In sci.space.policy Pat Flannery wrote:


Henry Spencer wrote:

Yep. Too much of a single-point design for my taste, especially given
modern electronics. Full guidance and a capability for small midcourse
corrections just isn't that big a deal any more.


I always thought it was a great example of the Soviet Union's KISS*
philosophy in regards to spacecraft; no midcourse correction needed
means no failure of midcourse correction equipment; gravity (one can
hope) won't break down.
Of course you end up having your choice of landing sites severely
curtailed; but if it's a propaganda victory as opposed to useful lunar
science you are after, then it's a pretty clever way of keeping down
both the weight and complexity of your return spacecraft. It would be
interesting to know how they handled the possibility of the lander
coming down on uneven or sloped ground, so as to keep the ascent stage
aimed straight upwards.

My guess would be they didn't and just corrected after blast-off. yes you
get an additional failure mode (larger slope angle than anticipated)
but i doubt an electro-mechanical gadget letting you do this with
resonable precision would have been that large.


*- "Keep It Simple, Stupid!"

Pat


--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++