IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
LRO's secondary payload decided (already!)
Bob Shaw
post Apr 10 2006, 06:54 PM
Post #16


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2488
Joined: 17-April 05
From: Glasgow, Scotland, UK
Member No.: 239



LRO and secondary payload images:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/multimedi...narorbiter.html

Bob Shaw


--------------------
Remember: Time Flies like the wind - but Fruit Flies like bananas!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Spacely
post Apr 10 2006, 09:15 PM
Post #17


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 6-April 06
Member No.: 736



Despite the relatively low cost of both LRO and LCROSS, where exactly does this mission rank in terms of size/scope?

Is this the largest unmanned mission we've sent to the Moon since the 1960s? Is the 80 million LRO the equivalent of the 700 million MRO?

Or, is LRO essentially a Discovery-class mission under the auspices of the RLEP/Exploration Directorate?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RNeuhaus
post Apr 10 2006, 09:58 PM
Post #18


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1636
Joined: 9-May 05
From: Lima, Peru
Member No.: 385



Extract from the The Lunar CRater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) Mission
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/...rbiter_sum.html

This mission provides a 2000kg Kinetic Impactor that creates nearly a 1000 metric ton plume of lunar ejecta-more than 200 times the energy of Lunar Prospector (LP)-which will be visible from a number of Lunar-orbital and Earth-based assets. We achieve this powerful impact by steering the entire launch vehicle's spent Earth Departure Upper Stage (EDUS) into a crater at the South Pole.

I seems it as not a good alternative since it might be going to miss a very preciated water ice if it is found due to the sublimation generated by the impact heat.

Is there another better alternative to keep as much the "found ice water"?

Rodolfo
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jim from NSF.com
post Apr 10 2006, 10:35 PM
Post #19


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 321
Joined: 6-April 06
From: Cape Canaveral
Member No.: 734



QUOTE (Spacely @ Apr 10 2006, 05:15 PM) *
Despite the relatively low cost of both LRO and LCROSS, where exactly does this mission rank in terms of size/scope?

Is this the largest unmanned mission we've sent to the Moon since the 1960s? Is the 80 million LRO the equivalent of the 700 million MRO?

Or, is LRO essentially a Discovery-class mission under the auspices of the RLEP/Exploration Directorate?



It was sized to fly on a Delta II but the spinning 3rd stage caused some issues.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_BruceMoomaw_*
post Apr 11 2006, 01:26 AM
Post #20





Guests






So I fell on my ass big-time on this one -- and, my, is Simon unamused. The only excuse I can offer is that my mistake was based on what might be called "common-sense" reasoning: that is, since Ames called this proposal a "satellite" rather than an impactor, I assumed that it was a lunar orbiter (like their other finalist proposal). That is, I overestimated their own elementary logic, and underestimated their desire to get a cutesy acronym for this mission. If Alex or anybody else wants to crow about this, fine; but if they do, I think they will be -- to some degree -- unfair.

Meanwhile, I tape-recorded the press conference and will be dredging through it shortly for more details.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_BruceMoomaw_*
post Apr 11 2006, 01:38 AM
Post #21





Guests






QUOTE (Spacely @ Apr 10 2006, 09:15 PM) *
Despite the relatively low cost of both LRO and LCROSS, where exactly does this mission rank in terms of size/scope?

Is this the largest unmanned mission we've sent to the Moon since the 1960s? Is the 80 million LRO the equivalent of the 700 million MRO?

Or, is LRO essentially a Discovery-class mission under the auspices of the RLEP/Exploration Directorate?


LRO's current projected cost is $396 million, which puts it in the borderline between Discovery and New Frontiers. The piggyback LCROSS is projected at $73 million -- with what accuracy, God knows, since it strikes me as a fairly intricate mission, much more so than JPL's Lunar Impactor. (I've heard an unconfirmed rumor that Griffin picked it because of a desire to make Ames Research Center into a major player in the deep-space program.)

As for why LRO was transferred from Delta 2 to a much bigger and more expensive EELV: several reasons. First, there was a serious danger of fuel sloshing around inside LRO's big lunar-orbit insertion fuel tanks while the Delta 2's third stage was spinning for stabilization, and throwing the stage into a wobble. Attempts to design tank baffles to prevent this were more difficult than expected (although I may note that they had the same problem with the big tanks on the MESSENGER Mercury orbiter, and managed to design baffles to solve THAT problem.) But at the press conference, it was stated that LRO was also dangerously near the maximum mass limit for a Delta 2 payload -- and that switching to an EELV also solved that problem, as well as providing a big mass margin to allow a piggyback crafrt.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_BruceMoomaw_*
post Apr 11 2006, 03:22 AM
Post #22





Guests






I've just found this alarming announcement ( http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2006/04/0...icey-price-tag/ ):

"NASA big-wig, Mike Griffin, took part in the National Space Symposium in Colorado Springs. The top space agency official fielded media questions before departing for Russia to welcome home a soon-to-land crew from the International Space Station.

"When asked by this reporter about purported cost overruns of the Lunar Reconassisance Orbiter ó some say now headed for $700 million-plus price tag ó Griffin said he was not aware of such a problem, but would dig into it. 'Iíve kind of had some other things to do,' Griffin said."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
edstrick
post Apr 11 2006, 09:12 AM
Post #23


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1869
Joined: 20-February 05
Member No.: 174



LRO is in some ways sort of a Mars Express / Venus Express type mission. Not much needed in the way of exotic new technology, though it's not a lot of genuinely off-the-shelf instruments like the euro mars and venus missions. That's an opportunity for costs to balloon, if not kept under control.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
remcook
post Apr 11 2006, 09:18 AM
Post #24


Rover Driver
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1002
Joined: 4-March 04
Member No.: 47



well...lunar diviner is basically a re-fly of MRO MCS with different filters. So in that respect there are similarities with e.g. venus express
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gpurcell
post Apr 11 2006, 01:21 PM
Post #25


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 215
Joined: 21-December 04
Member No.: 127



LRO's current projected cost is $396 million, which puts it in the borderline between Discovery and New Frontiers. The piggyback LCROSS is projected at $73 million -- with what accuracy, God knows, since it strikes me as a fairly intricate mission, much more so than JPL's Lunar Impactor. (I've heard an unconfirmed rumor that Griffin picked it because of a desire to make Ames Research Center into a major player in the deep-space program.)


You know, this isn't an illegitimate desire. I love JPL, but having competition for them is a good thing, I'd say.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
disownedsky
post Apr 11 2006, 01:37 PM
Post #26


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 24-January 06
Member No.: 660



QUOTE (BruceMoomaw @ Apr 10 2006, 09:38 PM) *
LRO's current projected cost is $396 million, which puts it in the borderline between Discovery and New Frontiers. The piggyback LCROSS is projected at $73 million -- with what accuracy, God knows, since it strikes me as a fairly intricate mission, much more so than JPL's Lunar Impactor. (I've heard an unconfirmed rumor that Griffin picked it because of a desire to make Ames Research Center into a major player in the deep-space program.)

As for why LRO was transferred from Delta 2 to a much bigger and more expensive EELV: several reasons. First, there was a serious danger of fuel sloshing around inside LRO's big lunar-orbit insertion fuel tanks while the Delta 2's third stage was spinning for stabilization, and throwing the stage into a wobble. Attempts to design tank baffles to prevent this were more difficult than expected (although I may note that they had the same problem with the big tanks on the MESSENGER Mercury orbiter, and managed to design baffles to solve THAT problem.) But at the press conference, it was stated that LRO was also dangerously near the maximum mass limit for a Delta 2 payload -- and that switching to an EELV also solved that problem, as well as providing a big mass margin to allow a piggyback crafrt.


I agree - I don't think they can really do it for $73M. That's only 10% reserve, and normally you'd want 30% at this point, even for a conservatively costed mission (and this is far from that). That and NG (the former TRW Space) is not exactly yer low cost industrial partner. I think everyone must know they will overrun, and Griffin must have some cash in his back pocket for developing Ames' capabilities here.

I noticed that the question of how much more EELV will cost than Delta II was dodged, and not all that artfully, at the press conference (to be fair, they may have to keep mum on dollar figures for good reason). Answer: about $100M, plus whatever was already spent on Delta II engineering. People have been dealing with upper stage nutation control on much bigger spacecraft for decades now, and packaging problems with solar arrays are not a cutting edge issue either. The truth has to be that they are going way over their mass budget, since $100M will buy you a lot nutation control.

QUOTE (BruceMoomaw @ Apr 10 2006, 11:22 PM) *
I've just found this alarming announcement ( http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2006/04/0...icey-price-tag/ ):

"NASA big-wig, Mike Griffin, took part in the National Space Symposium in Colorado Springs. The top space agency official fielded media questions before departing for Russia to welcome home a soon-to-land crew from the International Space Station.

"When asked by this reporter about purported cost overruns of the Lunar Reconassisance Orbiter ó some say now headed for $700 million-plus price tag ó Griffin said he was not aware of such a problem, but would dig into it. 'Iíve kind of had some other things to do,' Griffin said."


I think it's only mildly alarming. He truly does have bigger fish to fry, and he has people who have to be responsible for bringing emerging problems to his attention.

On a related topic, NASA Watch is reporting shakeup in RLEP:
NASA Watch
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jrdahlman
post Apr 11 2006, 04:28 PM
Post #27


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 20-November 05
Member No.: 561



I loved the headline on today's paper:

"NASA/Ames to Crash into Moon"

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews...th/14315034.htm



Makes a heckuva crater, but can anything short of Orion launch the buildings? biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Spacely
post Apr 11 2006, 08:01 PM
Post #28


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 6-April 06
Member No.: 736



QUOTE (BruceMoomaw @ Apr 10 2006, 06:38 PM) *
LRO's current projected cost is $396 million, which puts it in the borderline between Discovery and New Frontiers. The piggyback LCROSS is projected at $73 million -- with what accuracy, God knows, since it strikes me as a fairly intricate mission, much more so than JPL's Lunar Impactor. (I've heard an unconfirmed rumor that Griffin picked it because of a desire to make Ames Research Center into a major player in the deep-space program.)

As for why LRO was transferred from Delta 2 to a much bigger and more expensive EELV: several reasons. First, there was a serious danger of fuel sloshing around inside LRO's big lunar-orbit insertion fuel tanks while the Delta 2's third stage was spinning for stabilization, and throwing the stage into a wobble. Attempts to design tank baffles to prevent this were more difficult than expected (although I may note that they had the same problem with the big tanks on the MESSENGER Mercury orbiter, and managed to design baffles to solve THAT problem.) But at the press conference, it was stated that LRO was also dangerously near the maximum mass limit for a Delta 2 payload -- and that switching to an EELV also solved that problem, as well as providing a big mass margin to allow a piggyback crafrt.



Thanks for the breakdown. Anyone know the planned instrumentation/science for the cancelled Lunar Observer from the proposed Observer series of probes in the late-80s? Is LRO superior to the Lunar Observer that never was? Or, is a world in which the Lunar Observer flew more knowledgeable on all things 'Moon" than we are today?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_BruceMoomaw_*
post Apr 11 2006, 08:21 PM
Post #29





Guests






QUOTE (Spacely @ Apr 11 2006, 08:01 PM) *
Thanks for the breakdown. Anyone know the planned instrumentation/science for the cancelled Lunar Observer from the proposed Observer series of probes in the late-80s? Is LRO superior to the Lunar Observer that never was? Or, is a world in which the Lunar Observer flew more knowledgeable on all things 'Moon" than we are today?


I can give you the precise list of prioritized instruments planned for Lunar Observer, once I dig up my photocopied list (from 1990). It would be most accurate to say that LRO's function is radically different.

Lunar Observer was designed to do a general scientific study of the Moon -- and it was planned at a time when, apparently, no one was thinking seriously about studying the possible polar ice deposits. Almost all its instruments have since been duplicated on the coming Japanese, Indian and Chinese lunar orbiters, which have a similar general-scientific-study goal.

LRO is different -- it's designed to do ONLY those studies relevant to making extensive manned lunar expeditions easier. Thus it focuses overwhelmingly on two things: studying the polar ice deposits (4 of its 7 instruments are solely for that purpose), and constructing an extremely detailed 3-D map of the lunar surface (using cameras and a very high-horizontal-resolution laser altimeter). Its remaining instrument studies the biological dangers of the Moon's radiation environment. Thus, while it will certainly gain a great deal of additional knowledge about the Moon, there are a very large swarm of major scientific questions about the Moon which it will simply totally ignore.

By the way, I did indeed re-listen to the full LCROSS press conference on my tapes last night. While there are several interesting details about the mission design, the thing I'll mention now is that Horowitz, asked about the total current cost of the combined LRO/LCROSS mission, gave a very fuzzy estimate of "upwards of $600 million" -- which presumably means that LRO itself, using its new enlarged booster, has risen to about $530 million.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Spacely
post Apr 11 2006, 09:18 PM
Post #30


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 6-April 06
Member No.: 736



QUOTE (BruceMoomaw @ Apr 11 2006, 01:21 PM) *
I can give you the precise list of prioritized instruments planned for Lunar Observer, once I dig up my photocopied list (from 1990). It would be most accurate to say that LRO's function is radically different.

Lunar Observer was designed to do a general scientific study of the Moon -- and it was planned at a time when, apparently, no one was thinking seriously about studying the possible polar ice deposits. Almost all its instruments have since been duplicated on the coming Japanese, Indian and Chinese lunar orbiters, which have a similar general-scientific-study goal.

LRO is different -- it's designed to do ONLY those studies relevant to making extensive manned lunar expeditions easier. Thus it focuses overwhelmingly on two things: studying the polar ice deposits (4 of its 7 instruments are solely for that purpose), and constructing an extremely detailed 3-D map of the lunar surface (using cameras and a very high-horizontal-resolution laser altimeter). Its remaining instrument studies the biological dangers of the Moon's radiation environment. Thus, while it will certainly gain a great deal of additional knowledge about the Moon, there are a very large swarm of major scientific questions about the Moon which it will simply totally ignore.

By the way, I did indeed re-listen to the full LCROSS press conference on my tapes last night. While there are several interesting details about the mission design, the thing I'll mention now is that Horowitz, asked about the total current cost of the combined LRO/LCROSS mission, gave a very fuzzy estimate of "upwards of $600 million" -- which presumably means that LRO itself, using its new enlarged booster, has risen to about $530 million.



That's great info. Thanks for clearing this up for me. I could find precious little online about the Lunar Observer (or the Mercury Observer, for that matter) other than the fact that it/they were planned at some point.

So it seems safe to say that by 2012 or so, thanks to foreign probes *and* LRO, we will have not only all the science we would have had had LO launched in, say, 1995, but we will also have a massive amount of info for next-gen landings and in-situ resource use that would have been only hinted at by a billion-dollar LO mission in the 90s.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th October 2014 - 08:08 AM
RULES AND GUIDELINES
Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting.

IMAGE COPYRIGHT
Images posted on UnmannedSpaceflight.com may be copyrighted. Do not reproduce without permission. Read here for further information on space images and 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 a project of the Planetary Society and is funded by donations from visitors and members. Help keep this forum up and running by contributing here.