Talk:Lunokhod 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Results: distance covered[edit]

On June 19th 2013 a news report in Nature published results of a revised estimate of the distance (42.1 instead of 37 km) covered by Lunkhod 2. See references below: [1]

The methods used for this revision are sound and published in Scientific Journals [2]

The old estimate of 37 km should now be replaced by the new one as suggested by various sources (also check references therein). [3] [4]

The paragraph outlines the new findings in the first two sentences and includes all relevant references:

Lunokhod 2 operated for about 4 months, covered 42.1 km (26.2 mi) of terrain, including hilly upland areas and rilles, and sent back 86 panoramic images and over 80,000 TV pictures.[2][3][4]

Based on wheel rotations Lunokhod 2 was thought to have covered 37 km but Russian scientists at the Moscow State University of Geodesy and Cartography (MIIGAiK) have revised that to an estimated distance of about 42.1 to 42.2 km based on Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) images of the lunar surface.[5][6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zamonin (talk) 11:39, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

The original estimate for Lunokhod 2 was around for almost 40 years and is well referenced. I would oppose any attempt to remove it from the article. Also the link to the ScienceDirect article was for Lunokhod 1 and where is the scientific journal for Lunokhod 2? Have they published their results for Lunokhod 2 in a scientific journal? --GrandDrake (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The way the paragraph is written right now "and the original estimate was that it covered 37 km (23 mi) of terrain" is fine with me. However I would like to clarify some points:
As stated above the ScienceDirect article refers to methods not the actual distance of Lunokhod 2.
Here [5] is an abstract that states "The full traverse was determined to be about 42 km long" (see chapter 2).
LRO was launched in 2009. Before its launch, there was no way to come up with a revised distance and therefore no reason to change the estimate for almost 40 years. But that's the beauty of science. New tools and methods lead to new insights. Wikipedia should embrace them. --Zamonin (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) Reply[reply]

Other topics[edit]

What does "4850 kg (approx. 4.77 tons)" mean? I thought 4850 kg would exactly equal 4.85 tons.

There are nonmetric tons as well as metric ones - clarified. Dysprosia 07:32, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Does anybody know whether (and if, where) the mentioned TV images can be found? Is there some archive on the web somewhere?

Just what is in the external links of the Lunokhod pages... About 5 images total, I think. Perhaps someone who can read Russian might find something more on the Internet. Ricnun 14:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some time ago, I found a website where some of the original image data was run through modern computer processing to recover all of the original data. The data was stored on magnetic tape at full quality, but the methods used originally to produce viewable images could not reproduce the full quality. I just tried a search on google for lunokhod data processing and was unable to find that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talkcontribs) 06:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Landing and surface operations[edit]

In the third paragraph in the section "Landing and surface operations", the first sentence reads:

"After stopped and charging batteries until, it takes more images of the lander and landing site, and then sets out over the Moon."

This sentence is not grammatically correct. Not knowing what the author's original intent was, I am hesitant to change it. Does anyone know how this sentence should read?

I think it means that the rover descended from its landing vehicle, charged batteries, took images of the lander and landing site and then started its explorations. Ricnun 14:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not quite correct[edit]

Understandable, but the image shown is not quite correct. See Phil Stooke's correction at According to Phil Stooke, the dark circle is actually where the radiator accident occurred and not the final location. We may have to wait for the media to produce corrections so that wikipedia can cite them. -84user (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The subtitle on the LRO photo of Lunokhod's path seems wrong. The black arrow indicates Lunokhod's landing site, doesn't it? The crater where it picked up the dust was struck only two days before it fell silent, should be very close to the rover's final position.Aubri (talk) 14:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Large sections of this article lack inline refs, and there is no bibliography. Chaosdruid (talk) 11:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lunokhod 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]