Chances of successful landing on the moonThe upcoming landing of Chang'e 3 on the Moon - Is there detailed...
How to work with ElasticSearch in Mathematica?
Why can I ping 10.0.0.0/8 addresses from a 192.168.1.0/24 subnet?
Why does unique_ptr<Derived> implicitly cast to unique_ptr<Base>?
Conveying the idea of " judge a book by its cover" by " juger un livre par sa couverture"
均等 is noun or adjective
Looking for PC graphics demo software from the early 90s called "Unreal"
Comparison of values in dictionary
Do "chess engine in the cloud" services exist?
Finger Picking Chords - Beats per bar
how do you value what your leisure time is worth?
Is sleeping on the ground in cold weather better than on an air mattress?
Is there any way today to recover/dump 2M disks?
Low-magic medieval fantasy clothes that allow the wearer to grow?
How can we check whether the user input equal to one elements of an array?
Sanitise a high score table
Can you pitch an outline?
My first random password generator
What can I do to avoid potential charges for bribery?
How could "aggressor" pilots fly foreign aircraft without speaking the language?
Would my post-apocalyptic US Government be able to work and function properly?
How can I curtail abuse of the Illusion wizard's Illusory Reality feature?
Creating chess engine, machine learning vs. traditional engine?
'Cheddar goes "good" with burgers?' Can "go" be seen as a verb of the senses?
What is the next number in the series: 21, 21, 23, 20, 5, 25, 31, 24,?
Chances of successful landing on the moon
The upcoming landing of Chang'e 3 on the Moon - Is there detailed information about it anywhere?What is the marginal cost of *landing* on the Moon?What are the synergies between human landing on the Moon and on Mars?What proportion of a space craft soft-landing on the Moon would be payload?Wasn't the moon landing + reentry much harder to do than SpaceX's reusable rockets/boosters?Why is an airbag landing on the moon not viable?Exit film of moon landing departureWhat are NASA's dozen payloads for the Moon that will be ready for launch by the end this year? (2019)How fast were the Lunar Command Module and Landing Module traveling around the Moon when they reconnected?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{
margin-bottom:0;
}
.everyonelovesstackoverflow{position:absolute;height:1px;width:1px;opacity:0;top:0;left:0;pointer-events:none;}
$begingroup$
Successful landings on the moon happened 50 years ago. Technology -satellites, computer, ML- has come a long way during this time, so why Israel and India failed recently to land a probe there?
Is the chance of successfully landing a manned mission higher than for a non-manned mission?
Does the US have some secret insight into landing on the moon?
the-moon
asked 9 hours ago
George W.George W.
111 bronze badge
New contributor
George W. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Successful landings on the moon happened 50 years ago. Technology -satellites, computer, ML- has come a long way during this time, so why Israel and India failed recently to land a probe there?
Is the chance of successfully landing a manned mission higher than for a non-manned mission?
Does the US have some secret insight into landing on the moon?
the-moon
asked 9 hours ago
George W.George W.
111 bronze badge
New contributor
George W. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
They, and Russia, have had more practice
$endgroup$
– JCRM
9 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
We spent more....
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
9 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
NASA software engineers don't come from an Agile "fear of failure is a bad thing" background?
$endgroup$
– JCRM
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
There's also the very small sample size. Even with a good survival rate, 2/2 failures is not statistically remarkable. (and why does the sample not include the Chinese landings?)
$endgroup$
– Hohmannfan♦
6 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Successful landings on the moon happened 50 years ago. Technology -satellites, computer, ML- has come a long way during this time, so why Israel and India failed recently to land a probe there?
Is the chance of successfully landing a manned mission higher than for a non-manned mission?
Does the US have some secret insight into landing on the moon?
the-moon
asked 9 hours ago
George W.George W.
111 bronze badge
New contributor
George W. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
Successful landings on the moon happened 50 years ago. Technology -satellites, computer, ML- has come a long way during this time, so why Israel and India failed recently to land a probe there?
Is the chance of successfully landing a manned mission higher than for a non-manned mission?
Does the US have some secret insight into landing on the moon?
the-moon
the-moon
asked 9 hours ago
George W.George W.
111 bronze badge
New contributor
George W. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 9 hours ago
George W.George W.
111 bronze badge
New contributor
George W. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 9 hours ago
George W.George W.
111 bronze badge
New contributor
George W. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 9 hours ago
George W.George W.
111 bronze badge
asked 9 hours ago
George W.George W.
111 bronze badge
111 bronze badge
New contributor
George W. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
George W. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
$begingroup$
They, and Russia, have had more practice
$endgroup$
– JCRM
9 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
We spent more....
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
9 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
NASA software engineers don't come from an Agile "fear of failure is a bad thing" background?
$endgroup$
– JCRM
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
There's also the very small sample size. Even with a good survival rate, 2/2 failures is not statistically remarkable. (and why does the sample not include the Chinese landings?)
$endgroup$
– Hohmannfan♦
6 hours ago
add a comment
|
2
$begingroup$
They, and Russia, have had more practice
$endgroup$
– JCRM
9 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
We spent more....
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
9 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
NASA software engineers don't come from an Agile "fear of failure is a bad thing" background?
$endgroup$
– JCRM
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
There's also the very small sample size. Even with a good survival rate, 2/2 failures is not statistically remarkable. (and why does the sample not include the Chinese landings?)
$endgroup$
– Hohmannfan♦
6 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
They, and Russia, have had more practice
$endgroup$
– JCRM
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
They, and Russia, have had more practice
$endgroup$
– JCRM
9 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
We spent more....
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
We spent more....
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
9 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
NASA software engineers don't come from an Agile "fear of failure is a bad thing" background?
$endgroup$
– JCRM
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
NASA software engineers don't come from an Agile "fear of failure is a bad thing" background?
$endgroup$
– JCRM
7 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
There's also the very small sample size. Even with a good survival rate, 2/2 failures is not statistically remarkable. (and why does the sample not include the Chinese landings?)
$endgroup$
– Hohmannfan♦
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
There's also the very small sample size. Even with a good survival rate, 2/2 failures is not statistically remarkable. (and why does the sample not include the Chinese landings?)
$endgroup$
– Hohmannfan♦
6 hours ago
add a comment
|
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
While engineering and available technologies have greatly advanced since the 50's and 60's, safely landing something on the moon is still a highly technical feat with a critically long list of potential failure points.
After a quick look at a list of moon missions, it appears that the US alone has had more launch failures than India and Israel's combined attempts.
When all a mission failure takes is to have a valve's response time in space being a handful of percentage out of spec, it becomes easy to see how a limited number of attempts might not add up to all that many successful missions...
The more launches you have, the more direct data you can gather, and the more collective knowledge and experience an organization has to draw on for future missions, which translates into fewer issues leading to critical mission losses.
answered 7 hours ago
TheLucklessTheLuckless
1612 bronze badges
New contributor
TheLuckless is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
From another source, I get that smaller rockets imply longer trips, which implies longer cosmic radiation, which implies a higher risk of electronic failure. Sometimes you just have to pick chances and have a heap of funds to build a big rocket.
$endgroup$
– George W.
7 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Is the chance of successfully landing a manned mission higher than for a non-manned mission?
It is, if you learn something from your failures in attempting to land non-crewed missions first.
Does the US have some secret insight into landing on the moon?
Yes: fail early and often.
The US developed experience with uncrewed landings first, before attempting crewed landings in the Apollo program; those earlier programs had a very high failure rate.
The first US lunar spacecraft were in the Ranger program, which was simply attempting to hit the moon while taking photographs all the way down, and didn't achieve that goal until Ranger 7. The first two Rangers didn't even leave Earth orbit. Ranger 4 was completely inert after separation from its launcher, but it at least hit the moon.
Following Ranger was the Surveyor program, which attempted soft landings. Two out of seven of the US Surveyor missions crashed (#2 and #4).
answered 6 hours ago
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
104k4 gold badges372 silver badges453 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "508"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
George W. is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f39151%2fchances-of-successful-landing-on-the-moon%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
While engineering and available technologies have greatly advanced since the 50's and 60's, safely landing something on the moon is still a highly technical feat with a critically long list of potential failure points.
After a quick look at a list of moon missions, it appears that the US alone has had more launch failures than India and Israel's combined attempts.
When all a mission failure takes is to have a valve's response time in space being a handful of percentage out of spec, it becomes easy to see how a limited number of attempts might not add up to all that many successful missions...
The more launches you have, the more direct data you can gather, and the more collective knowledge and experience an organization has to draw on for future missions, which translates into fewer issues leading to critical mission losses.
answered 7 hours ago
TheLucklessTheLuckless
1612 bronze badges
New contributor
TheLuckless is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
From another source, I get that smaller rockets imply longer trips, which implies longer cosmic radiation, which implies a higher risk of electronic failure. Sometimes you just have to pick chances and have a heap of funds to build a big rocket.
$endgroup$
– George W.
7 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
While engineering and available technologies have greatly advanced since the 50's and 60's, safely landing something on the moon is still a highly technical feat with a critically long list of potential failure points.
After a quick look at a list of moon missions, it appears that the US alone has had more launch failures than India and Israel's combined attempts.
When all a mission failure takes is to have a valve's response time in space being a handful of percentage out of spec, it becomes easy to see how a limited number of attempts might not add up to all that many successful missions...
The more launches you have, the more direct data you can gather, and the more collective knowledge and experience an organization has to draw on for future missions, which translates into fewer issues leading to critical mission losses.
answered 7 hours ago
TheLucklessTheLuckless
1612 bronze badges
New contributor
TheLuckless is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
From another source, I get that smaller rockets imply longer trips, which implies longer cosmic radiation, which implies a higher risk of electronic failure. Sometimes you just have to pick chances and have a heap of funds to build a big rocket.
$endgroup$
– George W.
7 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
While engineering and available technologies have greatly advanced since the 50's and 60's, safely landing something on the moon is still a highly technical feat with a critically long list of potential failure points.
After a quick look at a list of moon missions, it appears that the US alone has had more launch failures than India and Israel's combined attempts.
When all a mission failure takes is to have a valve's response time in space being a handful of percentage out of spec, it becomes easy to see how a limited number of attempts might not add up to all that many successful missions...
The more launches you have, the more direct data you can gather, and the more collective knowledge and experience an organization has to draw on for future missions, which translates into fewer issues leading to critical mission losses.
answered 7 hours ago
TheLucklessTheLuckless
1612 bronze badges
New contributor
TheLuckless is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
While engineering and available technologies have greatly advanced since the 50's and 60's, safely landing something on the moon is still a highly technical feat with a critically long list of potential failure points.
After a quick look at a list of moon missions, it appears that the US alone has had more launch failures than India and Israel's combined attempts.
When all a mission failure takes is to have a valve's response time in space being a handful of percentage out of spec, it becomes easy to see how a limited number of attempts might not add up to all that many successful missions...
The more launches you have, the more direct data you can gather, and the more collective knowledge and experience an organization has to draw on for future missions, which translates into fewer issues leading to critical mission losses.
answered 7 hours ago
TheLucklessTheLuckless
1612 bronze badges
New contributor
TheLuckless is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 7 hours ago
TheLucklessTheLuckless
1612 bronze badges
New contributor
TheLuckless is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 7 hours ago
TheLucklessTheLuckless
1612 bronze badges
answered 7 hours ago
TheLucklessTheLuckless
1612 bronze badges
1612 bronze badges
New contributor
TheLuckless is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
TheLuckless is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
$begingroup$
From another source, I get that smaller rockets imply longer trips, which implies longer cosmic radiation, which implies a higher risk of electronic failure. Sometimes you just have to pick chances and have a heap of funds to build a big rocket.
$endgroup$
– George W.
7 hours ago
add a comment
|
1
$begingroup$
From another source, I get that smaller rockets imply longer trips, which implies longer cosmic radiation, which implies a higher risk of electronic failure. Sometimes you just have to pick chances and have a heap of funds to build a big rocket.
$endgroup$
– George W.
7 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
From another source, I get that smaller rockets imply longer trips, which implies longer cosmic radiation, which implies a higher risk of electronic failure. Sometimes you just have to pick chances and have a heap of funds to build a big rocket.
$endgroup$
– George W.
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
From another source, I get that smaller rockets imply longer trips, which implies longer cosmic radiation, which implies a higher risk of electronic failure. Sometimes you just have to pick chances and have a heap of funds to build a big rocket.
$endgroup$
– George W.
7 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Is the chance of successfully landing a manned mission higher than for a non-manned mission?
It is, if you learn something from your failures in attempting to land non-crewed missions first.
Does the US have some secret insight into landing on the moon?
Yes: fail early and often.
The US developed experience with uncrewed landings first, before attempting crewed landings in the Apollo program; those earlier programs had a very high failure rate.
The first US lunar spacecraft were in the Ranger program, which was simply attempting to hit the moon while taking photographs all the way down, and didn't achieve that goal until Ranger 7. The first two Rangers didn't even leave Earth orbit. Ranger 4 was completely inert after separation from its launcher, but it at least hit the moon.
Following Ranger was the Surveyor program, which attempted soft landings. Two out of seven of the US Surveyor missions crashed (#2 and #4).
answered 6 hours ago
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
104k4 gold badges372 silver badges453 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Is the chance of successfully landing a manned mission higher than for a non-manned mission?
It is, if you learn something from your failures in attempting to land non-crewed missions first.
Does the US have some secret insight into landing on the moon?
Yes: fail early and often.
The US developed experience with uncrewed landings first, before attempting crewed landings in the Apollo program; those earlier programs had a very high failure rate.
The first US lunar spacecraft were in the Ranger program, which was simply attempting to hit the moon while taking photographs all the way down, and didn't achieve that goal until Ranger 7. The first two Rangers didn't even leave Earth orbit. Ranger 4 was completely inert after separation from its launcher, but it at least hit the moon.
Following Ranger was the Surveyor program, which attempted soft landings. Two out of seven of the US Surveyor missions crashed (#2 and #4).
answered 6 hours ago
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
104k4 gold badges372 silver badges453 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Is the chance of successfully landing a manned mission higher than for a non-manned mission?
It is, if you learn something from your failures in attempting to land non-crewed missions first.
Does the US have some secret insight into landing on the moon?
Yes: fail early and often.
The US developed experience with uncrewed landings first, before attempting crewed landings in the Apollo program; those earlier programs had a very high failure rate.
The first US lunar spacecraft were in the Ranger program, which was simply attempting to hit the moon while taking photographs all the way down, and didn't achieve that goal until Ranger 7. The first two Rangers didn't even leave Earth orbit. Ranger 4 was completely inert after separation from its launcher, but it at least hit the moon.
Following Ranger was the Surveyor program, which attempted soft landings. Two out of seven of the US Surveyor missions crashed (#2 and #4).
answered 6 hours ago
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
104k4 gold badges372 silver badges453 bronze badges
$endgroup$
Is the chance of successfully landing a manned mission higher than for a non-manned mission?
It is, if you learn something from your failures in attempting to land non-crewed missions first.
Does the US have some secret insight into landing on the moon?
Yes: fail early and often.
The US developed experience with uncrewed landings first, before attempting crewed landings in the Apollo program; those earlier programs had a very high failure rate.
The first US lunar spacecraft were in the Ranger program, which was simply attempting to hit the moon while taking photographs all the way down, and didn't achieve that goal until Ranger 7. The first two Rangers didn't even leave Earth orbit. Ranger 4 was completely inert after separation from its launcher, but it at least hit the moon.
Following Ranger was the Surveyor program, which attempted soft landings. Two out of seven of the US Surveyor missions crashed (#2 and #4).
answered 6 hours ago
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
104k4 gold badges372 silver badges453 bronze badges
answered 6 hours ago
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
104k4 gold badges372 silver badges453 bronze badges
answered 6 hours ago
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
104k4 gold badges372 silver badges453 bronze badges
answered 6 hours ago
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
104k4 gold badges372 silver badges453 bronze badges
104k4 gold badges372 silver badges453 bronze badges
add a comment
|
add a comment
|
George W. is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
George W. is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
George W. is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
George W. is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Space Exploration Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f39151%2fchances-of-successful-landing-on-the-moon%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
$begingroup$
They, and Russia, have had more practice
$endgroup$
– JCRM
9 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
We spent more....
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
9 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
NASA software engineers don't come from an Agile "fear of failure is a bad thing" background?
$endgroup$
– JCRM
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
There's also the very small sample size. Even with a good survival rate, 2/2 failures is not statistically remarkable. (and why does the sample not include the Chinese landings?)
$endgroup$
– Hohmannfan♦
6 hours ago