Here we can see Vikram descent to 335 meters. The big question is at what speed it was descending? 
Yes it was coming down vertically as it may have found a place to land through its automated system but problem is it was coming very fast. Signal lost means battery malfunction or crash.
Another probable theoryHere we can see Vikram descent to 335 meters. The big question is at what speed it was descending?
View attachment 9923
Pre Determined destination was probably a crater whose depth is 335 m from ground level but due to deviation in the landing position the lander crashed on on ground level???@gautam
that is what I am saying it crashed in the rim of crater or some battery malfunction occured due to fire and short circuit short.
If the mars mission is any indication the damn orbiter will still be giving data 20 years from now
gravity of lunar is 1.6m/s^2 ...which means far less than ours....if descending speed was as per requirement i wouldn't consider it as crash land....lets say we lost connection with vikram...then he should come down slowly ( weak gravitational force) which mean touch down impact shouldn't be strong and equipment should be just fine.....may be it rolled down side ways.....
if this crazy theory is correct , then we can re-establish connection.
who knows i may be wrong....what do u say
if this crazy theory is correct , then we can re-establish connection.
who knows i may be wrong....what do u say
It can also be the case that guidance and engine system malfunctioned and it crash landed it using a wrong trajectory. As time passes by, this eventuality becomes more probable.
It means that there is probably some structural integrity. If it had crashed and completely broken up they would not try to re-establish contact.
Although this is not shown in live feed but that comm should have been saying ON just before impact.
@Ashwin provided video that i also suspected earlier. Lander was upside down during decent and altimeter readings could have been erroneous. Lander had too little room to recover.
If you listen to the Hindi commentary it clearly states at this phase it is expected to be tilted
After going thru various details, I have come to the conclusion that the decision to remove side thrusters which are akeen to bow thrusters on ships, has caused this failure. The initial model had these side thurusters for trajectory control and the main engines were exclusively for velocity control. somewhat like we had in the satellite kill vehicle. somewhere down the line they decided to remove the side thrusters to reduce weight and use the orientation method for control of trajectory. It is clear from the way it tumbled over to get its projected path correct at about 6kms had caused it to go out of control. Its rotation upwards to pitch down to catch the projected path forced it to catch the path but increased its vertical velocity. After that it continued to swing while descending which caused it to loose its orientation and it could never recover from it. I strongly suggest that we must have retained those side thrusters and should not have used the orientation method for trajectory control.
Please mark this post. You will find something similar explanation when the report comes out.
Please mark this post. You will find something similar explanation when the report comes out.
The image of the lander shown on the Vikram Descent trajectory screen, is not upside down. it appears to be an animation showing the Vikram lander reorienting its position for the eventual vertical landing.
If you observe the sharp deviation shown on the trajectory screen in the fine break phase, lander is not coming down as you would expect in a powered descent, rather it appears to be a straight free fall. During the final phase of the fine break operation, the four side thrusters were expected to shut and one the central thruster would be firing. I think the side thrusters either shut off prematurely or the central thruster did not fire.
If you observe the sharp deviation shown on the trajectory screen in the fine break phase, lander is not coming down as you would expect in a powered descent, rather it appears to be a straight free fall. During the final phase of the fine break operation, the four side thrusters were expected to shut and one the central thruster would be firing. I think the side thrusters either shut off prematurely or the central thruster did not fire.
I was talking of side thrusters which were supposed to be on the four sides of the lander and not the bottom four thrusters which were there to help the main engine.
More details but not sure how confirmed given the source.
Yesterday there was news that the lander is in contact with the orbiter. If that be the case, ISRO can probably use the Orbiter as a relay to communicate with the Lander.
May be during the final descent only the communication systems failed and the landing happened as planned.