Why no Lunar rovers?

[edkyle98]

""According to the public, who paid the bills for the missions. Public interest in lunar exploration peaked when Armstrong stepped on the surface, and faded thereafter.""<br /><br />"Irrelevant. The Apollo missions were stopped not because of lack of public interest, but because the politicians decided it had achieved it's goal many times over and because senior NASA officials were getting cold feet at the risk."<br /><br />Politicians would not have been able to shut down the program if the public was really enthused about it. The majority of the public, during the Vietnam era, actually grew quite opposed to the massive Apollo spending, which they viewed as wasteful, especially after the landing had been achieved. <br /><br />But this discussion wasn't about why Apollo was cancelled, it was about why *all* lunar exploration - including robotic exploration - ended after the mid 1970s. It ended because the mission was accomplished. It ended because the public wasn't interested in seeing any more of it - and didn't want to pay for it. <br /><br />Have you ever sat down and watched hour after hour of moonwalking on video? I have (both when it was first broadcast and more recently on DVD). It is interesting for a few minutes, than it induces brain-numbing-sleep. The next generation of Moon exploration will produce the exact same result. There will be initial interest, followed by plummeting ratings, followed by anger that so much was spent on such a dull thing (gray rocks, more gray rocks, and more gray rocks), followed by cancellation.<br /><br /><br />"Let's compare apples with apples. A lunar rover will ... Over a year they would travel perhaps 36 km. This allows for the lunar night, BTW.<br /><br />The Apollo astronauts with rover averaged 15 km per EVA. ... Assuming the next generation of lunar missions stay for a week at a time and are sent twice a year, they would explore 210 km in considerably greater detail ..."<br /><br />Take the latter number and divide by two, be

 

[qso1]

edkyle98:<br />"Irrelevant. The Apollo missions were stopped not because of lack of public interest, but because the politicians decided it had achieved it's goal many times over and because senior NASA officials were getting cold feet at the risk." <br /><br />Me:<br />Apollo was stopped for a combination of reasons, lack of public will being part of them. The public was already questioning the need for sending people to the moon even before Armstrong stepped off the Eagles ladder. Apollo 11 achieved the political goal but missions continued thereafter. However, in 1970...Apollos 18, 19, and 20 were cancelled due in part to what you mentioned (Cold feet) and public will wanning to a point noticeable by even the politicians.<br /><br />This is why its important to follow through the current VSE with a lunar base. At some point, whatever we do in space will bore regular folks. We can't use that as a reason not to do something. What is needed is a better way to do it. Rovers on the moon are one way. If commercial space gains economical access to earth orbit, and the moon. That will probably be the best way as its likely to employ both human and robotic capabilities.<br /><br />IMO, the VSE will be lucky to survive the post 2008 Presidential election period. That period where the new President will want to scrap anything Bush. VSE is a Bush initiative and anything Bush did in office will be fair game to whoever follows him as President. Especially if that person is a Democrat.<br /><br />The reverse occured in the Apollo era. A Democratic (JFK) Administration got us motivated as a nation to go to the moon. A Republican (Nixon) Administration largely gutted human space flight in part because as some claim, Nixon wanted to distance himself from anything Kennedy.<br /><br />In recent years, Republicans have tended to be pro human spaceflight while Democrats tend to distance themselves from it. <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>

 

[JonClarke]

"Politicians would not have been able to shut down the program if the public was really enthused about it. The majority of the public, during the Vietnam era, actually grew quite opposed to the massive Apollo spending, which they viewed as wasteful, especially after the landing had been achieved."<br /><br />This thread was not about the cancellation of Apollo until you chose to bring it up. I suggest you read a little more history. Lack of sustained public interest was irrelevant to the decision to cancel it. There are big oceanographic programs which continue because politicians believe them important, not because the public is interested. Tying the continuation of a space program to the fickle public interest is extremely dangerous.<br /><br />"But this discussion wasn't about why Apollo was cancelled, it was about why *all* lunar exploration - including robotic exploration - ended after the mid 1970s. It ended because the mission was accomplished. It ended because the public wasn't interested in seeing any more of it - and didn't want to pay for it."<br /><br />I suggest you read more history. It was all about political and organisational will.<br /><br />"Have you ever sat down and watched hour after hour of moonwalking on video? I have (both when it was first broadcast and more recently on DVD). It is interesting for a few minutes, than it induces brain-numbing-sleep. The next generation of Moon exploration will produce the exact same result. There will be initial interest, followed by plummeting ratings, followed by anger that so much was spent on such a dull thing (gray rocks, more gray rocks, and more gray rocks), followed by cancellation.<br />"<br /><br />You may find watching people exploring the Moon dull, but don't assume you speak for everyone. But trying assess the vlaue of going to the Moon purely in terms of TV coverage is purile. The value is assessed in what is learned about the Moon, the earth, the solar system, the universe in general, the technolo <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[edkyle98]

"This thread was not about the cancellation of Apollo until you chose to bring it up."<br /><br />Please go back and read the thread. You were the first one to mention "Apollo".<br /><br />"I suggest you read a little more history."<br /><br />I don't have to read history. I lived it. I remember quite well how the public all but applauded as NASA's budget's were slashed.<br /><br />"There are big oceanographic programs which continue because politicians believe them important, not because the public is interested."<br /><br />There are no big oceanographic programs that consume 1% of the resources of the entire U.S. economy, as Apollo did.<br /><br />"The MER rovers driven flat out cannot match the LRVs. Flat out they cover less than 200 m per day. Flat out the LRVs could cover 100 km in a day."<br /><br />Sure, LRV could cover more ground in a short time than any rover, but after a couple of days the astronauts had to park it and go home. The max LRV design duration was only 92 km before the batteries gave out, according to Astronautix. In addition, the human organisms riding it limited its range to only 9.7 km from the LM, to allow the astronauts to walk-back in case the LRV failed.<br /><br />Apollo 17 set the LRV record, with only 36 km distance covered. The Soviet's Lunokhod 2 beat that distance, despite spending some time stuck in a crater!<br /><br />Even a slowbot like the MERs could beat the LRV record (and for a lot less money). 200 meters per day is 73 km per year, or 182.5 km for the proven 2.5 year capability of the MERs. <br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[space_booster]

Everyone, thanks so much for everyone's discussion and the informative links on this subject. I realized after my initial post that availability of light would limit operational time of any solar cell based power system. <br /><br />Thanks again!

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Apollos 18, 19, and 20 were cancelled due in part to what you mentioned (Cold feet) and public will wanning to a point noticeable by even the politicians.<br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />That and how the NASA bigwigs were attempting to wrestle three things:<br />* A shrinking budget. NASA was probably officially permitted by Congress and Nixon to spend the money how they felt best. However, both would still have set a total spending limit. That forced NASA to choose between Apollo and newer projects like Skylab and STS.<br /><br />* Risk. Apollo 13 was probably very fresh. A crew stranded in lunar orbit or on the surface right after Apollo 13 would probably cause Congress to turn NASA back into NACA.<br /><br />* (This item is related to the first.) The shinking budget had terminated Saturn V production. So the Saturn Vs for the last three flights were reassigned to other projects or left outside as museum pieces. <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>The Apollo astronauts with rover averaged 15 km per EVA.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I should note that next-rovers might be a rolling habitat with various digging tools attached. As such, it could be a livin utility truck. Such a vehicle could go much further than 15 km. Astronauts would drive it from inside. So how far they could drive per EVA would be irrelavent. <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]

Now you really have me confused. I was talking about rovers -- not relay satellites. Also, your post did not talk about satellites either. <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>

 

[JonClarke]

Sigh.<br /><br />Superluminal: "In future manned moon explorations, in order to explore the backside of the moon by man or machine, Wouldn't you think that permanent relay satellites will be required both around the Earth and the Moon?"<br /><br />JC: "Relays at L2 perhaps?"<br /><br />Seconds before my post appeared, nacud posted the same thought in more detail: "A single relay satelite in a halo orbit around EML2 can provide comunication between the far side of the Moon and Earth."<br /><br />Still confused?<br /><br />Jon<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

Why did you reply to my post and quote it? <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]

Difficult times indeed for NASA. Found this link which explains the fates of the cancelled Apollos in detail.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancelled_Apollo_missions<br /><br />I recall the concern over moonflights after Apollo 13. When Apollo 13 happened, I was in Jr High and remember cancellation talk on the news. Fortunately there were 3 more Apollos after 13 (Apollos 15-17), then Skylab and ASTP. <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]

Good point. I should have also mentioned that NASA found other uses for the last Apollo Command and Service modules. Those were used by Skylab and ASTP missions. Since the modules were out of production, they had to get the modules from somewhere. The final lunar flights were an easy solution at that point. <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]

I guess in the end, it worked out fairly well given the circumstances. <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>

 

[ambrous]

Fortunately there were 3 more Apollos after 13 (Apollos 15-17)<br /><br />What about 14?

 

[nyarlathotep]

"Irrelevant. The Apollo missions were stopped not because of lack of public interest, but because the politicians decided it had achieved it's goal many times over and because senior NASA officials were getting cold feet at the risk." <br /><br />That's correct. Public interest stopped with Apollo 12.

 

[Boris_Badenov]

I was 8 during the Apollo 11 landing & was not even aware of further landings until I was in JR High. <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>

 

[MeteorWayne]

I was working at my first job, making 85 cents an hour, cleaning a table in "Mr. Bee's" hamburger joint when they landed on the moon.<br />That night, Dad let me stay up late to watch Neil and Buzz hit the surface.<br />Changed my life. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

I beg your pardon!<br /><br />You: "Or as I suggested, having rovers accompany the astronauts as tools. The astronauts would operate the rover and it might serve as their vehicle. "<br /><br />Me: "Indeed. Are you familiar with Bill Clancey's work with mobile agents? "<br /><br />Bill Clancey is a researcher at NASA Ames and is developing various types of robotic EVA assistants, much along the lines you suggest. See http://is.arc.nasa.gov/HCC/tasks/MblAgt.html<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[halcyondays]

I do often wonder whether one of reasons for lack of interest in post-Apollo 11 missions was the lack of TV coverage from the moon on the Apollo 12 mission - the main camera failed. So, we had to wait till Apollo 14 for the next successful mission with TV coverage from the moon in 1971, by which time attention had moved on.

 

[willpittenger]

14 successfully flew 13's mission. Alan Shepard did his famous golf drive on that mission. <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>

 

[JonClarke]

<b>Thread hijacking</b><br /><br />"Please go back and read the thread. You were the first one to mention "Apollo".<br /><br />Wrong. jschaef5 was the first to mention the A word, in a passing and entirely appropriate reference.<br /><br />You then responded, with reference to the Lunkohods: <br /><br /><i>Russian rovers were there for months and months, traveling miles across the surface. What these explorers saw grew repetitive and kind of boring - just lots of rocks and dust.</i><br /><br />My reply was: <br /><br /><i>According to whom? Certainly not the scientists. </i><br /><br />You then chose to divert the subject from the worth of the Lunokhod missions to the worth of Apollo by saying <br /><br /><i>According to the public, who paid the bills for the missions. Public interest in lunar exploration peaked when Armstrong stepped on the surface, and faded thereafter.</i><br /><br />This statement has nothing to do with Lunokhod and everything to do with Apollo. You were the one who decided to try and compare the performance of unmanned rovers with human ones, and try to turn this into yet another "humans vs robots" sally.<br /><br /><b>History</b><br /><br />"I don't have to read history. I lived it. I remember quite well how the public all but applauded as NASA's budget's were slashed. "<br /><br />Memories can be inaccurate. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>