LRO development |
LRO development |
May 29 2006, 02:58 AM
Post
#91
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 172 Joined: 17-March 06 Member No.: 709 |
Here is the recent news, from NASAWatch, about changes in NASA's unmanned Moon program. NASA has decided to pull management responsibilty of this program from Ames and is awarding it to Marshall (MSFC). http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2006/05/...yanks.html#more Also, if you follow the link to Horowitz' letter, you will see that the program name has been changed from RLEP to LPRP, the Lunar Precursor and Robotic Program. According to NASAWatch, this all came about because of political pressure from Sen. Shelby of Alabama, home of the MSFC. NASAWatch decries this political maneuvering, and I agree, up to a point. As I see it, NASA and its budget are part of the world of politics, whether we like it or not. NASA runs on money and those funds are provided by politicians. Politicians will always look to help their constituents. This brings us to the crux of this political game. Where are the Senators from California when it comes to space? As far as I can tell, they are missing in action. Has anyone ever seen Sen. Feinstein or Sen. Boxer at JPL for a Mars landing or for the arrival of Cassini at Saturn? Those spacecraft are often controlled and made at JPL in California. If Ames is getting projects pulled from it, then it is up to Senators Boxer and Feinstein to make their objections known. I predict we will not hear a peep from either Senator. Therefore, if Sen. Shelby takes an interest in NASA and influences some of its decisions, then hooray for him. He is a strong supporter of proper funding for NASA and takes an interest in its success. In strong contrast, the Senators from California don't even seem to know that NASA exists. Another Phil |
|
|
Guest_BruceMoomaw_* |
May 29 2006, 03:28 AM
Post
#92
|
Guests |
This wouldn't be true if Sen. Shelby's demands also involved retaining RLEP-2 at its former gargantuan size -- which, thank God, they apparently don't. (Horowitz is simultaneously demanding that RLEP-2's total cost be cut to a maximum of $300 million.)
|
|
|
May 31 2006, 02:04 AM
Post
#93
|
|
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 |
|
|
Guest_BruceMoomaw_* |
May 31 2006, 05:54 AM
Post
#94
|
Guests |
Not at a cost of $2 billion or more, which was what the Godzilla version of RLEP-2 was coming to. NASA barely has enough money left to keep the VSE going even with the current drastic cuts in the space science program, thanks to Shuttle/Station.
|
|
|
May 31 2006, 11:05 AM
Post
#95
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 3419 Joined: 9-February 04 From: Minneapolis, MN, USA Member No.: 15 |
...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 -------------------- “The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right.” -Mark Twain
|
|
|
May 31 2006, 02:11 PM
Post
#96
|
|
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. |
|
|
May 31 2006, 02:39 PM
Post
#97
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2454 Joined: 8-July 05 From: NGC 5907 Member No.: 430 |
They also better come up with a better acronym for the manned lunar
landing vehicle. LEM and then LM were both easy to remember and even catchy in the Apollo days. This will matter when it comes to selling the project more than some people might think. -------------------- "After having some business dealings with men, I am occasionally chagrined,
and feel as if I had done some wrong, and it is hard to forget the ugly circumstance. I see that such intercourse long continued would make one thoroughly prosaic, hard, and coarse. But the longest intercourse with Nature, though in her rudest moods, does not thus harden and make coarse. A hard, sensible man whom we liken to a rock is indeed much harder than a rock. From hard, coarse, insensible men with whom I have no sympathy, I go to commune with the rocks, whose hearts are comparatively soft." - Henry David Thoreau, November 15, 1853 |
|
|
Jun 19 2006, 07:20 PM
Post
#98
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2454 Joined: 8-July 05 From: NGC 5907 Member No.: 430 |
Is anyone here working on LRO or know someone who does?
GMV To Provide Planning Software For Lunar Mission Rockville, MD (SPX) Jun 19, 2006 GMV Space Systems Inc., a satellite ground segment software company, announced Sunday that its FlexPlan software has been selected to provide the mission planning and scheduling system for NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter spacecraft. http://www.moondaily.com/reports/GMV_To_Pr...ce_Orbiter.html -------------------- "After having some business dealings with men, I am occasionally chagrined,
and feel as if I had done some wrong, and it is hard to forget the ugly circumstance. I see that such intercourse long continued would make one thoroughly prosaic, hard, and coarse. But the longest intercourse with Nature, though in her rudest moods, does not thus harden and make coarse. A hard, sensible man whom we liken to a rock is indeed much harder than a rock. From hard, coarse, insensible men with whom I have no sympathy, I go to commune with the rocks, whose hearts are comparatively soft." - Henry David Thoreau, November 15, 1853 |
|
|
Guest_AlexBlackwell_* |
Jul 24 2006, 08:29 PM
Post
#99
|
Guests |
The Workshop on Lunar Crater Observing and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) Site Selection
October 16–17, 2006 NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California First Announcement |
|
|
Sep 4 2006, 10:12 AM
Post
#100
|
|
Junior Member Group: Members Posts: 41 Joined: 12-April 06 Member No.: 738 |
Just a question, I can't seem to find any info that the LRO will be eqipped with cameras for imaging the lunar surface in the visible light range, just like Clementine did (R,G,. I am very excited it will produce a very precise elevation map, but we're not going to see a new, much more detailed (true colour) map of the whole moon?! Did I miss this, or is this true?
What do you experts estimate how long it will take until the elevation data will become "publicly" available, like they are for mars and Earth now? Thanks for any feedback! |
|
|
Sep 4 2006, 10:21 AM
Post
#101
|
|
Founder Group: Chairman Posts: 14434 Joined: 8-February 04 Member No.: 1 |
LRO will use derivatives of the CTX on MRO to do approx 50cm/pixel panchromatic imaging of the surface - and then a derivative of MARCI on MRO to do 500m/pixel @ 7 different wavelengths.
http://www.msss.com/lro/lroc/index.html I'd have thought we'd see data going online in the usual fashion, 6 or maybe 3 months chunks - 6 months later. Doug |
|
|
Sep 4 2006, 01:12 PM
Post
#102
|
|
Solar System Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 10226 Joined: 5-April 05 From: Canada Member No.: 227 |
LRO's high resolution camera will only provide spot coverage, like MOC at Mars, especially designed for landing site certification. The global resolution will be about 100 m/pixel, I believe, but at lower sun angles than Clementine. That will be similar to Lunar Orbiter 4 nearside coverage, but better than farside coverage. It might not be better than SMART-1.
Phil -------------------- ... because the Solar System ain't gonna map itself.
Also to be found posting similar content on https://mastodon.social/@PhilStooke Maps for download (free PDF: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...Cartography.pdf NOTE: everything created by me which I post on UMSF is considered to be in the public domain (NOT CC, public domain) |
|
|
Sep 4 2006, 02:23 PM
Post
#103
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1636 Joined: 9-May 05 From: Lima, Peru Member No.: 385 |
The global resolution will be about 100 m/pixel, I believe, but at lower sun angles than Clementine. That will be similar to Lunar Orbiter 4 nearside coverage, but better than farside coverage. It might not be better than SMART-1. I still do not understand it really well. It might be due that I do not know about the LCROSS' future path of orbit. I seem that what you say is that LCROSS will orbit between poles (180 degree inclination). That is that the sun angle will vary according to its orbit position. What longitude would be the constant orbit of LCROSS. I would assume that it would be near to Longitudinal 0 degree since it is pointing to Earth for better communications? Rodolfo |
|
|
Sep 4 2006, 02:49 PM
Post
#104
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 3419 Joined: 9-February 04 From: Minneapolis, MN, USA Member No.: 15 |
It might not be better than SMART-1. What, you mean it might only generate six instead of eight publically-released images? -the other Doug -------------------- “The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right.” -Mark Twain
|
|
|
Sep 5 2006, 10:23 AM
Post
#105
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 599 Joined: 26-August 05 Member No.: 476 |
I still do not understand it really well. It might be due that I do not know about the LCROSS' future path of orbit. I seem that what you say is that LCROSS will orbit between poles (180 degree inclination). That is that the sun angle will vary according to its orbit position. What longitude would be the constant orbit of LCROSS. I would assume that it would be near to Longitudinal 0 degree since it is pointing to Earth for better communications? I don't know about LRO's orbit, but LCROSS will not be doing much orbiting at all. See -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Reconnaissance_Orbiter |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 22nd September 2024 - 06:50 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. |