Talk:Moon Impact Probe

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)

Let's all lower the rhetoric, please. We are here to help improve the article; let's focus on that. Thanks, Johntex\^talk 17:59, 21 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 :-) The probe marks "loss of exclusivity" of the moon (and that is perhaps the only thing that is strategically significant here as opposed to marking territory) 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)

The unsigned reader (above) has shared his/her opinion that depositing a flag on the Moon is not an act of marking territory, and goes on to explain why. It is not a very convincing explanation, in my opinion, but this is his/her opinion, and I will respect that. However, accusing me of being "ridiculous", for a second time, is not a very productive use of this space, and I will again suggest that the unsigned user refrain from personal attacks, simply because someone has written something in this space that does not fully agree with the unsigned user's personal opinions. Otherwise, such attacks could be labeled as oppressive. Let me remind the unsigned user that this is what this space is for, to share our opinions. I accept that the unsigned user may be emotionally invested in some aspect of this project, which is of no particular interest to me (either the project, per se, or the user's desire to defend certain aspects of it, for what ever reason). Again, let me share the quote from the India Times, which I used at the beginning of our exchange in this section, "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." That last sentence, in particular, says to me that former President Kalam did indeed indicated that India could always stake a claim to a portion of the Moon (!). For the moment, I assume that the Times has made this statement correctly. While I appreciate the unsigned user's assertion that crashing this probe onto the lunar surface, with flags, was to break up some assumed monopoly of the Moon, supposedly held by other countries that have a clear history of acting in an imperialist way, the quote of Kalam's intent does not reveal even a hint of this particular objective, and I have seen no evidence of this suggestion outside of this box. Another thing I would like to comment on from the unsigned user's previous missive is his/he use of the word "imagination". This is used in a perjorative context, as "...things that any country with an imagination would like to do." This suggests that any country that would not like to crash land a probe onto the lunar surface must be without imagination. While I respect this opinion, I personally find it to be unimaginative. As for the fantasy of colonizing the Moon, well, if this remote possibility were ever realized by humanity, then it would certainly involve a very select few, while the rest are left on the surface of the Earth to pay for such folly. Has the unsigned user taken much time to consider the futher purpose or consequence of that desire? Assuming that the Moon is colonized, then what? Mars? OK, then what? Is the suggesting here that there are simply not enough space or resources on Earth, and that we "must" go further, or is this some irrational desire in our genetic make up that forces us to go further? These questions are simply rhetorical and beyond the scope of this thread, and I am not hoping to see a response. However, one useful question to consider would be this; will an elite few of our species ever be able to manage these newly colonized areas in a way that might somehow be significantly different than the way our species has behaved in the past? Again, this is a rhetorical question. I do appreciate the unsigned user's perspective on investigating the possibility of ice on the Moon with this crash landing, and I readily admit that I was not aware of this objective when I began to read about this project a few days ago, and I fully concur that this is a topic that may be worthy of crashing a probe on the Moon (with or without flags), :-), my very best regardsJace1 (talk) 10:29, 17 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)

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)

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)

I think so. It didn't use a free-fall trajectory and slowed itself down to aim at a target impact location and to use its on-board instruments. --Revth (talk) 04:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Additionally information on the ISRO page Indian Tricolour Placed on the Moon mentions...

"Later, the probe slowed down with the firing of its retro rocket and started its rapid descent
towards the moon’s surface." 

This is the first time there is a mention of an on board rocket on the probe. Also that very page mentions...

"Finally, the probe had a hard landing on the lunar surface that terminated its functioning."

--PremKudva^Talk 05:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Survival of the Indian flag

There was repeated edits here about the survival of the Indian flag after the crash of the MIP. Currently the entire question of it having survived or not is pure speculation and hence cannot be mentioned here even if ISRO says they feel it has survived. ISRO has not provided any proof thereof. As far as we are concerned the probe has landed and there is an image on four sides. It might be dented or damaged. It is after all an anodized plate mounted on the four sides.

Even if it has survived there is the question if it is visible at all, since the entire space craft including the MIP was clad in protective gold foil/cover.--PremKudva^Talk 05:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Survived? Survived!!? Get real. The damn thing was going 1.69 km per second, faster than a bullet shot from a hunting rifle. I'd be surprised if it didn't simply vaporise on impact! —Quicksilver^{T @} 21:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Vaporise on impact. Heh!;-)--PremKudva^Talk 03:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it not only survived after an impact at 1.69 km/sec, but its also growing at rate of 1cm/month as a result of nano-meterials that were used. 67.169.0.250 (talk)

Yeah I know;-) I mean I knew for sure that rifle bullets survive after hitting concrete walls.--PremKudva^Talk 05:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I changed the sentence to say the flag "reached" the surface of the moon instead of being "deposited on". I think that is more accurate and helps eliminate controversy about whether or not the flag(s) survived. Even if it was destroyed on contact with the surface, it still reached the surface. Johntex\^talk 17:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Former president Kalam never said anything along the lines "India could make claim to lunar territory in future." What he said was that "India should establish a presence on the moon." Times of India seems to be have interpreted this as "may claim lunar territory in future." However, I agree that there has been a fair amount of media speculation regarding this both within and outside India and even on this discussion page, so a "controversy" section would be most appropriate. Best Regards 67.169.0.250 (talk) 04:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah and even if anyone had said anything about staking a claim it is a redundant claim. You stake a claim and then do what? You can't send troops there;-)--PremKudva^Talk 05:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Off course, those few and lucky Indians who have bought land on the moon from companies operating in some of the western countries definitely have a claim on moon and naturally those imperialistic governments who let such companies sell moon land are trying to get a back door entry into laying their claim on the moon. 67.169.0.250 (talk) 06:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Japan flag on the moon?

Why does the article says that it's the 4th to have their flag on the moon after Soviet Union, US, and Japan? Never heard of Japan planting a flag on the moon, and the sources don't state it either, but I could be mistaken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.74.146 (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The line is probably talking about Hiten, a Japanese lunar probe that was intentionally crashed on the surface of moon after completing its mission.--Revth (talk) 03:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hiten was originally not even intended to reach the moon; it was designed to orbit the earth. Is there a reference for Hiten displaying a flag? Johntex\^talk 17:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I have not seen any reference on the Japanese flag on the moon, the photo of the space craft didn't show a flag.--PremKudva^Talk 05:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Richter scale on the moon?

I'm a little confused. What kind of a seismic impact would the probe's crash have produced, if it was indeed travelling at a very high speed, as the article implied? I think the main article could be improved if there were a link to the richter scale, and somebody could explain what was achieved by hitting the moon at such a rapid rate of descent. Were there mirrors somewhere on the moon, upon which subtle flickers of moonlight could be detected, even by earthbound telescopes? 198.177.27.15 (talk) 07:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the mission intended to produce a seismic event. Strictly speaking any collision would create one, depending on whether you have instruments sensitive enough to detect the impact. What the impact was supposed to accomplish was to kick up sub-surface materials that could then be analyzed by the Chandrayaan-1, which remained in orbit around the moon. Johntex\^talk 18:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Who shot it up?

Which rocket and country shot this spacecraft into spac? Was it put up by the space shuttle? Arianne? the russians? Who put it up? 70.88.110.14 (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Read the lead.--PremKudva^Talk 04:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the lead made clear that the spaceship and probe were made by India, but did not made clear that India also launched the mission. I have tried to improve this. Johntex\^talk 18:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

See also page

Yes, I could make one, but I'm just putting the idea out there for those of you ambitious and have some free time. Otherwise, I'll get to it later. Daniel Musto (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)