VME - "Vision for Moonrovers' Exploration" - vs. (old) VSE

gaetanomarano · Nov 1, 2005

Polls' results are clear... moon exploration! But... with LEM2 or moonrovers? My opinion is that rovers are MUCH BETTER than LEM2 for five GIANT reasons! I think that VSE-plan funds MUST be spent for MARS exploration (that is MUCH MORE interesting than moon!) and to start planning the first manned mars mission! o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o If you have problems accessing my website try again or for moonrovers TEXT ONLY go togaetano277.interfree.it o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o/safety_wrapper>

rubicondsrv · Nov 1, 2005

Why not both? Why can't lem2 carry a moon car like was used on later apollo flights? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

barrykirk · Nov 1, 2005

I agree that we need to send unmanned rovers before the next humans, we do need the advance scouts in place.

gaetanomarano · Nov 1, 2005

I'm sure that each LEM2 will have a sort of "LunarSUV", but the "exploration range" will remain low (as explained in moonrovers' webpage).

josh_simonson · Nov 1, 2005

I think using rovers would defeat the whole 'practice for mars' aspect of sending humans to the moon. SDCs recent article highlights the concerns with mars dust affecting equipment and degrading airlock seals, ect. It'd be a bummer if a mars expedition were stuck with leaky airlocks and had to leave after a very short stay. I really can't see how we could justify far more expensive manned missions to other parts of the solar system if the cheapest destination, the moon, is unjustified to visit.

gaetanomarano · Nov 1, 2005

"...whole 'practice for mars' aspect..." moon is 13-17 years away, mars is 25 up years away (if we start now) or 40 up years away (if we start after moon)... rovers is a way to use that time usefully and have results within a few years... the alternative is talking only about moon missions for 13-17 years ............. .... (one dot per year) "...moon, is unjustified to visit..." my opinion is that, before spend money, we need to know if there is someting to see if we wish to go cinema... first we call to know if it is open and if there is the movie we like...

gaetanomarano · Nov 1, 2005

if you have problems accessing my website try again or for moonrovers TEXT ONLY go togaetano277.interfree.it

mattblack · Nov 3, 2005

I agree we need more Rovers, absolutely. Especially to the poles to look for water. This would then make it easier to plan for manned missions, or at least HOW MANY manned missions. For instance, if a particular place is found to be relatively uninteresting, just use Rovers for that area. But if a place is found to be MORE interesting than expected, send the Manned Missions there. Crater Alphonsus would be one of the prime sites for a manned mission, no question. Also, with the lack of significant radio timelag, Earthbound operators wearing 3-D goggles could steer the things excellently. With Hi-Def TV cameras aboard, we on Earth could also get some pretty cool views. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America CAN Afford it!! LEO is a Prison -- It's time for a JAILBREAK!! </div>

gaetanomarano · Nov 3, 2005

I think it is the only rational way to explore moon, mars and beyond. 1st! - see with rovers and probes IF and WHERE there is something interesting 2nd! - plan some manned missions to explore the interesting places, but only if they CAN'T BE better explored with specialized vehicles! (like comet's samplers probes) about TV viewing... TV resolution is less than 1 Mpixels while best to-day's digital cameras already have 12.5 Mpixels just think which images we can see with 30+ Mpixel 3D cameras (available whithin two years) sent on the moon as rovers' eyes!!!!!!!

dobbins · Nov 3, 2005

Since the plans have always included using unmanned probes prior to a return to the Moon and continuing to use unmanned probes to Mars before a manned landing there you are complaining about something that is already in place. Why don't you try pushing for ESA to develop it's own manned space program, one to your liking, instead of trying to get NASA to adopt your ideas? The more manned programs the better!

gaetanomarano · Nov 3, 2005

"...plans have always included using unmanned probes..." no! it's remarkably different! VSE plan will use a few rovers to explore possible landing sites, while my VME proposal may COMPLETELY SUBSTITUTE manned exploration (to be made ONLY if rovers will find something of REALLY interesting on the moon/mars that NEED human exploration!!!) NASA plans to come back to the moon and, in mean time, hope that, AFTER MOON LANDING, astronauts will find on the moon something of SO INTERESTING that may justify (retroactively) the giant quantity of time and money ALREADY spent!!! (in 2020) "...don't you try pushing for ESA to develop it's own manned space program, one to your liking, instead of trying to get NASA to adopt..." I can't push ESA to develop manned programs because I've not the "power" to do it and because I think that manned moon missions are useless (but rovers may give us a good reason to go moon, if there is one...) I can't try to get NASA to adopt my ideas for the same (no power or influence) reasons I only explain my opinion in a free world like you do with your opinion!

gaetanomarano · Nov 3, 2005

I add here this post about the "VERY EXCITING FUTURE THAT WAITS FOR US IN SPACE IN THE NEXT ***20*** YEARS!"... If you want to know "how much" future (and when) we will have, thanks to CEV-LEM2, see here the (realistic) CEV-LEM2 plan: 2005: nothing 2006: nothing 2007: nothing 2008: nothing 2009: nothing 2010: nothing 2011: nothing 2012: nothing 2013: first uncrewed test flight, due to 2005's first (of many) CEV delay 2014: first manned flight of the simplified orbital-only CEV (yahoooo! the Apollo 7 fly!!!) 2015: no flights to the obsolete ISS (that will be splashed in ocean like Mir) 2016: no ISS orbital flight, working on lunar-CEV 2017: first manned orbital test of full lunar-CEV 2018: first lunar orbital flight (like Apollo 8... many of us will return children...) 2019: earth and lunar test of all the "lunar" hardware (LEM2, docking, etc. a' la Apollo 9...) 2020: first LEM2 lunar landing! Armstr... John Doe says "this is a little step for man, etc. (where I've heared this?...), 200 lbs. of rocks 2021: champagne! this year we will have TWO lunar missions and 500 lbs. of moon-rocks! 2022: again, TWO missions, 500 lbs. of moon-rocks and a new BMW-LunarSUV! 2023: NASA plans four missions to take 1000 lbs. of moon-rocks, but Congress cuts the budget... TWO missions only 2024: after LEM2-17, public opinion and Congress ask NASA why spend so much billions only for rocks, rocks, rocks, rocks 2025: Congress and NASA decide to end the (useless and risky) moon missions before a Shuttle-like accident will happen 2026: the last CEVs available will be on show at NASA and Smithsonian Museum, for tourists... TOTAL use of CEV "capsule" ends after ONLY 13 flights!!! 20 years of research and $150+ billion spent for a "space-scooter" (the

telfrow · Nov 3, 2005

Per your request: The total cost of building, launching, landing and operating the rovers on the surface for the initial 90 day primary mission was about US $820 million. An additional US $15 million was provided on April 8 2004 when mission operations were funded for extension through September. Furthermore, a US $2.8 million per month extension to the mission was approved on September 21 2004 for six more months of operation. The primary mission price was equivalent to roughly every US citizen paying $2.75. http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/m/ma/mars_exploration_rover.htm <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild. - Tennyson </div>

gaetanomarano · Nov 3, 2005

"...with a total cost that approaches that of VSE..." ALL moon-VSE missions will explore a very little fraction of the (time and space) ONE moonrovers can explore in a month! I don't think that moonrovers must have an high cost or be perfect... I explain: due to Mars distance and reduced launch windows Mars rovers MUST be PERFECT, then costs very much moon is near earth and don't have very critical launch windows like mars launch a little object on the moon don't cost like send a rovers to mars if a mars rover fails, we need to wait 5-10 years for a new launch and spend very much money we can send thousands low cost rovers made with ready available industrial components of course, some of them must fail, but the total cost of 100 moonrovers with 80% reliability will be the same of ONE "perfect" mars rover and, if an essential instrument fails, we can send it again in a few weeks! "... endless vistas of gray plains and hills covered by scattered gray rocks..." unfortunately, it will be (also) the ONLY "vision" for ALL the LEM2 astronauts....

SpaceKiwi · Nov 3, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />of course, some of them must fail, but the total cost of 100 moonrovers with 80% reliability will be the same of ONE "perfect" mars rover<hr /></blockquote> Really? Have you worked some cost estimates up? I'd be curious to see a costing comparison for 100 landed Moon rovers vs 1 landed Mars rover. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Who is this superhero? Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bring Back The Black! </div>

josh_simonson · Nov 3, 2005

Yup. Mars rovers are 400m each, so your hypothetical moon rovers cost 4m to build, launch and operate?

nacnud · Nov 3, 2005

I can't belive you missed the most obviouse difference between Moon and Mars rovers! The Moon has a delay time of of two seconds (there and back), Mars over Mars rovers have to be autonomouse or preprogramed as the delay time is 5-20 minutes. Luna rovers can be tele-operated in real time. Look up the Lunokhod missions and think what could be possible with todays tech.

SpaceKiwi · Nov 3, 2005

Hey josh, maybe Radio Shack do a kit now? Tell you what, I'll organise to hire the U-Haul ... you get down to the local branch and ask the pimply-faced teenager behind the counter if he can check the store-room and see if they have the 100 units we're gonna be needing. Meanwhile, I'll see if SG can get us a line on some cheap launchers down at the Cape. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Who is this superhero? Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bring Back The Black! </div>

barrykirk · Nov 3, 2005

Too bad my HDTV doesn't have 30 Megapixels.

gaetanomarano · Nov 3, 2005

"...curious to see a costing comparison for 100 landed..." I better explain my opinion: You know that the mars Viking's cost was very high (like some apollo missions) because was made in the early days of space/probes/rocket/electronics/computer The total cost of Spirit/Opportunity missions was ten times less (if you consider inflation) because of falling technology costs and a different design that use the better technology available without "invent" all from zero. for moon we have two choice: "mars-like" or "garage-like" in other words... we can build TEN moon-spirit, advanced, perfect, that work much more than planned, but costs $200 million each... or, at the same price, build 1000 rovers with moon-specs (expecially about temperature and air absence) but made with the most advanced "earth" technology used for applications in extreme conditions each "terrestrial" rover (with "moon-temperature" resistance) can cost like the cost of its components and specialized assembly a simple (1st generation) "observer" rover may cost as low as $200,000 including the landing module, so, the cost of each mission, will be near the cost of launch rovers must be simple and light to send 5-10 of them with one rocket of course, less advanced rover will be not perfect like Spirit, 20% of them may fails, but 80% will work, and the total cost will be very low in respect of past missions rovers can be made in universities, labs, industries with available technology and may cost from $20,000 to $3,000,000 probaly, with one Ariane5 paylod we can launch 30-50 "light" rovers (each with landing engine) and moon-booster

gaetanomarano · Nov 3, 2005

"...build, launch and operate..." see the answer for SpaceKiwi the entire moonrovers system must cost less "by design" if you build the "moonrovers' skyscraper" to operate them (like past "supermissions") the cost will be very high if, insted, you DISTRIBUTE FREE the moonrovers' data, image and time to the entire world sientific community (like with Hubble images), great part of research and discoveries will be made with ZERO COSTS the operation time can be "rent" to labs, universities and companies and all images recorded for future research and processing imagine that low cost moonrovers will be like computers and moonrovers' work will be like internet...

gaetanomarano · Nov 3, 2005

"...you missed the most obviouse difference between Moon and Mars rovers..." ABSOLUTELY NO! please, read the moonrovers' page on my website! the main advantage of moon vs. mars rovers is REAL TIME CONTROL moon rovers don't need to be too complex like "automated" mars rovers, then, it's cost may be very low don't think at moonrovers like a little (and fast) model car or a (real) Ferrari moonrovers operation will be very slow because they must explore the ENTIRE surface without rush (since there is no crew that need oxygen, food, etc.) the "earth" control will be like "there and see those rock with zoom 3x"... two seconds delay will have ZERO influence on that missions also, some rovers may be preprogrammed to explore inch by inch a given area without earth control

gaetanomarano · Nov 3, 2005

"... Radio Shack do a kit now..." exactly!!! of course, the moonrovers' parts can't be sold at Radio Shack... but the hi-spec industrial and military components are commonly available and use in many hi-tech industries... aerospace, medical, scientific, etc. you can buy a $20 Radio Shack chip with and MTBF (medium time before failure) of 5000 hours or a similar, but hi-grade, $300 chip (from many hi-tech chip companies) with an MTBF of 30,000 hours and a "temperature operation range" that match moon needs ALL THE TECHNOLOGY IS ALREADY AVAILABLE ON EARTH FROM HI-TECH INDUSTRIES: vacuum, solar cells, batteries, step-motors, alloys, cameras, electronics, computer chips... probably only the wheels must be specially-made for moon! to-day, you don't need to be "NASA" or "ESA" to build a "box" than can receive, measure, process, transmit, recharge batteries, etc. in space or on the moon, the only BIG problem is the launch cost (that only a few countries and companies can do) but many private companies are coming! for more informations... ask your TV repair shop...

gaetanomarano · Nov 3, 2005

"...my HDTV..." I'm sure that you know that great part of TV image quality depend of the quality of the source. on the same TV, an hi-res digital camera image is better than a low cost camera image special 3D "exploration" displays may have a much better resolution of HDTV or TV monitors also, consider that the main purpose of high resolution is not for your TV but for RESEARCH a very high resolution (better with a macro) will give to scientist incredible details of moon objects to have the same quality of hi-res macro images of moonrovers of the entire moon surface, you need... 1. give to moon the same temperature, atmosphere and pressure of earth to work without spacesuits 2. send on the moon thousands of geologists with microscopes and hi-res digital camera 3. (or 1st) find the funds to finance the entire operation IF ON THE MOON THERE IS SOMETHING INTERESTING OF USEFULL ONLY MOONROVERS CAN FIND THEM! THE 40 ASTRONAUTS THAT WILL GO ON THE MOON FOR A WEEK MUST BE MORE LUCKY THAN THE RECORD LOTTO WINNER TO FIND THE RIGHT INTERESTING THING ON THE MOON EXACTLY AROUND THE LANDING SITE!!!! TO HAVE THE SAME TIME/SPACE/RESULTS OF ***EACH*** MOONROVERS, YOU NEED TO SEND 500 MANNED MISSIONS!!! YOU WILL SEE IT, BECAUSE, VERY MUCH TIME BEFORE FIRST LEM2 LANDING, ON THE MOON WILL BE MANY INTERNATIONAL MOON ROVERS AND NO ONE MANNED MISSION WILL DISCOVER MOON SECRETS (IF THERE ARE) LIKE THESE ROBOTS!!! --------------- YOUR DENIGRATION HERE IS COMPLETELY USELESS BECAUSE I HAVE ONLY MY OPINIONS WHILE MANY COUNTRIES ALREADY HAVE THE ***TECHNOLOGY*** TO BUILD AND SEND ROVERS ON THE MOON AND THEY WILL START DO IT WITHIN THE END OF THIS DECADE... IF YOU LIKE OR NOT!

VME - "Vision for Moonrovers' Exploration" - vs. (old) VSE

gaetanomarano

Guest

rubicondsrv

Guest

barrykirk

Guest

gaetanomarano

Guest

josh_simonson

Guest

gaetanomarano

Guest

gaetanomarano

Guest

mattblack

Guest

gaetanomarano

Guest

dobbins

Guest

gaetanomarano

Guest

gaetanomarano

Guest

telfrow

Guest

gaetanomarano

Guest

SpaceKiwi

Guest

josh_simonson

Guest

nacnud

Guest

SpaceKiwi

Guest

barrykirk

Guest

gaetanomarano

Guest

gaetanomarano

Guest

gaetanomarano

Guest

gaetanomarano

Guest

gaetanomarano

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page