https://archive.li/10BV3

The unmanned craft was due to make a soft landing on the Moon’s south pole, but failed after encountering problems as it moved into its pre-landing orbit.

It was Russia’s first Moon mission in almost 50 years.

Russia has been racing to the Moon’s south pole against India, whose Chandrayaan-3 spacecraft is scheduled to land on there next week.

No country has ever landed on the south pole before, although both the US and China have landed softly on the Moon’s surface.

No report on whether or not Russia was attempting to use repurposed anti-ship missiles like the ones they use to attack schools and hospitals here on Earth.

    • masquenox@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nobody walked away from that landing, so it definitely wasn’t a good one. The fact that there was nobody to walk away from the landing is a mere technicality.

  • MrNesser@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    The US should put a lander together out of trash for shits and giggles and have it land perfectly.

    • EmbeddedEntropy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      A 1979 TV show about a guy who put together a junk spaceship to salvage junk from the moon: Salvage 1.

      My teenage self found it entertaining at the time. Hmmm, now where did I leave my parrot? I wonder if he could help me find a copy…

    • cassetti@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Well, I mean NASA pulled a spare mars rover out of their R&D testing labs, modified it’s toolset a bit, and sent it to Mars for a second soft landing (didn’t they use a sky-crane for both rover deployments?). I’d say that takes a bit more skill than landing on the Moon. But I don’t play Kerbal Space Program enough to know how much

      • holycrap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not coincidentally none of the space agencies out there that are capable of this would find it worth their time to launch a mission just to teabag another nation.

        • eskimofry@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          just to teabag another nation.

          Gestures broadly at the space race of the 1950s

          • holycrap@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            None of the space agencies in the 1950s would be capable of landing gently on a crashed spacecraft.

            In the 1950s they had the interest but not the capability. Today they have the capably but not the interest.

    • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      It launched on a soyuz, which has an extremely long history. It first launched in 67. All rockets back then had icbm roots or aspirations. But for a long time all icbms use solid propellent for better long term storage rather than liquid propellant like soyuz.

      • TrismegistusMx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I hear you saying that they’re very similar platforms. I’m saying that the neccesary differences that would make it a scientific rocket were simply missing, an empty shell, a smokeshow.

        • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          What differences? The difference between icbms and rockets to launch to space is usually the time it takes to get the rocket ready to launch, and how long it can be stored for.

    • kattenluik@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      If a dishwasher had any chip capable of processing anything at all it would be suitable, which is pretty funny.

      • SheeEttin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Most modern dishwashers have some kind of processor, and yes they’d be perfectly capable of handling the necessary computations.

  • TheMadnessKing@lemdro.id
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    As someone fond of science, its kinda heart breaking as many people spends decades of work to make this stuff and their dreams get crushed when these fail. Hope they fix and launch another one.

        • masquenox@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s amazing how the funding for space exploration just magically appears when nationalist pissing contests are a go-go. But healthcare? How could we possibly afford it?

            • masquenox@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Whether they should is a thing unworthy of consideration - if they don’t it means we have no use for states at all. The interesting thing is whether they could if they wanted to. And the answer to that is yes - they could. The fact of the matter is that they do not want to.

          • Cataphract@lemmy.ko4abp.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            This is off-topic, but I keep seeing Anglo being used (maybe I just keep running into your comments). Is it suppose to be insulting like in the context of your comment? Is it descriptive? How do you know if someone is an Anglo online? Do you feel like it has any negative connotations being used? Feel free to answer any of the questions or none at all lol, curiosity got the better of me.

              • Cataphract@lemmy.ko4abp.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Huh, I was forced in my early years to be raised around very conservative and racist individuals so your use of the word and validation for it’s usage feels very much like my childhood experience. To each their own though, the commonality is just interesting to me when I saw your first comment.

    • ElHexo [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The Soviets were the last to land on the moon (other than China).

      NASA has been too busy pissing money into the Shuttle and SLS industry subsidy programs. I think they have a couple micro lander projects on the go though, slated for next year or the year after.

  • Aurix@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The russian wording on the mission failure is something to behold. Luna-25 “ceased its existence”.

  • NuclearDolphin@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    Comments exactly what I expected. Disappointed how many people here are knee jerk celebrating the failure. Feels like being in a room full of Republicans when someone says anything about Mexico or Islam.

    I hope they fix their shit for Luna 26 for the sake of science and human discovery.

    • Zippy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      You know normally I would applaud them. Happy when China has a success. Screw Russia though. This was a propaganda mission to get a win. The fact that did it in a rush to beat another country is typical of their philosophy. There was little science in this but mostly just dick waving.

      • Grimpen@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        This was my impression. This was a rushed propaganda mission for prestige using existing material.

        Still, I’m sure there would have been some useful science done, but the main point of the mission was that Putin’s regime would have been able to crow about how great Russia is doing.

        Of course, if it had succeeded, it might have spurred some competitive spirit in other space powers.

    • Gerula@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well your intention is admirable but childish.

      Nobody gives a fuck about Russia’s scientific endeavours when they’re re starting the biggest military conflict in Europe since WWII and threatening everyone with a nuclear conflict.

      Most probably any scientific progress that could be made will not be used for mankind’s progress but for the current militaristic propaganda.

      • NuclearDolphin@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        All of Apollo took place during the Vietnam war. Somehow I think you’d feel differently about that.

        • Gerula@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’re correct about the Appolo missions, but don’t tell me the Space Race was about science. It’s was fully politically motivated also. Without the Cold War nobody would have put the money and effort in so the Moon landing could happen in '69.

          There are a lot of other missions that happened for pure scientific reasons but I don’t think this is one of them.

      • AlexTheTurtle@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Disagree. I hate the russian goverment and its fascist invasion lf Ukraine, but a moon lander is great scientific progress no matter where it comes from. It is sad that this happened and its why the lack of international cooperation in space exploration is bad for humanity as a whole.

        • Gerula@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I understand your point of view and it’s correct but not realistic. This mission is bashed because it’s purpose was never science but propaganda. To validate a Phoenix like revival of the Russian empire. That they are strong and relevant on the world scene. The reactions to the failure were in tune with the intended purpose of the mission. Science (like usual) is the background of the political agenda.

        • spaceout@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          People here acting like a moon mission is going to uncover the cure for cancer. lmao

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Russia’s Luna-25 spacecraft has crashed into the Moon after spinning out of control, officials say.

    The unmanned craft was due to make a soft landing on the Moon’s south pole, but failed after encountering problems as it moved into its pre-landing orbit.

    The spacecraft was scheduled to land on Monday to explore a part of the Moon which scientists think could hold frozen water and precious elements.

    Roscosmos, Russia’s state space corporation, said on Sunday morning that it had lost contact with the Luna-25 shortly after 14:57pm (11:57 GMT) on Saturday.

    “The apparatus moved into an unpredictable orbit and ceased to exist as a result of a collision with the surface of the Moon,” it said in a statement.

    Russia has been racing to the Moon’s south pole against India, whose Chandrayaan-3 spacecraft is scheduled to land on there next week.


    The original article contains 174 words, the summary contains 141 words. Saved 19%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!