Talk:Chandrayaan-2/Archive 1

Launch date

Why is that in the third para the launch date is slated to be 2009 to early 2010 where as in the history it is stated as 2011-2012? Please correct this mistake. Also is it viable to have a Chandrayaan-3 article now?

Agree! there is inconsistency in the article concerning the projected launch date of Chandrayaan II. Maybe it is better to use ISRO as source for this information than different newspaper?

APS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.19.103.2 (talk) 11:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

How many rovers?

I was previously stated by the ISRO that the project would include one lander and 2 rovers: the main one being Russian, and the second one (a small one) built in India. However, the latest press releases mention one lander and only one rover: [1], [2], [3], [4] --BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Who develops the lander?

As per the news, I think Russia cited its inability to provide lander within required time, so India is believed to be developing lander on its own. The article here also says so. But, then in one of the paragraphs it mentions that Russia will provide it. And then again in the very next paragraph says Russia was supposed to do it! isoham (talk) 10:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

IPA for chandrayaan

I have added an IPA translation for chandrayaan please could someone check if it is right.Bodha2 (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chandrayaan-2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110714033007/http://week.manoramaonline.com/cgi-bin/MMOnline.dll/portal/ep/contentView.do?contentId=7859475&programId=1073754912&pageTypeId=1073754893&contentType=EDITORIAL&BV_ID=@@@ to http://week.manoramaonline.com/cgi-bin/MMOnline.dll/portal/ep/contentView.do?contentId=7859475&programId=1073754912&pageTypeId=1073754893&contentType=EDITORIAL&BV_ID=@@@

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chandrayaan-2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160705060034/http://www.isro.gov.in/sites/default/files/article-files/right-to-information/annual_report-15-16.pdf to http://www.isro.gov.in/sites/default/files/article-files/right-to-information/annual_report-15-16.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Names

While the mission is named Chandrayaan-2, I wonder if India has named the orbiter, lander and rover individually. I searched and came empty-handed, so I am requesting that if you see an article stating their names please mention it here. Thank you. Rowan Forest (talk) 12:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

A rover from TU Delft aboard?

Found this report and a paper just now and it suggests a mobile robot weighing ~1.5 kg named 'Nano Rover' from TU Delft might be on Chandrayaan-2 lander. But it is not official yet.

• https://www.trouw.nl/home/delftse-beta-s-bouwen-robotje-voor-indiase-maanlanding~a3091698/
• https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid%3A46e4b4c9-c2c0-47cb-8ef5-c206844a7f83

Ohsin 16:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Launch date

Google reference still shows launch date as January 2019 Vinod (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Navigation system design details in Lander section relevant to Chandrayaan-2?

There is a table with details on INS, Star-trackers, Altimeter etc. in the 'Vikram' lander section, it was added back in Aug, 2016 but the reference it is based on is a paper titled "Challenges in Navigation System design for Lunar Soft Landing" submitted in 2011 at National Conference on Space Transportation Systems (Thiruvananthapuram, India) which presents a study on navigation system design for a lunar lander and precedes the India/Russia collaboration fallout in 2013. Paper never mentions Chandrayaan-2 and should only be treated as a study and should not be cited for actual hardware that is being flown on lander given the design evolution it has gone through. I suggest this information table should not be kept in article as it is misleading and its relevancy to Chandrayaan-2 is inconclusive.  Ohsin  04:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

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:

• ISRO Chandrayaan 2 Working.ogg.480p.vp9.webm

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

And these videos are not encyclopedic at all.  Ohsin  16:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

First ever mission to the south polar region

That is completely false, user:DavidManchester44. The Chinese Chang'e 4 rover has been in that region since last year. Your reverts are simply disruptive. In which polar region do you think the South Pole–Aitken basin is? Now you want to use a yardstick and measure degrees? Not a pissing contest. And second: you can't even bother to research and quote your contradiction, you just revert. Care to explain? Rowan Forest (talk) 17:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

A reference commenting on the claim. https://thewire.in/space/chandrayaan-2-vikram-pragyan-moon-gslv-mk-iii  Ohsin  19:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

"ISROs claim of Chandrayaan 2 being the first mission to land in a polar region is wrong." That is an interesting article. Anyway, it is the second mission to that region, and the furthest south. We have to keep it neutral on the Moon race and national pride. This fact is entered now in the intro, and will add this reference too. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

By the way, I also deleted that the LZ is on the far side. It will be on the near side: [5]. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Given that the Moon race degenerates to a pissing contest complete with tape measure, I adjusted the wording to "the southernmost lunar landing". It is still not the south pole, but it is accurate, and without insulting the national pride of the Indian readership by mentioning the offensive Chinese lander. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually ISRO's claim can't be called incorrect. Changé 4 landed at 45° which is well away from absolute 90° from lunar pole. ISRO's targeted location is at 70° latitude which is actually in proximity to pole and lies in that region. However, as none of landings were accurate, citing it as "Southernmost mission" will be more appropriate.Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 01:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

And because the south pole is not at Lat 70°S but 90°S. That is why using south pole "region" is key. 'Southernmost' takes care of the hype. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 03:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

By criteria, you need to be at least 80°S in proximity to absolsute pole to qualify as a polar lunar landing. No such mission has taken place till date so far.Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 07:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Any claim of Chandrayaan-2 landing on Lunar South Pole in incorrect because Lunar South Pole is from 80° S to 90° S latitude. But yes it is the First mission aiming to land near Lunar South Pole Region . Chinese lander landed at latitude of 45.5° in Von Kármán crater which is far from Lunar South Pole .America's Surveyor 7 landed at 41.01 °S latitude so if someone says 45 ° S is near South Pole than the American Mission can claim to be the First mission to land near Lunar South Pole. I see many edits/reverts on this page for no reason because it is quite clear that Indian mission is First mission aiming to land near Lunar South Pole. ChadHollingsworth (talk) 05:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello user Rowan Forest ,

I saw the ongoing edits/reverts and intense discussion about whether the Indian mission is First to land near Lunar South Pole or not .

Let me clarify a few things : 1. It is not landing in/on Lunar South Pole region but it is landing near the South pole region . 2. Chang'e 4 mission of China landed at 45.5° S latitude in the Von Kármán crater which is within the South Pole-Aitken Basin on the southern far side of the Moon. 3. Despite the name of the basin , the landing site of Change'4 is not near South Pole of the Moon which is clear from the latitude of the landing site . 4. America's Surveyor 7 landed at around 41° S latitude but we can not call it near Lunar south pole region either . 5. India is aiming to land at around 67-70 ° S which can be called close/near to the Lunar South pole that is why it is the First mission aiming to land near Lunar South Pole.

Let me know if this clarifies this issue or we can raise this ticket to upper level administrators for dispute resolution. ChadHollingsworth (talk) 05:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@ChadHollingsworth: I it extremely clear to me, but not to the communication media insisting on the pole. As you said, it is not going to the south pole, not even to the polar circle (Lat 70S). Saying "near" has been problematic as it is relative - to the other landers, which are evidently offensive to the Indian national pride. That is why using "southernmost" is the best choice, it eliminates the "offensive" mention of the Chang'e 4 rover already there, it is accurate, and side-steps the intense pissing contest that PROMISES to intensify using your term. An contending Indian user has already agreed to that term. Now you are reawakening the dispute needlessly. Let me know if this clarifies this issue or we can raise this ticket to upper level administrators for dispute resolution. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

"But yes it is the First mission aiming to land near Lunar South Pole Region." ChadHollingsworth, (sockpuppet account blocked.) That is exactly the kind of language that will not settle. "Near the polar region" has PROVEN to be vague, and relative to the other landers already present in the Moon, which the Indian readership evidently finds offensive to mention in this article. My intention is to STOP the eternal pissing contest by not using "first" "second", "only", etc. and instead using the "southernmost" lunar landing. It side-steps mentioning the other existing landers, using the tape measure, and it is accurate and truethful. Rowan Forest (talk) 19:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Clarification on the Claim of Chandrayaan-2 being First Mission to Land on Lunar South Pole

Any claim of Chandrayaan-2 landing on Lunar South Pole in incorrect because Lunar South Pole is from 80° S to 90° S latitude. But yes it is the First mission aiming to land near Lunar South Pole Region . Chinese lander landed at latitude of 45.5° in Von Kármán crater which is far from Lunar South Pole .America's Surveyor 7 landed at 41.01 °S latitude so if someone says 45 ° S is near South Pole than the American Mission can claim to be the First mission to land near Lunar South Pole. I see many edits/reverts on this page for no reason because it is quite clear that Indian mission is First mission aiming to land near Lunar South Pole. ChadHollingsworth (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChadHollingsworth (talk • contribs)

Sockpuppet has been blocked. Rowan Forest (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Polar circle vs polar region

On Earth, the polar circle begins at latitude 66°. I wonder if it is the same for the Moon? This article (link mentioned above) suggests it is at 80°. If the "lunar polar circle" exists, it would be more a more precise term than "south polar region". Any thoughts or info? Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Rowan Forest:For Earth the polar circle is defined by its axial tilt (23.4°) w.r.t ecliptic plane (90°-23.4°=66.6°) but lunar axial tilt w.r.t to ecliptic plane is just 1.54° so lunar polar circle should be at 88.46° but we are not counting in elevation profile.

https://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/new-light-on-the-lunar-poles-156800678/

 Ohsin  11:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Laser Retroreflector Array(LRA)

is it a part of payloads? 

If so, why ISRO sites it as passive experiment everywhere on their official site? AbhiMukh97 (talk) 14:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

References