Where can the Orion lunar module land?

[willpittenger]

Will it be more precise than the Apollo module? That is, more acurrately hit a target like the bottom of a rill or Tycho Crater. While a Apollo mission visited a rill, the crew had no means of getting down inside where we might be able to find out how it was formed.<br /><br />I know the new lander is supposed to be able to lander farther north or south than Apollo. I heard something about it approaching from a polar orbit. True? If so, could it land at the Lunar Prospector crash site? There is supposedly water there. Besides, it might be useful knowing the mass and trajectory of Lunar Prospector to see the crater and debris field up close. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

OK. I mixed up the names. Still, could we visit some of the places I mentioned?<br /><br />* Bottom of a rill<br />* Bottom of a crater like Tycho<br />* The crash site for Lunar Prosprector (which I think is near the south pole). I do not know how far is too far towards the poles based on your description. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[qso1]

If current plans hold, the answer would be yes. However, despite advances in automated landing ability, with humans aboard. They would probably not attempt to land in really rough terrain. And probably couldn't land in terrain that could cause a touchdown tilt of more than a few degrees. A tilt possibly caused by one landing gear touching down on a rock several feet tall. I suspect they would follow the Apollo methodology as close as possible which was to land in ever increasingly difficult areas. Assuming they land different missions at different sites. If its a mission to build an outpost, several landings would be required at the same location, in which case they might opt for a landing with spectacular nearby visuals but the touchdown area relatively smooth, similar to say, the Apollo 15-17 sites.<br /><br />Bottom of a rille...if the rille is wide enough, possibly.<br /><br />Tycho floor...more likely than landing in a rille but even the areas appearing smooth on the tycho floor may be too rough but lunar orbiting craft could eventually answer that question.<br /><br />LP crash site...can't really say as I'm not sure about where it actually crashed...there may not be enough data on that area of the moon. <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>

 

[qso1]

I second that. <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>

 

[vogon13]

Apollo 12 managed to land next to Surveyor 3, with 1960s technology.<br /><br />Would Orion be any less capable?<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[qso1]

Thats true, but they landed about 600 feet from Surveyor 3. So surely the LSAM can land more precisely than that. Speculating here but I'd go so far as to say they should be able to land within 5 to 20 feet of their intended landing targets on average. <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>

 

[vogon13]

IIRC, they did not want to disturb it with rocket exhaust and lunar dust. Seems they could have landed on it had they wanted too.<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[Boris_Badenov]

Bi-planes started landing on Aircraft Carriers in the 1920's, & we've come a log way since then. If you can see it, & the lander can land on it, we could put it down there. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[spacester]

Lunar landing is going to come in several flavors IMO. NASA's VSE/ESAS solution will be focused on exploring the difficult areas: all latitudes and challenging terrains. While base stations can be placed on flat areas, they may be larger and thus a bigger landing challenge. To get in the tight and ever-dark spaces, personalized hoppers make sense. Hoppers also might be made with a smaller Bigelow habitat as the core - a fleet of 6 would get some exploration done in a hurry. Cargo can come down on re-usable Lunar Cargo Shuttles, cylindrical containers inside a toroid (donut shaped) propulsion unit which drops the container and goes back up to base at L1 without refueling. Small groups of humans may come down on a private craft, not just NASA's vehicle.<br /><br />Maybe other folks besides NASA are interested in going there and maybe they aren't there to explore, but to party on the moon. They're going to need some habitats too.<br /><br />My vision is of multiple Bigelow habitats arranged on a truss structure with distributed propulsion units and landing/leveling legs all coming down as a huge assembled unit anywhere near an exploration site that is big enough, reasonably level and properly prepared. This would be a permanent installation, and would provide NASA's needs as well as the needs of a Lunar Resort.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[elguapoguano]

Here's me and my Photoshop'ed Moon base. :>) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>

 

[PistolPete]

Damn, Boris, beat me to the punch. That's what I was going to say.<br /><br />To give an analogy that is a little bit closer; helicopter pilots have been landing on the backs of moving and pitching Navy frigates and destroyers fifty years now just by using the M1-A1 mod. 0 eyeball. Pinpoint accuracy has little to do with the technology level of the lander<br /><br /><br />BTW, IIRC the name Orion applies to the entire project, not just the CEV, much like Apollo. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

So you can breath vacuum? I do not see a face mask. You must be one real hardy person. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>M1-A1 mod. 0 eyeball<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />You might have gotten confused. When we are talking about US Army equipment, we only put the "A1" on <i>after</i> it has been modified. If we are talking about the M1 Abrams tank, "M1-A1" is the second generation. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[PistolPete]

I not so smawt since i go to dee Army. Dee dee dee! <img src="/images/icons/crazy.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

"Oh you di di like that, GI?" <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[PistolPete]

Hey GI, you got girlfriend, Vietnam?<br /><br />Me love you long time. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

vogon13:<br />IIRC, they did not want to disturb it with rocket exhaust and lunar dust.<br /><br />Me:<br />Your right, they definetely didn't want to stir up dust near Surveyor 3. I cannot recall how accurate a landing they could have made but they were able to land fairly close to specified landing targets. <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>

 

[yevaud]

Hell, Will, I remember watching the XM1 being tested. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

Would there have been problems coming down in areas with steep surroundings? Could high altitude have caused problems? Would the new CaLV designs improve on Apollo in those areas? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[qso1]

The Apollo missions relied primarily on radar for altitude readings, radar data then fed to the onboard computer. If navigating thru moutainous regions I suspect they would have increased potential for erronious radar readings.<br /><br />However, Apollo was more about being conservative as much as practicable in their choice of landing sites.<br /><br />Today, I would think they would be able to navigate more accurately through more treacherous areas but ultimately, the decision will be based on whether the site they would attempt to be landing at is worth the risk.<br /><br />On the new LSAM design. I'm expecting there will be vast improvements in the technology. PC technology applied to onboard computers which will have far more memory capacity than Apollo did. Far more autonomy as well. Many of the Apollo computations were done on the ground and then uploaded to the spacecraft. That is still done today with shuttle in many cases. But as the technology improves, more mundane tasks can be turned over to on board computing.<br /><br />Not to mention onboard computers that could be equipped to provide fairly realistic representations of spacecraft position relative to accurately modelled terrain.<br /><br />Combine that with probably conservative landing areas initially, then as missions progress...they may wish to land in areas high enough in potential to warrant calculated risks. The other option is if NASA decides on a single site for a base. All the vehicles required to support that will land at whatever site is designated. And that site will have to have a combination of things going for it. For PR purposes, a site with nearby mountains would probably be more attractive than a flat site.<br /><br />BTW, in my graphic novel, I put the first lunar base in the crater Langrenus and on July 27th, 2018, the crew witnesses a lunar eclipse while on the moon. A lunar eclipse that will actually happen and be seen from Earth, the mideast, Europe. <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>

 

[baktothemoon]

A question: would a jetpack be a good way to get around on the moon? With no air resistance and 1/6th gravity you could probably fly around up to the mountains easily, or so I think. It might help astronaut scouts deal with the rough terrain and help solve the problem of distance perception on the moon.

 

[willpittenger]

I seem to remember some tiny lander like "backpacks" being dreamed up in the past. That really was all the Soviet lander was ever supposed to be. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[cuddlyrocket]

If they set up a lunar GPS and have accurate terrain maps with laser ranging for orbit (both of which are straightforward), then no problem at all.<br /><br />A GPS would be useful anyway for making sure the astronauts don't get lost or confused about their whereabouts whilst on the lunar surface. A lot of time was wasted on Apollo due to those factors.

 

[no_way]

You mean something like this ? http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/31/skywalker-jet-packs-in-development/

 

[qso1]

I'd think a jet pack would be okay except you'd have to load it with fuel/oxidizer. A jet won't work on the airless moon without an oxidizer. Then for the best ISP, it would have to be cryo propellant. I looked at the link provided by "no_way" which shows a jet pack that has gotten around one problem. The burnt backside of the flyer. And in the case of a cryo propelled pack, a cold backside that might still result despite the insulation.<br /><br />If a pack of some kind could be developed, this would, as you pointed out, make an ideal tool for scouting hard to get to areas, even landing in them. <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>