NASA Moon Plans After LRO

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

lbiderman

Guest
I remember that when the VSE came to light, NASA was talking of making one probe per year since LRO, although I might be mistaken. Anyway, does anyone have an idea of what are NASA plans for the Moon exploration after 2008?? Given the time for mission planning, they should start thinking about it....
 
Q

qso1

Guest
No doubt they are already planning missions to the moon beyond 2008 unless the VSE budget has shut down unmanned lunar exploration which would not suprise me. For one thing, a lot of what unmanned missions would be needed for could be covered by the planned manned missions. At the moment, I'm not up on what they are planning unmanned lunar mission wise.<br /><br />IMO, I don't think the VSE will survive the incoming Presidential Administration unless the new President is pro human space flight and better yet, is from Texas. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
 
R

revolutionary

Guest
<font color="yellow">is from Texas.</font><br /><br />He would not be a current resident from Texas as I believe there is a law prohibiting simultaneous Presidencies from the same state.
 
Q

qso1

Guest
Wasn't aware of that law but I was sort of being tongue n cheek there for lack of a better term but thanks for the info. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
 
M

mattblack

Guest
If the next President is from Florida, Alabama or California (think Nasa centers and big Aerospace) then the VSE has a chance to survive. If they are from New York -- swish!! (throat-cutting noise). What have they got in New York, aersospace-wise, besides perhaps a branch of Northrop-Grumman at Bethpage? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>
 
R

radarredux

Guest
> <i><font color="yellow">does anyone have an idea of what are NASA plans for the Moon exploration after 2008?</font>/i><br /><br />Several months ago I read about a NASA program to send a lander and/or rover to the Moon in the 2010-2012 timeframe, but I haven't been able to find the article again.<br /><br />NasaWatch has a rumor about program called the "Highlander Lunar Rover Mission" being done at GRC.<br />http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2006/05/does_nasa_grc_h.html<br /><br />FWIW: I can see the rover carrying some risk. If rovers go to proposed interesting places and find nothing, then critics might respond, "Why spend billions to send humans when we can't find interesting places to go?" On the other hand, if the rovers find interesting stuff, then critics might respond, "Why spend billions when robots are doing a find job?"</i>
 
R

radarredux

Guest
> <i><font color="yellow">does anyone have an idea of what are NASA plans for the Moon exploration after 2008?</font>/i><br /><br />Poking around NASA's 2007 budget proposal I found the following line: "Conduct lunar lender trade studies, for the Robotic Lunar Exploration (RLE) Program, that will better define the mission, based on their further-developed requirements." (pg. SUM 1-9)<br /><br />Also, under a section titled "Robotic Lunar Exploration" is the line, "Projects beyond LRO, like a potential lunar lander, will support evolving lunar mission requirements in accordance with the Vision for Space Exploration." (pg. SAE ESMD 1-7)<br /><br />Also, NASA proposes the following budgets for "Robot Lunar Exploration", which seems to imply that they will continue spending on robotic missions beyond LRO (all numbers are in millions of dollars):<table border="1"><br /><tr><th>FY2007</th><th>FY2008</th><th>FY2009</th><th>FY2010</th><th>FY2011</th></tr><br /><tr><td>272.7
 
R

radarredux

Guest
> <i><font color="yellow">does anyone have an idea of what are NASA plans for the Moon exploration after 2008?</font>/i><br /><br />Ah, finally found the link to one of the stories I read earlier:<br />http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/sep/HQ_05289_Lunar_Lander_Team_Selected.html<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>RELEASE: 05-289 <br /><br />NASA Selects Team to Build Lunar Lander<br /><br />NASA's Deputy Associate Administrator for the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate Doug Cooke today announced the selection of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala., and Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., to lead a team in the development of a lunar lander spacecraft.<br /><br />The lander is tentatively planned for launch as early as 2010. It will demonstrate the ability for precision landings at targeted locations on the moon; evaluate landing zone environment; and determine if lunar resources can support a sustained human presence.<br /><br />"This mission will have as a primary objective to determine whether there is water-ice in the permanently dark areas within craters in the moon's polar regions. The existence of water-ice has important implications in living off the land when we return with human explorers," Cooke said. "The lunar lander will test critical automated descent and precision landing capabilities needed for human landings, including surface hazard avoidance during landing. The discoveries from this mission and the data it collects will play a vital role in humans returning to the moon and living there for extended periods," he added.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote></i>
 
A

askold

Guest
"...I believe there is a law prohibiting simultaneous Presidencies from the same state."<br /><br />Actually, you can't have simultaneous presidencies at all - just one president at a time ....
 
N

no_way

Guest
so if LRO is 2008, and lander 2010, what happens in 2009 ? i seem to remember a promise of sending a probe each year too ...
 
R

radarredux

Guest
FYI: NASA just announced a Request For Information for a Lunar Lander. <br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>NASA JSC Solicitation: Lunar Lander Concept Studies<br />...<br />NASA/JSC is hereby requesting information about Lunar Lander Concept Studies. See attached study requirements description.<br /><br />http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/NNJ06LSAM05L/LanderStudyRFI.doc<br /><br />The purpose of this Request For Information (RFI) is to widely release the study guidelines that NASA in-house teams are using so that contractors, academia, or any interested parties can perform parallel studies and/or use this information to make decisions on how to focus their internal efforts. NASA will review all submitted concepts and may incorporate all or part of any concept into their planning for future studies.<br /><br />No procurement solicitation exists; therefore, do not request a copy of the solicitation. No acquisition will result directly from this RFI, but respondents will be updated on NASA study progress and may be called on for further dialog.<br /><br />Interested respondents having performed studies meeting the attached requirements should submit concepts of 12 pages or less, including figures. Submissions shall be via e-mail and must be less than 7 Megabytes in file size. Please do not submit any proprietary information that may not be viewed by all NASA field centers.<br /><br />Technical questions should be directed to john.connolly-1@nasa.gov. Procurement related questions should be directed to Geraldine Mason at geraldine.b.mason@nasa.gov.<br /><br />This synopsis is for information and planning purposes and is not to be construed as a commitment by the Government nor will the Government pay for information solicited. Respondents will not be notified of the results</p></blockquote>
 
B

blacknebula

Guest
Just hope this gets axed...soon. If we have to spend that kind of money building a robotic lander, let's send it somewhere a little out of reach by humans at the moment. It makes no sense spending this money for a robotic lander to do science that a human will go do (and do more extensively) in a decade.<br /><br />This is pure pork and only detracts from VSE. The only possible benefit this lander could have is silencing the space science folks up for a little bit.
 
J

josh_simonson

Guest
I see some value in landing a robotic probe on the moon before attempting the same with a human payload. Based on it's discoveries NASA can judge how best to proceed with the constellation program.
 
V

vulture2

Guest
Agree. The Apollo landings were simpler, being equatorial, and at least two were close calls. Remember that Armstrong landed with only a few seconds of fuel left. Another LM landed on an incline within a few degrees of the limit that would have made takeoff impossible. Without some experience with a robotic system that can test navigation, guidance, and mechanical systems for landing we could easily lose another crew. You can't do a "go-around", you can't glide, and below a certain altitude you can't even abort. As for the money, each lunar landing will cost roughly a billion dollars for the cargo launch alone, perhaps another billion for crew launch, payload, CEV, etc. If we are going to support even one lunar base, we will need at least four landings per year. We have to be be prepared to ask for for $8B a year for the manned lunar program alone, about 60% more than current total Shuttle spending, for a manned lunar program that doses someting more than plant a few flags. If we are going to spend this much an extra $500M, or even $500M/yr, for a robotic lander program will be worth it in the additional reviews it will save alone, let alone improved safety and scouting potential landing sites. <br /><br />We must avoid waste, but we must have an adequate budget to do a good job, and that means we (the public, not NASA) have to convince Congress to raise the money. This will require a small tax increase, not something popular with the voters.<br /><br />But the minute budget pressure causes loss of capability or schedule slippage the effectiveness and safety of the program will be compromised, and total cost will grow, as we've seen to often before.<br />
 
R

radarredux

Guest
> <i><font color="yellow">I see some value in landing a robotic probe on the moon before attempting the same with a human payload. Based on it's discoveries NASA can judge how best to proceed with the constellation program.</font>/i><br /><br />A robotic lander can also provide ground truth in order to evaluate the analysis from the LRO. For example, the LRO make make assumptions about the size and numbers of boulders in an area (something that would be important if you want to land there), but only a lander could validate that the assumptions are correct.<br /><br />Robotic landers can also go where the risks might be too high to send humans (e.g., into the cold traps, mountain ranges, or canyons).<br /><br />Robotic landers can also keep excitement levels up between the retirement of the shuttle and completion of ISS in 2010 and the first human landings on the Moon ~8 years later.<br /><br />Robotic landers can test software and new engineering concepts that can be used for early human landers.<br /><br />Robotic landers could be used to preposition cargo to be used by the first human crews. Imagine the first crew landing in 2018 and then walking 100 meters to their prepositioned Bigelow Lunar habitat/lab that was put there 6 months earlier. Even at a smaller level, consumables (oxygen, food, etc.), moon buggies, scientific gear, etc. could be placed in cargo pods nearby the planned landing site.</i>
 
N

no_way

Guest
ISRU has been talked about for decades, and to date we have no idea exactly how hard or easy its going to be. Even just baking the oxygen out of lunar regolith. There have been dozens of tests and literally hundreds of research papers<br />http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/05may_moonrocks.htm<br /><br />So why not finally take this very critical tech one step further ASAP ? Robotic lander would be perfect to test this.<br />
 
H

halman

Guest
We should know enough by now to be able to pick a site for a preliminary Lunar Base, given that it should be in the equatorial area, and fairly flat. Close to the edge of a maria, if possible, but not essential. What is essential is establishing a human presence on the Moon as soon as possible, to stimulate public interest in space exploration that is not Star Trek and is not Sending Men To Mars. Until we do, money is just going to keep getting tighter and tighter.<br /><br />However, we cannot allow tight money to cause designs to be compromised or skimped upon. The vehicle that we select to support Lunar exploration will have to be robust enough to handle several passengers plus the life support supplies to keep them all alive for a week or more. If the vehicle is designed to be able to carry that kind of payload, it should have enough delta v with a 2 man crew to hover and maneuver quite a bit. Until landing aids have been established at the Lunar Base site, every landing will be a little bit different, with unpredictable elements. Let's face it, landings and take-offs are the most dangerous parts of space exploration.<br /><br />The time frame between the end of the shuttle missions and the first manned Lunar mission should be focused on building up an inventory of launch vehicles, basic supply caches for launching to the Moon via unmanned rockets, and exploration hardware for use on the Moon. We have been there before, we know the basic problems that we are up against, and we cannot afford to be timid. The equipment that we build will not neccessarily be ideal in light of what we learn, but it will serve, and might possibly be modified to better meet mission needs.<br /><br />We also cannot afford to be too ambitious, by spreading our resources too thinly. Exploration of the lunar polar regions will be very expensive, and, possibly, extremely dangerous. Specialized vehicles may be required, with extended hover and maneuvering capability, to allow for landi <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>
 
N

nacnud

Guest
<font color="yellow">We should know enough by now to be able to pick a site for a preliminary Lunar Base, given that it should be in the equatorial area, and fairly flat.<br /><br /><font color="white">But that still might not be the best place to go especialy if there is water ice, constant sunlight and a small thermal range at the poles.</font></font>
 
G

gsuschrist

Guest
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. We barely pulled off the Apollo misions without a loss of life. A loss of a lunar crew will set back any Moon exploration multiple times longer and cost multiple times more than the time and cost of robotic missions to set the stage. A moon mision is going to be a low priority among an American people looking (today) at an 8 trillion ollar debt. Success will foster a bit more enthusiasm. The loss of a lunar crew could put the whole project in mothballs. <br /><br /> It's not going to be easy for us space nuts to rebuff the first congressman who wants to squash billions designated for nebulous research on the Moon and that money put into 'better schools for children down here on Earth'.
 
J

j05h

Guest
> An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. We barely pulled off the Apollo misions without a loss of life<br /><br />Apollo 1? Spaceflight is inherently dangerous, from learning to regular operations like the recent ballistic descent on Soyuz.<br /><br /> />A loss of a lunar crew will set back any Moon exploration multiple times longer and cost multiple times more than the time and cost of robotic missions to set the stage... The loss of a lunar crew could put the whole project in mothballs. <br /><br />Check out our discussion in Space Business & Tech on a private Mars missions. With the proper investment, a commercial system is established as a Port Authority on Phobos, to mine water and support customer applications on and off Mars. Something as described could put humans on Mars permanently in the same timeframe as NASA is planning 6-week Moon landings. There is immense industrial and media potential in pursuing the further destinations.<br /><br />josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
G

gsuschrist

Guest
That's good because as a taxpayer looking at trillions in national debt I'm pleased that entrepreneurs will spend hundreds of billions of their own cash to reap all this economic return. <br /><br />Cost of going to Mars. Hundreds of billions. Economic return ZERO. Glad to have you spend YOUR dollars and prove me wrong.
 
J

j05h

Guest
> Cost of going to Mars. Hundreds of billions. Economic return ZERO. Glad to have you spend YOUR dollars and prove me wrong.<br /><br />Hundreds of Billions? Yes, to enable cities on Phobos, Mars and cis-lunar space. The idea is laid out in the other thread, but the main "port authority" company would make it's money by providing power, habitable volume & setup, etc to other Mars/Phobos entities. This somewhat follows the model of the early European Trade Companies. <br /><br />Claiming before the fact that there would be zero economic returns shows a profound lack of imagination. <br /><br />The type of settlement I'm describing would eventually (decades) cost hundreds of Billion$, but would generate Trillions in wealth in the process, and develop the Inner Solar System. Or do you want to be stuck on a single planet?<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
B

blacknebula

Guest
"Claiming before the fact that there would be zero economic returns shows a profound lack of imagination. "<br /><br />Not just a lack of imagination, but a poor understanding of history as well. Who knew that America's food supply would come from...The Great American Desert?
 
J

j05h

Guest
> Not just a lack of imagination, but a poor understanding of history as well. Who knew that America's food supply would come from...The Great American Desert?<br /><br />And done by exterminating the preexisting food source there, the buffalo? <br /><br />I can write for hours about the various potential industries and adventures we can go on, but not for that guy's attitude. Check out the Private Mars thread if you're interested.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
H

halman

Guest
nacnud,<br /><br />It would be foolhardy to try to establish the first lunar base at either of the lunar poles. We would be multiplying the difficulty of creating our first foothold by many times, as well as delaying the construction of the first permanent base, possibly by years. We are looking at developing a world, which will entail surveying missions on the surface, landings in many different areas to evaluate possible resources, and learning huge amounts. No one site will meet all the needs of future development, such as building a lunar magnetic launcher, mining metals, and doing scientific research.<br /><br />Certainly, the presence of water on the Moon would have a tremendous impact on lunar development, but it is not the deciding factor. What will be a deciding factor is public awareness of manned space exploration efforts, which should increase dramatically when there are people living and working on the Moon. In my opinion, the single greatest benefit of developing the Moon will be forcing people to realize that there is somewhere else in the universe besides Earth, and that living there is not science fiction. If we cannot get people to understand that space is real, and soon, this whole discussion will be academic.<br /><br />We who are deeply interested in space exploration usually do not realize how abstract and inconsequential it is to most people. Try asking the bus driver, the cook at school, the meter reader, the clerk at the covienance store what they think about the International Space Station. Most folks won't even know what you are talking about. But after a few years of there being people living and working on the Moon, that will change, because the Moon is a 'place', not some dimensionless point of light in the sky.<br /><br />I would be greatly surprised if the site of the first lunar base is still in use 50 years down the road, because we are sure to find better ones. As we grow more knowledgable and skillful, ease of landing will fade <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts