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

[tedstryk]

If they follow through with it, it will be really cool. I just hope this doesn't turn into a dead end that siphons money from the real space program and then never flies.

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

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

Judging from what I've read:

(1) There will indeed be an Announcement of Opportunity put out for the proposed 2009-10 lunar lander later this year.

(2) Judging from some of the background documents for the first meeting of the Lunar Strategic Roadmap Committee ( http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/apio/pdf/moo...rief_taylor.pdf ), it has been decided pretty firmly that this lander will investigate southern polar ice. The chief remaining question seems to be how ambitious it should be.

[tedstryk]

That would relate strangely to New Frontiers.

[JRehling]

Judging from what I've read:

(1)  There will indeed be an Announcement of Opportunity put out for the proposed 2009-10 lunar lander later this year.

(2)  Judging from some of the background documents for the first meeting of the Lunar Strategic Roadmap Committee (  http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/apio/pdf/moo...rief_taylor.pdf ), it has been decided pretty firmly that this lander will investigate southern polar ice.  The chief remaining question seems to be how ambitious it should be.

The document has a couple of key sentences that amount to the "original sin" of bad thinking upon which a bad megaprogram can be based. The first key question the document poses is "What will humans do on the Moon when they get there?" What an astonishing question! They will play chess, perhaps? Make quilts? It is 100% bass-ackwards to assume that you need to send humans to the Moon, then wonder what they will do when they get there! If you're not starting with a function that requires human presence on the Moon, and only then ask if it's worth putting humans there to carry that function out, then you've committed to poor planning.
Then, there is the related "assumption" that a sustained human presence on the Moon is essential to a dynamic program of robotic human exploration of the solar system. Why make an assumption of this kind rather than try to prove such a costly principle? How does a Neptune orbiter depend upon humans on the Moon? Will it pause there for a 248,000-mile checkup before continuing its cruise for the remaining 29 AU?
Some of the justifications for this nonsense are the ISS hobgoblins reincarnated, goals that amount to "learning how" to do such and such. Of course, many of the features of a human mission to Mars could be learned in submarines, if learning were the goal. Others are not learned from a lunar mission at all. (Seeing as how "living off the land" would be very different in the two places; the distance from Earth; even the local gravity is very different.) To gain experience, through lunar exploration, in 4 out of 6 technological challenges re: Mars missions; instead of 2 out of 6 that might benefit from a submarine mission requires an exceptional justification for the added expense.
At the back of which, there has yet to be an answer to the showstopper behind human exploration of Mars, which is how the risk of backwards contamination can be put to risk. With this thread left dangling, this entire tens-of-billions enterprise comes unraveled, and looks to be a way to spend an enormous amount of money pursuing a programatic dead end. Some nice lunar, and perhaps martian, science will come along the way, and sometime circa 2025, a new NASA Administrator will be able to look back on the stalled and failed and overbudget Bush plan, shake his head kindly, and promise a new satchel of bunk for the next 15 years' plan.

If there is truly a purpose for mankind that depends upon human lunar missions in the short run, it must be far more elaborate than furthering martian science. This entire program consists of a blindfolded person taking a stick and aiming for a pinata that is behind him and 5,000 miles away.

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

Well, you know, Bush has already blindfolded himself once, taken a stick, and aimed at a much larger pinata that really is about 5000 miles away -- namely, Iraq. He was just doing it again here (and at least the Space Pinata isn't filled with bees).

At the first Mars Strategic Roadmap Committee meeting (which I attended), Sean O'Keefe showed up at the very start and blew menacingly through his mustache that the members were under no circumstances to actually question any of the official space goals that the Great Leader had stated in his official Initiative description -- including that manned return to the Moon. Their job was only to recommend how the Great Leader's goals could be achieved most economically. Nevertheless, by the third and last day of the meeting the members were in open rebellion; a whole series of them (including Sally Ride) said flatly that the Great Leader had better make up his damn mind whether he was really serious about initiating a manned Mars program in the fairly near future, because the manned lunar program was not only unnecessary for it but a serious bleed-off of resources from it.

Now, of course, new NASA Administrator Griffin has already started radically shaking up the entire manned program again -- including totally cancelling all of the Strategic Roadmapping Committees that dealt in any way with the design of the manned space program (plus the one on Nuclear Systems, which includes Project Prometheus). I don't yet know what he's up to; but I would hope that -- since Griffin, unlike O'Keefe, actually knows something about space technology and science -- we may be about to see a radical revision of the manned space program, both the current Shuttle/Station fiasco and the design of what will follow it. Hope springs eternal.

[babakm]

New article on LRO:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/11jul_lroc.htm

[SFJCody]

LROC site up:

http://www.msss.com/lro/lroc/index.html

[dilo]

LROC site up:

http://www.msss.com/lro/lroc/index.html

Humm, 0.5 m/pixel... meanwhile, maybe someone didn't notice:SMART-1 views Glushko crater on the Moon
(150m/pixel )

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

Ominous indication tonight that LRO may be about to be cancelled due to lack of funds: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=18090 .

Griffin has already thrown the Prometheus nuclear-electric propulsion project to the wolves for the same reason: http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp...sdate=9/14/2005 . God knows how much more will have to be thrown from the sleigh thanks to NASA's continuing fiscal travails, culminating in at least $1.1 billion in short-term post-Katrina costs. You're gonna have to decide whether you want a manned or an unmanned space program, guys; there isn't enough money for both.

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

Stop the presses! No sooner did I write that than I got two E-mail messages from insiders claiming that they have every reason to think LRO is still on, and that what that message actually indicates is just that NASA may be eliminating outside competitive contracts for its propulsion system and picking single-source procurement of an existing system to save time.

[edstrick]

Somebody said, yesterday -?on another thread?- that Lockmart was turning all propulsion hardware for the partially completed and now terminated hubble deorbit vehicle over to LRO, I think.

[Redstone]

Things are starting to move on the Lunar Lander, which will follow LRO in 2010. As Bruce hinted, its main target is polar ice.

NASA Press release


EDIT: October 6.

A few more details on the proposed lander: the project is aiming unofficially for Shackleton crater, and it may have some kind of surface explorer, possibly a hopper. (Terrain too tough for a rover.)
New Scientist article

[jamescanvin]

Decent Space Review article this week, giving a good overview of the various unmanned lunar missions currently planned. LRO, Chang’e-1, Chandrayaan-1, SELENE, etc and various follow ons.

James

[Rakhir]

Humm, 0.5 m/pixel... meanwhile, maybe someone didn't notice:SMART-1 views Glushko crater on the Moon
(150m/pixel )

Sure Dilo, the resolution of AMIE camera is not very impressive but don't forget that SMART-1 is a technologic demonstrator (ion propulsion, advanced solar panels, new communications and navigational techniques testing, miniaturization...). SMART means "Small Missions for Advanced Research in Technology".

The miniaturization objective results in having a dozen of technological and scientific payloads weighting only 19 kg, for a total spacecraft mass of 370 kg.

Below, an idea of the size of the ultra-compact visible and near-IR camera.

[ljk4-1]

http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/ind...8980.xml&coll=1

http://www.al.com/printer/printer.ssf?/bas...8980.xml&coll=1

Marshall hopes lunar lander makes return trips

Scientist says probe isn't seen as 'one-shot effort'

Monday, January 02, 2006

By SHELBY G. SPIRES

Times Aerospace Writer, shelbys@htimes.com

Before America sends astronauts back to the moon, NASA scientists want to
find minerals and water that could help sustain life on the lunar surface.

About 10 people at Marshall Space Flight Center and another 40 at NASA sites
around the country are developing what NASA engineers believe will be a
complex, unmanned lunar lander that will serve as a test run for a manned
lunar lander.

The probe isn't considered a "one-shot effort like the unmanned lunar
efforts in the past," said John Horack, the program manager.

When Apollo astronauts were headed to the moon in the 1960s, NASA launched
several probes to orbit and land on the moon. This time, NASA wants to put
as much as possible into basically two probes: the Lunar Reconnaissance
Orbiter and Marshall's lunar lander.

The rest at the above links.

[Guest_AlexBlackwell_*]

An interesting tidbit from the "In Orbit" section of the January 9, 2006, issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology:

In Orbit

NASA Shifts Lunar Orbiter To EELV; May Drop Probe Into Crater
Aviation Week & Space Technology
01/09/2006, page 15
Edited by Frank Morring, Jr.

NASA may try to drop a sensor into a permanently dark crater at one of the Moon's poles as early as 2008 to probe for water ice in the super-cold shade there. The idea is one option for using extra payload capacity gained from a decision to launch the planned Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) on an Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) instead of a smaller Delta II. Also under study is the launch of one or more small communications/navigation satellites to support future lunar exploration missions. Scott Horowitz, associate administrator for exploration systems, dropped the Delta II to avoid stability problems with its spinning second stage, growing out of the heavy fuel load needed to get to the Moon. He will decide as early as this month between the larger Atlas V or Delta IV EELVs for the LRO launch. Either way, the LRO mission will gain at least 1,000 kg. (2,204 lb.) in capacity for a piggyback mission. Under the lander idea, some sort of small, inexpensive spacecraft would be sent into one of the polar craters where data from previous orbiters have suggested there may be water ice. Another proposal under study would send at least one microsat into lunar orbit to provide communications links and navigation services for subsequent surface explorers. Exploration managers also are surveying the NASA science directorate for potential add-on payloads.

This post has been edited by AlexBlackwell: Jan 9 2006, 06:05 PM

[Guest_AlexBlackwell_*]

NASA Developing Robotic Scouts For Lunar Exploration
By Frank Morring, Jr.
Aviation Week & Space Technology
01/22/2006 09:18:54 PM

[Phil Stooke]

Alex, your posts are very useful... Thanks.

Phil

[Guest_AlexBlackwell_*]

Alex, your posts are very useful... Thanks.

My pleasure, Phil. There are two more RLEP-related articles in the January 23, 2006, issue of AW&ST; unfortunately, online access to these articles is available only to subscribers. The second of these two "not-for-free" articles, "Robotic Lunar Lander Will Try For Water Samples" by Frank Morring, has an interesting passage:

THE TECHNOLOGY would be extensible to other landers, says Mike Booen, vice president for Raytheon's advanced missile defense product line, and would be available much faster and at lower cost than a new development. Raytheon is also studying whether it could be used on a piggyback LRO ground-sensor payload, one possibility under a new request for information put out by Ames Research Center, home of the RLEP program office (see p. 44).

If the secondary LRO payload is a lunar communications satellite, it could help solve the problem of communicating with sensors in deep craters, at least when the satellite is over the crater. Also being considered are trailing cables that would link the sensor with the lander on the crater rim. That, in turn, might help solve the problem of powering sensors in the dark crater bottoms. Other possibilities include batteries, fuel cells or a nuclear power source that converts heat from radioactive decay into electricity.

This post has been edited by AlexBlackwell: Jan 24 2006, 01:18 AM

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

"Trailing cables"? They're kidding, right? It reminds me of that old joke about the $50,000 electric car: $10,000 for the car and $40,000 for the cord.

[Phil Stooke]

The first time they try it, will they have to use training cables?

Phil

[RNeuhaus]

A new article from space.com

Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter: Searching For A 'New Moon'

LRO is the first of the Robotic Lunar Exploration Program missions. After a planned launch by late fall 2008, LRO will take four days to make its way to the Moon and then orbit that chunk of "magnificent desolation" for nominally one year.

Now being competitively sought is a co-manifested "secondary" payload on the LRO launch. One idea floating about is ejecting some type of hardware from LRO to demonstrate a "first look" at the polar regions from the Moon's surface.

It will circle around the poles. This mean it is capable to map all Moon surfaces.

"LRO, in all respects, is a unique and challenging planetary mission," Jim Watzin, Planetary Division Chief for the Flight Programs and Projects Directorate at Goddard Space Flight Center explained to SPACE.com. For example, LRO will fly within 31 miles (50 kilometers) of the lunar surface for at least one year in order to conduct a comprehensive and detailed mapping mission. That's a feat that has never before been attempted, he noted.

So low and the Moon's magnetic surface is very unstable due to the asymmetry of the lunar gravitational field. Why there is uninform gravitational field of Moon? Due to Marias lavas? Will it use Ion propulsion to maintain the Moon's orbit?


Take note. For you "Apollo landings were a hoax" believers LROC's sightseeing abilities should set the record straight.

Hope to see again the buried and dirty Apollos' pictures...Not only to American but Soviet landing sities on the Moon.

LRO will give extra special attention to the relatively unexplored polar regions on the Moon.


Unresolved is the issue of polar volatiles as a resource—especially water-ice. The hunt for water-ice on the cold Moon is a hot-button topic. Among a bevy of sensors, LRO is outfitted with equipment to chip away at the ice-on-the-Moon matter.

That is good enough since the previous pictures from South pole is not able to show in detail on the bottom of craters near to South Pole such as Shackleton and its neigboors which are iluminated for the 80% of the lunar day. The other interesting and worth to take pictures is the Peary Crater from the North Pole.


If present, water-ice would be a nifty resource. It could be processed into oxygen, water, and rocket fuel for use by future lunar explorers. Still, whether that icy material is truly tucked away at the Moon's poles is arguable.
Perhaps, these Moon ices would be a good Whisky brinds for astronauts to relax the stressfull (I think so) 3-4 days Moon's trip.

"There's clearly something going on at the lunar poles that we don't fully understand," said David Paige, a space researcher at the University of California, Los Angeles. He's the lead scientist on LRO's Diviner Lunar Radiometer Experiment. It will chart the temperature of the entire lunar surface at roughly 985 feet (300 meter) horizontal scales to identify cold-traps and potential ice deposits.

I have heard that the lowest Moon temperature is recorded in the South Pole Aitken Basis where is located the crater Shackleton with perhaps -230 degree of centigrade. That is so cold as Pluto since that low temperature is due to the continuous shadows in the south polar craters cause the floors of these formations to maintain a temperature. The night moon in middle latitudes usually lowers to around minus 145-150 degree of centigrade.



Much more to read at http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/06...technology.html

Rodolfo

[Phil Stooke]

The irregularities in the gravitational field are (simply put) caused by the excess mass of those mare lavas. They filled holes in a surface that had isostatically adjusted after the basin impacts, but then became too rigid to adjust again after the lava filled the depressions.

LRO will use regular chemical thrusters to maintain its low orbit.

It will map the whole moon at low resolution, but only select areas at high resolution.

And it will try to image landing and impact sites. But it will not necessarily get all of them because we don't know where they all are with sufficient accuracy to hit them with the high resolution images. For instance Lunokhod 1 is uncertain by at least 5 km, Luna 9 by probably 40 km. Apollo landing sites will be no problem. of course.

Phil

[Guest_AlexBlackwell_*]

And [LRO] will try to image landing and impact sites.  But it will not necessarily get all of them because we don't know where they all are with sufficient accuracy to hit them with the high resolution images.  For instance Lunokhod 1 is uncertain by at least 5 km, Luna 9 by probably 40 km.  Apollo landing sites will be no problem. of course.

Yes, the Russian landing sites will be hard if not impossible to find.

I believe Clementine UVVIS had the spatial resolution to spectrally resolve the individual sampling stations at the Apollo 15, 16, and 17 landing sites. On the other hand, the precise locations of the Luna and Lunokhod sites are virtually unknown, even to the Russians. In fact, Blewitt et al. [1997] reported an excellent linear correlation between the spectral Fe and Ti parameters and the average FeO and TiO2 contents of lunar soils that were sampled at each station/site for the final three lunar missions. And they felt that their correlation was strong enough to permit extrapolation to the Moon as a whole. Interestingly, they reported that the reported Russian Luna 24 site does not fit this model, which led them to believe that the site is either nonrepresentative or that the Russian reported coordinates are in error.

Reference:

Blewitt, D.T., et al., "Clementine images of the lunar sample-return stations: Refinement of FeO and TiO2 mapping techniques", J. Geophys. Res. 102, 16319-16325 (1997).

[Phil Stooke]

Alex, you can't really say that Clementine 'resolved' the Apollo sampling sites - which in effect are only as big as the scoop or the rock which was picked up. What you can say is that we know which Clementine UVVIS pixel the sampling site is in. So the multispectral characteristics of that pixel can be described and searched for elsewhere.

My LPSC abstract (print-only, as I can't be there - look at the moon section under 'print-only) discusses this topic.

Here's an example. This is the Luna 24 landing area. If L24 was 10 km off its predicted location it could lie on the higher albedo unit at lower left or on Fahrenheit ejecta, or on a mare ridge (though that's not likely to differ chemically from its surroundings). THe grid is 0.25 degrees. The image is from the Apollo 15 panoramic camera.



Phil

[Bob Shaw]

Phil:

At least with the later Apollo flights and the Soviet rovers there's the prospect of seeing an albedo difference resulting from the passage of the vehicle, which may lead to some accurate LRO camera pointing (obviously not really a problem with regard to Apollo sites, which are well known, but potentially a method of finding the Lunokhods). After all, look at MGS and the MER tracks - I doubt if a mere forty years of space weathering will have wiped out the tracks on the Moon!

Bob Shaw

[Phil Stooke]

It might *just* be possible, Bob, but the tracks will not really have much if any albedo difference - Apollo disturbed soil was only darker near the LM, where the descent engine exhaust brightened the surface and any disturbance exposed darker material again (probably a texture difference rather than true albedo). LRV tracks far from the LM were not darker.

Much more useful for the Lunokhods will be the pattern of larger craters along the route. We don't know exactly where Lk1 is, but Soviet maps of the route show the pattern of craters nearby. That will be visible in LRO images if they happen to fall in the right area. Lk2 should be easier to find as we know its location relative to nearby craters fairly well. It will still be barely resolved, though.

Phil

[ljk4-1]

It might *just* be possible, Bob, but the tracks will not really have much if any albedo difference - Apollo disturbed soil was only darker near the LM, where the descent engine exhaust brightened the surface and any disturbance exposed darker material again (probably a texture difference rather than true albedo).  LRV tracks far from the LM were not darker. 

Much more useful for the Lunokhods will be the pattern of larger craters along the route.  We don't know exactly where Lk1 is, but Soviet maps of the route show the pattern of craters nearby.  That will be visible in LRO images if they happen to fall in the right area.  Lk2 should be easier to find as we know its location relative to nearby craters fairly well.  It will still be barely resolved, though.

Phil

Don't they still use the laser reflector on Lunakhod 1, or at least they did.
I recall they could not do this with Lunakhod 2 as they were not able to
position it properly at the premature end of its mission.

Couldn't they just check the records and have literal pinpoint accuracy as to
L1's location?

http://www.astrosurf.com/lunascan/luna_17.htm

[Phil Stooke]

No. That information, which is repeated on many websites, is exactly the opposite of the truth. Lk2's reflector can still be used. Lk1 has not been used since early in the mission. There is a new attempt being made this year to reacquire Lk1 with improved equipment, and a new prediction of its location (made my me). I have presented evidence that Lk1 is about 5 km west of the position usually quoted, and that point will be searched later this year. But we don't know if Lk1 is actually in a suitable orientation to give a reflection.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2005/pdf/1194.pdf

(the abstract mentions a 2004 attempt which was in fact not made).

Phil

[Phil Stooke]

One final point, often not appreciated. The laser would give a lat-long position (you can't see the spot illuminated by the beam). We still need to know the location relative to local features like craters. Since lunar maps still contain many positional inaccuracies, the laser would still leave us uncertain by several km, but it would narrow the search in images.

Phil

[Guest_AlexBlackwell_*]

Kaboom! Ancient impacts scarred moon to its core, may have created 'man in the moon'
The Ohio State University Research News
February 8, 2006

Reference:

Impact-induced mass flow effects on lunar shape and the elevation dependence of nearside maria with longitude
Laramie V. Potts and Ralph R.B. von Frese
Physics of The Earth and Planetary Interiors 153, 165-174 (2005).
Abstract

[Guest_AlexBlackwell_*]

Alex, you can't really say that Clementine 'resolved' the Apollo sampling sites - which in effect are only as big as the scoop or the rock which was picked up.

Given your knowledge of the subject, Phil, I wouldn't be surprised if you've read the Blewitt et al. paper. However, for those who haven't, Blewitt et al. have a different definition of "sampling sites."

The authors state, "Apollos 11, 12, and 14 and Lunas 16, 20, and 24 sampled either single points or small areas around the landing site. Individual sampling locations for these missions cannot be reliably separated in the Clementine images. However, the availability of the lunar roving vehicle on the Apollo 'J' missions (15, 16, and 17) greatly extended the range of surface operations. We are thus able to resolve the majority of the sampling stations at these landing sites in images collected by Clementine."

For the Apollo "J" missions, Blewitt et al. further write, "Boxes of 3 X 3 pixels were averaged for most stations. At a few locations where two stations were close together, slightly larger boxes were used to average the two. The data set includes eight stations at Apollo 15, seven at Apollo 16, and 18 (including rover stations) at Apollo 17."

This post has been edited by AlexBlackwell: Feb 9 2006, 07:13 PM

[RNeuhaus]

Very interesting article: Kaboom! Ancient impacts scarred Moon to its core, may have created "Man in the Moon".

I have copied the two last paragraphs:

von Frese said a lunar base would be needed before scientists can more completely answer these questions.

Potts agreed. "Once we have more rock samples and soil samples, we will have a lot more to go on. Nothing is better than having a person on the ground," he said.

Now, the Moon is still a misterious world astro sphere and it must be visited again very soon!

Rodolfo

[Bob Shaw]

It might *just* be possible, Bob, but the tracks will not really have much if any albedo difference - Apollo disturbed soil was only darker near the LM, where the descent engine exhaust brightened the surface and any disturbance exposed darker material again (probably a texture difference rather than true albedo).  LRV tracks far from the LM were not darker. 

Phil

Phil:

I didn't realise that the dark tracks were only local to the LM - I always assumed that the spray from the walking astronauts (not to mention the LRV 'rooster tail') was darker than the top of the soil.

Something learned!

Bob Shaw

[dvandorn]

In fact, Bob, the footprints and wheel tracks near the LMs were not at all darker than the general soil at the landing sites. The LM DPS exhaust would sweep the top layer of dust grains from the regolith during landing, resulting in a temporary brightening of the soil around the LMs. "Darkened" footprints and wheel tracks were simply *restoring* the soil's natural albedo within the splash of brightened soil.

There is some question, I guess, as to whether or not the local soil brightening around the LMs still exists. I don't believe any of the Clementine or SMART-1 or Lunar Prospector images were able to answer that question -- though Phil probably knows the answer to that better than I do.

-the other Doug

[Phil Stooke]

There are no lunar prospector images! And the others are not detailed enough to resolve tracks. We'll have to wait for LRO.

The sampling site thing is just a different way of looking at it - in effect they are saying what I did, that they identify a pixel or group of pixels containing the sample site (the 'station'). But it can still contain more than one type of surface. For instance at Apollo 14 Station C on the rim of Cone crater the crew sampled soil and rocks. One UVVIS pixel contains lots of soil and quite a few rocks. None of the individual samples are resolved - rocks with different compositions, from different depths maybe, are all averaged in one pixel. I think we're saying the same.

Phil

[Bob Shaw]

In fact, Bob, the footprints and wheel tracks near the LMs were not at all darker than the general soil at the landing sites.  The LM DPS exhaust would sweep the top layer of dust grains from the regolith during landing, resulting in a temporary brightening of the soil around the LMs.  "Darkened" footprints and wheel tracks were simply *restoring* the soil's natural albedo within the splash of brightened soil.

There is some question, I guess, as to whether or not the local soil brightening around the LMs still exists.  I don't believe any of the Clementine or SMART-1 or Lunar Prospector images were able to answer that question -- though Phil probably knows the answer to that better than I do.

-the other Doug

oDoug:

Yes, I had the mechanism 'backwards' - and, taking the DPS plume notion one step further, presumably the ascent engine firing again scoured the surface, as well as blasting bits of foil around the area. Apollo 12 was the dustiest landing site, AIRC, so were any pre-landing vs post-landing vs post-liftoff images taken from the CSM? Over a few hours the shadows wouldn't have changed much for the first two, but there's be quite a change between first and last, and that would obviously mask any effect.

Bob Shaw

[Guest_AlexBlackwell_*]

The sampling site thing is just a different way of looking at it - in effect they are saying what I did, that they identify a pixel or group of pixels containing the sample site (the 'station').  But it can still contain more than one type of surface.  For instance at Apollo 14 Station C on the rim of Cone crater the crew sampled soil and rocks.  One UVVIS pixel contains lots of soil and quite a few rocks. None of the individual samples are resolved - rocks with different compositions, from different depths maybe, are all averaged in one pixel.  I think we're saying the same.

So do I, Phil. I just wanted to make sure no one else understood me to be implying that Clementine UVVIS could resolve individual rocks, soil scoops, etc.

[dvandorn]

...Apollo 12 was the dustiest landing site, AIRC, so were any pre-landing vs post-landing vs post-liftoff images taken from the CSM? Over a few hours the shadows wouldn't have changed much for the first two, but there's be quite a change between first and last, and that would obviously mask any effect.

Let's see -- the Apollo 12 CSM didn't have any cameras with enough "throw" to get the kind of resolution you'd need to observe that effect. I think the longest lens they carried for the CSM's Hasselblad was a 250mm. Dick Gordon did try to capture the view through the CSM's optics on his 16mm movie camera, and suceeded in getting an overexposed, washed-out image in which you can sort of recognize Surveyor Crater, but you can't really resolve the actual LM landing point. And the image was so overexposed that any local brightening was washed out.

The only other way to have documented the "bright splash" of the LM's landing site would have been the 16mm movie of the LM liftoff from inside the cabin.... except that the camera malfunctioned and there is no film of the Apollo 12 lunar ascent.

In fact, though, the Apollo 12 landing site probably wasn't all that much dustier than any of the other mare landing sites. Pete brought his LM down by curving along the north rim of the Surveyor Crater, and dropped pretty much straight down from about 200 feet directly over the northwest rim. Crater rims on the Moon seem to display less consolidation in their regolith -- the slope keeps the surficial layer from "firming up" as much as it does on more level ground. At least, all of the Apollo moonwalkers reported that the dust on relatively "flat" ground let them sink in less than an inch, but that crater rims were "soft" and that they sank in several inches on most crater rims. This was pretty ubiquitous at all of the landing sites, as I recall.

So, Pete's Intrepid blew up so much dust because 1) it kept blowing over the same spot for the final 200 feet of descent, and 2) it was blowing down on a crater rim that, by its nature, was composed of looser and less consolidated dust than they would have encountered on the adjacent plains.

To back this up, I'll point out that the second dustiest landing was Apollo 15's, during which the LM made a near-vertical final descent from about 150 feet, with the engine plume impinging directly on the rim of a 10-meter shallow crater. (The engine bell even got whacked by this small crater's rim, since the LM landed directly astride its western rim.) So, dustiness of landing seems to have been controlled by whether or not the exhaust was plowing up a crater rim during an extended near-vertical descent.

-the other Doug

[ljk4-1]

If this is any help, Lunar Orbiter 3 was able to image Surveyor 1. In magnified views, you could even see the lander projecting its shadow across the lunar surface.

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-168/section2b.htm#96

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/obj...lo3_h194_1.html

http://www.astrosurf.com/lunascan/Surveyor1.htm

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

On Apollo 12 , Dick Gordon -- from lunar orbit -- saw not only the LM but the Surveyor clearly through the CSM's navigation telescope.

[dvandorn]

Gordon saw both the LM and Surveyor with his eye, yes. They didn't really show up in the 16mm film frames, was my point.

-the other Doug

[ljk4-1]

Dolores Beasley
Headquarters, Washington
Phone: (202) 358-1753

Nancy Neal Jones
Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.
Phone: (301) 286-0039

Feb. 17, 2006

RELEASE: 06-065

NASA'S Lunar Orbiter Team Passes Preliminary Design Review

NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter team recently passed its Preliminary Design Review heralding the start of the mission confirmation process.

The first in a series of robotic missions to the moon, the lunar orbiter is scheduled for launch in October 2008. It will carry six science instruments and a technology demonstration. The mission goal is to develop new approaches and technologies to support human space exploration to Mars and other destinations.

The preliminary design review concluded Feb. 9. The results of the review, on-going assessments of project cost and schedule will support a confirmation review this spring.

The confirmation review represents NASA's formal decision for authorizing additional work and will set the project's cost estimate. The mission's Critical Design Review is scheduled for fall. It will represent the completion of detailed system design, the transition to assembly and integration of the mission elements.

For information about NASA's Exploration Systems Mission Directorate on the Web, visit:
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration

For information about NASA and agency programs on the Web, visit:

http://www.nasa.gov/home

This Article URL:

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/feb/H...ar_orbiter.html

[PhilHorzempa]

[size=2]Does anyone have recent info on the RLEP-2 unmanned lunar lander?
From what I can make out, APL was awarded the contract to design a Lunar
Lander System a few months ago, with launch planned for January 2011. However,
I haven't found a written or visual description of what might be planned for this
lander.

The LRO is RLEP-1, but it appears that the RLEP-2 lander doesn't have
a spacecraft name. How about calling it Surveyor 8? Do we want to start a
separate thread for this mission?

[Phil Stooke]

RLEP-2 will be a brand new spacecraft, so they will want a brand new name. I think it's still a bit early for any hard news about the vehicle, and (more in my line) any future landing sites. I imagine we will be seeing landings at one or both poles, since they are clearly high priorities, but I hope we will see missions to other locations as well. I would like to see a rover mission to D-Caldera (AKA Ina) among other places.

Phil

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

NASA has made it clear that it will land at a polar site to check out the ice deposits -- but the initial grotesquely ambitious plan to land a huge spacecraft based in many respects on the planned CEV lunar lander at the permanently illuminated edge of a crater, and then drive a rover down for dozens of km across the permanently dark interior of the crater to look for ice, has been quietly dumped in the last few months. The plan now is to send down a relatively small lander directly into the darkened area -- and then either dispatch a rover for local studies, or actually have the entire lander use its remaining fuel to hop from place to place on the suface for that surface.

I'm working off memories; it would take me a while to dig up the references, and frankly I don't feel like doing it tonight.

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

I've dug up some more on this. It turns out I was wrong; they HAVE decided to go for MSFC's huge, hulking lunar lander that will weigh 10,000 kg on launch and 4500 on landing and be able to carry up to 3500 kg payload -- the reason being that they hope to used the same lander design later on as an unmanned resupply lander for human expeditions, "a lunar equivalent of the Russian Progress vehicle". And it will use an RL-10 engine with a 1:10 throttle range. The mission cost is projected at about $750 million.

There's still quite a lot of flexibility in the details -- but the landing site, at least, seems to have been pretty firmly settled on: a 1 x 5 km eternally sunlit spot on the rim of Shackleton Crater near the south pole, which is about as rugged as the Apollo 16 landing site. The crater itself, whose permanently dark slopes seem to run to a maximum of about 30-35 degrees, will likely be explored by a rover dispatched from the lander and based generally on the Apollo rover design, which seems capable of handling such slopes -- although it's possible that a propulsive hopper may be substituted. The rover will use RTGs to recharge batteries for peak loads (although it's possible that the RTGs will recharge fuel cells instead, since there's a desire to use this mission to test as much of the manned-landing paraphernalia as possible), and it will navigate in the dark using high-resolution lidar, as we thought. Its main function will be not only to look for water ice and other frozen volatiles in the soil, but to actually test the ability to extract them from the soil and turn the water into usable H2 and O2.

Meanwhile, the main lander -- which will use a descent camera and scanning lidar to create a very detailed map of its landing area for possible later use by manned crews -- will also run some experiments having to do with the general mechanical consistency and overall composition of the local soil, and it will also carry the first navigation beacon for the guidance of later manned crews to the same spot. It will also likely carry some biological experiments to test the effects of prolonged 1/6 G (and lunar-level radiation) on living things -- and, since all this will still leave it and the rover with a huge unused payload capability, they will likely carry some experiments paid for by commercial businesses, and maybe even a little equipment such as solar arrays for the later use of manned expeditions. Finally, the decision has been made to have the craft release a comsat/navsat into a 2000-km polar orbit before landing to allow constant contact of both the lander and the rover with Earth -- and that excess payload capacity could allow it to carry as many as 3 additional such satellites to complete the network needed for manned expeditions.

Where'd I find all this out? Well, partly from RLEP-2's very preliminary official webpage ( http://sms.msfc.nasa.gov/vp40.html ), Aviation Week's November article ( http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/chan...s/LUNA11155.xml ), and Doug Cooke's december letter announcing the initial choices made about the mission ( http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=18919 ) -- but mostly from the very helpful DigitalSpace page on the October LEAG-SSR Conference ( http://www.digitalspace.com/presentations/leag-ssr-2005/ ), and its links both to Mark Borkowski and Paul Spudis' talks on the mission ( http://www.digitalspace.com/presentations/...kowski-rlep.mp3 ; http://www.digitalspace.com/presentations/...dis-rlep-qa.mp3 ), and to some of their slides ( http://www.digitalspace.com/presentations/...lep2/index.html ). Unfortunately, there's no slide of the rover's strawman payload -- but one abstract at this year's STAIF conference mentions in passing that the "RESOLVE" package has been already selected as one of RLEP-2's experiments (which must be on the rover), and there's a nice description of that included in http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/leag2005/.../01_sanders.pdf (pg. 19-21).

And that's all I've been able to dig up so far. How much of this -- if any -- will actually fly, God knows; but they do seem to have a firm idea at this point of what they want to do at an absolute minimum.

[Phil Stooke]

Thanks for this, Bruce. Very nice.

The landing area would be in the region I illustrated in this post:

http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.p...ype=post&id=640

(the big black circle is Shackleton crater).

Phil

[Jim from NSF.com]

they HAVE decided to go for MSFC's huge, hulking lunar lander that will weigh 10,000 kg on launch and 4500 on landing and be able to carry up to 3500 kg payload -- the reason being that they hope to used the same lander design later on as an unmanned resupply lander for human expeditions, And it will use an RL-10 engine with a 1:10 throttle range.

The use of LH2 and LO2 will cause issues for whom ever flies this lander. Launch pads are not set up to supply cryos to spacecraft. Add a couple more $100M for pad mods. I doubt it will fly on a CLV since it will need an3rd stage

[dvandorn]

Hiya, Jim.

No, this thing wouldn't fly on a CLV -- the stick isn't big enough for it. Remember, this is an unmanned version of the LSAM. It will need to fly on the Shuttle-derived heavy lift booster that will, in the manned flight profile, launch the LSAM and TLI stage. In these unmanned landings, they'll just go ahead and fire the TLI stage without waiting for a CEV to come up and man the thing.

That's why these unmanned landings will have such a cargo surplus -- they'll be flying, alone, with all the post-LEO delta-V available to manned mission, but without the additional mass of a lunar CEV and crew.

-the other Doug

[Jim from NSF.com]

Then this is not going to fly before the LSAM, because it fly on the first two missions of the CaLV

[dvandorn]

Yep -- if Bruce's information is correct, then this is the unmanned LSAM concept. It makes a great deal of sense; if you're going to develop an infrastructure, you ought to take as much advantage as possible of economics of scale. Use the same design over and over.

With that specification for the lander mass, I can't imagine anything else that could get it onto the Moon other than the CaLV.

-the other Doug

[Jim from NSF.com]

I don't see happening until the LSAM contractor is selected and its design completed.

[PhilHorzempa]

I've dug up some more on this. It turns out I was wrong; they HAVE decided to go for MSFC's huge, hulking lunar lander that will weigh 10,000 kg on launch and 4500 on landing and be able to carry up to 3500 kg payload -- the reason being that they hope to used the same lander design later on as an unmanned resupply lander for human expeditions, "a lunar equivalent of the Russian Progress vehicle". And it will use an RL-10 engine with a 1:10 throttle range. The mission cost is projected at about $750 million.


and to some of their slides ( http://www.digitalspace.com/presentations/...lep2/index.html .

If you check out the slides that Bruce has thoughtfully posted, especially the link that I've
included above, then you will notice that it appears that NASA is planning to launch RLEP-2
with an EELV. In particular, check out the 15th image of a slide, at
(http://www.digitalspace.com/presentations/leag-ssr-2005/rlep2/DSC09736.JPG)

The image is a bit fuzzy, but it does appear that launch is accomplished using an EELV.
If that is true, then RLEP-2 can launch at any time, without waiting for the development
of the CLV or the CaLV. in addition, if you browse through the slides, you will notice that
the RLEP-2 is big, but it is NOT an unmanned version of the LSAM, even though it does
provide a testbed for the RL-10 on a lunar lkanding mission. Therefore, the RLEP-2
does NOT have to wait for the development of the LSAM.

Another Phil

[Jim from NSF.com]

The use of LH2 and LO2 will cause issues for whom ever flies this lander. Launch pads are not set up to supply cryos to spacecraft. Add a couple more $100M for pad mods. I doubt it will fly on a CLV since it will need an3rd stage

As I said before, use of an RL-10 will cause headaches for whomever flys it. More than an RTG.

[Bob Shaw]

Perhaps the vehicle is already built, as the Blue Origin sub-orbital hopper is said to be based on the flown DC-X design. Just remove the aeroshell! Remember too that one of the new NASA challenges is for a lunar landing analogue vehicle.

DC-X Propellants: Liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen. Propulsion: Four RL-10A5 rocket engines, each generating 6,100 kgf thrust. Each engine throttleable from 30% to 100%. Each gimbals +/-8 degrees. Reaction Controls: Four 440-lb thrust gaseous oxygen, gaseous hydrogen thrusters

See the URL below for absolutely no information whatsoever on Blue Origin:

http://www.blueorigin.com/index.html

Bob Shaw

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[Jim from NSF.com]

Maybe so, but there still is no vehicle able to launch it

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

What it's supposed to be -- according to Mark Borkowski's talk ( http://www.digitalspace.com/presentations/...kowski-rlep.mp3 ) -- is a vehicle which can later be used, with little modification, as an emergency cargo carrier for any VSE crew that gets stranded on the Moon for a long period of time due to a stand-down of the manned VSE systems. That is, it is -- as he said -- " a lunar equivalent of the Russian Progress cargo carrier", capable of landing as much as 3.5 metric tons of payload on the Moon. Since RLEP-2's official payload is only about a ton, there are currently plans to request additional payloads on it provided by private companies -- as well as consideration of having it carry some equipment to the Moon in advance for the first manned expedition to Shakleton Crater.

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.

[Bob Shaw]

If there's an impactor mission using the Raytheon proposal, then it may take elements of their previously (allegedly successful) kinetic energy kill vehicle. I've cobbled together a graphic using elements from the Raytheon company site to give an idea of the vehicle - it's got an interesting take on attitude control/translation with rocket nozzles set, I presume, around the vehicle's CG.

Bob Shaw

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[lyford]

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.

Is posting that you are hearing a rumor the program is in trouble "holding off on it?"

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

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.)

[Bob Shaw]

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

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

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?

[Bob Shaw]

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

[RNeuhaus]

Many more presentations:

http://www.digitalspace.com/presentations/...ssr-2005/rlep2/

Rodolfo

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

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.

[The Messenger]

Many more presentations:

http://www.digitalspace.com/presentations/...ssr-2005/rlep2/

Rodolfo

One of the charts seems to indicate a mid-2008 launch date for RLEP-2. Is that anywhere near feasible?

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

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_*]

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?

[PhilHorzempa]

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_*]

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.

[Jim from NSF.com]

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_*]

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?

[Jim from NSF.com]

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

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

Let me repeat that the fact that RLEP-2 will be much smaller in size does not mean that its science payload will be cut -- at all. The original design was intended to be the first test of an unmanned cargo lander capable of landing fully 3.5 tons of cargo on the Moon's surface -- and since the total officially planned science payload weighs at most about a ton, they had enormous excess capacity which they were frantically trying to find something to fill.

[Phil Stooke]

PhilHorzempa said: "My suggestion is Surveyor 8." for a new name for RLEP-2.

I can't agree. I think a new design ought to get a new name. Repeating the old name is misleading. But I don't feel there's any urgency.


Phil

[Guest_Analyst_*]

Back to LRO. I never understood the "problem" caused by the Delta II spinning third stage. Many spacecraft with lots of liquid propellant (Near, MGS, MCO, Odyssey, Messenger) launched with this stage with no problem. And the delta V to enter lunar orbit is about the same (1,000 m/s) than entering orbit arround Mars.

I guess the switch to EELV has been because of mass issues and/or political reasons (away from Delta II, more EELV launches).

Analyst

[mcaplinger]

Back to LRO. I never understood the "problem" caused by the Delta II spinning third stage. Many spacecraft with lots of liquid propellant (Near, MGS, MCO, Odyssey, Messenger) launched with this stage with no problem. And the delta V to enter lunar orbit is about the same (1,000 m/s) than entering orbit arround Mars.

The spacecraft you mention all used bipropellant systems. LRO uses a monoprop system with significantly less specific impulse, so it needs more fuel for a given delta-v.

I asked the same question you did, but apparently the tankage involved was outside the experience base of previously-designed antislosh baffles. Probably could have been solved, but it was a development risk.

[Guest_Analyst_*]

Thanks, sounds valid. On the other hand, Messenger does have a lot more delta V than 1,000 m/s, so a monoprop system using Messenger's tanks should give at least 1,000 m/s. They had trouble developing these tanks, but it has been done.

This brings me to another question: Why do never spacecraft (MRO, LRO) use monoprop systems? Biprop systems are working (see my post above) and are well understood and much more efficient. Is the reduced risk and complexity really worth the cost of a bigger launcher (Delta II vs. EELV) and/or less payload?

Analyst

[Jim from NSF.com]

I guess the switch to EELV has been because of mass issues and/or political reasons (away from Delta II, more EELV launches).

Analyst

The Delta II is already "bought". Now another user has to be found. No conspirancy here, NASA would rather keep missions on Delta II because it causes an artificial cost cap for the mission

Thanks, sounds valid. On the other hand, Messenger does have a lot more delta V than 1,000 m/s, so a monoprop system using Messenger's tanks should give at least 1,000 m/s. They had trouble developing these tanks, but it has been done.

This brings me to another question: Why do never spacecraft (MRO, LRO) use monoprop systems? Biprop systems are working (see my post above) and are well understood and much more efficient. Is the reduced risk and complexity really worth the cost of a bigger launcher (Delta II vs. EELV) and/or less payload?

Analyst

The trades actually were in favor of monoprop for MRO. Other than MOI, a biprop, would not be needed. The benefits of simplification of the prop system and elimination of dual hardware was greater than the inefficienies of a monoprop.

[gndonald]

PhilHorzempa said: "My suggestion is Surveyor 8." for a new name for RLEP-2.

I can't agree. I think a new design ought to get a new name. Repeating the old name is misleading. But I don't feel there's any urgency.
Phil

I'll agree there, though perhaps 'Prospector', which was the name of the final planned component of the Ranger/Surveyor/Lunar Orbiter series of probes.

[Guest_DonPMitchell_*]

If there's an impactor mission using the Raytheon proposal, then it may take elements of their previously (allegedly successful) kinetic energy kill vehicle. I've cobbled together a graphic using elements from the Raytheon company site to give an idea of the vehicle - it's got an interesting take on attitude control/translation with rocket nozzles set, I presume, around the vehicle's CG.

Bob Shaw

Very cool. Something sci-fi writers rarely seem to get, that kinetic-energy really is a very good way to dump energy into something. When people are busy shooting at each other in space someday, they will likely be firing bullets, not ray guns.

[ljk4-1]

Very cool. Something sci-fi writers rarely seem to get, that kinetic-energy really is a very good way to dump energy into something. When people are busy shooting at each other in space someday, they will likely be firing bullets, not ray guns.

Oh please, Don - human beings would NEVER take their aggressions and
other primate behaviors into space.

Is there a sarcasm/irony face available?

FYI - It has already happened at least once. Salyut 3 had a self-defense
gun which it test fired. You can see it here:

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/almaz_ops2.html

[Guest_DonPMitchell_*]

Oh please, Don - human beings would NEVER take their aggressions and
other primate behaviors into space.

Is there a sarcasm/irony face available?

FYI - It has already happened at least once. Salyut 3 had a self-defense
gun which it test fired. You can see it here:

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/almaz_ops2.html

I believe both Russia and the United States have developed anti-satellite satellites. Sven Grahn has a nice page about the Soviet Polyot experiments here: ASAT

When I was at Caltech around 1980, Seasat malfunctioned shortly after launch. There were many interesting rumors circulating about this satellite, from graudate students associated with JPL. One was that the military was able to Fourier-analyze the Seasat data to detect the wakes of nuclear submarines. The other was that the Soviet Union knew that and destroyed the satellite with ground-based laser while it passed over their territory. Just rumors of course...

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

That first rumor about Seasat's early demise got around a lot -- I remember seeing it somewhere in the science literature at the time.

It's certainly more plausible than the second rumor; if the Russkies had shot up Seasat, then the US could just have sent up a replacement -- and if the Russkies had shot that one down too, we would have been in Cuban Missile Crisis territory again in jig time.

[Guest_DonPMitchell_*]

That first rumor about Seasat's early demise got around a lot -- I remember seeing it somewhere in the science literature at the time.

It's certainly more plausible than the second rumor; if the Russkies had shot up Seasat, then the US could just have sent up a replcement -- and if the Russkies had shot that one down too, we would have been in Cuban Missile Crisis territory again in jig time.

I agree. I think they could have done it, they pretty much wrote the book on lasers and phase-conjugate optics, but I don't believe they would have done something that overt.

I would not be surprised if there was some negociation about the technology. One side being able to see submarines could be interpreted as strategically unstable. Nuclear submarines are a major deterant to first strike.

Oh wow, my 100th post. I'm not a Junior anymore. :-)

[mchan]

I recall reading some Congressional hearings transcripts on this. Basically, the testimony was that subs could not be detected by the Seasat SAR. Some ocean images were shown of where there were supposedly US subs. Of course, there was nothing that stood out visually. But nothing was said on signal processing the data to look at it in different ways, e.g., frequency domain analysis as mentioned above.

That said, however, the technology goes both ways. The US would have had more to lose than the Soviets from a space-based sensor capability that would render the oceans transparent. Unless, of course, there is a lag to one side acquiring the technology and the other side actually uses its technological advantage while it has it. Which happily never took place.

[ljk4-1]

Who needs fancy and expensive laser weapons to wipe out
space satellites? Just send up a bucket of rocks and pebbles
and let them loose at 18,000 MPH.

[ljk4-1]

I'll agree there, though perhaps 'Prospector', which was the name of the final planned component of the Ranger/Surveyor/Lunar Orbiter series of probes.

Here is a drawing of the original Prospector robotic lunar rover:

http://utenti.lycos.it/paoloulivi/prospect.jpg

[PhilHorzempa]

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_*]

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.)

[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

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

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.

[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

[Jim from NSF.com]

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.

[ljk4-1]

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.

[ljk4-1]

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

[Guest_AlexBlackwell_*]

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

[FordPrefect]

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!