LRO development |
![]() ![]() |
LRO development |
![]()
Post
#61
|
|
![]() Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 1281 Joined: 18-December 04 From: San Diego, CA Member No.: 124 ![]() |
HOWEVER; I'm also hearing fuzzy rumors that the current RLEP-2 project is in serious trouble -- which I'll hold off on until I have some details. ![]() ![]() -------------------- Lyford Rome
"Zis is not nuts, zis is super-nuts!" Mathematician Richard Courant on viewing an Orion test |
|
|
Guest_BruceMoomaw_* |
![]()
Post
#62
|
Guests ![]() |
No, it's just "holding off" on saying so flat-out until I have more confirmation and more details. I already got burned once yesterday, after all (although in that case, it was the result of concluding, logically I think, that when Ames called their proposal a "satellite", they meant a lunar orbiter and not a lunar impactor. Turns out they weren't that logical, and they REALLY needed a cutesy acronym like "CROSS"...)
In response to Bob Shaw: I DO have solid confirmation now that Cowing's right in saying that the rejected Goddard proposal -- with which Raytheon was associated -- was a hopper-lander, not an impactor. But it did use some of Raytheon's EKV technology. (I believe there's actually been something on the Web recently about this concept, if I can find it again; it wasn't called "Lunar Explorer" then.) |
|
|
![]()
Post
#63
|
|
![]() Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 2488 Joined: 17-April 05 From: Glasgow, Scotland, UK Member No.: 239 ![]() |
Bruce:
I suppose that the EKV technology, although intended to say 'helloCRUNCH' to incoming MIRVs was actually quite transferable to a Lunar hopper; it'd be nice to think that the legacy of DC-X may yet play a role, with the shade of Pete Conrad at the helm... ...it'd help with the precision landing requirement! Bob Shaw -------------------- Remember: Time Flies like the wind - but Fruit Flies like bananas!
|
|
|
Guest_BruceMoomaw_* |
![]()
Post
#64
|
Guests ![]() |
Cowing now confirms that RLEP-2 is in very serious trouble, precisely because the mission has been allowed to metastasize to grotesque proportions.
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2006/04/...changes_at.html : "Mark Borkowski, director of NASA's Robotic Lunar Exploration Program (RLEP), apparently left NASA HQ last week. More personnel changes in RLEP lie ahead including the possible departure of Borkowski's Deputy John Baker. Meanwhile, reliable sources report that RLEP2 costs have continued to rise from the target range of $400 to $750 million to well over a $1 billion ($1.2 billion or more). Some talk of outright cancellation has been heard." My Inside Source has not only been repeating that story for months, but naming the person he says was always at the heart of the mistake --who, according to him, is not even honestly mistaken, but involved in a deliberate flim-flam to bolster his personal career, and using his personal ties to Griffin to further that effort. Not wanting to lay myself open to a libel suit quite yet, I'll withhold the name for now -- but my Source says that he was actually trying to persuade Griffin to raise RLEP-2 to such gargantuan dimensions that the mission would, by itself, cost $4 billion. My Source also says that the alternative plan for RLEP-2 has involved a somewhat more involved version of Goddard/Raytheon's little "Lunar Explorer" hopper unsuccessfully proposed as the piggyback craft for LRO -- and, indeed, judging from the alternative "point design" lander described in Borkowski's earlier slides on RLEP-2 ( http://www.digitalspace.com/presentations/...p2/DSC09739.JPG ), this seems to be true. If they fly RLEP-2 at all now, this is the more probable mission design. Given the extent to which Bush's lunar program is already being screwed up, though, who knows whether it will fly at all? |
|
|
![]()
Post
#65
|
|
![]() Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 2488 Joined: 17-April 05 From: Glasgow, Scotland, UK Member No.: 239 ![]() |
Bruce:
The mission design as shown in the slide at the URL below strikes me as being among the most perverse possible. Two landers is just strange, strange, strange! All the economies of scale work *against* this concept, which requires multiple unique duplicates of functionally identical technologies. http://www.digitalspace.com/presentations/...p2/DSC09739.JPG Bob Shaw -------------------- Remember: Time Flies like the wind - but Fruit Flies like bananas!
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#66
|
|
Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 1636 Joined: 9-May 05 From: Lima, Peru Member No.: 385 ![]() |
|
|
|
Guest_BruceMoomaw_* |
![]()
Post
#67
|
Guests ![]() |
Bruce: The mission design as shown in the slide at the URL below strikes me as being among the most perverse possible. Two landers is just strange, strange, strange! All the economies of scale work *against* this concept, which requires multiple unique duplicates of functionally identical technologies. http://www.digitalspace.com/presentations/...p2/DSC09739.JPG Bob Shaw I was just telling my pal: "I can think of a way to make it even more cost-effective. It really makes more sense to use a separate Earth-orbiting satellite with artificial gravity to study the effects of prolonged 1/6 G and lunar-level radiation (which can be simulated) on Earth organisms -- especially since you can spin such a satellite at different rates to determine what level of G-force really IS necessary to keep Earth critters healthy. "But if you remove that from the experiments on RLEP-2, then, instead of having to have two separate soft-landers, you can just make the mission out of a comsat injected into polar lunar orbit, plus the Hopper itself -- which would land on the sunlit rim (making photographic and scanning-lidar maps of the landing site), then hippity-hop down into the shadowed part of the crater (using the same scanning lidar to make safe landings), using (as I presume is already the plan) a neutron spectrometer and/or ground-penetrating radar to locate possible ice layers, and then drilling them up and running them through the RESTORE package [which has already been officially selected for RLEP-2, and which would analyze both the ice and -- to some extent -- the rock in the samples, and then actually try to process the ice to generate hydrogen and oxygen: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/leag2005/.../01_sanders.pdf , pg. 19-21]." Even in its current form, though, the Goddard/APL design is far preferable to Marshall's selected design. That, admittedly, is somewhat like saying that chicken pox is preferable to gonorrhea. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#68
|
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 624 Joined: 10-August 05 Member No.: 460 ![]() |
One of the charts seems to indicate a mid-2008 launch date for RLEP-2. Is that anywhere near feasible? |
|
|
Guest_BruceMoomaw_* |
![]()
Post
#69
|
Guests ![]() |
Actually, it's LRO (and its piggyback) that will be launched in October 2008. RLEP-2 -- even before its latest trouble -- wasn't set till 2011.
|
|
|
Guest_BruceMoomaw_* |
![]()
Post
#70
|
Guests ![]() |
One thing that I strangely haven't seen mentioned as a planned object of study for the RLEP-2 lander, which would nevertheless seem to be extremely urgent -- not only for manned landers, but for unmanned ones -- is the dust problem, which seems to be right up there with radiation as the most devilish aspect of lunar exploration. The dust that's already known to be electrostatically levitated 10 km or more above the lunar surface is even being suggested as a serious problem for lunar-based astronomical observations!
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2005/pdf/2277.pdf http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2005/pdf/1899.pdf http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2005/pdf/1343.pdf http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2006/pdf/2217.pdf ...and there are already some proposals for ways to try to deal with it: http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/SFgate/SFgate?&...t;P41A-01" http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2005/pdf/1812.pdf http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2005/pdf/1422.pdf Would it not be wise to have RLEP-2 study both the extent of the problem and test such possible alleviation techniques? |
|
|
![]()
Post
#71
|
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 169 Joined: 17-March 06 Member No.: 709 ![]() |
Isn't it about time that RLEP-2 receive a proper name? After all, RLEP-1 has been known as the LRO for quite some time now. My suggestion is Surveyor 8. Is there any more news concerning the progress of RLEP-2? According to the following link, the Phase A Kickoff should have occurred in March. Did I miss that or is RLEP-2 in stealth mode now? Also, it seems that an SDR, a Systems Requirment Review is scheduled for August. http://spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=18895 Also, in the above article, it appears that JHU/APL will be designing the RLEP-2 Lunar Lander. Can anyone confirm that NASA has approved JHU/APL's role in RLEP-2? Another Phil |
|
|
Guest_BruceMoomaw_* |
![]()
Post
#72
|
Guests ![]() |
I've got some genuinely reliable and wholly unambiguous inside info on this (not like the somewhat ambiguous stuff on which I recently made a disastrously mistaken interpretation where the LCROSS lunar impactor mission was concerned). But I'm not yet free to talk about the details. Suffice it to say that RLEP-2 is getting scaled WAY, WAY back to a rationally-sized spacecraft (without any major science downsizing), and that there is also some reconsideration of its science goals besides its hunt for polar ice -- with increased emphasis on lunar dust problems being, as I had hoped, a new high-ranked goal.
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#73
|
|
![]() Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 321 Joined: 6-April 06 From: Cape Canaveral Member No.: 734 ![]() |
I've got some genuinely reliable and wholly unambiguous inside info on this (not like the somewhat ambiguous stuff on which I recently made a disastrously mistaken interpretation where the LCROSS lunar impactor mission was concerned). But I'm not yet free to talk about the details. Suffice it to say that RLEP-2 is getting scaled WAY, WAY back to a rationally-sized spacecraft (without any major science downsizing), and that there is also some reconsideration of its science goals besides its hunt for polar ice -- with increased emphasis on lunar dust problems being, as I had hoped, a new high-ranked goal. I heard it was going to be Delta II class. But I think it will have the same problem as LRO did flying on a spinning 3rd stage |
|
|
Guest_BruceMoomaw_* |
![]()
Post
#74
|
Guests ![]() |
I heard it was going to be Delta II class. But I think it will have the same problem as LRO did flying on a spinning 3rd stage I haven't heard anything about returning it to a Delta 2 launch -- but I can safely say that it will be MUCH smaller than that gargantuan thing they were talking about previously. Interesting possibility: if -- as I presume -- they launch it on an EELV, will there be enough extra payload capacity to carry two of these landers on the same booster? |
|
|
![]()
Post
#75
|
|
![]() Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 321 Joined: 6-April 06 From: Cape Canaveral Member No.: 734 ![]() |
I haven't heard anything about returning it to a Delta 2 launch -- but I can safely say that it will be MUCH smaller than that gargantuan thing they were talking about previously. Interesting possibility: if -- as I presume -- they launch it on an EELV, will there be enough extra payload capacity to carry two of these landers on the same booster? Depends on $. How many solids will it take? Two LRO's could not fly on a standard Medium EELV. It would have to be one of the Intermediate versions |
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 29th May 2024 - 08:49 AM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |
![]() |