Talk:Smart Lander for Investigating Moon

Are there really any rovers on board?
Hello,

Maybe it was planned for SLIM to have one or two rovers on board but current news aren't talking about those. Certainly not NASA on their SLIM page: Smart Lander for Investigating Moon

Kind regards, Sidney.Cortez (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)


 * LEV1 and LEV2 (in the article) are both on board and will be deployed later this month after landing 137.79.228.179 (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Anticipated landing date?
Would be informative to add the anticipated landing date. 64.158.95.134 (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Unfair comparison with Apollo 11 landing precision
The sole mission goal of Apollo 11 was to land on the Moon and return safely to Earth. The exact landing location was of negligible importance. Therefore, it does not provide any meaningful insights to compare Slim's landing precision with that of Apollo 11. For the Apollo 12 mission, on the other hand, the main goal was to perform a precision landing within walking distance of the Surveyor 3 probe -- which they did! Pete Conrad landed the Intrepid only 163m away from Surveyor 3. That should be a much more meaningful comparison for the autonomous Slim landing --129.194.181.196 (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * After reading your comment, I read both this and the Apollo 12 article. You're right; but, while it is an unfair comparison, what I think is that, probably it's good to compare it with Apollo 11, because except for us space enthusiasts, what most of what people remember/know about moon landings significantly is Apollo 11. Most readers will not able to relate it that much with Apollo 12(no disrespect to the mission).
 * Comparing with Apollo 11 also gives an perspective into technology improvement over all these years.
 * Your suggestion would certainly have been implemented if this article was on a space related website, but articles here need to be easy to understand/figure out for both normal readers and readers well versed in the topic. See what wikipedia is not. AnalyserOP (talk) 06:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, but encyclopedia shouldn't "relate to most readers", but should state real facts. I don't think that average reader is aware of landing precision of any Apollo, so it should be fine to mention both imprecise Apollo 11 and precise Apollo 12. But I think both comparisons are flawed - Slim is uncrewed, and should be compared with other uncrewed missions - Lunokhods, Yutus, recent Indian Chandrayaan. Artem.G (talk) 09:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * you stated: The sole mission goal of Apollo 11 was to land on the Moon and return safely to Earth. - there was more to it than that - otherwise they would not have engineered to return with moon samples 2603:6080:21F0:6140:F06D:3BB9:3E96:30F6 (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * How are they not aware about it, it's given in the article(20 km elliptic).
 * But anyways you're right, uncrewed should be compared uncrewed only. I have found that surveyor 1 which was the first lunar lander by NASA landed 14km from its aim, so maybe we could put that in?

Or the Chandrayan 3? It's landing ellipse was 4.2×2.5 km on the moon's South pole. AnalyserOP (talk) 10:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * SLIM's is the wrong article for such comparisons.

This is the right article:

List of landing ellipses on extraterrestrial bodies

kencf0618 (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes but it would be better to compare it with a similar mission because one of the main objectives of SLIM is precision landing in a 100 metre ellipse; something that nobody has attempted before.
 * We're all only discussing it here, is anybody actually gonna go ahead and edit it? AnalyserOP (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * you can check List of landing ellipses on extraterrestrial bodies. I think the most reasonable comparison is with Chandrayyan. Artem.G (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * lol, missed that it's already mentioned above :) Artem.G (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * np, I just wonder who's gonna edit it after all, I don't feel confident, can you do it for us? AnalyserOP (talk) 09:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I originally added the comparison between SLIM and Apollo 11, and as mentioned above that was for the probability of most readers being familiar with Apollo 11 even if they had never heard of Chang'e or Chandrayaan-3. The reference that was used for this also gives the landing ellipse for Apollo12, which was 13km×5km. As for improving the comparison in the article, I suggest adding a table comparing SLIM with the four most recent lunar landing attempts, namely Hakuto-R Mission 1, Chandrayaan-3, Luna 25 and Peregrine Mission One. Their projected landing ellipses were few kms, 4km×2.4km, 30km×15km, and 24km×6km, respectively. Kind regards, Hms1103 (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Awesome, that's great! About improving the comparison, I think adding a table for comparison might be too much, given that it's the background of the mission and can't be that detailed. Comparing one mission is just alright I think. Besides, there's an list of landing ellipses on extraterrestrial bodies as you might've read above.
 * Honestly at this point, I feel what you wrote is only good and needs no improvement.
 * I'll add the article about landing ellipses in the see also section. Hope this works with everybody who took part in the discussion. AnalyserOP (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Landing
Probably worth adding the photo taken by the accompanying excursion vehicle showing the craft landed on its nose rather than its side as intended explaining the lack of power. https://twitter.com/ISAS_JAXA_EN/status/1750418819242426394 WatcherZero (talk) 10:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Also worth mentioning it in the mission section.
 * https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-68091389 Leoneix (talk) 13:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you on it brother? AnalyserOP (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Nope, I am busy this time around. Leoneix (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No problem, it got edited already. AnalyserOP (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Article name change
Shouldn't the name of the article be SLIM since that's what most people know it as? Or at least add it as a redirect Ceres Junk Soaps (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * It's already listed at SLIM disambiguation page. You can request additional redirects at WP:AFC/R or create them yourself -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 04:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)