SLIM lander's precise 'moon sniper' tech will lend itself to future lunar missions

How revolutionary are these technologies? How accurate was the previous most accurate lander? Are LEV-1 and LEV-2's methods of motion useful for anything other than micro-rovers? Are micro-rovers important in the larger picture?
 
Sep 8, 2023
48
21
35
Visit site
How revolutionary are these technologies? How accurate was the previous most accurate lander? Are LEV-1 and LEV-2's methods of motion useful for anything other than micro-rovers? Are micro-rovers important in the larger picture?
That you're asking those questions answers most of them. 😇

As for "revolutionary", well, IIRC most space landing systems rely on radar, lidar, or both and are mostly altitude-focused. Hitting a specific hundred meter area (say a landing circle or a drone at sea) without a homing beacon, from earth is a significant achievement. That it runs off image recognition (an AI sub-field) is also significant.

JAXA made some very smart choices on what tech to focus on. Bodes well for their contributions to ARTEMIS.
 
I agree that JAXA has made some real progress in landing site approach technology. But the actual landing went awry, apparently because the optics got confused by the surface features during the final approach. So, there still seems to be a bit more to learn before we are going to have high success putting landers on a small flat spot in the middle of rough surfaces. Aiming for the lunar south pole, where the shadows are always long, is probably the toughest place to do an automated landing in an unfamiliar landscape with no "gps-like" system available.
 
I agree that JAXA has made some real progress in landing site approach technology. But the actual landing went awry, apparently because the optics got confused by the surface features during the final approach. So, there still seems to be a bit more to learn before we are going to have high success putting landers on a small flat spot in the middle of rough surfaces. Aiming for the lunar south pole, where the shadows are always long, is probably the toughest place to do an automated landing in an unfamiliar landscape with no "gps-like" system available.
I thought it was an engine failure. You might be confusing it with Ingenuity. It says the following in this article:
Japan Times reported that Sakai explained that JAXA scientists believe that SLIM's strangely orientated landing came about as a result of one of its two main engines stopping during the 30 seconds or so of touchdown and at an altitude of around 165 feet (50 meters) over the moon.
 
You might be right about me misremembering about the Ingenuity helicopter being confused by a smooth section and tipping so that its lower blade hit the surface. But, that is not what I was thinking with the JAXA lunar lander. I may be recalling some other speculation about SLIM's problem, but I can't find that now.

I am wondering why a rocket motor would detach close to touchdown and end up "lying on the lunar surface". How was it determined that the nozzle did not dislodge on landing/impact?

Whatever, it was a step forward, but not a complete success with respect to the mission plan. If there had been humans aboard, they would be in a deadly situation at this point in their mission, with not way to lift-off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cisventure Astronot
It was an engine problem:

"Jaxa said the probe would probably have been within three to four metres of its intended landing site had one of its main engines not lost thrust in the final stages of its mission, causing a harder landing than anticipated. It had been aiming at a 100-metre-wide target."

 

Latest posts