Targets for LRO |
Targets for LRO |
![]()
Post
#1
|
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 169 Joined: 17-March 06 Member No.: 709 ![]() |
You can imagine this to be a companion thread to the one requesting suggestions
for MRO targets on Mars. The LRO (Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter) is set to launch in a little over a year from now. There was to a be a site selection workshop in May 2007, next month, but I see now that it has been cancelled. Therefore, it appears that it is up to us, the UMSF Community to take up the baton and help NASA out. It was done for New Horizons at Jupiter and was very productive. So, what are the sites that you would like to see imaged at 0.5 meter resolution by LROC, LRO's High-Resolution camera? My first suggestion would be to re-photograph the Surveyor 1 landing site to compare it with the images obtained by Lunar Orbiter 3. My second suggestion would be to photograph the Surveyor 6 landing area. This should image S-6 itself, but even more interesting, it may capture images of Surveyor 4, which should be only a mile or so away. This would help to determine whatever happened to S-4, which abruptly stopped transmitting just short of touchdown. Another Phil |
|
|
![]() |
![]()
Post
#2
|
|
Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 1870 Joined: 20-February 05 Member No.: 174 ![]() |
Another crater/debris field that is poorly located is Surveyor 2's.
Surveyor 2 had one vernier engine fail to ignite during midcourse correction after a successful launch and trans-lunar insertion. It was put into a roughly 2 second fast tumble. Repeated engine firings and burpings never got that engine to lite and as it approached the moon on an uncontrolled (disturbed by all the engine burps) trajectory, it was in a 1 second-ish tumble and with dwindling battery power. To get the most engineering value out of a lost mission that they could, they turned on most or all of the normally used retro-landing electronics, and command fired the main (solid fuel) retro when they were very close to lunar impact. Seconds (?) later, they lost signal from the spacecraft. A careful reading of the Survey 2 Mission Report, JPL TR-32-???? utterly failed to make it clear if they had any clear idea if the LOS was due to depletion of battery power or disintegration of the vehicle under retrofire during it's 1 RPS tumble. Somewhere, on the moon, in a very poorly known (and by now even more thoroughally forgotten location). is either a discrete crater formed by Surveyor 2 when it impacted, or a main crater with subsidiary (not secondary) craters nearby (which would have formed form pieces falling off the breaking up vehicle) Note that for all Surveyors (except 2 and maybe 4), there will be 2 subsidiary craters: The Altitude Marking Radar was IN THE NOZZLE of the main retro and was rather violently jettisoned at retro ignition, to impact the moon at essentially full terminal approach velocity. A minute later, following main retro burnout, the vernier engines throttled up momentarily to full thrust and the solid retro case was jettisoned. That would have impacted much closer to the final landing site and at only a few hundred (I think) miles/hr. None, to my knowledge, has ever been spotted from orbit or from the lander (or in Apollo 12 panoramas, etc.), but they should be larger, more intact and much closer to the main spacecraft than the AMR. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#3
|
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 117 Joined: 7-December 06 From: Sheffield UK Member No.: 1462 ![]() |
The Luna 2 impact site will also boast a second crater; that of Luna 2's third stage that hit the Moon some thirty minutes after Luna 2.
I wonder if the impact of the third stage was ever observed? -------------------- It's a funny old world - A man's lucky if he gets out of it alive. - W.C. Fields.
|
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 30th April 2024 - 12:04 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. |
![]() |