LRO development |
LRO development |
May 2 2005, 01:31 AM
Post
#1
|
|
Senior Member Group: Moderator Posts: 2262 Joined: 9-February 04 From: Melbourne - Oz Member No.: 16 |
Just read this interesting article about LRO
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/28apr_lro.htm QUOTE "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 -------------------- |
|
|
May 31 2006, 02:04 AM
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 172 Joined: 17-March 06 Member No.: 709 |
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 |
|
|
May 31 2006, 02:11 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 321 Joined: 6-April 06 From: Cape Canaveral Member No.: 734 |
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. Any use of RL-10 before the CaLV would have hugh costs. No other launch vehicle has the capability to handle H2/O2 spacecraft 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. LSAM only has 1-2 missions before it is used for manned landings. Those same missions are the first use of the CLaV. Those 1-2 missions, which are manned, are to check out the LSAM. There is no unmanned use of the LSAM before this. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 31st October 2024 - 11:32 PM |
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. |