The unmanned craft was due to make a soft landing on the Moon's south pole, but failed after encountering problems as it moved into its pre-landing orbit.

It was Russia's first Moon mission in almost 50 years.

Russia has been racing to the Moon's south pole against India, whose Chandrayaan-3 spacecraft is scheduled to land on there next week.

No country has ever landed on the south pole before, although both the US and China have landed softly on the Moon's surface.

No report on whether or not Russia was attempting to use repurposed anti-ship missiles like the ones they use to attack schools and hospitals here on Earth.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It launched on a soyuz, which has an extremely long history. It first launched in 67. All rockets back then had icbm roots or aspirations. But for a long time all icbms use solid propellent for better long term storage rather than liquid propellant like soyuz.

[–] TrismegistusMx@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I hear you saying that they're very similar platforms. I'm saying that the neccesary differences that would make it a scientific rocket were simply missing, an empty shell, a smokeshow.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What differences? The difference between icbms and rockets to launch to space is usually the time it takes to get the rocket ready to launch, and how long it can be stored for.

[–] TrismegistusMx@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Scientific instruments, sufficient navigation technology, communications

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago

That's on the satellite itself, not the launch vehicle. As far as I know, there's no commonality between the lander and the multiple reentry vehicle upper stages of rockets. Here's more about the lander: https://youtu.be/XM8bJsqCLYQ