IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

LRO development
jamescanvin
post May 2 2005, 01:31 AM
Post #1


Senior Member
****

Group: Moderator
Posts: 2168
Joined: 9-February 04
From: UK
Member No.: 16



Just read this interesting article about LRO

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/28apr_lro.htm

QUOTE
"This is the first in a string of missions," says Gordon Chin, project scientist for LRO at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. "More robots will follow, about one per year, leading up to manned flight" no later than 2020."


One per Year? Is this just wishful thinking or have any tentitve plans been mentioned for follow up missions after LRO? If the next one is going to be 2009/10 then I guess some desisions about it will have to be made fairly soon.

James


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
Guest_BruceMoomaw_*
post Apr 5 2006, 12:12 PM
Post #2





Guests






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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PhilHorzempa
post Apr 7 2006, 08:06 PM
Post #3


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 164
Joined: 17-March 06
Member No.: 709



QUOTE (BruceMoomaw @ Apr 5 2006, 09:12 AM) *
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- jamescanvin   LRO development   May 2 2005, 01:31 AM
- - tedstryk   If they follow through with it, it will be really ...   May 2 2005, 01:35 AM
- - BruceMoomaw   Judging from what I've read: (1) There will ...   May 2 2005, 08:01 PM
|- - tedstryk   That would relate strangely to New Frontiers.   May 2 2005, 11:04 PM
|- - JRehling   QUOTE (BruceMoomaw @ May 2 2005, 01:01 PM)Jud...   May 3 2005, 04:53 PM
- - BruceMoomaw   Well, you know, Bush has already blindfolded himse...   May 4 2005, 12:16 AM
- - babakm   New article on LRO: http://science.nasa.gov/headl...   Jul 12 2005, 01:59 PM
|- - SFJCody   LROC site up: http://www.msss.com/lro/lroc/index...   Sep 4 2005, 04:10 PM
|- - dilo   QUOTE (SFJCody @ Sep 4 2005, 04:10 PM)LROC si...   Sep 7 2005, 01:05 AM
|- - Rakhir   QUOTE (dilo @ Sep 7 2005, 03:05 AM)Humm, 0.5 ...   Oct 18 2005, 07:05 AM
|- - ljk4-1   http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/ind...8980....   Jan 3 2006, 04:17 PM
- - BruceMoomaw   Ominous indication tonight that LRO may be about t...   Sep 16 2005, 05:32 AM
- - BruceMoomaw   Stop the presses! No sooner did I write that ...   Sep 16 2005, 05:36 AM
- - edstrick   Somebody said, yesterday -?on another thread?- tha...   Sep 16 2005, 07:11 AM
- - Redstone   Things are starting to move on the Lunar Lander, w...   Sep 30 2005, 08:23 PM
- - jamescanvin   Decent Space Review article this week, giving a go...   Oct 18 2005, 01:38 AM
- - AlexBlackwell   An interesting tidbit from the "In Orbit...   Jan 9 2006, 06:03 PM
- - AlexBlackwell   NASA Developing Robotic Scouts For Lunar Explorati...   Jan 23 2006, 06:42 PM
- - Phil Stooke   Alex, your posts are very useful... Thanks. Phil   Jan 23 2006, 07:08 PM
|- - AlexBlackwell   QUOTE (Phil Stooke @ Jan 23 2006, 07:08 PM)Al...   Jan 23 2006, 11:17 PM
- - BruceMoomaw   "Trailing cables"? They're kidding,...   Jan 24 2006, 01:16 AM
- - Phil Stooke   The first time they try it, will they have to use ...   Jan 24 2006, 04:24 PM
- - RNeuhaus   A new article from space.com Lunar Reconnaissance...   Feb 8 2006, 07:18 PM
- - Phil Stooke   The irregularities in the gravitational field are ...   Feb 8 2006, 10:01 PM
|- - AlexBlackwell   QUOTE (Phil Stooke @ Feb 8 2006, 10:01 PM)And...   Feb 9 2006, 12:31 AM
- - Phil Stooke   Alex, you can't really say that Clementine ...   Feb 9 2006, 02:46 AM
|- - Bob Shaw   Phil: At least with the later Apollo flights and ...   Feb 9 2006, 09:25 AM
|- - AlexBlackwell   QUOTE (Phil Stooke @ Feb 9 2006, 02:46 AM)Ale...   Feb 9 2006, 06:24 PM
- - Phil Stooke   It might *just* be possible, Bob, but the tracks w...   Feb 9 2006, 01:23 PM
|- - ljk4-1   QUOTE (Phil Stooke @ Feb 9 2006, 08:23 AM)It ...   Feb 9 2006, 01:49 PM
|- - Bob Shaw   QUOTE (Phil Stooke @ Feb 9 2006, 02:23 PM)It ...   Feb 9 2006, 07:42 PM
- - Phil Stooke   No. That information, which is repeated on many w...   Feb 9 2006, 02:09 PM
- - Phil Stooke   One final point, often not appreciated. The laser...   Feb 9 2006, 02:19 PM
- - AlexBlackwell   Kaboom! Ancient impacts scarred moon to its co...   Feb 9 2006, 06:05 PM
- - RNeuhaus   Very interesting article: Kaboom! Ancient impa...   Feb 9 2006, 07:04 PM
- - dvandorn   In fact, Bob, the footprints and wheel tracks near...   Feb 9 2006, 10:54 PM
|- - Bob Shaw   QUOTE (dvandorn @ Feb 9 2006, 11:54 PM)In fac...   Feb 10 2006, 12:00 PM
|- - dvandorn   QUOTE (Bob Shaw @ Feb 10 2006, 06:00 AM)...Ap...   Feb 11 2006, 12:36 AM
|- - ljk4-1   If this is any help, Lunar Orbiter 3 was able to i...   Feb 11 2006, 04:42 AM
- - Phil Stooke   There are no lunar prospector images! And the...   Feb 10 2006, 03:45 AM
|- - AlexBlackwell   QUOTE (Phil Stooke @ Feb 10 2006, 03:45 AM)Th...   Feb 10 2006, 05:57 PM
- - BruceMoomaw   On Apollo 12 , Dick Gordon -- from lunar orbit -- ...   Feb 11 2006, 05:31 AM
- - dvandorn   Gordon saw both the LM and Surveyor with his eye, ...   Feb 11 2006, 06:27 AM
|- - ljk4-1   Dolores Beasley Headquarters, Washington Phone: ...   Feb 17 2006, 04:08 PM
- - PhilHorzempa   [size=2]Does anyone have recent info on the RLEP-2...   Apr 3 2006, 07:01 PM
- - Phil Stooke   RLEP-2 will be a brand new spacecraft, so they wil...   Apr 4 2006, 03:01 AM
- - BruceMoomaw   NASA has made it clear that it will land at a pola...   Apr 4 2006, 03:24 AM
- - BruceMoomaw   I've dug up some more on this. It turns out I...   Apr 5 2006, 12:12 PM
|- - Jim from NSF.com   QUOTE (BruceMoomaw @ Apr 5 2006, 08:12 AM...   Apr 6 2006, 07:08 PM
||- - Jim from NSF.com   QUOTE (Jim from NSF.com @ Apr 6 2006, 03...   Apr 8 2006, 02:04 PM
||- - Bob Shaw   Perhaps the vehicle is already built, as the Blue ...   Apr 8 2006, 03:44 PM
||- - Jim from NSF.com   Maybe so, but there still is no vehicle able to la...   Apr 8 2006, 08:31 PM
|- - PhilHorzempa   QUOTE (BruceMoomaw @ Apr 5 2006, 09:12 AM...   Apr 7 2006, 08:06 PM
- - Phil Stooke   Thanks for this, Bruce. Very nice. The landing a...   Apr 5 2006, 12:35 PM
- - dvandorn   Hiya, Jim. No, this thing wouldn't fly on a C...   Apr 7 2006, 04:37 PM
|- - Jim from NSF.com   Then this is not going to fly before the LSAM, bec...   Apr 7 2006, 05:00 PM
- - dvandorn   Yep -- if Bruce's information is correct, then...   Apr 7 2006, 05:13 PM
|- - Jim from NSF.com   I don't see happening until the LSAM contracto...   Apr 7 2006, 05:40 PM
- - BruceMoomaw   What it's supposed to be -- according to Mark ...   Apr 8 2006, 09:09 PM
|- - Bob Shaw   If there's an impactor mission using the Rayth...   Apr 8 2006, 09:14 PM
||- - DonPMitchell   QUOTE (Bob Shaw @ Apr 8 2006, 02:14 PM) I...   May 17 2006, 02:05 PM
||- - ljk4-1   QUOTE (DonPMitchell @ May 17 2006, 10:05 ...   May 17 2006, 02:28 PM
||- - DonPMitchell   QUOTE (ljk4-1 @ May 17 2006, 07:28 A...   May 17 2006, 03:54 PM
|- - lyford   QUOTE (BruceMoomaw @ Apr 8 2006, 02:09 PM...   Apr 8 2006, 10:04 PM
- - BruceMoomaw   No, it's just "holding off" on sayin...   Apr 8 2006, 10:56 PM
|- - Bob Shaw   Bruce: I suppose that the EKV technology, althoug...   Apr 8 2006, 11:21 PM
- - BruceMoomaw   Cowing now confirms that RLEP-2 is in very serious...   Apr 9 2006, 10:41 PM
|- - Bob Shaw   Bruce: The mission design as shown in the slide a...   Apr 9 2006, 11:19 PM
|- - BruceMoomaw   QUOTE (Bob Shaw @ Apr 9 2006, 11:19 PM) B...   Apr 10 2006, 12:25 AM
- - RNeuhaus   Many more presentations: http://www.digitalspace...   Apr 10 2006, 12:15 AM
|- - The Messenger   QUOTE (RNeuhaus @ Apr 9 2006, 06:15 PM) M...   Apr 10 2006, 03:33 AM
- - BruceMoomaw   Actually, it's LRO (and its piggyback) that wi...   Apr 10 2006, 03:51 AM
- - BruceMoomaw   One thing that I strangely haven't seen mentio...   Apr 11 2006, 04:10 AM
- - PhilHorzempa   Isn't it about time that RLEP-2 receive a prop...   May 10 2006, 04:53 AM
- - BruceMoomaw   I've got some genuinely reliable and wholly un...   May 10 2006, 08:49 AM
|- - Jim from NSF.com   QUOTE (BruceMoomaw @ May 10 2006, 04:49 A...   May 11 2006, 02:46 PM
|- - BruceMoomaw   QUOTE (Jim from NSF.com @ May 11 2006, 02...   May 11 2006, 08:51 PM
|- - Jim from NSF.com   QUOTE (BruceMoomaw @ May 11 2006, 04:51 P...   May 12 2006, 12:15 AM
- - BruceMoomaw   Let me repeat that the fact that RLEP-2 will be mu...   May 12 2006, 01:21 AM
- - Phil Stooke   PhilHorzempa said: "My suggestion is Surveyor...   May 12 2006, 01:59 AM
|- - gndonald   QUOTE (Phil Stooke @ May 12 2006, 09:59 A...   May 13 2006, 10:51 AM
|- - ljk4-1   QUOTE (gndonald @ May 13 2006, 06:51 AM) ...   May 19 2006, 04:20 PM
- - Analyst   Back to LRO. I never understood the "problem...   May 12 2006, 06:19 AM
|- - mcaplinger   QUOTE (Analyst @ May 11 2006, 11:19 PM) B...   May 12 2006, 06:49 AM
|- - Jim from NSF.com   QUOTE (Analyst @ May 12 2006, 02:19 AM) I...   May 12 2006, 12:20 PM
- - Analyst   Thanks, sounds valid. On the other hand, Messenger...   May 12 2006, 07:56 AM
- - BruceMoomaw   That first rumor about Seasat's early demise g...   May 18 2006, 12:10 AM
|- - DonPMitchell   QUOTE (BruceMoomaw @ May 17 2006, 05:10 P...   May 18 2006, 02:36 AM
|- - mchan   I recall reading some Congressional hearings trans...   May 18 2006, 03:07 AM
- - ljk4-1   Who needs fancy and expensive laser weapons to wip...   May 18 2006, 04:53 PM
- - PhilHorzempa   Here is the recent news, from NASAWatch, about cha...   May 29 2006, 02:58 AM
- - BruceMoomaw   This wouldn't be true if Sen. Shelby's dem...   May 29 2006, 03:28 AM
- - PhilHorzempa   As for RLEP-2, I don't know enough to judge wh...   May 31 2006, 02:04 AM
|- - dvandorn   QUOTE (PhilHorzempa @ May 30 2006, 09:04 ...   May 31 2006, 11:05 AM
|- - Jim from NSF.com   QUOTE (PhilHorzempa @ May 30 2006, 10:04 ...   May 31 2006, 02:11 PM
- - BruceMoomaw   Not at a cost of $2 billion or more, which wa...   May 31 2006, 05:54 AM
- - ljk4-1   They also better come up with a better acronym for...   May 31 2006, 02:39 PM
- - ljk4-1   Is anyone here working on LRO or know someone who ...   Jun 19 2006, 07:20 PM
- - AlexBlackwell   The Workshop on Lunar Crater Observing and Sensing...   Jul 24 2006, 08:29 PM
- - FordPrefect   Just a question, I can't seem to find any info...   Sep 4 2006, 10:12 AM
2 Pages V   1 2 >


Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd October 2014 - 02:22 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.