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.

  • Tankiedesantski [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    Yeah, Russia should be like heckin’ wholesome NASA and their peaceful apolitical former SS officers who never bombed any hospitals or schools instead.

    • UFO@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ah yea. Who can forget the US operation

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Osoaviakhim

      The US created the first liquid propulsion rocket. While Stalin, oh, imprisoned their scientists in the gulag.

      Plenty of SS officers and other Nazis went to Russia to make the R-1 clone of the V2. Which, btw, had a failure rate higher than the US clone.

      • Tankiedesantski [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        53
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ahh yes, bringing German scientists and technical staff to the USSR to learn from them and then repatriating them back to the GDR 5 years later is exactly the same as putting an SS Sturmbanfuhrer who was personally in command of a facility where slave labor was worked to death into leading roles in your space program into the 1970s.

        Let’s also just conveniently ignore the fact that the R-2 rocket was developed by Korolev’s team in direct competition with the G-1 rocket developed by a German team working in the USSR. The USSR chose the R-2 over the G-1 specifically because it didn’t want the Soviet space program being led by Germans and by 1950 had repatriated most of the German specialists.

        After 1950 the Soviet program was largely indigenous, led by Korolev and other Soviet citizens. All of the major achievements of the Soviet program were led by Soviet citizens, scientists and workers.

      • SimulatedLiberalism [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        34
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The entire V-2 team under von Braun from Peenemunde surrendered to the Americans on May 2, 1945 and brought with them more than 400 core scientific-technical employees, full documentation and reports and more than 100 intact copies of the A4/V-2 rockets ready to be shipped to the front, together with the combat launchers and the military personnel trained to operate the missiles.

        The Peenemunde site was by then already deliberately destroyed to prevent anything useful from falling into the Soviet hands.

        Operation “Ost” did happen, however, but the highest ranked German scientist they managed to recruit was Helmut Grottrup, who was von Braun’s deputy for missile radio-control and for electrical systems. He had claimed to be an anti-fascist, we may never know the truth, but he was indeed imprisoned by the Nazis for a time.

        The vast majority of the German specialists who worked for the Soviets were not former associates of von Braun in Peenemunde, but were instead introduced to rocket technology when the Soviets established the Institutes RABE and Nordhausen in Germany after winning the war.

        Werner von Braun later remarked:

        “… the USSR nevertheless succeeded in acquiring the chief electronics specialist Helmut Gröttrup… But he was the only important catch from among the Peenemünde specialists.”

        Other German scientists who worked for the Soviets such as Kurt Magnus and Hans Hoch (leading academics in gyroscopy) as well as Manfred von Ardenne (later awarded Hero of Socialist Labor) came from the academia and adjacent industries, and were not members of the Nazi Party.

        They also managed to recruit workers and technicians who were POWs liberated from the Dora concentration camp (which supplied personnel for the notorious Mittelwerk factory, where von Braun had committed crimes against humanity including the torture, beatings and execution of the prison labor). Many of the POWs were involved in the sabotage of the A4 (V-2) rocket production at Mittelwerk, and resulting in substantial proportion of misfires and inaccurate flight trajectory when the Nazis used the rockets against England.

        In other words, the Soviets had to reverse engineer pretty much everything from scratch (the R-1, which is the copy of A4/V-2), while the Americans got everything they needed. The Americans only fired the V-2 a few times, and then went on with their own “hybrid” designs such as the Navaho, Aerobee and Viking.

        And in spite of all this, with such overwhelming advantage, the Americans still LOST the race against the USSR. The R-7 became the world’s first ICBM to be launched in 1957.

        To put it in the terminology of you computer nerds, the Americans got the entire core dev team, with the complete source code and full documentations, and the whole tech support team, while the Soviets had to work with and piece together information from third party developers, and still raced ahead of the Americans.

  • NuclearDolphin@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    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.

    • ElHexo [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s disappointing particularly because it would have been the first landing on the south pole.

      It’s also a bit silly because NASA hasn’t exactly being doing so well since their last moon landing more than half a century ago.

    • 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
      17
      ·
      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
        13
        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
        4
        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
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

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

    • RuthlessCriticism [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      33
      ·
      1 year ago

      This but unironically. In general though, there is nothing more galling than liberals complaining about Russia. You made it this way. This is on you. First you destroy the soviet union, then you reconfigure the politics and economy of Russia, and then you have the audacity to complain about the very thing you caused.

      • Surface_Detail@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ah yes, well known liberal checks notes George Bush.

        Russia cannibalised itself after the Soviet Union fell, didn’t need any Western help there.

        • duderium [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          31
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          The USA was attempting to destroy the USSR from day one. Despite being an extremely intelligent and educated person, you were never told that the USA actually invaded Russia within months of the October Revolution. Liberals are such a fucking joke.

          “The USSR destroyed itself.” Give me a break. The USA’s entire existence derives from stealing land from indigenous people and enslaving and exterminating them. Because the USSR dared to declare that it was an anti-colonial, anti-imperialist, and anti-capitalist project, the USA dedicated everything to its annihilation. But thankfully the story isn’t over. China never broke with Stalin.

          • Surface_Detail@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            My guy, China is the least socialist place on earth. It is so capitalist and so unequal. You pay to use the roads, you pay to use the hospitals, you pay for any schooling past middle school, if you don’t have a city residence permit your pension is 5% of those that do.

            Have you ever been?

            • duderium [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              32
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Capitalism is when you pay for things, and the more you pay for things, the more capitalister it is. When atoms exchange valence electrons, for example, that’s capitalism right there. Entrepreneurship has been woven into the fabric of reality since God, the great investor in the sky, created it.

              What’s funny is that the US ruling class doesn’t pay for anything—they’re so rich and powerful specifically because they’re stealing from everyone else (including you)—yet nobody would argue that the US isn’t a capitalist hellhole in terminal decline.

              I have to wonder—if China isn’t a socialist country, why is every student there compelled to study Marxism? Isn’t it extremely dangerous for a country masquerading as socialist to expose every single student under its sovereignty to Marxist texts?

              • Surface_Detail@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                If socialism isn’t from each according to his means to each according to his needs then what the fuck is it?

                • duderium [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  28
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  The quote is “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs,” Mr. Marxism expert.

                  Was capitalism built in a day? Do you think that Xi can just press the communism button and make everything instantly perfect everywhere? That’s not how it works. China is currently doing the USSR’s (and Stalin’s) NEP, but they’re doing it so much harder than Stalin ever did. They are literally hanging the capitalists with the rope the capitalists are selling them. Once the forces of production are built up to a point where everyone’s necessities are met—and once the USA is no longer in existence—it will become possible for the world to move forward into the next stage of history.

                  Also I like how you didn’t answer the question about Marxism being taught to Chinese students. Because there is no answer. Because you are wrong 😉

            • Duży Szef [he/him]@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              21
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Capitalism is when exchange.

              In exchange for such a shit statement I could give a slap on the face and that would count as capitalism in your book.

              • Surface_Detail@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                If your idea of socialism is homeless people dying in the streets and people stepping over children because taking them to hospital lumbers you with their medical bills then, sure, China is as socialist as they come.

                • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  and people stepping over children because taking them to hospital lumbers you with their medical bills then

                  This is an outdated trope from a defect in their liability laws that are mostly fixed.

            • Orcocracy [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              22
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              In the sense of “liberal” as used in political philosophy or how the word is applied to party names in most countries around the world, yes Bush was a liberal. Americans tend to use the word differently though, since both major US parties are pro-business liberal parties, of a sort. This maybe applies a bit less to the Republicans today than in did in GHW Bush’s day, although by how much is still up for debate.

        • Rod_Blagojevic [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The bourgeoisie cannibalised Russia. Liberals from the west insisted that Russia and the rest of the Soviet republics would be ruled by the bourgeoisie. This was the whole point of the Cold War. At huge expense to its own citizenry the west conducted a series of proxy wars and led an arms race to make it as difficult as possible for workers to control their own destiny.

          As expected, false scarcity and extreme inequality followed, and to justify or explain this inequality, the bourgeoisie used from the usual ethnic and sexual minority scapegoats. With your weird understanding of history, you’re obviously American, so none of this should be hard to understand. You have people dying on the streets, the government won’t even raise the minimum wage, but the news about the evils of Mexicans, blacks, trans people, etc. never stops.

          • Rod_Blagojevic [none/use name]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That states had to react to threats from the US never crosses their mind. The whole dissolution of the USSR and subsequent pillaging played out on the nightly news for years and I’ve never met a liberal that remembers it. They do vaguely remember that the USSR had an aggressive security state but can’t ever understand why.

        • UnicodeHamSic [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Man, we needed you decades ago. Imagine how much money we could have saved on thr cold war. All that threatening to destroy the planet for nothing. The genocides we did? Judt big oopsies

    • Tankiedesantski [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Whatever scientific data humanity would gain from such a success is in no way worth the decade of triumphant screeching from Hindu nationalists that would result.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        But would it be worth it if Russia did the same?

        (Though, this isn’t mentioning they targeted the moon because all their missions to other planets ended in total failure. This one did at least make it to it’s target, so that’s better than Russia has done in a long time. Their space program, along with their government and military, is a joke.)

        • Tankiedesantski [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          I suppose that depends on your opinions on the relative annoyingness of Russian nationalists vs Hindu Nationalists.

          Given that most Russian nationalists post in Russian and aren’t heavily present in English spaces, I find the Hindu nationalists to be more annoying.

          • Cethin@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            So purely because you think they’re annoying… and you’re on hexbear where 90% of the comments are a stupid image instead of anything meaningful. Alright. I guess you’re probably an expert on annoying at this point so you’re opinion must be valid, right?

        • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          There are fascists among Russian nationalists, but they are not the people in power (e.g. darling martyr for western media, Navalny, is one). In India, the fascists are much more powerful. On that basis, I think the Russian ones would be bothersome but not as much so. Much better for it to be China, but they can’t do everything.

      • Duży Szef [he/him]@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah totally, juuuuust Russia. It’s not like the whole eastern bloc is in ruins and progress has been more or less stalled for 30 years. But nah m8, just Russia

  • TheMadnessKing@lemdro.id
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    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.

  • 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
          6
          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.

    • FaceDeer@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      On the one hand, science yadda yadda knowledge for all mankind etc.

      On the other hand, failure and humiliation to Russia.

      I’m actually a big fan of space exploration and of the exploration and exploitation of the Moon in particular, but under the current circumstances I’m not terribly saddened on the balance.

      • Bloops@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        It sounds like you don’t care that much about science if you’re actually considering national humiliation to be as important as scientific progress.

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

          Actually a little bit of humiliation goes a long way towards diligence when conducting expensive space experiments. Russia used to be the leaders in these fields. The world used to rely on Soviet vehicles for launch. They deserve to be held at a higher standard.

        • FaceDeer@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          I care very much about science. However, it’s not the only thing I care about, and thwarting Russia’s endeavours are also right up there. Real lives are at stake as opposed to hypothetical and abstract scientific returns. If Russia’s humiliation causes Putin’s regime to collapse quicker then I care about that very much indeed.

          How much science was really going to come out of this lander, in the grand scheme of things? Why can’t that science wait?

  • SexMachineStalin [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Of course the BBC has to throw in that bit of kkkracker cope at the end. Nevermind how challenging a south pole landing would be relative to elsewhere on the moon.

    :bathroom:

    • 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.