Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Twin Probes Crash Into the Moon

Posted by timothy on from the as-promised dept.

SchrodingerZ writes "After their yearlong mission to map the Moon's gravitational field, twin probes Ebb and Flow crashed into the lunar surface, ending the GRAIL mission. The crashes were controlled events, each impacting 30 seconds apart from each other. The twin spacecraft were running low on maneuvering fuel and NASA, not wanting the craft to fall on historical sites such as the Apollo landing sites, redirected their flight patterns to impart the far (dark) side of the moon. Their impact sites were named after Sally Ride, the first American woman in space. 'During the news conference last week, Maria T. Zuber, the principal investigator, said the probes would be crashing into a "non-sunlit" part of the surface.' When the site becomes sunlit again in several weeks, the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter will attempt to take pictures of the craters the probes undoubtedly made in the lunar soil."

19 of 79 comments (clear)

  1. Lunar Warming by craigminah · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm sure the EPA or Al Gore is going to file a claim against NASA for lunar warming or polluting the surface of the moon.

    1. Re:Lunar Warming by Lord+Lode · · Score: 2

      And what are they gonna say if they crashed on the house of some of the men living on the dark side of the moon?

    2. Re:Lunar Warming by telchine · · Score: 3, Funny

      And what are they gonna say if they crashed on the house of some of the men living on the dark side of the moon?

      There are no men living on the moon. FACT!

    3. Re:Lunar Warming by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Funny

      There is no dark side of the moon. As a matter of fact, it's all dark. Well, that's what Floyd told me anyway.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
  2. Far (dark) side? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The moon doesn't have a permanent dark side any more than the earth does!!!! The far side is in fact the mainly bright side during a new moon.

    1. Re:Far (dark) side? by SternisheFan · · Score: 4, Informative
      You are correct. From the NY Times linked article: "In my article last week about the impending demise of Ebb and Flow, I noted, "Unfortunately, since the action will happen on the dark side of the Moon, there will be nothing for earthlings to see." About a gazillion people, including Robert Kirshner, a Harvard astronomy professor, wrote in to ask, "Didn't you mean to write 'far side' and not 'dark side'?" The more annoyed wrote: "Dark Side of the Moon??? Come on now. You know that is not correct! You completely blew a potential teaching moment, to educate the public that the **FAR** side of the Moon is **NOT** dark! Instead you perpetuated yet another scientific misconception. No wonder we are facing a crisis in science literacy in the U.S. The New York Times can and should do better!" Except I really meant, "dark side" -the side of the Moon facing away from the Sun. What was confusing to many was a remembered tidbit about the Moon, that there is always one face towards Earth, and the other always out of view, and they presumed that the crashes will be on the far side and therefore blocked from view. If that were the case, "far side" would be correct.

      A smaller number of readers wondered why the spacecraft will crash when the maneuvering fuel runs out. The Moon has no atmosphere and therefore there is no friction to slow them down. But the Moon's gravity is uneven and the orbit is not perfectly circular. Without periodic course adjustments, it will become more chaotic and elliptical, and the ellipse will intersect with the surface of the Moon -i.e., crash."

  3. Dark != Far by tverbeek · · Score: 5, Informative

    "redirected their flight patterns to [impact] the far (dark) side of the moon."

    Wrong. As TFA takes pains to explain, the "dark side of the Moon" and the "far side of the Moon" are not the same thing.
    An the impacts were on the near side of the Moon, while it is dark.

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    1. Re:Dark != Far by stridebird · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ...the rotation of the moon just about exactly matches the revolution around the Earth

      I think we can say exactly, as it's not a coincidence that the rotations align like that, it's a stable configuration of two bodies in orbit

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking

    2. Re:Dark != Far by Soft · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...the rotation of the moon just about exactly matches the revolution around the Earth

      I think we can say exactly, as it's not a coincidence that the rotations align like that, it's a stable configuration of two bodies in orbit

      Yes but there's still libration. Although the Moon's rotation and revolution periods are indeed exactly the same, its orbital speed changes slightly over each orbit. So "just about exactly" is justified too.

  4. Remember this in the future by gmuslera · · Score: 2

    No matter how it ends, Earth shoot first.

    1. Re:Remember this in the future by Domint · · Score: 2

      No matter how it ends, Earth shoot first.

      Nah, in 20 years when we re-release the footage we'll just use a little cgi magic to clearly show the moon shot first and missed, hitting the cantina wall behind us.

  5. no shit dumbass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Even the summary says "would be crashing into a 'non-sunlit' part of the surface" (not "side") followed immediately by "When the site becomes sunlit again in several weeks...".

    Damn illiterates.

  6. Interesting conversation at NASA: by Andy+Prough · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Oh, bye the way, which one's Pink?"

  7. It is just me... by Covalent · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...or doesn't it seem a bit odd to name the crash site after Sally Ride? I mean, name the Mountain after her...OK. But a crash site named after a (now dead) astronaut seems a little wrong.

    --
    Great warrior...hrmph! Wars not make one great.
    1. Re:It is just me... by operagost · · Score: 2

      Naming it after Christa McAuliffe seemed a bit inappropriate.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    2. Re:It is just me... by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 2

      It's been proposed to name the entire (currently unnamed) mountain after her, but IAU rules require a person to be dead for at least three years before you can name an astronomical feature after someone. Ms Ride has priority, but must wait.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
  8. Re:The Grey Lady is senile by tverbeek · · Score: 2

    If you RTFA, you'll see that the NYT is correct. The submitter screwed it up.

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  9. Obligatory... by automag · · Score: 2

    That's no moon. It's a space station.

    --
    ---As my daddy used to tell me: "You gotta be smart before you can be a smartass."
  10. Re:not to be too sensitive but... by johnny+cashed · · Score: 2

    Considering she served on the accident investigation board of the Columbia accident (2003), and then died this year (2012) of pancreatic cancer, I say that there is no sick irony in naming this crash site after Sally Ride. Is there some other crash site named after an astronaut that perished in a crash?