This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
A news item involving Moon Impact Probe was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 14 November 2008. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. Hmmmm Jace1 ( talk) 23:50, 15 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 regards
Jace1 (
talk) 10:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
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 [1] Fanx ( talk) 11:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
References
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)
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)
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)
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)
Please read the times of India articles carefully
[6]
[7]. Times of India extensively quotes Kalam as follows:
After (the spacecraft) going so near the moon, I felt the mission will have more scientific relevance if the probe was included. I believe that the moon cannot be left to a few countries. I strongly felt that India cannot be left behind. So, I suggested the probe, and many in ISRO enthusiastically supported the plan ... The landing of the probe establishes India’s presence on the moon and prove that India can do it...I visualise that in another four decades, the earth, moon and Mars will have economic and strategic importance ... Well, my feeling is the way we have taken Chandrayaan and flown 3,80,000 km clicking a beautiful picture of the earth and putting it into the lunar orbit on November 8 is impressive. November 8 is, therefore, a very important day for us.
Where does Kalam actually say that India is or plans to or may stake claim on lunar territory? Times of India is mainly speculating and theorizing in their own infinite wisdom when it says: He believed that if this was done, India could always stake a claim to a portion of the Moon. Surely if Kalam actually said anything like this, it wouldn't have been missed by other publications? Are there any sources quoting Kalam saying anything about staking a claim on moon? If you are ascribing a motive to someone at least find a direct quote. We can't write an article on someone thinking as to what Kalam was thinking (i.e speculation - See WP:OR) specially when Kalam has himself clarified his exact reasons for sending the probe to moon (see bold text in quotation above). Also, I would appreciate it if we can discuss this a bit without getting into edit wars, etc. Best Regards 67.169.0.250 ( talk) 18:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Also see
[8]:
Later, responding to the questions raised by Jubilee Mission Medical College students during an interaction with him on Chandrayaan Mission, Kalam expressed his opinion that no nation can claim the moon as its own. The resources of the moon should be a common property and that is one of the aims of the moon mission. [1]
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help); Unknown parameter |xOZ5Y=
ignored (
help)
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)
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)
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)
Chandrayaan I was launched by INDIA , by the launch vehicle PSLV, from Sriharikita Range, Andhra Pradesh , INDIA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.241.57.164 ( talk) 08:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
Chandrayaan I was launched by INDIA , by the launch vehicle PSLV, from Sriharikita Range, Andhra Pradesh , INDIA.
It gifted the answer to the millennia-old question whether water is there in Earth’s moon when it led to the discovery of water in its vapour phase by the CHACE (CHandra’s Altitudinal Composition Explorer) payload onboard the Moon Impact Probe (MIP) and complementarily in its solid phase by the Moon Mineralogy Mapper (M3) payload onboard the main orbiter in the Chandrayaan I mission. This ‘discovery-class-of-finding’ by CHACE was achieved by direct in situ measurement of the lunar atmosphere during the descend journey of the MIP to the Lunar South Pole, while M3 discovered water in ice form by remote sensing techniques. As water cannot retain its liquid phase in the lunar environment because of its own vapour pressure and the ultra-high vacuum prevailing there, it can be found in solid (ice) and gaseous (vapour) phases. While the Moon Mineralogy Mapper (M3), a payload by NASA, onboard Chandrayaan I lunar orbiter has detected, by mapping almost 97 % of the lunar surface using remote sensing techniques, the presence of water in ice form in higher latitudes especially in the polar caps, the CHACE payload in the lunar impactor (MIP) has directly detected water in its gaseous form along 140E meridian from 45oN to 90oS latitude, with a latitudinal resolution of 0.10 and altitudinal resolution of ~ 250 m from 98 km altitude till impact . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newscientist1234567890 ( talk • contribs) 09:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Moon Impact Probe. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Moon Impact Probe. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
The CHACE results suffer from a number of problems.
The instrument was a quadrupole mass spectrometer (QMS), and under ultrahigh vacuum (UHV) conditions, the highest residual mass peak occurring in clean, leak-tight vacuum systems is that of water vapor (H2O) at mass 18. Removal of this adventitious, surficial water is essential prior to launch. Bakeout to remove water vapor from stainless steel surfaces requires temperatures in excess of 180 degrees C, and sealing of the instrument for flight under that baked condition, normally through a pinch-off connection to the vacuum system. If the instrument is simply removed from the UHV system after bakeout, even under N2 purge, water vapor in the laboratory air will reoccupy the baked, pristine surfaces of the instrument at supersonic speeds, unless the entire laboratory is flooded with dry nitrogen (N2). For this reason, a break-off cap is activated when the target space environment has been reached, allowing the environmental sample to enter the pristine vacuum of the instrument. Mass scanning can begin, before or after opening this hermetic seal. In the case of the Cassini Ion & Neutral Mass Spectrometer, the hermetic seal was broken by fracturing and jettisoning a ceramic cap out into the depths of space.
However, activating the instrument by now turning on power to the ionization filament is not enough preparation for stable mass readings. Readings can be taken at any time, but stable readings require stability in the instrument's background mass scans which occur once thermal equilibrium has occurred. The published performance of CHACE is suspect for multiple reasons. First of all, the nature of the laboratory handling of the instrument is questionable, because a published mass scan shows obvious signs of a leak in the laboratory calibration system that includes the telltale signs of molecular nitrogen (28), molecular oxygen (32) and argon (40). Either one of these peaks alone is ambiguous, but the presence of all three in the ratios shown in the published plot are unequivocally due to an atmospheric leak in the vacuum system. This is dismissed by the authors as being not only expected, but typical, which is utterly preposterous. When the published plot was shown to a colleague without comment, his very first words were, "Looks like somebody has an air leak." He was correct.
The explanation of the bakeout of the instrument is also suspect, because there is so little detail given, including how this was performed and how CHACE was sealed for flight to avoid contamination when removed from the system and placed aboard the spacecraft.
The issue of whether or not the instrument had even achieved thermal equilibrium is questionable, as the stability described by the authors mentions stability in the ion source current - an absolutely essential capability of the electronics - but not the thermal stability of the system. In short, the instrument will not stop producing outgassing products until it has reached thermal equilibrium and the metal surfaces have given up their inventory of volatile gases. As the instrument warms, water will evolve from its metal surfaces. This can take hours for any laboratory mass spectrometer. In fact, the water peak is the most expected and highest peak that will evolve when the filament is first activated to begin taking readings. This peak will grow until it reaches a maximum, and then it will decay as the inventory of water vapor begins to deplete, and water re-forming upon the metal surfaces reaches equilibrium with water that is desorbing. There is no indication that sufficient time had elapsed in order to outgas CHACE prior to impact.
An increase in water vapor detection would be expected after the initial jump caused by filament activation. Anyone who has used a QMS in the lab has seen this. Even the hot filament produces unwanted chemistry within the instrument. Consequently, what the operator will do is take many background scans - when that background is stable - and subtract this background scan from actual experiment mass scans. In this way, the resulting peaks, so filtered, represent the best guess as to what is actually being observed by the instrument.
For reasons cited above, and the lack of supporting background information regarding the techniques employed, the results reported for CHACE do not hold up to scrutiny. Many questions could be resolved if the authors were more forthcoming with both the flight data and the laboratory data, but these have been limited, and appear to address, in subsequent papers, concerns that have been raised from the community's review of previous papers.
The complete story has not yet been told, and too many questions remain for a type of instrument that ALWAYS produces water vapor when first activated, and will certainly deliver a water vapor detection on demand, except under the most pristine laboratory conditions. Water can be present in air in amounts as high as 3%. The authors have proven that an air leak was already present in their vacuum system prior to prepping it for flight. It would typical for a QMS like CHACE to show a water vapor peak upon activation of the ion source. Consequently, there is absolutely nothing remarkable about evidence of a water peak when it was activated in lunar orbit.
Full disclosure of the mass scan data would defend the results or impeach them. But based upon experience with this very mass spectrometer and many others in three decades of laboratory UHV experience, I am not willing to accept the conclusions of the authors for H2O detection at the Moon. Whether the MMM instrument detected water, or not, is irrelevant to this discussion, because of the poor "chain-of-evidence" for CHACE based on what has already been reported by the authors and what is already known by the space science community regarding the performance of QMS instruments in the UHV laboratory. Swarmphysics ( talk) 23:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 18:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
A news item involving Moon Impact Probe was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 14 November 2008. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. Hmmmm Jace1 ( talk) 23:50, 15 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 regards
Jace1 (
talk) 10:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
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 [1] Fanx ( talk) 11:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
References
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)
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)
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)
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)
Please read the times of India articles carefully
[6]
[7]. Times of India extensively quotes Kalam as follows:
After (the spacecraft) going so near the moon, I felt the mission will have more scientific relevance if the probe was included. I believe that the moon cannot be left to a few countries. I strongly felt that India cannot be left behind. So, I suggested the probe, and many in ISRO enthusiastically supported the plan ... The landing of the probe establishes India’s presence on the moon and prove that India can do it...I visualise that in another four decades, the earth, moon and Mars will have economic and strategic importance ... Well, my feeling is the way we have taken Chandrayaan and flown 3,80,000 km clicking a beautiful picture of the earth and putting it into the lunar orbit on November 8 is impressive. November 8 is, therefore, a very important day for us.
Where does Kalam actually say that India is or plans to or may stake claim on lunar territory? Times of India is mainly speculating and theorizing in their own infinite wisdom when it says: He believed that if this was done, India could always stake a claim to a portion of the Moon. Surely if Kalam actually said anything like this, it wouldn't have been missed by other publications? Are there any sources quoting Kalam saying anything about staking a claim on moon? If you are ascribing a motive to someone at least find a direct quote. We can't write an article on someone thinking as to what Kalam was thinking (i.e speculation - See WP:OR) specially when Kalam has himself clarified his exact reasons for sending the probe to moon (see bold text in quotation above). Also, I would appreciate it if we can discuss this a bit without getting into edit wars, etc. Best Regards 67.169.0.250 ( talk) 18:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Also see
[8]:
Later, responding to the questions raised by Jubilee Mission Medical College students during an interaction with him on Chandrayaan Mission, Kalam expressed his opinion that no nation can claim the moon as its own. The resources of the moon should be a common property and that is one of the aims of the moon mission. [1]
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help); Unknown parameter |xOZ5Y=
ignored (
help)
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)
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)
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)
Chandrayaan I was launched by INDIA , by the launch vehicle PSLV, from Sriharikita Range, Andhra Pradesh , INDIA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.241.57.164 ( talk) 08:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
Chandrayaan I was launched by INDIA , by the launch vehicle PSLV, from Sriharikita Range, Andhra Pradesh , INDIA.
It gifted the answer to the millennia-old question whether water is there in Earth’s moon when it led to the discovery of water in its vapour phase by the CHACE (CHandra’s Altitudinal Composition Explorer) payload onboard the Moon Impact Probe (MIP) and complementarily in its solid phase by the Moon Mineralogy Mapper (M3) payload onboard the main orbiter in the Chandrayaan I mission. This ‘discovery-class-of-finding’ by CHACE was achieved by direct in situ measurement of the lunar atmosphere during the descend journey of the MIP to the Lunar South Pole, while M3 discovered water in ice form by remote sensing techniques. As water cannot retain its liquid phase in the lunar environment because of its own vapour pressure and the ultra-high vacuum prevailing there, it can be found in solid (ice) and gaseous (vapour) phases. While the Moon Mineralogy Mapper (M3), a payload by NASA, onboard Chandrayaan I lunar orbiter has detected, by mapping almost 97 % of the lunar surface using remote sensing techniques, the presence of water in ice form in higher latitudes especially in the polar caps, the CHACE payload in the lunar impactor (MIP) has directly detected water in its gaseous form along 140E meridian from 45oN to 90oS latitude, with a latitudinal resolution of 0.10 and altitudinal resolution of ~ 250 m from 98 km altitude till impact . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newscientist1234567890 ( talk • contribs) 09:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Moon Impact Probe. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Moon Impact Probe. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
The CHACE results suffer from a number of problems.
The instrument was a quadrupole mass spectrometer (QMS), and under ultrahigh vacuum (UHV) conditions, the highest residual mass peak occurring in clean, leak-tight vacuum systems is that of water vapor (H2O) at mass 18. Removal of this adventitious, surficial water is essential prior to launch. Bakeout to remove water vapor from stainless steel surfaces requires temperatures in excess of 180 degrees C, and sealing of the instrument for flight under that baked condition, normally through a pinch-off connection to the vacuum system. If the instrument is simply removed from the UHV system after bakeout, even under N2 purge, water vapor in the laboratory air will reoccupy the baked, pristine surfaces of the instrument at supersonic speeds, unless the entire laboratory is flooded with dry nitrogen (N2). For this reason, a break-off cap is activated when the target space environment has been reached, allowing the environmental sample to enter the pristine vacuum of the instrument. Mass scanning can begin, before or after opening this hermetic seal. In the case of the Cassini Ion & Neutral Mass Spectrometer, the hermetic seal was broken by fracturing and jettisoning a ceramic cap out into the depths of space.
However, activating the instrument by now turning on power to the ionization filament is not enough preparation for stable mass readings. Readings can be taken at any time, but stable readings require stability in the instrument's background mass scans which occur once thermal equilibrium has occurred. The published performance of CHACE is suspect for multiple reasons. First of all, the nature of the laboratory handling of the instrument is questionable, because a published mass scan shows obvious signs of a leak in the laboratory calibration system that includes the telltale signs of molecular nitrogen (28), molecular oxygen (32) and argon (40). Either one of these peaks alone is ambiguous, but the presence of all three in the ratios shown in the published plot are unequivocally due to an atmospheric leak in the vacuum system. This is dismissed by the authors as being not only expected, but typical, which is utterly preposterous. When the published plot was shown to a colleague without comment, his very first words were, "Looks like somebody has an air leak." He was correct.
The explanation of the bakeout of the instrument is also suspect, because there is so little detail given, including how this was performed and how CHACE was sealed for flight to avoid contamination when removed from the system and placed aboard the spacecraft.
The issue of whether or not the instrument had even achieved thermal equilibrium is questionable, as the stability described by the authors mentions stability in the ion source current - an absolutely essential capability of the electronics - but not the thermal stability of the system. In short, the instrument will not stop producing outgassing products until it has reached thermal equilibrium and the metal surfaces have given up their inventory of volatile gases. As the instrument warms, water will evolve from its metal surfaces. This can take hours for any laboratory mass spectrometer. In fact, the water peak is the most expected and highest peak that will evolve when the filament is first activated to begin taking readings. This peak will grow until it reaches a maximum, and then it will decay as the inventory of water vapor begins to deplete, and water re-forming upon the metal surfaces reaches equilibrium with water that is desorbing. There is no indication that sufficient time had elapsed in order to outgas CHACE prior to impact.
An increase in water vapor detection would be expected after the initial jump caused by filament activation. Anyone who has used a QMS in the lab has seen this. Even the hot filament produces unwanted chemistry within the instrument. Consequently, what the operator will do is take many background scans - when that background is stable - and subtract this background scan from actual experiment mass scans. In this way, the resulting peaks, so filtered, represent the best guess as to what is actually being observed by the instrument.
For reasons cited above, and the lack of supporting background information regarding the techniques employed, the results reported for CHACE do not hold up to scrutiny. Many questions could be resolved if the authors were more forthcoming with both the flight data and the laboratory data, but these have been limited, and appear to address, in subsequent papers, concerns that have been raised from the community's review of previous papers.
The complete story has not yet been told, and too many questions remain for a type of instrument that ALWAYS produces water vapor when first activated, and will certainly deliver a water vapor detection on demand, except under the most pristine laboratory conditions. Water can be present in air in amounts as high as 3%. The authors have proven that an air leak was already present in their vacuum system prior to prepping it for flight. It would typical for a QMS like CHACE to show a water vapor peak upon activation of the ion source. Consequently, there is absolutely nothing remarkable about evidence of a water peak when it was activated in lunar orbit.
Full disclosure of the mass scan data would defend the results or impeach them. But based upon experience with this very mass spectrometer and many others in three decades of laboratory UHV experience, I am not willing to accept the conclusions of the authors for H2O detection at the Moon. Whether the MMM instrument detected water, or not, is irrelevant to this discussion, because of the poor "chain-of-evidence" for CHACE based on what has already been reported by the authors and what is already known by the space science community regarding the performance of QMS instruments in the UHV laboratory. Swarmphysics ( talk) 23:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 18:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)