Talk:Moon Impact Probe

Indian English

The idiomatic style of Indian English is probably all fine and acceptable in India, but elsewhere it sounds like a misplaced pseudo-aerospace-pseudo-impressive lingo:

deposited on the surface -- it is clear that it was far from deposited, but shattered, or smashed, in Indian-British speech.

put into lunar orbit -- should be injected into a lunar orbit

depicted pictures --should be sent images

required for crashing -- is not really impressive, rather embarrassing

controlled lunar descent -- not - this was a crash landing

spin up rockets -- professionally speaking, there is no spin-up, but roll, or pitch or yaw; there are also no rockets, but maneuvering engines, or jets.

We would enjoy the article immensely had it been written professionally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.134.114 (talk) 14:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Can't be flying

Congratulations to India for the successful landing, but a flag (or anything else for that matter) can't be flying on the Moon, as there is no air. Rewording should be done?

CielProfond (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I removed the word (the sentence still works). 67.184.14.87 (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

misleading use of words

It is quite misleading to say that the MIP "landed" on the moon. It gives the impression that this was a soft landing, thanks to some kind of thruster, and the use of landing legs. If I understand things correctly (and i'm not sure because of misleading terms) the MIP in fact crashed on the moon at high speed, as it was planned that it should do. --AlainV (talk) 00:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Noted.--PremKudva^Talk 04:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a very good point, and I also object to using verbs in the present tense to describe the dubious feat. For example, in the Pay Load section, the first sentence should read, "The MIP carried three instruments", note past tense "carried". All of these fine instruments, including a high resolution quadrupole mass spectrometer (which any university natural science department would love to have), are now scattered around the south pole of the lunar surface, in a spray of high tech trash from yet another post industrial culture. Fantastic! India (crash) landed a probe on the moon! What new has really be learned here? That a developing country can erect a missile, shoot it at the moon and actually hit it! News Flash? Not! Been there, done that. This fourth rate stunt is more of a political coup than a break through in science. A pity that science is now the bitch of politics in this once great country and culture. 212.149.207.242 (talk) 10:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Read my post below regarding the crash landing and stop imagining things. 67.169.0.250 (talk) 08:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Did the flag reach the Moon?

This article says that India became the fourth nation to have an image of its flag on the Moon, but it sounds as if this must have been quite an explosion on impact. Would the flag have remained intact long enough to touch the Lunar surface, or would the explosion from the first contact of the probe to the surface have separated it into little monocolor pieces just beforehand? ;) Wnt (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Landing on South Pole =

In this section, someone has recently added, "Following the successful deployment of the MIP, the other scientific instruments aboard the orbiting Chandrayaan-1 would be turned on one by one, starting the next phase of the two-year mission.", and gave a media link to support this statement, which it does not. There is nothing to suggest that anything will be turned on after the crash landing. I've removed this statement for that reason, but kept the media reference. Although the referenced media link does not support the sentence above, it does mention the following: "Kalam’s rationale for including the MIP was that since Chandrayaan was orbiting the Moon at an altitude of 100 km above the lunar surface, a landing would make India’s presence felt on the Moon’s surface. He believed that if this was done, India could always stake a claim to a portion of the Moon." So, like dog pissing on a tree, India has, indeed, used its science and technology for astro-political purposes; i.e. to mark its territory. In other words, India crash lands some high tech trash on the Moon, like tourists tossing away a soda can in some foreign country, and expect this will suffice as a future claim to property, and being the fifth in line to do so. HmmmmJace1 (talk) 23:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

A controlled crash on moon would eject subsurface material (hopefully water ice) into lunar space where it could be analyzed and detected by the instruments on board the orbiting satellite - that is perhaps the only cheap way at present to detect subsurface water ice on moon. How else would you do it? And that is why the probe fired retro rockets to slow itself down to 1.5km/sec before crashing into the moon. Future moon missions from other countries are planning to do the same to dig up water-ice if any. Besides that the probe serves as a testbed to validate a lot of technologies that would go into a future soft-lander. Anyone who things the purpose of this crash was to put a flag on the moon is crazy :-) There is a lot of time, effort, and instruments that went into that probe. thinking that its only purpose was to piss and mark territory on the moon is ridiculous. :-) 67.169.0.250 (talk) 07:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The unsigned user (above) has suggested that I might be "crazy", and that my suggestion of India being the 5th dog (i.e., country/nation) to come and piss on this tree (i.e., to Moon) was "ridiculous". I appreciate the :-), and I do not mean to be directly offensive towards India with these comments, but the unsigned reader is again referred to the cited India Times article, where former President A P J Abdul Kalam states this objective specifically (i.e. putting a flag on the Moon, and not pissing on a tree, per se). Is the unsigned reader also suggesting by his/her assertion that the former president is also "crazy"? Please consider that this project is described as former President Kalam's "brainchild", as cited in the India Times article. I hope the unsigned user will sign his/her comments in the future, take the time to read the referenced article(s) and also not be so sensitive about assertions of fact that may not be too flattering (i.e., that it was a primary objective to put the Indian flag on the Moon, supposedly intact, and that we have no idea if that aspect of the mission was even accomplished). The unsigned reader also suggests that another aspect of this mission was to investigate the possibility of lunar ice. That's wonderful, if true. I am not able to find a reference for this, and would welcome the inclusion of such a reference in this article.Jace1 (talk) 15:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

If you are referring to this article [1] it doesn't say anywhere that India is marking territory. The former president is mainly talking about scientific relevance, not being left behind, validating technologies, and establishing a presence on the moon - things that any country with an imagination would like to do. Plus he further outlines the "future" strategic importance of moon and mars - strategic for anyone who is thinking about outer space exploration and does not want to be confined to just earth. Feel free to insert it in that tone and language instead of your ridiculous hyperbole regarding "pissing and marking territory" on the moon.

And from the same article:

Disagreeing with Subrahmanyam was New Delhi-based strategic analyst Bharat Karnad who said that the moon landing by India had no strategic importance. ‘‘The landing has a symbolic value and certainly places India among the elite group of countries. But it has no geopolitical significance.’’ At the same time Karnad added: ‘‘Hundred to 150 years from now when the moon is colonised, India can be proud of the fact that it had a pioneering status.’’

From politicalaffairs.net [2]

Following this, the Moon Impact Probe (MIP) would be ejected from Chandrayaan to crash onto the Moon’s surface, conducting various observations mostly on the way down but also after impact. Contrary to a lot of chatter in the media about “planting the Indian flag”, the MIP, having crashed, would be in no position to do this, but has been painted with the Indian tricolor to symbolically register India’s arrival on the Moon.

As for the objectives of the moon impact probe. you would find an official version here [3] and also [4].

Now please have mercy on the dog that you are about to send to moon just for pissing :-) Best regards. My personal opinion is on the contrary: India is definitely not marking territory here with the moon impact probe, but Indian presence on the moon ensures that the developed countries won't form an exclusive club to control access to moon and mars in future (just like they have done with many other things). Indian presence on moon ensures that moon remains open not just for India, but others that will follow. My personal hope is that it opens the floodgates (i.e if a developing country like India can do it so can we!) rather than put up barriers by marking territories. The only people who would be concerned about this even are those who want to maintain some sort of exclusivity on the moon. Chandrayaan-1 carried payloads from EU, US, and Bulgaria. Chandrayaan-2 will carry a russian rover and most likely instruments from other countries as well. Don't be surprised if Chandrayaan-3 releases probes from Timbuktu, Burkina Faso, etc on the moon and marks their presence as well :-) 67.169.0.250 (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

From [5] which mentions several objectives of moon impact probe:

The Shackleton crater has an undulating terrain with hills and valleys. Since the valleys are in the Moon’s permanently shadowed regions, it could harbour water ice. The dust kicked up when the MIP crashed would be analysed to check whether it contained water ice. The probe died within a few seconds of its crash.

67.169.0.250 (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Dubious speed precision

The referenced article on CNN uses an unnecessary degree of precision when it gives an obviously rounded 1.6 km/s as equalling 5760 km/h (1.6*3600) or the more bizarre 3579 mph (5760/1.609344). I suspect some lazy journalist rounded down a figure then started playing with his calculator. The Times of India give an impact speed of 1.69 km/s Fanx (talk) 11:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Controlled Descent?

Based on the current state of the article, I am uncertain as to how the landing of this probe qualifies as a "controlled lunar descent". Can someone clarify this? The claim is made in an apparently unreferenced statement regarding how this event is the first controlled lunar descent since the Soviet Union's Luna 24 probe. Steamroller Assault (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)