solar heat like the Parker probe, no special challenge, no urgent time pressure. Yeah, I read about the british-made engine that didn't work, but that only displaces the question: why such failures when other probes and satellites work fine after years spent in space enduring tougher conditions?

A small engine for slowing down a lightweight probe in the Moon's weak gravity is really not a big challenge for engineers. Millions of car engines made without the individual scrutiny of space gear start and restart all day, so why such a failure when every detail of the machine has hours of quality control and testing? 

Modesty and humility are not really your strong points are they ?

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, John said:

Modesty and humility are not really your strong points are they ?

I don't know why you bring that up. My humility or lack of it has nothing to do with why a technology that's already old and proven has such failures.

Edited by Ben the Ignorant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i feel sorry for the clangers, having to make a environmental movement to clean the moon up ?..

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, xtreemchaos said:

i feel sorry for the clangers, having to make a environmental movement to clean the moon up ?..

The Iron Chicken does seem to be struggling right at this moment ??

Panic over, Tiny and Small have come to the rescue...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree it should be easy to land on the Moon now but the technology hasn't changed much if at all since the 50/60s so failures are inevitable.

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ben the Ignorant said:

so why such a failure when every detail of the machine has hours of quality control and testing? 

Apparently it had to be stopped and restarted before it was fully cooled down and I think this was not a situation that had been tested. I guess budget had something to do with that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

Apparently it had to be stopped and restarted before it was fully cooled down and I think this was not a situation that had been tested. I guess budget had something to do with that.

I heard it was some form of glitch which stopped the engine and they couldn't restart it in time.

I think saying going to the moon is easy is not quite grasping the challenges involved. Of course it should be achievable given that it has been done before, and no doubt give SpaceX a decade or so and they will be doing similarly spectacular things on other planets as they are doing here landing their boosters back on Earth. That's not to say any of it is easy though, it is an incredibly complex business.

I assume that the Israeli team had no direct experience themselves so to an extent would have been learning as they went.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ben the Ignorant said:

I was refering to the first robotic landing the Soviets did in 1966, not the american manned landings. I don't know their budget, I don't know how their currency of the time translates into today's dollars or euros, but they had to invent the tech while they were using it, and had many successes despite some failures due to the Cold War pressure to foolishly go too fast.

Israel and other countries benefit from decades of prior experience and don't succeed, like when China's first lunar rover stupidly got jammed by dust, as if lunar dust was an unknown factor that can't be tested for.

The israeli bot wasn't subjected to more accelaration than other machines, no extraordinary amount of radiation, no harsh solar heat like the Parker probe, no special challenge, no urgent time pressure. Yeah, I read about the british-made engine that didn't work, but that only displaces the question: why such failures when other probes and satellites work fine after years spent in space enduring tougher conditions?

A small engine for slowing down a lightweight probe in the Moon's weak gravity is really not a big challenge for engineers. Millions of car engines made without the individual scrutiny of space gear start and restart all day, so why such a failure when every detail of the machine has hours of quality control and testing? 

All I was trying to get across Ben was the gap in resources behind both missions. Not just cost either, the USA took a decade and put the full backing of the state behind it. With all of these space programmes a large portion of the likelihood of success comes with how much redundancy you can afford and how much time and money you give to testing, retesting and retesting again.  If Israel's  experience here shows us anything perhaps it is just how difficult these missions are and just how well the Apollo missions went. I guess we may find out why it din't decelerate once they complete their investigation - rogue code, electronic failure. vibration, thermal induced failure, the list goes on. 

Jim 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stu said:

The Iron Chicken does seem to be struggling right at this moment ??

Panic over, Tiny and Small have come to the rescue...

The Soup Dragon ain't to happy either :) 

Jim 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Davey-T said:

Probably had a Win10 computer to restart it :grin:

Dave

You beat me to it!

Olly

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ollypenrice said:

You beat me to it!

Olly

Lol could you imagine the reaction if they found out it was the result of a forced update. Oh please, please, please let it be ...  :) 

Jim 

  • Haha 4
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, saac said:

Lol could you imagine the reaction if they found out it was the result of a forced update. Oh please, please, please let it be ...  :) 

Jim 

Oh yes!

Olly

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that would be funny! 

  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I think the Israelis did quite well considering.        The technology involved is always going to throw a hissy at some time,
whichever nation embarks on  these ventures. We have to be thankful this wasn't a manned attempt,
although perhaps a corrective intervention could have been performed.

The recent Boeing airliner tragedies Illustrate the fragility of complicated electronic devices.
They don't always perform to rigid requirements.  Sad, but true.

Ron.

 

Edited by barkis
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Stub Mandrel said:

Use a British engine that fails to restart at a critical moment?

There was nothing wrong with the engine, it was shut down by a stupidcomputer that glitched, but restarted when they finally got the computer to behave.

Comparing the cost of this with Apollo is unfair, the Americans had to develop *everything* from scratch, and in the process built what is *still* the heaviest lift rocket that ever successfully ran, and was man-rated to boot.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.