AI 2023. Meet ChatGPT. - page 180
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
The failures of the 21st century. (source: https://www.mirf.ru/science/chto-to-poshlo-ne-tak-glavnye-kosmicheskie-neudachi-xxi-veka/)
ESA's failed demonstration
In 2016, ESA again sent a mission to Mars (and again using a Russian rocket). Like Mars Express, it consisted of an orbiter and a descent vehicle called Schiaparelli. Its main task was to practice re-entry into the atmosphere and soft landing on the surface of Mars.
"Schiaparelli" successfully completed the first part. That's where the good news for ESA ended. Fifty seconds before "Schiaparelli" was supposed to land on Mars, the ATC lost contact with it. A few days later, the US MRO spacecraft did space detective work again, photographing a fresh crater in the area where the craft landed. This removed the last doubts about the fate of Schiaparelli.
But what happened? The investigation found that after releasing the braking parachute, Schiaparelli began to spin at high speed. This caused its inertial measurement unit (IMU) to become saturated with data. It had reached the limit of its measurement capabilities and could not show the real speed. Because of the incorrect data input, the on-board computer decided that Schiaparelli had already dropped below the Martian surface. As a result, he prematurely opened the parachute and switched on the landing engines. And instead of the required 30 seconds they worked only 3.
At this point, the device was at an altitude of 3.7 kilometres. Since the Martian atmosphere is much thinner than the Earth atmosphere, parachutes alone were not enough for a soft landing. After switching off the engines, Schiaparelli crashed into the surface at a speed of about 300 kilometres per hour. Judging by the dark stain surrounding the crash site, the impact caused the fuel tank to explode.
The irony is that all of these events could have been avoided if the module's programme had been designed to check for such obvious errors. In addition, the IMU oversaturation problem was easily detected by additional tests. But it was never solved. During the investigation, even a small scandal broke out, when the Italian Space Agency (it was responsible for the landing) blamed the Romanian company Arca Space, which tested the software Schiaparelli. And many critics rightly pointed out that the decision to outsource such an important component of the mission to a little-known firm for the sake of economy does not paint the organisation itself.
Quiet walkers on the Moon
In 2007, Google organised the Google Lunar X Prize competition to encourage private space exploration. Its main prize, $20 million, was to go to the team that would be the first to land on the Moon and transmit high-resolution images from its surface.
The competition was extended several times until Google announced in 2018 that it was closing the competition. But by then, several teams were already preparing so hard for a moon mission that they decided not to change their plans.
One of them was the Israeli non-profit organisation SpaceIL. It managed not only to build a 585-kilogram vehicle called Bereshit, but also to find a carrier for it - a Falcon 9 rocket. "Bereshit" was launched on 22 February 2019. The apparatus successfully performed course corrections and moved into orbit around the moon. On 11 April 2019, Bereshit began landing.
As with Schiaparelli, it started with malfunctions in the inertial measurement module. An attempt to restart it caused a chain reaction of failures that led to the landing engine shutting down. At this point, the spacecraft was 14 kilometres above the lunar surface. Eventually the engineers managed to restore the engine's operation. But it was too late - the Bereshit had no more time to brake. It hit the surface at a speed of over 500 kilometres per hour and crashed.
Shortly after the Bereshit crash, SpaceIL announced its intention to try again. The second vehicle is being built in co-operation with the UAE. Its launch is scheduled for 2025.
In addition to several scientific instruments, Bereshit also carried a "Lunar Library" on board. It consisted of samples of human DNA, images of pages from various books and the English Wikipedia, as well as a thousand dehydrated pacifers. They were placed on a special tape wrapped in several layers of insulating film attached to the body of the capsule. Quietwalkers are one of the hardiest life forms on Earth, they are capable of going into anabiosis for many years and could well have survived the shock. So it is not impossible that there is life on the moon from 2019.
Failure of India's first moon rover
The year 2019 was a failure for two lunar missions. In addition to Bereshit, the Vikram lander carrying India's first lunar rover, Pragyan, crashed while attempting to land in the south polar region of the Moon.
"Vikram had travelled to the Moon as part of the Chandrayaan-2 mission. After entering orbit around the satellite, the platform separated from the vehicle and began its descent. At first, everything was going well. But when Vikram was only a few kilometres away from the Moon, its descent trajectory began to deviate significantly from the set trajectory. Shortly afterwards, communication was lost. The LRO probe later photographed the wreckage of Vikram, confirming that it had crashed on landing.
Investigation revealed that Vikram had successfully completed the first phase of its descent, dropping from 30 to 7.4 kilometres. But the thrust of the main engines of the vehicle was higher than rated, so it reduced speed more than it should have. And the thrust control system "Vikrama" was configured so that course corrections were not carried out immediately, and gradually, from which deviations accumulated. This was compounded by an incorrect calculation of the remaining flight time by the onboard algorithm and a strict requirement of the developers to land at the planned site regardless of the course of the flight.
The control system tried to increase the Vikram's horizontal speed to reach the landing site. It crashed right on it. The fact that Vikram crashed in the target area was hardly much consolation to the mission planners.
India has learnt from the mishap. It launched a new lunar mission, Chandrayaan-3, in 2023, and everything went off without complications. On 23 August, Chandrayaan-3 successfully landed on the moon, making India the fourth country in history to achieve this.
The lost fleet of lunar cubesats
Last year, NASA triumphantly launched the SLS super heavy rocket that sent the unmanned Orion spacecraft to the moon. In the shadow of that major success remained the problems that arose with the mission's extra payload.
At issue was a fleet of ten experimental cubesats that were launched into space as a tail cargo. Five of them either did not communicate at all, or stopped responding shortly after separation from the rocket. Another one had engine problems that prevented it from entering orbit around the Moon.
No one really expected these experimental vehicles to fulfil their missions. But such a high failure rate has a simple explanation. The fact is that the launch of the SLS was delayed due to the effects of the hurricane. A ready-to-fly rocket with cubesats already installed on it spent several extra months in the hangar, waiting for the next launch window. And the batteries of most missiles were not designed for such a long wait.
The engineers realised the risks of this situation. But they were only able to recharge a few of the cubesats. To get to the rest, they would have had to disassemble the SLS, which would have led to a new postponement of the launch. NASA, after being criticised because of the constant delays, really wanted to avoid this. So they launched SLS "as is", dooming most of the vehicles. And among the dead cubesats were some very interesting missions. For example, NEA Scout was to deploy a solar sail, and then go to meet with a near-Earth asteroid.
Wecan also highlight the Japanese probeOMOTENASHI. It was to test an experimental technology of semi-rigid landing on the Moon. OMOTENASHI was supposed to use a solid propellant engine to reduce most of its velocity, then at a height of 100 metres it would separate from the braking rocket and land in free fall (to soften the impact, the probe was supposed to open the air bag). If successful, OMOTENASHI would not only be the first private vehicle to land on the Moon, but also the smallest vehicle in history to do so.
The lost Arabian lunar rover
In 2023, several space agencies and privateers attempted to land on the moon at once. Among them was the Japanese company iSpace, once also aparticipant in the Google Lunar X PRIZE competition.
iSpace relied on the Hakuto-R spacecraft. Its payload consisted of several scientific instruments, the tiny SORA-Q robotic transformer, and the first-ever Arabian Rashid lunar rover. The 10-kilogram vehicle was built by experts at the Mohammed Bin Rashid Space Centre (UAE).
"Hakuto-R" was launched at the end of 2022. Its further fate turned out to be similar to the stories of "Bereshit" and "Vikram". After a series of manoeuvres, Hakuto-R successfully entered orbit around the Moon. The landing took place on 25 April 2023. Initially, it proceeded normally. But just a few minutes before contact with the surface, communication with the apparatus was lost. Later, the American probe LRO photographed the wreckage of "Hakuto-R".
As in the case of "Bereshit" and "Vikram", the main reason for the death of "Hakuto-R" was incorrect operation of the software. During descent, the Japanese vehicle flew over a high cliff. Due to the sudden change in altimeter readings, the onboard computer thought that the device was transmitting incorrect data and began to ignore its readings.
Therefore, when "Hakuto-R" was at an altitude of 5 kilometres above the lunar surface, the system decided that it had already landed. The vehicle's engines switched to low thrust mode. "Hakuto-R" for some time hovered above the lunar surface, and when it ran out of fuel, fell to the moon.
To iSpace's credit, the company admitted that one of the causes of the accident was its belated decision to change the mission's original landing site. Specialists conducting the landing simulation did not take into account the factor of the changed terrain, which deprived them of the opportunity to identify a bug in the software of the apparatus.
Unsuccessful Janus probes
All of the above mentioned spacecrafts have in common that they died after launch. But sometimes a space mission can "die" without ever being in space. That's exactly what happened to the Janus probes.
Janus were a pair of identical small vehicles that were supposed to study double asteroids. NASA had planned to launch them together with the Psyche mission as a payload.
But then the Psyche launch was postponed from 2022 to 2023. Quite quickly it became clear that when launched in 2023, the Janus probes would not be able to reach their original targets or any other asteroids. Specialists explored the possibility of launching them on some other rocket. However, they failed to find a suitable associated carrier, and the budget of the mission did not allow to buy a separate rocket for it.
NASA had to recognise the inevitable and announced the closure of the mission. Two assembled and ready to fly spacecraft worth 55 million dollars sent to the warehouse. In theory, NASA may eventually find some other use for the probes. But even then, they are unlikely to ever fly to asteroids again.
And so, from the material above we can draw conclusions:
Actually, nothing surprising. Development and testing of software designed to work in space or on the approach to a celestial body, by definition, involves errors that cannot be detected in laboratory conditions on Earth. The number of known and unknown factors is enormous. If satellites to the Moon were launched weekly, scientists would accumulate more data on launches and accidents, and the software would be much more reliable. However, a high frequency of missions at today's equipment costs would be astronomical. So progress in space exploration is very slow. It all comes down to money and payback on missions.
Given all the above material and my recent conclusions + the fact that expensive missions to the Moon are now more about international image than scientific goals, I believe that the scenario of primitive embezzlement of funds is extremely unlikely. I am sure that control of expenditures was conducted at the highest level. Logic dictates.
It's just bad luck. It happens.
Given all the above material and my recent conclusions + the fact that expensive missions to the Moon are now more about international image than scientific goals, I believe that the scenario of primitive embezzlement of funds is extremely unlikely. I am sure that control of expenditures was conducted at the highest level. Logic dictates.
It's just bad luck. It happens.
Why image and not the prospect of mining?
Of course, this is just my opinion, but I can make the following arguments:
1. The cost of delivery of useful cargoes from the Moon will be estimated at 10-15 thousand per 1kg. Taking into account that 1 kilogram of platinum costs up to 45 thousand dollars, one-time profit in this case can reach 25-30 thousand. I am not talking about osmium, another metal of the platinum group: its price can reach 10 thousand dollars per 1 gram! On Earth it is rare, but on the Moon it is available. Helium-3costs$5 billion per tonne. https://aif. by/dontknows/vygodno_li_dobyvat_resursy_na_lune
2. The race is on because a lunar base can only be established in a place rich in discovered ice deposits, and there are few such places.
1. The cost of delivery of useful cargoes from the Moon will be estimated at 10-15 thousand per 1kg. Taking into account that 1 kilogram of platinum costs up to 45 thousand dollars, the one-time profit in this case can reach 25-30 thousand. I am not talking about osmium, another metal of the platinum group: its price can reach 10 thousand dollars per 1 gram! On Earth it is rare, but on the Moon it is available. Helium-3costs$5 billion per tonne. https://aif. by/dontknows/vygodno_li_dobyvat_resursy_na_lune
2. The race is on because a lunar base can only be established in a place rich in discovered ice deposits, and there are few such places.
Let's go in order:
1. Technology is certainly growing, making lunar mission projects cheaper, but let's face reality: the estimates from the article are taken from the ceiling because they do not take into account a huge number of factors affecting the price, which can jump depending on the circumstances - for example, in the case of accidents. Add the cost of accidents and deduct tens (hundreds) of millions of dollars from the budget of the company (state) organiser at today's prices. Profitability is directly dependent on technology and today's technology does not allow to insure against accidents to the extent to maintain the above mentioned cost/benefit ratio. Also, today's technology does not guarantee the safety of people and cargo in outer space and on the Moon. Therefore, such a cost estimate means nothing.
2. Let's touch upon geological facts: 99% of all valuable minerals on Earth (and probably on the Moon as well) are in "impure" form and embedded in the rock sometimes so deeply that they are extracted by various complex and expensive technological processes. On Earth, this is done by the mining industry. What does that mean? It means that from the Moon will be dragged "dirty" soil, the amount of valuable material in which only approximately. That is, they will pay much more for the delivery of useless ballast than for the delivery of fossils. Further, the ballast will be processed on Earth, shedding the husks and extracting the target substance or metal. In other words, the usable mass in the transported soil compared to the useless mass will be negligible. Did you know that a tonne of clay contains about half a gram of pure gold? Imagine taking clay from the Moon to Earth and mining gold or platinum. You'd go bankrupt. However, nobody is going to start a lunar mission for gold or platinum, which the Earth has plenty of. So we're talking about something more valuable. Osmium? Helium-3? Let's say. That leads us to the following points.
3. Musk and his SpaceX have certainly reduced the cost of delivering payloads to Earth orbit by reusing reentry stages. Good for him. I repeat - to orbit the EARTH. Not the moon. And not from the Moon to Earth. He's not capable of making constant trips to the Moon and back. Therefore, it is not worth relying on him in this case.
4. Let's imagine what mining on the Moon would mean.
2. Living conditions for personnel and machines:
3. Mining on the Moon requires geological exploration and expeditions to different areas of difficult terrain. The risk to life on such forays is very high. Any accident can cost the lives of scientists or workers. Death in the conditions of the Moon, unlike on Earth, is almost guaranteed.
5. In general, protecting the health of people in such conditions will be a priority. In addition to basic things, they need fresh food, physical activity, and constant monitoring of the body, which can fail quite unexpectedly for some clots or something else in low gravity and radiation.
6. In fact, for industrial extraction of minerals and their export to Earth, it is necessary to build a protected and closed ecosystem and supporting infrastructure on the Moon. This requires not only the delivery of hundreds of thousands of tonnes of payloads from Earth to the Moon, but also the erection of protective domes, the assembly of residential complexes, the construction of warehouses, greenhouses, a medical centre, "garages" for transport and mining equipment, and most importantly, a spaceport with a launch pad.
This is by no means all that needs to be taken into account when calculating the costs of mining on the Moon. I'm sure I've missed a lot. But even this is enough to understand - modern technologies are not able to provide profitable mining of minerals on the Moon.
Therefore, we need the Moon for science and for ... image.))
Let's go in order:
1. Technology is certainly growing, making lunar mission projects cheaper, but let's face reality: estimates from the article are taken from the ceiling because they do not take into account a huge number of factors affecting the price, which can jump depending on the circumstances - for example, in the case of an accident. Add the cost of accidents and deduct tens (hundreds) of millions of dollars from the budget of the company (state) organiser at today's prices. Profitability is directly dependent on technology and today's technology does not allow to insure against accidents to the extent to maintain the above mentioned cost/benefit ratio. Also, today's technology does not guarantee the safety of people and cargo in outer space and on the Moon. Therefore, such a cost estimate means nothing.
2. Let's touch upon geological facts: 99% of all valuable minerals on Earth (and on the Moon, probably, too) are in "impure" form and are embedded in the rock sometimes so deeply that they are extracted by various complex and expensive technological processes. On Earth, this is done by the mining industry. What does that mean? It means that from the Moon will be dragged "dirty" soil, the amount of valuable material in which only approximately. That is, they will pay much more for the delivery of useless ballast than for the delivery of fossils. Further, the ballast will be processed on Earth, shedding the husks and extracting the target substance or metal. In other words, the usable mass in the transported soil compared to the useless mass will be negligible. Did you know that a tonne of clay contains about half a gram of pure gold? Imagine taking clay from the Moon to Earth and mining gold or platinum. You'd go bankrupt. However, nobody is going to start a lunar mission for gold or platinum, which the Earth has plenty of. So we're talking about something more valuable. Osmium? Helium-3? Let's say. That leads us to the following points.
3- Musk and his SpaceX have certainly cheapened the cost of delivering payloads to Earth orbit by reusing reentry stages. Good for him. I repeat - to orbit the EARTH. Not the moon. And not from the Moon to Earth. He's not capable of making constant trips to the Moon and back. So you can't rely on him for that.
4. Let's imagine what mining on the Moon would mean.
2. Living conditions for personnel and machines:
3. Mining on the Moon requires geological exploration and expeditions to different areas of difficult terrain. The risk to life on such forays is very high. Any accident can cost the lives of scientists or workers. Death in the conditions of the Moon, unlike on Earth, is almost guaranteed.
5. In general, protecting the health of people in such conditions will be a priority. In addition to basic things, they need fresh food, physical activity, and constant monitoring of the body, which can fail quite unexpectedly for some clots or something else in low gravity and radiation.
6. In fact, for industrial extraction of minerals and their export to Earth, it is necessary to build a protected and closed ecosystem and supporting infrastructure on the Moon. This requires not only the delivery of hundreds of thousands of tonnes of payloads from Earth to the Moon, but also the erection of protective domes, the assembly of residential complexes, the construction of warehouses, greenhouses, a medical centre, "garages" for transport and mining equipment, and most importantly, a spaceport with a launch pad.
This is by no means all that needs to be taken into account when calculating the costs of mining on the Moon. I'm sure I've missed a lot. But even this is enough to understand - modern technologies are not able to provide profitable mining of minerals on the Moon.
Therefore, we need the Moon for science and for ... image.)))
Specialist, in short....
Why rude?))))
I decided to keep silent that your previous answer is completely copied from the article on your link.))) Learn to think for yourself.