Resource Prospector (RP) is an in-situ resource utilization (ISRU) technology demonstration mission which will test extraction of oxygen, water and other volatiles from lunar soil (regolith). It will also measure mineralogical content such as silicon and light metals, like aluminum and titanium, from lunar regolith. Expanding human presence beyond low-Earth orbit to asteroids and Mars will require the maximum possible use of local materials, so-called in-situ resources, and the moon presents a unique destination to conduct robotic investigations that advance ISRU capabilities, as well as providing significant exploration and science value
Mission has already been done before (multiple times)! Why?
What would be the mission lifespan?
Looks like they're targeting 2018http://sservi.nasa.gov/articles/nasa-looking-to-mine-water-on-the-moon-and-mars/
Lunokhod 1 (322 days / 6.5 miles):http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunokhod_1Lunokhod 2 (4 months / 23 miles)http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunokhod_2
Nobody is going to drink 4.6 billion year old water anyways.
Quote from: Mr. Scott on 05/24/2015 09:31 pmNobody is going to drink 4.6 billion year old water anyways.Most water on Earth is older than that!
In a recent NASA animation, the Falcon 9 is shown to launch a mission to the moon called "Resource Prospector."QuoteResource Prospector (RP) is an in-situ resource utilization (ISRU) technology demonstration mission which will test extraction of oxygen, water and other volatiles from lunar soil (regolith). It will also measure mineralogical content such as silicon and light metals, like aluminum and titanium, from lunar regolith. Expanding human presence beyond low-Earth orbit to asteroids and Mars will require the maximum possible use of local materials, so-called in-situ resources, and the moon presents a unique destination to conduct robotic investigations that advance ISRU capabilities, as well as providing significant exploration and science value
Quote from: CuddlyRocket on 05/25/2015 07:45 pmQuote from: Mr. Scott on 05/24/2015 09:31 pmNobody is going to drink 4.6 billion year old water anyways.Most water on Earth is older than that!Yep. The hydrogen in it is 13.8 billion years old.
Most of it, but a small fraction would have been produced in fusion processes in Pop 3 & 2 stars, especially in r-process reactions that created very short-lived radionucleotides.The oxygen in the water was probably made in a few different Pop 2 stars, as Pop 3 stars really didn't get into the CNO cycle.
Quote from: Ludus on 05/29/2015 04:15 amQuote from: CuddlyRocket on 05/25/2015 07:45 pmQuote from: Mr. Scott on 05/24/2015 09:31 pmNobody is going to drink 4.6 billion year old water anyways.Most water on Earth is older than that!Yep. The hydrogen in it is 13.8 billion years old.Quote from: simonbp on 05/30/2015 05:04 amMost of it, but a small fraction would have been produced in fusion processes in Pop 3 & 2 stars, especially in r-process reactions that created very short-lived radionucleotides.The oxygen in the water was probably made in a few different Pop 2 stars, as Pop 3 stars really didn't get into the CNO cycle.Yes, the vast majority of the hydrogen and oxygen in the solar system predates its formation; but so do most of the water molecules themselves.But the main point is that if we are going to explore and colonise the solar system the people doing it will have to be a whole lot less squeamish about recycling than many give the impression of being!
Neat. Mission has already been done before (multiple times)! Why? An Apollo Mission Science Report concluded that there is no water on the moon. It's more fun to bring your own anyway. Nobody is going to drink 4.6 billion year old water.
This is not a real mission. It's a fuzzy, ill-defined, make work project. NASA sorta penciled it in years ago and said that they would pay for the rocket and the instruments, but another partner would have to pay for the lander and rover. Nobody really stepped up to do that, and NASA did not try too hard, and so it's been in stasis forever.My suspicion is that this is primarily a budget thing. HEOMD has people that do not have specific project assignments, but it still has to pay their salaries, so they assign them to this and call it a project. But there's no money for procurement or hiring contractors or doing anything like that.You should see the way this is treated at the annual Lunar Exploration Analysis Group meetings--the lunar scientists there don't take it seriously.
yeah that's what I was pointing at above too. it's in perpetual "SRR this fiscal year" mode without ever having a shot of getting to any serious non-advocate review phase.However, work is being put in, and give it a decade or two and a serious mission proposal for SMD might materialize out of this
This is not a real mission.
My suspicion is that this is primarily a budget thing. HEOMD has people that do not have specific project assignments, but it still has to pay their salaries, so they assign them to this and call it a project.
You should see the way this is treated at the annual Lunar Exploration Analysis Group meetings--the lunar scientists there don't take it seriously.
Quote from: Blackstar on 08/12/2015 10:38 pmThis is not a real mission. In your opinion...
Given the disdain some scientists have for engineering projects, I would not be surprised.
The most important thing that I find in this article is that it claims that money for the project has been secured. Claims launch date is in 2019.
Quote from: turbopumpfeedback2 on 09/15/2015 06:44 pmThe most important thing that I find in this article is that it claims that money for the project has been secured. Claims launch date is in 2019.Both of these claims are outdated and wrong ( the article is over a year old, too )
Quote from: savuporo on 09/15/2015 06:57 pmQuote from: turbopumpfeedback2 on 09/15/2015 06:44 pmThe most important thing that I find in this article is that it claims that money for the project has been secured. Claims launch date is in 2019.Both of these claims are outdated and wrong ( the article is over a year old, too )OK, I am a bit new in following a mission development in detail. What in your opinion would be the critical milestone to be passed so that mission looks certain (in a sense of allocation of budget, nasa design reviews etc)?
... Colaprete said something about 'politics' being the blocker in an open forum.
Lots of interesting discussions at LEAG about this proposed mission. I assume that you guys have all been monitoring them.
More like the 'Begging For A Sponsor and Money' phase. They've been pitching this thing to anyone who will listen and nobody's taken them up yet.I've been reading these presentations on Prospector for a while now and I agree with what Blackstar up thread. AFAICT it doesn't address any compelling science for SMD and HEOMD ain't going to the Lunar surface anytime soon.
{snip}That also supports one of my paranoid amazing people rants. Precursors just fall through the gap between planetary science and HSF. Planetary science is not interested in human requirements in space. The HSF BEO budget won't go anywhere near ISRU unless it can place an SLS launch and an Orion mission on the critical path.
More like the 'Begging For A Sponsor and Money' phase. They've been pitching this thing to anyone who will listen and nobody's taken them up yet.
Green shows list of upcoming international lunar missions. He's having conversations w/Russia, S Korea others on how NASA can participate.
Notice the wishful 2020 date for Resource Prospector ? Lets take a look :https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20160009272.pdfFY21/22 launch at best. SRR has been pushed year by year for last 3 years or so.
Talk by Daniel Andrews (RP manager) from about a month ago at google:
Interesting talk. So the project moved from Phase A to Phase B. Did NASA formally approve a new start?
So the question is, what mission is willing to offer them a ride? Can they fit to EM-2?
Quote from: AegeanBlue on 01/18/2017 08:32 pmSo the question is, what mission is willing to offer them a ride? Can they fit to EM-2? 'Ride' as in launch isn't the big deal, missing lander is.
Resource Prospector will just have to hope that Lunar CATALYST successfully produces a lander.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 01/19/2017 06:50 amResource Prospector will just have to hope that Lunar CATALYST successfully produces a lander. This acronym/initative appears to be dead as a doornail
Masten Space has just put a picture of its XL-1 lunar lander on its website.
Quote from: savuporo on 01/18/2017 09:18 pmQuote from: AegeanBlue on 01/18/2017 08:32 pmSo the question is, what mission is willing to offer them a ride? Can they fit to EM-2? 'Ride' as in launch isn't the big deal, missing lander is.Resource Prospector will just have to hope that Lunar CATALYST successfully produces a lander. Moon Express or Masten Space are possible suppliers.
Some more details on what the Trump administration asked and a -small- overview of the projecthttp://www.parabolicarc.com/2017/05/01/nasas-resource-prospector-rover-search-lunar-volatiles/
Quote from: AegeanBlue on 05/06/2017 03:34 amSome more details on what the Trump administration asked and a -small- overview of the projecthttp://www.parabolicarc.com/2017/05/01/nasas-resource-prospector-rover-search-lunar-volatiles/Quote from above links."However, any plans to extract valuable resources from the Moon for commercial purposes would seem to at least bump up against the 1967 Outer Space Treaty signed by the United States, Russia (then USSR), and 90 other countries, which states: "The exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development, and shall be the province of all mankind." Actually it's only way to comply with treaty- if talking about commercial lunar water mining. Or commercial mining would/should be done by publicly traded companies- thereby allow all people in the world to have opportunity to be the part owners of the enterprise. And a private enterprise [unless restricted by governmental laws] will obviously sell water and/or rocket fuel to any party who wants to pay for it.
Quote from: gbaikie on 05/07/2017 04:58 pmQuote from: AegeanBlue on 05/06/2017 03:34 amSome more details on what the Trump administration asked and a -small- overview of the projecthttp://www.parabolicarc.com/2017/05/01/nasas-resource-prospector-rover-search-lunar-volatiles/Quote from above links.....I don't see commercial mining being in conflict with the OST. As long as the mined material can be made available to any country, corporation or individual who wishes to purchase it for legal purposes, I believe that is in the spirit of what the OST is trying to achieve.
Quote from: AegeanBlue on 05/06/2017 03:34 amSome more details on what the Trump administration asked and a -small- overview of the projecthttp://www.parabolicarc.com/2017/05/01/nasas-resource-prospector-rover-search-lunar-volatiles/Quote from above links.....
The LEAG community strongly supports Resource Prospector to be flown without delay. #leag2017
Is there any prospect for some private entity to license the technology for Resource Prospector - like the way Bigelow licensed Transhab - to then further develop and build it under a CCDev-like contract?
..Lander was always problem as a NASA one would need significant funding.
He suggested that Blue Moon could be used initially to fly Resource Prospector, a NASA rover mission weighing a few hundred kilograms under development for launch in the early 2020s. NASA had initially been looking at international partners for landing the rover, but more recently project officials said a public-private partnership would be a more likely way to get to the moon.
The payload for Resource Prospector are fairly generic space science instruments
There does seem to a real plan now: Blue Origin has offered to use its lander to send Resource Prospector to the moon's surface...
Quote from: AegeanBlue on 10/25/2017 04:52 pmThere does seem to a real plan now: Blue Origin has offered to use its lander to send Resource Prospector to the moon's surface...Eh, how is that any more real than anything before ? BO is a company with a couple suborbital test flights under it's belt. A far cry from launching and landing anything on the Moon.
That's unfortunate, this project has puttered around the edges for a very long time and should have gotten a shot.
In other news, Blue Origin and SpaceX have both agreed to have a look around for water when they land on the South pole in the 2020-2022 time frame.They'll report what they find back to NASA so that an appropriate crewed mission can be designed for SLS in the late 2020's.Seriously, the impending presence of New Glenn and BFR should be having a big effect on unmanned mission planning, and I'm not sure it's sunk in yet at NASA. There are several other missions happening before RP's planned landing in 2022, including some from the US and some from other countries, perhaps more than enough to make RP a lot less important.
Here's the relevant sentence. Here's hoping Bridenstine can start on the right foot by getting this decision reversed.
We’re committed to lunar exploration @NASA. Resource Prospector instruments will go forward in an expanded lunar surface campaign. More landers. More science. More exploration. More prospectors. More commercial partners. Ad astra!
Here is another article on itwww.theverge.com/2018/4/27/17287154/nasa-lunar-surface-robotic-mission-resource-prospector-moon?utm_campaign=lorengrush&utm_content=chorus&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
It has been discussed for a teleoperated sample return on the far side and could certainly apply to other samples oif desired.
The 5 Lunar XPrize finalists were all progressing towards small landers and rovers, and had demonstrated technology. https://lunar.xprize.org/news/blog/important-update-google-lunar-xprize
A bit OT, but is there any chance that, to justify Orion/SLS, a lunar sample return will be designed leave the sample in lunar orbit (at least 500 km high) to be collected by a crew? Some story about "why develop a separate re-entry vehicle when you've got Orion" suggests itself. Kinda like Asteroid Redirect without the asteroid.
Why do sample returns at all. Let's go to the surface and set up lab facilities in situ.
Quote from: DistantTemple on 04/28/2018 06:05 pmThe 5 Lunar XPrize finalists were all progressing towards small landers and rovers, and had demonstrated technology. https://lunar.xprize.org/news/blog/important-update-google-lunar-xprize They were "progressing" for a long time.
Quote from: AncientU on 04/28/2018 11:33 amWhy do sample returns at all. Let's go to the surface and set up lab facilities in situ.Geologists don't even do that on Earth. I think you have a very naive view of how geoscience works.
It's a little easier to return samples from anywhere on Earth.
Quote from: envy887 on 04/28/2018 09:14 pmIt's a little easier to return samples from anywhere on Earth.No matter how hard it is to return samples, it's easier than returning geologists (alive, anyway).
Go with what you have. For the next 4 years or so NASA has the landers being produced under the Lunar CATALYST initiative.
Again, Bridenstine tweeted the following AFTER the piece in The Verge. Meaning, why are people still saying it’s cancelled?https://twitter.com/jimbridenstine/status/989975389870215169?s=21
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 04/28/2018 10:32 pmGo with what you have. For the next 4 years or so NASA has the landers being produced under the Lunar CATALYST initiative. Look up what Lunar CATALYST actually is.
Quote from: Blackstar on 04/28/2018 10:53 pmQuote from: A_M_Swallow on 04/28/2018 10:32 pmGo with what you have. For the next 4 years or so NASA has the landers being produced under the Lunar CATALYST initiative. Look up what Lunar CATALYST actually is.Lunar CATALYST is basically a cheerleading exercise. However this grand daughter of COTS is 2 years away from the Moon.
Quote from: Johnnyhinbos on 04/29/2018 01:05 amAgain, Bridenstine tweeted the following AFTER the piece in The Verge. Meaning, why are people still saying it’s cancelled?https://twitter.com/jimbridenstine/status/989975389870215169?s=21"Instruments will go forward" and "more landers, more prospectors" is not the same as "Resource Prospector is not cancelled". He is pretty much saying, we're going to start over but incorporate any useful instruments. IMO from a little reading that's a good way forward.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 04/29/2018 06:43 amQuote from: Blackstar on 04/28/2018 10:53 pmQuote from: A_M_Swallow on 04/28/2018 10:32 pmGo with what you have. For the next 4 years or so NASA has the landers being produced under the Lunar CATALYST initiative. Look up what Lunar CATALYST actually is.Lunar CATALYST is basically a cheerleading exercise. However this grand daughter of COTS is 2 years away from the Moon.Everything is always two years away.
All too true. The Moon Express prototype lander's launch to lunar orbit is booked for this year, 2018. I added a safety margin.
Astrobotic is willing to provide this lander for RP: https://www.astrobotic.com/griffin
Quote from: russianhalo117 on 04/29/2018 04:58 pmAstrobotic is willing to provide this lander for RP: https://www.astrobotic.com/griffinThe problem was that NASA wasn't willing to pay for a lander.
It sounds like NASA is putting in place the bureaucracy to buy lunar landers under the CLP scheme.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 04/30/2018 11:58 amIt sounds like NASA is putting in place the bureaucracy to buy lunar landers under the CLP scheme.I don't think that they currently know what they want to do or how to do it. They're figuring that out. But it seems like their general approach is more towards capacity building rather than hardware procurement. So they want to create an industry and a capability to transport stuff to the Moon. That's fine, but that could take a long time to do. It means encouraging the creation of new companies and new hardware and a new method of doing business. And that could take 10-15 years or more. So it really gets down to how quickly do you want to put stuff on the Moon? If you are looking to land a science payload there, you want to do that in 5-7 years. You don't want to wait 10-15 years. If you are envisioning a long-term lunar project, then developing the broader capability is probably a better bet, assuming that the next administration doesn't just come along and yank the plans down. And... this assumes that such a commercial approach is really possible. How much of its own capital is a company going to invest in this if they think that the government is the only customer? It's not the same as satellite delivery to LEO/GEO where a commercial market has existed for a long time. So this new approach may not be viable at all.
The small landers are testing their engines so small payloads could be sent to the Moon within 3-4 years by a university.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 05/01/2018 05:06 amThe small landers are testing their engines so small payloads could be sent to the Moon within 3-4 years by a university. Even assuming that timeline is accurate, there's no clear indication of the value of a small lander. What are the actual requirements? What could actually be done with a small landed payload?They're still wandering around on this, trying to figure out what to do and why, and who could actually do it.
]In case of RP is was develop a mission, then payload/equipment to do it. Next came rover to carry payload then finally lander to deliver it. Typical NASA robotic mission.
Quote from: Blackstar on 05/01/2018 10:33 amQuote from: A_M_Swallow on 05/01/2018 05:06 amThe small landers are testing their engines so small payloads could be sent to the Moon within 3-4 years by a university. Even assuming that timeline is accurate, there's no clear indication of the value of a small lander. What are the actual requirements? What could actually be done with a small landed payload?They're still wandering around on this, trying to figure out what to do and why, and who could actually do it.In case of RP is was develop a mission, then payload/equipment to do it. Next came rover to carry payload then finally lander to deliver it. Typical NASA robotic mission. They are switching to what missions or parts of missions can we do using commercially available landers and rovers. Moon Express MX1 and Astrobotic's Peregrine will be first commercial landers. There are also small commercial rovers in development that can use these landers.Landed payload mass these of landers varies a lot based on launch vehicle used. I think Peregrine needs likes of Atlas ad F9 while MX1 and MX2 can make use of Electron, LauncherOne and Firefly Alpha when its available.
May 3, 2018NASA Expands Plans for Moon Exploration: More Missions, More ScienceNASA is returning to the Moon with commercial and international partners as part of an overall agency Exploration Campaign in support of Space Policy Directive 1. It all starts with robotic missions on the lunar surface, as well as a Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway for astronauts in space beyond the Moon. Right now, NASA is preparing to purchase new small lunar payload delivery services, develop lunar landers, and conduct more research on the Moon’s surface ahead of a human return. And that long-term exploration and development of the Moon will give us the experience for the next giant leap – human missions to Mars and destinations beyond. [...]NASA has identified a variety of exploration, science, and technology objectives that could be addressed by regularly sending instruments, experiments and other small payloads to the Moon. Some of those payloads will be developed from the agency’s Resource Prospector mission concept. This project was intended as a one-time effort to explore a specific location on the Moon, and as designed, now is too limited in scope for the agency’s expanded lunar exploration focus. NASA’s return to the Moon will include many missions to locate, extract and process elements across bigger areas of the lunar surface. The agency is evolving Resource Prospector to fit into its broader exploration strategy, and selected robotic instruments will be among the early deliveries to the Moon on CLPS missions.
There was also a NASA report some 6 months after RP was cancelled that over 90% of the staff that had worked on RP was still working at NASA and the rest had mostly retired
"There’s also another reason to do lunar surface exploration --- the distinct possibility of looking for and finding alien artifacts, left there by some visiting extraterrestrial civilization. Arizona State University astrophysicist Paul Davies, a longtime proponent of such an initiative, told me that rovers in conjunction with high resolution lunar satellites are the best option for such an effort."https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucedorminey/2019/02/17/nasa-lunar-rover-missions-are-woefully-overdue/?fbclid=IwAR0iokZcL4p-VAOnWZ94xT3VY9c0nROfUiKdLc4JsprAShl8dcasp7j4JL8#609a358a268e
Alien artifacts? That's not at all woo woo... LOLIs it better to get public support via woo woo stuff like this or not? I'm thinking not but I could be wrong
I looks like the Resource Prospector project has evolved into VIPER rover:https://www.nasa.gov/feature/new-viper-lunar-rover-to-map-water-ice-on-the-moonPrecisely the same people who worked on RP now work on VIPER.Very interesting that it will be battery powered and last 100 days. Though, I am not sure if its chances are any better than RP. It is supposed to be 2022, but we will see.
VIPER will take advantage of locations near the south pole that are in sunlight for most of a lunar day to enable that extended mission.