LRO development Options

[jamescanvin]

Just read this interesting article about LRO

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/28apr_lro.htm

"This is the first in a string of missions," says Gordon Chin, project scientist for LRO at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. "More robots will follow, about one per year, leading up to manned flight" no later than 2020."

One per Year? Is this just wishful thinking or have any tentitve plans been mentioned for follow up missions after LRO? If the next one is going to be 2009/10 then I guess some desisions about it will have to be made fairly soon.

James

[PhilHorzempa]

As for RLEP-2, I don't know enough to judge whether small or large is
preferred for this lunar lander.

Let me be a devil's advocate and ask why is the concept for a Gargantuan
RLEP-2 a bad idea?

Is it strictly cost? To me, using the RLEP-2 (or perhaps, it will now be called
LPRP-2) as an unmanned testbed for the LSAM might be a good path to pursue.
This would allow the evaluation of the RL-10 rocket engine and perhaps reduce
the risk and cost of the LSAM.

In addition, having a Gargantuan RLEP-2 unmanned lander would allow the
landing of a large scientific payload on the Moon. I imagine that once such an
unmanned lunar lander is developed, it could be used not only as a cargo carrier
for manned missions, but also as a strictly scientific probe that could study regions
of the Moon that won't be visited by people for some time.

If NASA also develops a large unmanned Rover, based on Apollo's LRV, then
the scientific utility of such an unmanned lander will be that much better.


Another Phil

[dvandorn]

...In addition, having a Gargantuan RLEP-2 unmanned lander would allow the
landing of a large scientific payload on the Moon. I imagine that once such an
unmanned lunar lander is developed, it could be used not only as a cargo carrier
for manned missions, but also as a strictly scientific probe that could study regions
of the Moon that won't be visited by people for some time.

If NASA also develops a large unmanned Rover, based on Apollo's LRV, then
the scientific utility of such an unmanned lander will be that much better.

See, this is what I read in the original detailed descriptions of the Return-the-the-Moon portion of the VSE. That the final unmanned phase, prior to manned landings, would include unmanned landings of the LSAM descent stage with a variety of exploration tools subbing for the ascent stage. These tools were intended to be used both in an unmanned mode and later to support manned operations. This mega-RLEP-2 concept would have to wait for the development of the CaLV, of course. It couldn't have been launched on anything smaller.

However, the most recent version of the "Gargantuan RLEP-2" seems to have been smaller, would not use the LSAM descent stage, and yet would have been serious overkill for the relatively simple unmanned tasks planned prior to manned operations. So, I can agree readily that, for the cost, such an overkill approach made little sense. If they were going to actually flight-test LSAM hardware, that would be one thing. But since that wasn't the plan, it makes more sense to scope this back to a less expensive lander.

Of course, I am of the opinion that the CEV/CLV is the only thing that's eventually going to get built before funding for VSE runs out once and for all. But if we can use the strawman of the VSE to get a few unmanned landers doing some decent science on the lunar surface again, I'll not complain.

-the other Doug