- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.ml
- space@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.ml
- space@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
I’d like to share a design concept with IM given that this is their second moon topple:
I mean, you’re not wrong. A low center of mass is legitimately a good idea.
The first one fell over and sank into the
swampcrater.Sooooo we built another one
That sank into a crater. So we built a third one. That burned down, fell over, and then sank into a crater. But the fourth one stayed up. And that’s what you’re going to get, Lad, the strongest spacecraft on all of the Moon.
But I just want to sing
- Not to leave the room… even if you come and get him.
No, no. Until I come and get him.
- Until you come and get him, we’re not to enter the room.
No, no, no… etc.
Breaking news, space is really really hard
It’s not space that’s hard. It’s the stuff you encounter when you run out of space that’s hard.
Like when you run into me bc I’m hard 4 u bb. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
A hard void.
When one day we get people back on the moon, is there a chance these devices could be brought back online?
More likely salvaged as part of a permanent moon base.
Well, if we have boots on the moon, at that point we don’t need probes like these. At that point you just drop a sensor, or whatever experiment you want directly on the surface.
I was looking at it from the perspective of all the failed probes we’ve sent and whether or not the lost costs/missions could be recouped or completed somehow.
Depends on how long it sits there, the lunar surface has a pretty wide range of temperatures that cause wear, lots of radiation and the regolith is quite abrasive. But realistically by the time something gets there that could put it back it’ll probably not be worth it from anything but a historical standpoint.
I hadn’t considered the damage from radiation. Thanks for the perspective.
Brought back*
No need for this trash on the moon, even if it works.
Company that topled a mooncraft… topled another mooncraft.
Landing a fridge on those spindly little legs did seem a bit… optimistic…
I really don’t understand the tall moon lander strategy… I mean, if you’re going to design it with a high center of gravity, then design it to fall over… Just use two landing legs instead of four, to ensure it falls over the right way. Then you put the solar panels on the side, so that when it topples over they’re facing up.
I’ve literally done this in Kerbal space program, it’s a pretty reliable landing system if your probe is tall.
Whoopsi-doodles. Well, more spare parts on the Moon, all the same.
He’s dead, Jim.
Seems Firefly Aerospace has got this all sorted, though. Amazing feat for them last week to have a flawless landing.
This could have potentially happened to Apollo 11, had Armstrong not taken over manually to steer clear of the targeted landing site with some rough areas. Maybe it would have been just leaning and not a big deal, but at the time we had no clear idea what a real landing would end up like. And I would hazard a guess that even though we’ve done a lot over the decades, the polar regions of the Moon are still pretty unknown.
…but at the time we had no clear idea what a real landing would end up like…
Surveyor - “What am I? Chopped liver???”
