HAKUTO-R M1 Moon landing

Показать описание

ispace’s HAKUTO-R Mission 1 (M1) Lunar Lander has attempted to land on the Moon, in the Atlas Crater, on 25 April 2023, at 16:40 (UTC). HAKUTO-R M1 is the first privately-led Japanese mission designed to land on the lunar surface.
Credit: ispace
ispace HAKUTO-R Mission 1
HAKUTO-R M1 landing on the Moon
25 April 2023

Рекомендации по теме

Комментарии

Respect for all scientist behind this mission 🙏 love from India

prakharsharma

I like the way he said, never quit in the end. Really inspiring.

sancharimondal

kudos for them as Indian i can understand this feeling

ashurai

Woo congra 99.9% success from India. 👍👍👍

keysglim

Same as Indias Chandrayan-1 mission .Global space community should have shared mission critical data .

poyzhyo

Looked to me, live, like it packed it in at about 35-40kph. Thrust dropped off toward the end which is surprising... normally delta-V capacity increases with propellant expenditure. Anyhow, 35kph into dust would be survivable.

linuxgeex

I felt like the speed was too much as it descended, It should have been slower .

markbaker

running just short of fuel seems very likely, as based on the descent speed and altitude readouts from the stream vod, how it jumps from 2 to 3km/h for a second before going to 0 over the course of 4.6 seconds which so happens to correspond with the free fall time from 20 meters under the moon's gravity, it's very likely it was in free fall for that last 20 meters, so it would have hit the ground at 8m/s, or the equivalent of an olympic middle distance sprinter running into a brick wall
Update: Apparently it's even more interesting than this.

As it turns out, the telemetry readouts were completely wrong. The lander did run out of fuel, but nearly 5km up rather than 20 meters.
On spacecraft, you have multiple sensors like accelerometers, control gyros, and radar altimeters all working together to basically let the spacecraft know where it is and how it's oriented in space. Part of the core software of the lander was basically to take these readouts and create a virtual environment where you can calculate position and velocity.
However, also in this software is a kind of failsafe mechanism where if it detects anomalous or sporadic readouts, it will begin to ignore the instrument responsible. This happened with the radar altimeter, it reported that the surface altitude went down by 3km very quickly, and the software thought that was an error and began to ignore it. But it wasn't broken. While en route to the landing site, the lander passed over a steep cliff at the edge of a crater, which the altimeter saw.
So with no way to really measure altitude, the spacecraft had to rely on its last known altitude and rate of descent, and would slowly subtract from them based on data from the accelerometers and gyros. The problem is though, it last heard that the altitude of the surface was 5km higher than what it actually was at the landing site. The computer managed to perform a rather immaculate descent to where it thought the surface was, but since there was no surface, it just sat there descending very slowly waiting for touchdown, and eventually ran out of fuel, tumbled over, and went into free fall for about 78.5 seconds and hit the ground at around 128m/s. 8m/s would have been a pretty hard landing as is, but 128, that was enough to scatter some debris.

snowthemegaabsol

Great attempt, wishing everyone all the best for the next one. Yes its disappointing that the landing failed, but lessons were learned. If everything goes perfect all the time there is not learning oppertunity.

AnalogX

No problem, all the best..try try ....until you reach it : - from India🇮🇳

venkatadula

I seriously hope they get a signal but that aint gonna happen ;-;

Labertasche

Seems it has been smashed on the surface…

Baptiste-hldv

You mean to tell it’s likely the legs broke off, but it can still operate. Now it’s just sitting there….broken

kazuhirala

They didnt had real time data, only animation?

rishabhchaudhary

why the final approach so difficult? because of land effect or because of signal interference? I thought the latter should not be the reason as it must be automated by the lander itself?

joey