Where can the Orion lunar module land?

[qso1]

The U.S. developed jetpacks, I think it was the Army that was looking into it. There were also some illustrations of rocket packs in use on the moon.<br /><br />The Soviet lander was actually a spacecraft that enclosed and transported one person to and from the lunar surface although it never actually performed in that capacity. A really accurate drawing at the link below.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Moonshot<br /><br />I have a Russian spaceflight book that shows actual photos of this lander. The controls look more like a Flash Gordon cockpit of the 1930s. I can only imagine what it would have been like to land solo and walk on 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>

 

[willpittenger]

I remember a single seat open lander that relied on the pilot's suit for pressurization. <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>A lot of time was wasted on Apollo due to those factors.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />The lunar rover solved that problem. It had a built in navigation system. The problems with navigation involved astronauts on foot. Shepard spent so much time trying to move that cart that he could not concentrate on where he was. That and things looked different from the ground than space.<br /><br />However, in the long run, I do like the GPS concept. If you remember, I asked what it would take to implement that around Mars. <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>

 

[j05h]

> However, in the long run, I do like the GPS concept. If you remember, I asked what it would take to implement that around Mars.<br /><br />SpaceDev was offering to build a 3-satellite GPS for Mars several years ago. No takers, yet. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

I think you will need more than 3 to be assured of getting an accurate 3d fix. <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>

 

[j05h]

> I think you will need more than 3 to be assured of getting an accurate 3d fix.<br /><br />The proposal (I only saw Jim's public material on it) would have involved 3 sats in highly eccentric orbits. They would offer decent coverage and basic GPS features, but not be as accurate as USAF GPS sats. The sats would have included comm features (data hold-and-forward, IIRC) and other features. He might have been 20 years ahead of himself, but I thought it was a great concept. Most users would be able to get two sats at any time, not as good as 6 GPS sats, but enough for basic positioning and telemetry.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[observer7]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>BTW, IIRC the name Orion applies to the entire project, not just the CEV, much like Apollo.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />To clarify:<br /><br />Constellation is the name of the entire program at NASA.<br /><br />So far,<br /><br />Ares is the name for the launch vehicle project and<br />Orion is the name for the CEV project.<br /><br />I would guess that the Lunar transfer vehicle, lander, and other components will end up with their own names as they proceed from drawing board ideas to actual projects.<br /><br />-- <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em><font size="2">"Time exists so that everything doesn't happen at once" </font></em><font size="2">Albert Einstein</font> </div>

 

[rsp1202]

Re: Apollo 12 landing and general landing accuracy. Intrepid landed 600 feet away from Surveyor only because it was parked at the bottom of a crater, and mission rules forbade landing in craters. Conrad could have landed it just about anywhere, as could other mission commanders on their flights. It all depended upon smoothness of projected landing site and fuel quantity. On each Apollo landing mission, the commanders redesignated their landing sites during descent as they approached closer to ground and got a good look at the site. Previous photo recon mission cameras didn't have the resolution necessary to pick up boulders or depressions that while small were big enough to cause the LM trouble. The Lunar Recon Orbiter to be launched in 2008 will have the necessary resolution to do so, so astronauts will have a better picture ahead of time to use in picking their precise landing spot, and auto-targeting software will guide them there. And the pilot will always be able to change the targeting if necessary.

 

[PistolPete]

<font color="orange">Constellation is the name of the entire program at NASA.</font><br /><br />Eh, you're probobly right. Don't really pay much attention to the whole CEV/Ares program. Just not interested for some reason. I've found COTS much more exciting. <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>

 

[elguapoguano]

COTS has the prospect of being exciting, and with the half a billion NASA is throwing their way, it could get interesting. However, you can't get your hopes up either. So far no private non " military industrial complex" private company has pulled off any payload to LEO. <br /><br />I'd like to see it happen, but I'm not holding my breath. Even with NASA's money, the problem isn't money, it isn't even technology, it's governmental "Red Tape" that dooms many a program... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>

 

[docm]

Not on their own rocket, but what about Genesis I? Isn't that a "non 'military industrial complex' private company....payload to LEO"? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>