Talk:Chandrayaan-2/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Important project people

Does anyone know the names of important persons who played very important role in Chandrayaan 2 Saifullah kashmiri (talk) 11:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I did a bit of research on it, Chandrakanta Kumar - a Bengali farmer's son is said to be the deputy project manager. As filmy as its gets, his parents named him SuryaKant (i.e Sun) but changed to Chandrakant which is derived from the moon. destiny perhaps.

Here are my sources:

Chandrakant Kumar - Bengali Farmer's Son - Republic World

Chandrakanta - The Moon Child - News 18

Can anyone fit this into the article somewhere? i dont know which section to put this into. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddheshasawa (talk • contribs) 11:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I think a list of team/programme Directors is appropriate. Research it first, instead of adding just one or two names. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation should be in Hindi and not Sanskrit

The original Chandrayaan article correctly has the pronunciation of Chandrayaan in Hindi. However, the Chandrayaan 2 article claims that the pronunciation is in Sanskrit. If it is in Sanskrit, it should be pronounced Chandrayaana and not Chandrayaan. Shall I go ahead and correct this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sreecharan 93 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

In sanskrit the word would be यान, it's transliteration would be yAna so it is pronounced as yaan in sanskrit as well, so no change is required. You can cross check this here. Zack1455 (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I think Sreecharan 93 is talking about Schwa_deletion_in_Indo-Aryan_languages. यान is pronounced as यान् with the schwa deleted at the end in Hindi. Chandrayaan seems to be pronounced as it would be in Hindi with the schwa deleted at the end. Otherwise, Chandrayaan would have to be spelled as Chandrayaana. Vayu —Preceding undated comment added 17:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Usable gif?

Beginning with a full-frame Moon in this video, the camera flies to the lunar south pole and shows areas of permanent shadow. Realistic shadows evolve through several months.

This interesting gif and caption is on the Colonization of the Moon page, seems it may be usable here. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Pragyan or Pragyaan?

It appears two English spellings are used to translate the Sanskrit word विक्रम, which the rover is named for. On ISRO's official website Pragyan and Pragyaan are both used. Are both spellings correct? And if they are, which should be used here? Kind regards, Hms1103 (talk) 11:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

The lander is named 'Vikram' (विक्रम) and rover is named 'Pragyan' (प्रज्ञान) in press releases and press kit they spell it as Pragyan. They should have used Pragyān to prevent confusion over spelling and pronunciation of word. Ohsin  12:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

The pages Comparison of Asian national space programs and Template:Lunar rovers both had the rover spelled 'Pragyaan', so I went ahead and fixed it. Regards, Hms1103 (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

References

The optimized mission plan up to Trans Lunar injection

Date	Event schedule (IST)	Targeted orbit (km)
24.07.2019	14.00-15.30	230 x 45162
26.07.2019	01:00 - 02:00	250 x 54689
29.07.2019	14:30 - 15:30	268 x 71558
02.08.2019	14:00 - 15:00	248 x 90229
06.08.2019	14:30 - 15:30	221 x 143585
Trans Lunar Insertion
14.08.2019	03:00 - 04:00	266 x 413623

Edited by Shrinivas Rawal

The spacecraft is scheduled for lunar orbit insertion by August 20, 2019.

References

Duplicated info

The table and Earth-orbit burns section have identical information, but I think that the table is the best way to display it. I'm suggesting to delete the prose and leave the table. Your thoughts? Rowan Forest (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it does appear redundant because things so far have gone smoothly. Orbit raising phase can be tricky with Van Allen radiation causing hiccups and then these brief descriptions are very handy to accommodate event details and any remedial measures. If geocentric phase clears uneventfully we can sum it up in one short paragraph.  Ohsin  18:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good. I also recommend a very short explanation on the purpose of the multiple burns and gravity assist around Earth, for those readers not familiar with that. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 23:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Errors: "Apogee" and "Perigee" assignation are inverted

Appear very extensive in several spots of this article. Please author have to care of semantics and correct those mistakes, check definition of Apogee and Perigee in Wikipedia. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.242.77.255 (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Launch mass vs. Payload mass

There are 2 section on mass in the Infobox: one must display the launch mass (wet/dry), while the other must display the payload mass: the scientific instrumentation on each of the 3 spacecraft. Please review it, because the payload entries are not quoting the instrumentation but the spacecraft mass. Thank you, Rowan Forest (talk) 14:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• A view of Mission Operations Complex 1 (MOX-1) at ISTRAC, Peenya before commencement of fourth orbit raising burn for Chandrayaan-2.jpg
• Chandrayaan-2 lander and orbiter integrated stack.jpg
• Chandrayaan-2 payloads APXS.png
• Chandrayaan-2 payloads CHACE2.png
• Chandrayaan-2 payloads CLASS.png
• Chandrayaan-2 payloads ChaSTE.png
• Chandrayaan-2 payloads ILSA 6.png
• Chandrayaan-2 payloads LIBS.png
• Chandrayaan-2 payloads XSM.png
• GSLV Mk III M1, Chandrayaan-2 - Orbiter at SDSC SHAR 01.jpg
• GSLV Mk III M1, Chandrayaan-2 - Pragyan rover mounted on the ramp of Vikram lander.jpg
• GSLV Mk III M1, Chandrayaan-2 Lifting off 01.jpg
• Images of the Earth captured by Chandrayaan-2 Vikram Lander camera LI4.webm
• Pragyaan Lunar Rover for Chandrayaan-2.png
• Pragyaan.ogg
• Vikram.ogg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Language of origin on names of spacecrafts and related citations

Dispute over mention of language of origin seems needless as names of Chandrayaan-2 and rover component Pragyan have been officially mentioned having Sanskrit roots of origin. An oft cited Sanskrit dictionary was referenced way before ISRO had any mission page but it has apparently irked few new editors. For uninitiated a proper introduction to new words, their pronunciation (IPA) and meaning feels appropriate so I am extending same resource for meaning of Vikram lander as well. On naming of Chandrayaan, former chairman ISRO, Dr Kasturirangan had this to say

Actually we sent a note to the PM saying that we will undertake this under the name Somayaan. However the PM announced it as Chandrayaan. He also called it as Chandrayaan-1. When I went to greet him for making this announcement, on the next day, he was so happy. When asked about the change in the name, he said that he had consulted some more Sanskrit scholars and they suggested Chandrayaan as a better name.

Again this is about encyclopedic background of unfamiliar names not language related chauvinism. {Jesuboy — Sundarpic — WikiiUSA:  Ohsin  19:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Likely error in used gif

CY-2 around moon

The CY2 gif used in this article is shown here. Now compare this with the gif for Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter.

LRO around moon

Isn’t something wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaibhavafro (talk • contribs) 13:25, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

For clarification, just observe the circular ‘angel-ring’ on the moon formed in the CY2 gif. That goes against the laws of orbital mechanics I learned in high school. Vaibhavafro (talk) 13:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't know orbital physics, but I always took these diagrams as showing the initial highly elliptical orbit following capture, which is later circularized using onbord power. Rowan Forest (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes that is true. But the gif shows the orbiter to be hovering above one of the poles of the moon. That is not the case in the LRO gif. There has to be something wrong here. Probably a simulation error. Vaibhavafro (talk) 13:55, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Yes, in the CY2 gif, the spacecraft hovers over the pole. That is a simulation mistake. Perhaps @Phoenix7777: can take a look. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

The animation is based on the data provided by Horizons. LRO is certainly orbiting the Moon with a speed described in the Orbital speed, ie 1.5-1.6km/s and an altitude of 200 km. However CY2 is not orbiting the Moon but cruising above 2km of the Moon with a speed of 0.0015km/s (5.4km/h). For further details, please ask ISRO.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Phoenix7777:, ISRO says that the orbiter will be placed in a 100x100 km lunar polar orbit (that is, a circular orbit passing over the poles). Yes, the lander will certainly hover over the pole for a short amount of time before landing. But the orbiter will carry on it’s business just like any other orbiter in a circular orbit. Vaibhavafro (talk) 00:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Phoenix7777: Since ISRO now has officially released most of the data related to the selenocentric phase of the mission, it would be very kind of you if you could redo the gif. Thank you. Vaibhavafro (talk) 04:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I checked the Horizons data, but it has not been updated yet. Why do you think "ISRO now has officially released most of the data related to the selenocentric phase of the mission"?―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Phoenix7777: I was referring to the data about the lunar orbits achieved by the lunar orbit burns, ie, the data about the gradual circularisation of the orbits around the moon. Shouldn’t that be enough to simulate the gif again?Vaibhavafro (talk) 08:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't simulate anything. I am using this Horizons CSV data to plot the animation. So there is no chance for me to make an error creating the animation.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:18, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I understand that a polar orbit (90° inclination) is not the same as hovering over the south pole as shown. I too think there has to be a misunderstanding somewhere. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Quote: "However CY2 is not orbiting the Moon but cruising above 2km of the Moon" -Phoenix7777

I don't know orbital dynamics but that is a very strange statement, since it is well documented that the orbiter is in polar orbit to communicate with the lander near the south pole (that is why it is called an "orbiter": "[…] planned orbit maneuvers to reduce an initial 118- by 18,078-kilometer orbit into a 100- by 100-kilometer lunar polar orbit by Sept. 1." SpaceNews. There are many such references stating the orbiter is actually orbiting the Moon (currently lowering its speed and altitude), not just settle for a flyby of the south pole, or hovering steadily over the south pole as the animation shows. What am I missing? Is it a mini-halo orbit? Rowan Forest (talk) 18:37, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I updated the animation using the latest data. The previous data was available until 31 December, but currently it was only available until 3 September. So the confusing part of the orbit was removed. Please use ctrl+F5 to refresh the cache. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I can see the gif is till 3 September but I am unable to see any change for 5th lunar bound maneuver that is on 1 September. Either the change is orbit is so small that it is not visible to me? Or it will be updated after the maneuver? Brown Chocolate (talk) 01:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@Brown Chocolate: The change is most probably due to the postponement of the launch to 22 July from 15 July. ISRO had to rework some aspects of the earth and the lunar bound manoeuvres to compensate for the delay. Vaibhavafro (talk) 04:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@Vaibhavafro: I didn't got you. Hope you got my query right. In corrected gif look time vs orbit. All data till 30 August looks correct but after 5th lunar bound manoeuvre that ISRO will perform on September 1st looks like not added. There is no change in Gif on 1st September. I guess after 5th manoeuvre CY2 is planned for 100×100 orbit. Simply, I think the data after 1st September is missing. Brown Chocolate (talk) 05:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@Brown Chocolate: I think you didn’t go through the earlier comments of Phoenix7777. See Phoenix’s last comment. Vaibhavafro (talk) 06:10, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

As far as I understand, the data is not yet updated on Horizon. So it will be updated later. Brown Chocolate (talk) 06:18, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@Phoenix7777: I thank you for your work and follow up. The final orbit looks good now. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the ISRO will update the data (in Horizons) to include the whole mission of CY2 in the future. Then I will update the animation, Until then, please be patient.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

CY2 Lander

The trajectory of CY2 lander was released, but it is only available until 5 September. The 5th lunar bound maneuver on 1 September can be seen, but the 1st/2nd deorbit burn are not recognizable. See releasse note.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Phoenix7777: It is logical to assume that they will release the full trajectory after the CY2 has successfully landed. Vaibhavafro (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• First Moon Picture by Vikram Lander.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Updating final orbit of orbiter

After the Vikram lander separated, ISRO said that the orbiter continues to orbit in its ‘existing orbit’. What is this existing orbit? Is it 96 km x 125 km? Vaibhavafro (talk) 08:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Maybe before separation the orbit was 119km ×127km. After separation the orbit is 96km×125km. Currently the orbit should be 96km × 125km as ISRO again said in 2nd deorbit statement. Brown Chocolate (talk) 09:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Brown Chocolate:So, should we update the orbital parameters in the infobox now? I think we should. Vaibhavafro (talk) 10:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Brown Chocolate and Vaibhavafro:Apparently there was an unannounced 36 second burn to adjust its orbit so it passes over lander at right time.  Ohsin  11:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

If the burn was performed because of lander, it again remain unclear that whether orbital be operational in same orbit or will change it for rest of its mission. I think ISRO will perform a burn to change the orbit. As per ISRO it was said that orbital will be in 100km × 100km circular orbit. Brown Chocolate (talk) 11:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Lunar landing phase

A bit off topic: this animation titled: Animation of Chandrayaan-2 (LANDER) around Moon.gif ("Lunar landing phase") may be mathematically correct, but visually, it does not provide any information because of the scale. I think it clutters the gallery; any objections if I delete it? Rowan Forest (talk) 14:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, it is very difficult to see any change in orbit unless we zoom into gif. As change in orbit is very less, I think this gif doesn't has much importance. @Phoenix7777: Any thoughts? You are creator. Brown Chocolate (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

ISRO updated the data until 7 September. Now the 1st/2nd deorbit burn and landing are visible. Please use ctrl+F5 to refresh the cache. I am sure the ISRO team is watching this talk page :).―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Excellent news, and now the lander animation is visually much more informative. Thanks Phoenix7777  Ohsin  13:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, Thanks Phoenix7777 for your excellent work for all animation. Brown Chocolate (talk) 13:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

References

South polar region vs southernmost landing

Chang'e 4 landed on Von Kármán (lunar crater), which doesn't qualify as south polar region by any means. CY2 is the first landing in the south polar region. And that is what media all over the world is reporting. Vaibhavafro (talk) 08:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I guess it could be fairly called first to attempt soft landing in "LQ30", south pole region is vague and "south pole" is flat out wrong. Previous discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chandrayaan-2/Archive_1#First_ever_mission_to_the_south_polar_region  Ohsin  09:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I am really confused and unclear about South pole region. @Aman.kumar.goel: left a massage on my talk page about South pole after my revert. And also as per archive discussion on talk per, Should we really call CY-2 is going to land in South pole region? South pole region is between 80°S to 90°S. No doubt it will be more closer than Changé-4. But will it be called First to land in south pole region? I think like last time discussion on this topic we should called "southern most" rather just declaring that it is in South pole region. Brown Chocolate (talk) 10:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok, quite an enlightening discussion; I removed my recent edit in which I added the ‘south polar region’ claim. Vaibhavafro (talk) 09:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Clearly, there is a new Moon race going on, and as in the 70s, it is intimately linked to national prestige. It is understood and fairly implied that every space mission will perform the "First xyz" wherever it goes, so I think that word is redundant. If it was my country's lunar mission, I too would be struggling to write with neutral terms and expand the text on the symbolism to my nation, so I acknowledge and admire the restraint by Vaibhavafro and other Indian editors in this article. Every lunar mission is remarkable by its own achievements, and this amazing mission is just getting started.

I learned that because of the lunar libration, there is no formal polar circle on the Moon; ±80° Latitude gives an idea, but it is informal. Either way, CY-2 will land at 70° south, outside that circle. It would be correct to mention the "LQ30 quadrangle" but the layman reader is not likely to be familiar with it; it was definitely not informative to me when I first saw the code LQ30. Therefore, I think we should be OK using either "south polar region" or "near the south polar region". The entry could spell something like: "[…] the southernmost lunar landing, near the south polar region." I'll go with the consensus. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Rowan Forest: Thanks for the compliment! Vaibhavafro (talk) 06:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Loss of contact

The live feed suggests that the probe crashed. But we need references to that. Rowan Forest (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

There is a massive edit war going on over the partial failure (orbiter still funcional) of the mission between 70.180.245.165 and 107.242.121.7! 70.180.245.165's edits are really badly worded and sound puerile - there's hardly any need to write "failed" and "failure" so many times in the lede when just once would be enough. IMO the article needs to be locked ASAP and a proper edit about the full extent of failure made later once ISRO itself confirms the exact fate of the lander. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.36.138.104 (talk) 01:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Just a note to highlight that the failure of communication was before it landed, not after. ISRO has the telemetry and they know it failed to land - not whether it landed but it is silent. While ISRO's statement did not use the "crash" word, [1] the Prime Minister tweeted words such as "set back", and "proud of a programme that had come so near to putting a probe on the Moon". In summary: the only question is the nature of the landing failure preceding the [likely] crash. The search for the impact crater is on, as it has enormous scientific value if they can see sub-surface water ice. Rowan Forest (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

terrestrial landing test sites to be identified. airborne range of drop: 20000-15000 m. observations range < 5000m.

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2019

YeasinArafatImran (talk) 04:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)YeasinArafatImran

 Not done - No actual request was written. Rowan Forest (talk) 13:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Don't add sub-sections in the article without submitting a request.

There was no need to add a reaction section. The article is about a Scientific mission, a more accurate and needed sub-section will be reasons behind launch failure with scientific details. And even if it can be justified, it was filled with content that seems appropriate for a local or a privately owned newspaper company, but not in compliance with Wikipedia's neutral POV policy. Kindly don't add your thoughts on Article.meowmeow \S-) (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree, and the "Reactions" section is also WP:RECENTISM. It should be about the post-failure analyses, and continuation of the mission by the orbiter. Rowan Forest (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the aftermath, ISRO reported that the engineering goals of the lander (steps and phases of the landing sequence) had scored about 95% success. (*Chandrayaan - 2 Latest Update. ISRO Press Release on 7 September 2019.) This is similar to the crash of the European Schiaparelli EDM Mars lander under similar timing. Because ESA obtained the landing telemetry, they understood what happened, so they officially declared the Schiaparelli landing a success. I think it is quite similar in this case, although the rover was lost. I think it is informative to add this, in a better oriented "aftermath" section. Rowan Forest (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, 'Reactions' section has no need and it is just full of stray commentary. It should be replaced with 'Results' when they begin to come and they are bound to as payload-suit is impressive. Also the article lead already says one of the main objectives was to survey landing site and probe has just started its life so any early declarations on success are more about execution of commissioning phase. 'Mission progress' section can be added to document all new developments.  Ohsin  01:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit request

Under Reactions, please add the word "in" as follows:

This was the third attempted landing on the Moon in 2019, following the Chinese Chang'e 4 which successfully landed in January, and the Israeli Beresheet, which crashed on the lunar surface during the final landing process in April 2019.

i.e. please change: "This was the third attempted landing on the Moon in 2019, following the Chinese Chang'e 4 which successfully landed in January, and the Israeli Beresheet, which crashed on the lunar surface during the final landing process April 2019." to "This was the third attempted landing on the Moon in 2019, following the Chinese Chang'e 4 which successfully landed in January, and the Israeli Beresheet, which crashed on the lunar surface during the final landing process in April 2019."

 Done. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 00:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Location found

The location was found, but: "[K. Sivan] added that it must have been a hard-landing."[2] Can't say in Wikipedia that the lander is "intact" so I deleted that. Thermal imaging from orbit will show a shapeless red spot; it could be the lander performed an automated landing after all and it did perform the last burn, or it could be the image of the impact crater. High resolution imaging in the visible spectrum is sure to follow. Rowan Forest (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with your earlier edit saying this is likely upbeat PR or borderline propaganda. I believe we should keep the fact that it was spotted and communication attempts are being made, but we should not say that it is likely it landed softly and the mission will continue. There is absolutely no way that it landed softly. We need to be on the look out for people who will continue to edit the page to make it look like the lander is in perfect shape. AndrewRG10 (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm baffled by the language used with respect to this supposedly 'found' lander. 'found the thermal image' and 'clicked a thermal image' seem to be common to most of the sources. After going through some twenty sites, and after 24 hours since claims, I still can't find any image at all; I'm further puzzled by how a far IR image could stand up to the sort of high resolution only available to visible-light imaging sensors. I'm about ready to dispense with 'supposedly found lander' and move on to 'supposed lander'. Something ain't kosher. JohndanR (talk) 22:43, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed AndrewRG10. meowmeow \S-) (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

In part, ISRO is to blame for being vague in their scant updates. Having said that, they have no responsibility to control and debunk every falsehood in the media, but we do have to screen them in Wikipedia. The thermal imaging scan was needed to find the general location, and having a 2 h orbital period, it is logical that the later images are optical. Keep in mind that this Moon race is mostly about national pride, and lunar science is a close second place. For as long as ISRO doesn't release the optical images of the impact site, the fans will claim a successful landing with a secondary communication glitch. The whole story will surface eventually, and the embellishments will need to be sifted for Wikipedia with the aid of specialized aerospace publications. Rowan Forest (talk) 13:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Kindly vote to remove a section from the article

As Rowan and Ohsin & I support that the "Reactions" subsection is not of any use on the article. But I would still like to know the general opinion regarding the removal of the section from the Article and maybe add an "Aftermath" Section as suggest by Rowan.
Do respond.meowmeow \S-) (talk) 04:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, it felt needless and over-detailed. Get rid of it. Shanze1 (talk) 06:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Remove, as other articles on wiki about failed space mission, aftermaths is best option than reaction. C'mon, no one criticize a failed space mission, every one support such agency who tried. Brown Chocolate (talk) 08:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Remove Just putting my vote, Thanks for removing it.  Ohsin  13:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the removal, and I agree with Brown Chocolate that an "Aftermath" section will be created (not a critique), whenever the investigation outcome is published and an actual aftermath happens. As a side-note: I am a huge fan of ISRO and its amazing capabilities, and am aware that because of political and social reasons, the official description of the lander's outcome must be upbeat in India. So in Wikipedia we may have to 'translate' the meaning of the press releases in an objective way, best if using reliable secondary sources dedicated to aerospace. As an example, I saw Indian press reports and videos stating that the "landing site" was found, when in fact it was the "location" of what seems to be the impact crater. Rowan Forest (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Completely Agreed with Rowan on his side note. At such conditions, Indians are surrounded by lot on such news all over social media, news agency. It is hard to believe in news agency about all their reports. Therefore I completely stop editing regarding this mission. There are lot of questions, confusion in mind. I think, therefore we should only believe in known, reliable, neutral and international agency for our edits. Brown Chocolate (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Reaction section has been removed.

Reaction section has been removed from the main article. Kindly don't undo the removal. Any request regarding that should first be discussed on the talk page. In case your proposal for reversal isn't supported by wikipedian, the current edit will be served as the final version.meowmeow \S-) (talk) 12:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Clarification needed

The telemetry (one-way communication from lander to Earth) was lost upon impact, not at 2.1 km altitude.

The live event showing the telemetry is at YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnkCBmoH9c8

• If you freeze the image at mark 12:28 minutes we can see the trajectory deviation (green line) indeed started at 2.1 km altitude AND the telemetry (one-way communication from the lander) of the automated landing sequence kept on going, as everyone in mission control cheered and watched.
• Now freeze the image at mark 13:32 min - 13:36 min, where it shows the last telemetry: altitude is 0.335 km (335 meters)
• Now freeze the video at mark 24:03 min - 24:25 min where it shows in the upper right other parameters of the last telemetry received: Vertical speed: 59 m/s (210 km/h) (horizontal speed: 48.1 m/s (173 km/h) and at 1.09 km from the targeted landing zone).
• Skip to mark 39:14 min, where Mr. Sivan announces the status, and here is where the confusion started: "the trajectory deviation started at 2.1 km, subsequently, the communication from the Lander to ground stations was lost."
• Fact: The "subsequent" loss of the one-way telemetry happened 5.6 seconds from impact (210 km\h vertical speed ÷ 330 m altitude) as shown in their mission control screens, not at 2.1 km altitude as reported by the media. The small time delay is due to the electronic conversion of the sensors into data packets that are then sent to the radio antenna for transmission to Earth.
• The final telemetry was not lost at 2.1 km altitude, and it is not my POV or synthesis, but is also explained by the MIT Technology Review at [3]. Again: the telemetry continued below 2.1 km altitude, as shown in the live transmission, up to the point where the expected "touchdown confirmation" never came and their excitement and cheers well BELOW 2.1 km became a silence only after the failed touchdown confirmation. I want to use the MIT report in the Wikipedia article to clarify this, while omitting the word "impact". Rowan Forest (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

In mission profile section-vikram landing, instead of telemetry there should be trajectory. We should change it. Brown Chocolate (talk) 18:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I corrected that, making a differentiation between its trajectory and telemetry. Thanks Rowan Forest (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I found one important source of misinformation: PK Gosh, an official at ISRO. [4]. Quote: "I heard that the lander was, actually, fallen on one side." (Video time mark at 1:05 minutes). Rowan Forest (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

In addition of the future official ISRO updates, a reliable ISRO source that can be quoted will be Mr. P S Goel, whom was appointed to head the failure analysis committee. [5]. Rowan Forest (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I've seen the story presented by PK Gosh mentioned on several sites. Scott Manley reported in an update to his video that ISRO said that a hi-res photo showed it tilted but he questioned how that would be able to be determined given that the image would be less than 10 pixels across. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

That computer at mission control showing the lander tumbling has to be explained eventually. Nice video. Rowan Forest (talk) 01:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The Prime Minister, Mr. Modi went on record and said this on the crash: "Countrymen are not ready to accept negativity." [6]. He has ISRO's gonads, just as Trump has NOAA's on the Alabama hurricane. Watch the sources quoted in this article, and the context. The misinformation is sad. Rowan Forest (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Definitely sad, especially that it's coming from ISRO itself. I was just looking at this edit that you made, the source of which reiterates the claim of a thermal image but today I was watching a YouTube video from India Today in which they played a recording of a phone discussion with Sivan. When the recorder asked about a thermal image Sivan responded, "No, a normal photo." Which was it? Your edit says that the condition has not been described but there are numerous reports stating that it is on the moon but tilted, as I mentioned earlier. This has been reported by several people identified as ISRO scientists. Very contradictory. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The Indian media is full of contradictory speculation, and even changed the story and that first image is not thermal, but high resolution. See this report on that: "“What PTI has published (intact / tilted) isn't confirmed. We haven’t confirmed it as well.” The clarification said the space agency would provide an update as and when it had confirmation on Vikram's fate. (Is Vikram lander intact? Reports differ.) -Rowan Forest (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Thermal imaging was needed to find the location, so now they are likely acquiring high resolution images. Status: No official statement on those expected images, nor on the lander's potential condition; just ISRO workers & ex-workers talking to the media. Rowan Forest (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2