Failure. Both that and the Japanese probe made it to the moon. Odysseus was able to phone home briefly before its mission failed. The Japanese probe had Rovers successfully detach and return a picture of the failed landing
Failure. Just as the Japanese one that was labeled a failure by the western news just weeks before that did the exact same thing. Articles were even published saying after japan’s failure, the US could be the first to land successfully on the moon in so many decades. And it didn’t so its a failure.
Japan’s lander met all of their own internal criteria for being considered a success. And I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s at least partially true for this lander as well. This thing was absurdly inexpensive relative to previous projects, IIRC.
I would agree that the Japanese lander was a success. But I refuse to enable western hypocrisy that labels the exact same actions by two different stages in opposing viewpoints just for propaganda.
Sure. Calling the Japanese lander a failure and this one a success would be hypocrisy. I think both should be called successes, to some degree of the word success.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@lemmy.world
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
English
Failure. Both that and the Japanese probe made it to the moon. Odysseus was able to phone home briefly before its mission failed. The Japanese probe had Rovers successfully detach and return a picture of the failed landing
It’s up again
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/japanese-moon-lander-miraculously-whirs-back-to-life-a-month-after-it-went-offline-in-failed-landing/ar-BB1j3KEl
What a heretic question!!
Nowadays everything is a success if at least the very first countdown has begun. You need to explode way before if you want to be called a failure.
And yet NASA thinks Artemis is a good idea…
I’d honestly be content with keeping the ISS up or expanding it with some new modules.
Failure. Just as the Japanese one that was labeled a failure by the western news just weeks before that did the exact same thing. Articles were even published saying after japan’s failure, the US could be the first to land successfully on the moon in so many decades. And it didn’t so its a failure.
Japan’s lander met all of their own internal criteria for being considered a success. And I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s at least partially true for this lander as well. This thing was absurdly inexpensive relative to previous projects, IIRC.
I would agree that the Japanese lander was a success. But I refuse to enable western hypocrisy that labels the exact same actions by two different stages in opposing viewpoints just for propaganda.
Sure. Calling the Japanese lander a failure and this one a success would be hypocrisy. I think both should be called successes, to some degree of the word success.