Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems like it's in Hindi. Any links for the anglophones?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLA_64yz8Ss This is in English
They both are the same links.
Chandrayaan-3 Soft-landing [video]
31–40 of 542 posts
Re: Chandrayaan-3 Soft-landing [video]
#32Re: Chandrayaan-3 Soft-landing [video]
#33Scott Manly has a video on why he thinks the last one failed. It sounds like their landing software didn't have "oh crap, we're way off course, just land wherever". It only had the happy path of "fly to here and land", so when it switched to the landing phase it tried valiently (including flying upside down) to try to fly back to the landing zone, but the landing zone was much further than fuel supplies allowed. Hope…
[deleted]
Re: Chandrayaan-3 Soft-landing [video]
#34Streaming YouTube link https://www.youtube.com/live/DLA_64yz8Ss
I think they switch between english and hindi every 5 minutes or so.
Re: Chandrayaan-3 Soft-landing [video]
#35Scott Manly has a video on why he thinks the last one failed. It sounds like their landing software didn't have "oh crap, we're way off course, just land wherever". It only had the happy path of "fly to here and land", so when it switched to the landing phase it tried valiently (including flying upside down) to try to fly back to the landing zone, but the landing zone was much further than fuel supplies allowed. Hope…
[flagged]
Re: Chandrayaan-3 Soft-landing [video]
#36Scott Manly has a video on why he thinks the last one failed. It sounds like their landing software didn't have "oh crap, we're way off course, just land wherever". It only had the happy path of "fly to here and land", so when it switched to the landing phase it tried valiently (including flying upside down) to try to fly back to the landing zone, but the landing zone was much further than fuel supplies allowed. Hope…
Not considering such a basic error condition seems like a gross omission. This can't even come from the software engineering, but must be some kind of managerial failure (e.g. we're short on time, but have to report great progress to my boss, so skip this scenario).
It probably wasn’t even the error. It could have been an accumulation of error % on some unbounded input.
Re: Chandrayaan-3 Soft-landing [video]
#37Wow almost 4 million watching already
Re: Chandrayaan-3 Soft-landing [video]
#38Scott Manly has a video on why he thinks the last one failed. It sounds like their landing software didn't have "oh crap, we're way off course, just land wherever". It only had the happy path of "fly to here and land", so when it switched to the landing phase it tried valiently (including flying upside down) to try to fly back to the landing zone, but the landing zone was much further than fuel supplies allowed. Hope…
Not considering such a basic error condition seems like a gross omission. This can't even come from the software engineering, but must be some kind of managerial failure (e.g. we're short on time, but have to report great progress to my boss, so skip this scenario).
> seems like such a gross omission.
Almost all space mission code only ever has the so-called 'happy path'. We rely on extremely tight mechanical and aerospace engineering tolerances to achieve that happy path.
The Hubble Space Telescope's primary mirror grinding was off by a matter of micrometres, and resulted in blurry images.
Consider all the Mars rovers. Imagine some wind gust threw the descending module off course, or a retro-rocket failed because of vibrations.
Writing code for space missions isn't like writing a CRUD app. Developers can't just teleport to a space probe millions to billions of kilometres away to rectify errors and debug running code on the fly.
For the record, the 'failure path' for Apollo 11 was to get the US President to announce to the world that the two astronauts would likely be marooned on the Moon. Apollo 13 very nearly failed, too.
Re: Chandrayaan-3 Soft-landing [video]
#39When it's going to land anyway?
Re: Chandrayaan-3 Soft-landing [video]
#40Scott Manly has a video on why he thinks the last one failed. It sounds like their landing software didn't have "oh crap, we're way off course, just land wherever". It only had the happy path of "fly to here and land", so when it switched to the landing phase it tried valiently (including flying upside down) to try to fly back to the landing zone, but the landing zone was much further than fuel supplies allowed. Hope…
Incredibly Kerbal vibe. I think something like that happened to me when using MechJeb. (it even has a "land whenever" feature, which it was too late to use at that point)