They really shouldn't be going to 11; that's scared ground. Any of the other sites would okay, but 11 should be left as is...
I second that they shouldn't be going to 11. Not just because it should be left pristine due its high historical value, but also that site was chosen because it was boring, 15,16 or 17 would seem to be better choices.
Quote from: simonbp on 02/06/2011 04:08 pmThey really shouldn't be going to 11; that's sacred ground. Any of the other sites would okay, but 11 should be left as is...Looking at it doesn't necessarily mean disturbing the footprints of Neil and Buzz, unless the probe is nearsighted.
They really shouldn't be going to 11; that's sacred ground. Any of the other sites would okay, but 11 should be left as is...
It is not beyond the realm of the possible, which is more than I have seen for a while concerning Moon landers.
However, does the Falcon 9 second stage actually hold enough fuel to make it to lunar orbit, or will this require some kind of modification?
Quote from: simonbp on 02/06/2011 04:08 pmThey really shouldn't be going to 11; that's scared ground. Any of the other sites would okay, but 11 should be left as is...Any GLXP rover would IIRC be allowed to come within 500 meters of the Apollo 11 site, observe it with HD cameras etc from that distance, but not physically enter the site.
Really cool news. However, does the Falcon 9 second stage actually hold enough fuel to make it to lunar orbit, or will this require some kind of modification?
This is absolutely wonderful news, and makes me wonder. This question might need to be it's own thread, unless there is one already.Once Dragon is fitted with it's push LAS and tri-legs for vertical landing, could dragon use it's LAS propellent to handle a moon landing and lift-off? Using the last of it for de-orbit and then a traditional splashdown?Crazy I know, but is it really? I know they won't be standing up for the decent, but with today's nav hard and software, does it matter?Could we squeeze enough fuel to bust back out of LO?
Well, this is certainly going to be interesting. They are planning to use a commercial off the shelf intel atom board. They did some tests indicating that it can survive cryogenic temperatures. But surely the radiation environment on the moon would be a problem.
Quote from: rklaehn on 02/06/2011 07:40 pmWell, this is certainly going to be interesting. They are planning to use a commercial off the shelf intel atom board. They did some tests indicating that it can survive cryogenic temperatures. But surely the radiation environment on the moon would be a problem.Quite. Latchups and other radiation effects could definitely make things "interesting" once in space.
They probably don't have much choice. They need some serious computing power for the realtime image recognition they plan to do.
Quote from: rklaehn on 02/06/2011 08:01 pmThey probably don't have much choice. They need some serious computing power for the realtime image recognition they plan to do. That clip was about temperature-triggered wakeup from hibernation so I'm thinking it's meant for the rover itself, not the descent system terrain tracking.
Quote from: rklaehn on 02/06/2011 08:01 pmThey probably don't have much choice. They need some serious computing power for the realtime image recognition they plan to do. That clip was about temperature-triggered wakeup from hibernation so I'm thinking it's meant for the rover itself, not the descent system terrain tracking.One other thing I'm unclear on. They say they're planning to return HD video from the surface of the moon. How exactly? Where will the bitrate to support that come from? On the other hand, downlinking one frame every N seconds doesn't exactly constitute "video".
Quote from: ugordan on 02/06/2011 08:13 pmQuote from: rklaehn on 02/06/2011 08:01 pmThey probably don't have much choice. They need some serious computing power for the realtime image recognition they plan to do. That clip was about temperature-triggered wakeup from hibernation so I'm thinking it's meant for the rover itself, not the descent system terrain tracking.One other thing I'm unclear on. They say they're planning to return HD video from the surface of the moon. How exactly? Where will the bitrate to support that come from? On the other hand, downlinking one frame every N seconds doesn't exactly constitute "video".Sure it does. Record onboard at high bitrate, transmit at low, playback on earth at high. They didn't say "live" HD video, did they?
Quote from: MikeAtkinson on 02/06/2011 04:16 pmI second that they shouldn't be going to 11. Not just because it should be left pristine due its high historical value, but also that site was chosen because it was boring, 15,16 or 17 would seem to be better choices.How about the sites planned for 18, 19, and 20? Why retread old ground, while at the same time risking permanent damage to historic sites? Unless of course they are just going as a publicity stunt.
$4 million in bonus prizes are available for achieving other specific mission objectives, including operation at night; traveling more than 5km over the lunar surface; detection of water; and precision landing near an Apollo site or other lunar sites of interest (such as landing/crash sites of man-made space hardware).
The rover looks like it has no directional antenna. So either they rent some big receivers for the mission, or they transfer the data to the lander and send it from there using a high-gain directional antenna.
Quote from: rklaehn on 02/06/2011 08:38 pmThe rover looks like it has no directional antenna. So either they rent some big receivers for the mission, or they transfer the data to the lander and send it from there using a high-gain directional antenna.That's kind of my point. Even if video is recorded onboard and then played back to Earth at a snail's pace, the bitrate would still suck unless a directional antenna is used from somewhere on the Moon. The lander, an orbiting relay craft, whatever.
Used a hardware encoding chip set up for;720p (1280x720 progressive)15 frames/sec 32 kBytes/sec bitrate I just encoded one of SpaceX's HD videos to those settings and it's more than adequate.
I just read this passage in the "rules and regulations" section of the website http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/lunar/about-the-prize/rules-and-guidelines:The competition's grand prize is worth $20 million. To provide an extra incentive for teams to work quickly, the grand prize value will change to $15 million whenever a government-funded mission successfully explores the lunar surface, currently projected to occur in 2013.Is this new? I seem to remember that the deadlines used to be fixed. What government-funded mission do they mean? Does NASA have a lander planned for 2013?
Intel's Atom chip doesn't support ECC (unless that has changed in a new version). Perhaps they would be better off going with an ARM processor? They are industry standard, there are high-performance ones available, and some are available that are actually rad-hard. There are also some high-performance (dual-core, 7500 MIPS, 64-bit) rad-hard PowerPC processors that are available. But... I guess if you are willing to take a risk and only need to last a month and are able to have a little bit of shielding, and design the system to recover from errors... It's not irresponsible to go without a rad-hard CPU (but really? no ECC support?).Are they using just one Intel Atom chip? If they are using multiples, I can imagine them doing a sort of redundant setup.
Sending data to the lander like Pathfinder did should be the easiest way.
Quote from: Nomadd on 02/07/2011 12:34 amSending data to the lander like Pathfinder did should be the easiest way.Not after you've traveled several km and lost LOS to the lander.
Does it say anywhere that this is a dedicated launch?
There's room aboard the Falcon 9 for another 240 pounds of additional cargo, space Astrobotic Technology is selling for $700,000 per pound, plus a $250,000-per-payoad fee for integration, communications and other support services.
Aside from adjusting navigation software, Falcon 9 doesn't need any modifications to reach lunar orbit, Musk wrote in an email to Discovery News."Falcon 9 is capable of launching missions to the moon, Mars or beyond. Payload to the moon is about three tons and to Mars about two tons, meaning Falcon 9 could have launched the Spirit and Opportunity Mars rovers on a single flight," wrote Musk.
....or even add it to the launch manifest. I'm sure they will post this in the update section soon.
Yes, we get it. First couple of launches of a brand new rocket weren't on schedule.Can we repeat that a couple of more times? It is obviously such a deviation from all rocket development efforts of the past that it really does warrant extra scrutiny and definitely means that we can extrapolate from that to the future and hint that SpaceX will never be able to launch according to their manifest.
I think the comment above was more about SpaceX's website being sadly out of date (constantly)
I think the comment above was more about SpaceX's website being sadly out of date (constantly) and it's policy of dating launches (even past ones) by the arrival of the vehicle at the launch site, rather than the planned launch date or even year.
Nice article courtesy of msnbc.com http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41461636/ns/technology_and_science-science/
In 2012 their aim is to build 1 F9 every 6 weeks.
I'm hearing talk about a additional assembly facility but, for now just rumors in the space community.
Quote from: mr. mark on 02/07/2011 07:57 pmNice article courtesy of msnbc.com http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41461636/ns/technology_and_science-science/"There's room aboard the Falcon 9 for another 240 pounds of additional cargo. Astrobotic Technology is selling the space for $700,000 per pound, plus a $250,000-per-payload fee for integration, communications and other support services. "Something wrong with the math in this part of the article.. I put the cost for that 240lbs of Excess cargo capacity at 168 million dollars?? Nice profit if they can get it but I have to believe someone messed up the zero's in the article???
SpaceX — which in December became the first private company to successfully return a spacecraft from Earth orbit — usually charges between $49.9 million and $56 million for a launch to low-Earth orbit. But it's lowering its prices for the prize."SpaceX is a Preferred Launch Partner, having offered substantial discount to all Google Lunar X Prize teams as a way of further fostering exploration and innovation," officials wrote on the X Prize website.
"Falcon 9 is capable of launching missions to the moon, Mars or beyond. Payload to the moon is about three tons and to Mars about two tons, meaning Falcon 9 could have launched the Spirit and Opportunity Mars rovers on a single flight," wrote Musk.
Discovery News....Interesting quote from a Musk email -Quote"Falcon 9 is capable of launching missions to the moon, Mars or beyond. Payload to the moon is about three tons and to Mars about two tons, meaning Falcon 9 could have launched the Spirit and Opportunity Mars rovers on a single flight," wrote Musk.
Quote from: stockman on 02/07/2011 08:04 pmQuote from: mr. mark on 02/07/2011 07:57 pmNice article courtesy of msnbc.com http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41461636/ns/technology_and_science-science/"There's room aboard the Falcon 9 for another 240 pounds of additional cargo. Astrobotic Technology is selling the space for $700,000 per pound, plus a $250,000-per-payload fee for integration, communications and other support services. "Something wrong with the math in this part of the article.. I put the cost for that 240lbs of Excess cargo capacity at 168 million dollars?? Nice profit if they can get it but I have to believe someone messed up the zero's in the article???I don't know, maybe not. I assume, since Astrobotic is selling this, it's payload to the Moon (either to LLO, on the lander or even on the rover, perhaps). That's worth a lot more than payload to LEO.
F9 is supposed to noticeably exceed Delta II performance, but that doesn't matter here because the two MER point is irrelevant. Spacecraft operations team couldn't handle landing two mars rovers almost simultaneously, that's why they were launched 2 weeks apart.
I don't have any insight into that, apart from some WAG, but I'd say spreading the landings two weeks apart would be well outside of the propulsive capabilities of the cruise stages. A day or two, maybe - but then again, that's still not enough for the operations team.
Quote from: docmordrid on 02/08/2011 07:42 amDiscovery News....Interesting quote from a Musk email -Quote"Falcon 9 is capable of launching missions to the moon, Mars or beyond. Payload to the moon is about three tons and to Mars about two tons, meaning Falcon 9 could have launched the Spirit and Opportunity Mars rovers on a single flight," wrote Musk.The MERs were launched by Delta-II, weren't they? I think someone pointed out once that the current version of Falcon-9 is broadly in Delta-II's performance envelope.
It is interesting that this team is using the Falcon 9 and not the Falcon 1.
But do you really need two weeks? A day or two should be enough to get the first probe in a safe config where it can survive with minimal intervention.
Quote from: ugordan on 02/08/2011 08:44 amI don't have any insight into that, apart from some WAG, but I'd say spreading the landings two weeks apart would be well outside of the propulsive capabilities of the cruise stages. A day or two, maybe - but then again, that's still not enough for the operations team.For two weeks you would probably let the upper stage deploy the first probe, change the trajectory and then deploy the second probe. But do you really need two weeks? A day or two should be enough to get the first probe in a safe config where it can survive with minimal intervention.Edit: Here is how you would do it: a straight hohmann transfer intersects the mars orbit in one point. But if you make the transfer orbit slightly more elliptical, then it intersects the mars orbit in two points. Even a very slight excess velocity compared to a hohmann transfer will lead to a large distance (=time) between the two intersection points. Now all you have to do is to change the orbital parameters of one probe so that arrives at the first crossing point when mars is there, and of the other probe so that it misses at the first crossing point but hits on the second crossing point.I am quite confident you could do something like this even with very modest delta-v. But you will definitely be able to do it by using a restartable upper stage such as the one from falcon 9.
Do you have a rough idea of the delta-V for the two trajectories? Looks 100-ish meters per second to my untrained eyeballs.
Also consider that the arriving trajectory geometry is not "free-floating", there are constraints on landing site time of day, entry angle, etc.
Exactly. Plus, the discussion is really off topic here.
I love Arduinos. So cheap (the board they show cost $30 or less fully integrated) and easy to use! (and already flown in space, I might add)What they have shown in that video could be duplicated in an afternoon.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/16/2011 07:13 pmI love Arduinos. So cheap (the board they show cost $30 or less fully integrated) and easy to use! (and already flown in space, I might add)What they have shown in that video could be duplicated in an afternoon.Would that stuff need to be hardened to work on the Moon? Remember this is exo-magnetosphere. There are going to be a lot of high-energy betas and photons flying through the rover from the sun; I'd bet those would do disagreeable things to elements like EPROMS and switches.
At least in this video, they are using an Arduino microcontroller package to boot up the Astrobotic rover when the Sun rises:I love Arduinos. So cheap (the board they show cost $30 or less fully integrated) and easy to use! (and already flown in space, I might add)What they have shown in that video could be duplicated in an afternoon.
Some OSHA rules for working under suspended loads were violated in that video.
Ok got you so, It's a fairing based mission. Any ideas on how large the lander is compared to the fairing diameter?
The Falcon 9 can't do a TLI?
Quote from: baldusi on 06/27/2011 09:45 pmThe Falcon 9 can't do a TLI?Falcon 9 will do the TLI burn. What it can't do is an LOI burn. Without going into another argument about what "2 restarts" for MVac actually means, the upper stage is dead within a couple of hours after launch, the batteries are dead and LOX probably boiled off.
Violating OSHA rules is what college is all about. "Do not look into laser with remaining eye."It's all fun and games until someone gets their hair caught in the lathe...
Does it involve the playing on and around it while it is suspended by a crane with no blocking to prevent it from crushing someone?
Quote from: ugordan on 02/06/2011 07:53 pmQuote from: rklaehn on 02/06/2011 07:40 pmWell, this is certainly going to be interesting. They are planning to use a commercial off the shelf intel atom board. They did some tests indicating that it can survive cryogenic temperatures. But surely the radiation environment on the moon would be a problem.Quite. Latchups and other radiation effects could definitely make things "interesting" once in space.They probably don't have much choice. They need some serious computing power for the realtime image recognition they plan to do. Using radiation-hardened computers with the performance of an intel atom would probably bust their budget.I guess they will try to shield the processor as good as possible, try to make the software fault-tolerant, and hope for the best.
Maybe use also use a watch dog timer and reset the processor if it latches up.The rest of the memory could be ECC which should offer some protection.The Flash drives maybe run something like a raid 5.
Quote from: Patchouli on 06/28/2011 01:47 pmMaybe use also use a watch dog timer and reset the processor if it latches up.The rest of the memory could be ECC which should offer some protection.The Flash drives maybe run something like a raid 5.You make it sound like this isn't standard kit for anyone who does realtime OS's, I am sure they are already doing all of that and much more...
They stae in the Payload Planners Guide that their computer is a BRE440.
Quote from: baldusi on 06/28/2011 03:22 pmThey stae in the Payload Planners Guide that their computer is a BRE440.btw spec sheet: http://www.broadreachengineering.com/products/bre440-radhard-cpu/
The only thing that worried me about their design was the use on a SD card for mass storage that is not radiation hardend. The dram ECC memory they are using is also a rad hard version. GEO Sats use mag disk storage not flash because of their inherent rad tolerant storage medium. The basic difference between the two and the reason Astrobotic went with flash is weight, a few grams to several kilos.
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/ground/astrobotic.htmlRobotic Explorers May Usher in Lunar 'Water Rush'11.15.12The American space program stands at the cusp of a "water rush" to the moon by several companies developing robotic prospectors for launch in the near future, according to a NASA scientist considering how to acquire and use water ice believed to be at the poles of the moon."This is like the gold rush that led to the settlement of California," said Phil Metzger, a physicist who leads the Granular Mechanics and Regolith Operations Lab, part of Kennedy's Surface Systems Office. "This is the water rush."Collecting the water, or at least showing it can be collected, is where the Pittsburgh-based Astrobotic Technology comes in. The small company signed on in April for the third phase of a Small Business Innovative Research deal that continues research work to develop technologies NASA may need to harvest space resources in the future.The company already is far along in its development of a rover that will work on its own. There is a deal in place with SpaceX to launch a lander and rover on a Falcon 9 rocket in October 2015. Astrobotic is competing against several other companies for the Google Lunar X-Prize, an award worth up to $30 million funded by the Internet search engine company."Our intent is to land on the surface of the moon in October 2015 and find water," said John Thornton, president of Astrobotic. <snip>
A company spokesperson declined to provide additional details about the company’s launch arrangements. “We have no public update to the status of the launch at this time,” Lauren Schneider, director of communications for Astrobotic, said late Wednesday in an emailed response to an inquiry earlier in the day. SpaceX media relations did not respond to a question about Astrobotic’s launch plans Wednesday.
Regarding the battery lifetime of the second stage: has anyone got an idea of the mass penalty of a wraparound solar panel (dragon v2 trunk style) sufficient to prolong falcon second stage battery life?
Unless my memory is failing me completely, there has never been a spacecraft with non-hypergolic chemical propulsion that remained usable beyond a few hours after lift-off.
Quote from: rpapo on 12/07/2014 09:26 pmUnless my memory is failing me completely, there has never been a spacecraft with non-hypergolic chemical propulsion that remained usable beyond a few hours after lift-off. absolutely correct. the record is something like 12 hours, by Centaur.reigniting a lox/rp rocket after long coast is nontrivial, even if you managed to retain propellants.
Quote from: savuporo on 12/07/2014 09:34 pmQuote from: rpapo on 12/07/2014 09:26 pmUnless my memory is failing me completely, there has never been a spacecraft with non-hypergolic chemical propulsion that remained usable beyond a few hours after lift-off. absolutely correct. the record is something like 12 hours, by Centaur.reigniting a lox/rp rocket after long coast is nontrivial, even if you managed to retain propellants.It is non-trivial but that or relighting CH4/LO2 is needed soon for a variety of reasons and I expect that SpaceX will end up developing that technology before anything bigger than the FH flies.
FWIW, the original Blok-D had an nominal on orbit lifetime of 30 days, for lunar missions.
Getting back on topic, this thread is about an Astrobotic mission supposedly launching in 2015. They have to launch in 2015 to have any chance to win the GLXP, which is the whole point of the mission. I think we can all agree SpaceX will not have any engine other than Draco and SuperDraco that will be able to restart to do a lunar insertion burn before the end of 2015, yes? So Falcon 9 itself won't be putting the Astrobotic payload into lunar orbit.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 12/08/2014 11:09 pmGetting back on topic, this thread is about an Astrobotic mission supposedly launching in 2015. They have to launch in 2015 to have any chance to win the GLXP, which is the whole point of the mission. I think we can all agree SpaceX will not have any engine other than Draco and SuperDraco that will be able to restart to do a lunar insertion burn before the end of 2015, yes? So Falcon 9 itself won't be putting the Astrobotic payload into lunar orbit.Could a Falcon 9 just continuously burn it's second stage engine for a TLI burn? Or restart it shortly after entering LEO?Forgive me if this is a dumb question. It's just that they are offering payload services to the Moon and seem quite confident in accepting money for the job.
Quote from: Zappa on 12/10/2014 01:55 amQuote from: ChrisWilson68 on 12/08/2014 11:09 pmGetting back on topic, this thread is about an Astrobotic mission supposedly launching in 2015. They have to launch in 2015 to have any chance to win the GLXP, which is the whole point of the mission. I think we can all agree SpaceX will not have any engine other than Draco and SuperDraco that will be able to restart to do a lunar insertion burn before the end of 2015, yes? So Falcon 9 itself won't be putting the Astrobotic payload into lunar orbit.Could a Falcon 9 just continuously burn it's second stage engine for a TLI burn? Or restart it shortly after entering LEO?Forgive me if this is a dumb question. It's just that they are offering payload services to the Moon and seem quite confident in accepting money for the job.I believe it's not the TLI burn that's in question. That's similar to putting a satellite in GTO. The question is how it gets the delta-v to go from there into lunar orbit.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 12/10/2014 01:57 amQuote from: Zappa on 12/10/2014 01:55 amQuote from: ChrisWilson68 on 12/08/2014 11:09 pmGetting back on topic, this thread is about an Astrobotic mission supposedly launching in 2015. They have to launch in 2015 to have any chance to win the GLXP, which is the whole point of the mission. I think we can all agree SpaceX will not have any engine other than Draco and SuperDraco that will be able to restart to do a lunar insertion burn before the end of 2015, yes? So Falcon 9 itself won't be putting the Astrobotic payload into lunar orbit.Could a Falcon 9 just continuously burn it's second stage engine for a TLI burn? Or restart it shortly after entering LEO?Forgive me if this is a dumb question. It's just that they are offering payload services to the Moon and seem quite confident in accepting money for the job.I believe it's not the TLI burn that's in question. That's similar to putting a satellite in GTO. The question is how it gets the delta-v to go from there into lunar orbit.The lander should have enough DV to go from TLI to lunar surface.
Quote from: Zappa on 12/10/2014 01:55 amQuote from: ChrisWilson68 on 12/08/2014 11:09 pmGetting back on topic, this thread is about an Astrobotic mission supposedly launching in 2015. They have to launch in 2015 to have any chance to win the GLXP, which is the whole point of the mission. I think we can all agree SpaceX will not have any engine other than Draco and SuperDraco that will be able to restart to do a lunar insertion burn before the end of 2015, yes? So Falcon 9 itself won't be putting the Astrobotic payload into lunar orbit.Could a Falcon 9 just continuously burn it's second stage engine for a TLI burn? Or restart it shortly after entering LEO?Forgive me if this is a dumb question. It's just that they are offering payload services to the Moon and seem quite confident in accepting money for the job.I believe you are not quite clear on the terms. Falcon 9 would make a single burn of its upper stage, until the upperstage and payload are on TLI. For reasons of efficiency that's done as fast as possible on the opposite side of the Earth as is the Moon. After that, the whole stack will take a few days of coasting until they are close to the Moon. During those days, a couple of adjustment maneuvers might be required.Once they reach the gravity field of the Moon, they are still going too fast to be captured by the Moons gravity. Depending on initial conditions, without some serious retropropulsion at that time you either crash the moon, get deviated to some Earth orbit or you return to Earth (the famous Free Return Trajectory that saved Apollo 13).Having a stage that can do a burn four or five days after initial launch is not something easy, and certainly nothing that's usual since even the most complicated missions to Earth orbit are 9hrs top. Thus, the Falcon 9 upper stage would be probably dead by that time and the Astrobotic lander would have to do the retropropulsion by itself. Since the upper stage would be dead mass for the trajectory correction maneuvers, the logical thing would be that the payload separates from the upper stage as soon as it shuts down.
Quote from: baldusi on 12/10/2014 03:11 pmQuote from: Zappa on 12/10/2014 01:55 amQuote from: ChrisWilson68 on 12/08/2014 11:09 pmGetting back on topic, this thread is about an Astrobotic mission supposedly launching in 2015. They have to launch in 2015 to have any chance to win the GLXP, which is the whole point of the mission. I think we can all agree SpaceX will not have any engine other than Draco and SuperDraco that will be able to restart to do a lunar insertion burn before the end of 2015, yes? So Falcon 9 itself won't be putting the Astrobotic payload into lunar orbit.Could a Falcon 9 just continuously burn it's second stage engine for a TLI burn? Or restart it shortly after entering LEO?Forgive me if this is a dumb question. It's just that they are offering payload services to the Moon and seem quite confident in accepting money for the job.I believe you are not quite clear on the terms. Falcon 9 would make a single burn of its upper stage, until the upperstage and payload are on TLI. For reasons of efficiency that's done as fast as possible on the opposite side of the Earth as is the Moon. After that, the whole stack will take a few days of coasting until they are close to the Moon. During those days, a couple of adjustment maneuvers might be required.Once they reach the gravity field of the Moon, they are still going too fast to be captured by the Moons gravity. Depending on initial conditions, without some serious retropropulsion at that time you either crash the moon, get deviated to some Earth orbit or you return to Earth (the famous Free Return Trajectory that saved Apollo 13).Having a stage that can do a burn four or five days after initial launch is not something easy, and certainly nothing that's usual since even the most complicated missions to Earth orbit are 9hrs top. Thus, the Falcon 9 upper stage would be probably dead by that time and the Astrobotic lander would have to do the retropropulsion by itself. Since the upper stage would be dead mass for the trajectory correction maneuvers, the logical thing would be that the payload separates from the upper stage as soon as it shuts down.Hi Baldusi, I don't believe that is correct (emphasis mine). You would do your TLI roughly when the Moon rises above horizon.You need to set your apogee to where the Moon will be when you get there, not where it is at the time of the burn. Hence TLI burn is not done at spacecraft/Moon opposition, but rather at 90-120-ish degrees.
You're more right than me, of course. Well, I didn't wanted to go into specifics. What I tried to say in non technical terms was that for the Oberth effect efficiency you want a single powerful burn at perigee (i.e. on the opposite of where you want your apogee to be). Of course the Moon will move around while you reach it. What I never seem to get right is if the moon orbits in the same direction or the opposite of the Earth's rotation. From what I remember most TLI are done on a retrograde orbit to get the free return. Thus, the moon would actually catch on you?
There are many strategies to get to Moon and land there, even recent orbiter probes have used a bunch of different trajectories. For example see LADEE trajectory, LRO and Artemis
One super-scary way to reduce lander mass is lithobraking. Basically, build a lander that looks a bit like the MSR landing pod - air-bags around a tetrahedral pod. Then have the TLI trajectory Moon-intercepting. A relatively simple solid-propellent retro-motor blasts off lots of the energy, then the probe deploys the landing bags and uses friction with the Moon's surface to slow to a stop. Then the airbags deflate and the way the pod opens ensures that the instrumentation is always the right side up, no matter what attitude it finally stopped rolling.This also allows for U/S disposal because it will just crash into the lunar surface a few minutes and several dozen miles behind the lander.
This news item today suggests a reschedule by as much as a year:http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/news/2014/12/11/astrobotics-lunar-landing-mission-date-may-change.html
yeah Barcelona moon team has an actual launch contract on CZ-2C in June 2015, on a Change'3-derived lander.CGWIC stands a chance of "winning the commercial moon race".
Quote from: nadreck on 12/11/2014 07:10 pmThis news item today suggests a reschedule by as much as a year:http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/news/2014/12/11/astrobotics-lunar-landing-mission-date-may-change.htmlThey continue to tout themselves as the first commercial lunar landing, however there was another team who announced they are launching in the Summer. Either they are postponing launch until 2016 and counting on the other team not launching and the Xprize deadline being moved back or they are announcing they are launching earlier in 2015, perhaps this Spring. They are announcing the new launch date next week.
With such minimal gravity and no atmosphere to provide air resistance, how big a bounce do you imagine that would have?
Quote from: savuporo on 12/11/2014 08:59 pmyeah Barcelona moon team has an actual launch contract on CZ-2C in June 2015, on a Change'3-derived lander.CGWIC stands a chance of "winning the commercial moon race".IIRC they too have slipped the launch date some time ago - not sure if it's still in 2015.
Quote from: Galactic Penguin SST on 12/11/2014 09:24 pmQuote from: savuporo on 12/11/2014 08:59 pmyeah Barcelona moon team has an actual launch contract on CZ-2C in June 2015, on a Change'3-derived lander.CGWIC stands a chance of "winning the commercial moon race".IIRC they too have slipped the launch date some time ago - not sure if it's still in 2015.They talked about the slip to Jun 2015 in Sept 2013, and as of now everyone that tracks launch schedules still lists them there.But yeah 27. (Varsi's Law) Schedules only move in one direction.
bouncing doesn't make much sense on the Moon. Airbags only help to at most 30m/s, maybe less, so you already have to be VERY close. Also, all those airbags and petals mean a lot of mass overhead. 30m/s of extra propellant is a lot less. Better off just using the tried-and-true lander method. Kick stage to drop out of orbit, then thrusters for the rest.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 12/12/2014 01:07 ambouncing doesn't make much sense on the Moon. Airbags only help to at most 30m/s, maybe less, so you already have to be VERY close. Also, all those airbags and petals mean a lot of mass overhead. 30m/s of extra propellant is a lot less. Better off just using the tried-and-true lander method. Kick stage to drop out of orbit, then thrusters for the rest.If you bounce enough times, sooner or later you'll encounter a mountain or crater wall at close to 90 degrees and then you'll lose a lot more than 30 m/s. ;D
Quote from: groundbound on 12/13/2014 04:11 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 12/12/2014 01:07 ambouncing doesn't make much sense on the Moon. Airbags only help to at most 30m/s, maybe less, so you already have to be VERY close. Also, all those airbags and petals mean a lot of mass overhead. 30m/s of extra propellant is a lot less. Better off just using the tried-and-true lander method. Kick stage to drop out of orbit, then thrusters for the rest.If you bounce enough times, sooner or later you'll encounter a mountain or crater wall at close to 90 degrees and then you'll lose a lot more than 30 m/s. The point of the 30 m/s limit is that the acceleration on the first bounce will destroy your payload if your speed is much over 30 m/s.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 12/12/2014 01:07 ambouncing doesn't make much sense on the Moon. Airbags only help to at most 30m/s, maybe less, so you already have to be VERY close. Also, all those airbags and petals mean a lot of mass overhead. 30m/s of extra propellant is a lot less. Better off just using the tried-and-true lander method. Kick stage to drop out of orbit, then thrusters for the rest.If you bounce enough times, sooner or later you'll encounter a mountain or crater wall at close to 90 degrees and then you'll lose a lot more than 30 m/s.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 12/13/2014 05:44 amQuote from: groundbound on 12/13/2014 04:11 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 12/12/2014 01:07 ambouncing doesn't make much sense on the Moon. Airbags only help to at most 30m/s, maybe less, so you already have to be VERY close. Also, all those airbags and petals mean a lot of mass overhead. 30m/s of extra propellant is a lot less. Better off just using the tried-and-true lander method. Kick stage to drop out of orbit, then thrusters for the rest.If you bounce enough times, sooner or later you'll encounter a mountain or crater wall at close to 90 degrees and then you'll lose a lot more than 30 m/s. ;DThe point of the 30 m/s limit is that the acceleration on the first bounce will destroy your payload if your speed is much over 30 m/s.Is it really that low??? That's only about freeway speed... I would have thought those huge airbag systems on Pathfinder were a lot more powerful than that.
Quote from: groundbound on 12/13/2014 04:11 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 12/12/2014 01:07 ambouncing doesn't make much sense on the Moon. Airbags only help to at most 30m/s, maybe less, so you already have to be VERY close. Also, all those airbags and petals mean a lot of mass overhead. 30m/s of extra propellant is a lot less. Better off just using the tried-and-true lander method. Kick stage to drop out of orbit, then thrusters for the rest.If you bounce enough times, sooner or later you'll encounter a mountain or crater wall at close to 90 degrees and then you'll lose a lot more than 30 m/s. ;DThe point of the 30 m/s limit is that the acceleration on the first bounce will destroy your payload if your speed is much over 30 m/s.
They were designed and tested to accommodate grazing angle impacts as high as 28 m/s. However, as the airbags were designed for no more than about 15 m/s vertical impacts, three solid retrorockets were mounted above the lander in the backshell.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 12/13/2014 05:44 amThe point of the 30 m/s limit is that the acceleration on the first bounce will destroy your payload if your speed is much over 30 m/s.Is it really that low??? That's only about freeway speed... I would have thought those huge airbag systems on Pathfinder were a lot more powerful than that.
The point of the 30 m/s limit is that the acceleration on the first bounce will destroy your payload if your speed is much over 30 m/s.
EDIT: I wonder if you could do a lot better if it was specifically designed to survive extreme deceleration... the HARP Project people managed to shoot electronics/sensors out of a naval gun, IIRC, and that's some pretty crazy g forces.
Well, the penetrator probes on Deep Space 2 were designed to survive impacts at about 200 m/s. I vaguely recall reading about a lunar penetrator (Japanese, maybe?) that was designed to survive impact at about 300 m/s. In either case, you've still got to kill of a lot of speed somehow.
New date late 2016.http://lunar.xprize.org/press-release/two-google-lunar-xprize-teams-announce-rideshare-partnership-mission-moon-2016
Both sides will benefit with HAKUTO obtaining a ride to the moon and Astrobotic securing an important customer for its long-term lunar delivery service venture. This joint contribution would be reflected in a share of the prize purse.
Regarding the cost of launch, this mission takes on special significance. It is big publicity for both SpaceX and Google, which are now 9% linked. My guess would be, if the collaboration can't afford the launch, SpaceX does everything it can to provide a wholesale price on a used stage.
Quote from: enzo on 02/24/2015 04:11 pmRegarding the cost of launch, this mission takes on special significance. It is big publicity for both SpaceX and Google, which are now 9% linked. My guess would be, if the collaboration can't afford the launch, SpaceX does everything it can to provide a wholesale price on a used stage.I totally agree that Google and SpaceX may help leverage these entries and may even have helped this collaboration happen. but the nitpicker in me has to point out that if you imagine two circle that overlap, one being SpaceX and one being Google then the Google circle has a radius that is 301/2 times (~5.477) the SpaceX one and while 7.5% of the area of the SpaceX circle is in the overlap only ~1.369% of the Google circle is in the overlap area.
Quote from: nadreck on 02/24/2015 04:34 pmQuote from: enzo on 02/24/2015 04:11 pmRegarding the cost of launch, this mission takes on special significance. It is big publicity for both SpaceX and Google, which are now 9% linked. My guess would be, if the collaboration can't afford the launch, SpaceX does everything it can to provide a wholesale price on a used stage.I totally agree that Google and SpaceX may help leverage these entries and may even have helped this collaboration happen. but the nitpicker in me has to point out that if you imagine two circle that overlap, one being SpaceX and one being Google then the Google circle has a radius that is 301/2 times (~5.477) the SpaceX one and while 7.5% of the area of the SpaceX circle is in the overlap only ~1.369% of the Google circle is in the overlap area.I think that's a fancy way of asserting that SpaceX cares more about Google than Google does SpaceX, given the investment size and market cap sizes?If so, I don't think money is the only way to measure this. PR value here is huge and probably has more impact that pure dollar amounts.
Quote from: enzo on 02/24/2015 04:11 pmRegarding the cost of launch, this mission takes on special significance. It is big publicity for both SpaceX and Google, which are now 9% linked. My guess would be, if the collaboration can't afford the launch, SpaceX does everything it can to provide a wholesale price on a used stage.EDIT: [fp]fixed my math[/fp]
Quote from: nadreck on 02/24/2015 04:34 pmQuote from: enzo on 02/24/2015 04:11 pmRegarding the cost of launch, this mission takes on special significance. It is big publicity for both SpaceX and Google, which are now 9% linked. My guess would be, if the collaboration can't afford the launch, SpaceX does everything it can to provide a wholesale price on a used stage.EDIT: [fp]fixed my math[/fp]I wonder why Astrobotic Tech is not directly mentioned in your post?Sure, any GLXP money won by Astrobotic Tech, or anybody, would not cover the cost of launch, but are the team members of Astrobotic Tech devoid of imaginative solutions to pay off the balance? TV specials on Japanese TV? Streaming video on the internet with Paypal access? etc etc etc?BTW, even if the Astrobotic Tech lunar hardware shatters on the Moon instead of making a survivable surface contact, that will still be a historic revolutionary milestone in spaceflight. And that partial success can be financially exploited by Astrobotic, Google and SpaceX.
I totally agree that Google and SpaceX may help leverage these entries and may even have helped this collaboration happen.
Astrobotic has a published price of $1.2 million per kilogram to deliver payloads to the lunar surface, which is well within Mexico’s price range. The exact size and mass of the AEM payload is still to be determined, depending on the results of the agency’s RFP, according to Astrobotic CEO John Thornton...The company has planned a launch with SpaceX, but has not booked the mission yet, Thornton says. That could be important, because the X Prize Foundation has extended the deadline for a lunar landing by one year, to Dec. 31, 2016, and stipulated that at least one contestant must have scheduled a launch by the end of this year.
Signing Mexico up as a customer also moves Astrobotic one step closer to having enough paying customers to win it the now-8-year-old Google Lunar XPrize it has been pursuing since it was created...Astrobotic and CMU are still pursuing that prize and hope they can get enough private payload customers in the next year to pay to lease a Falcon 9 rocket from SpaceX and launch some time in 2016.
Just to be clear here, as this thread title continues to be misleading. Astrobotic CEO has confirmed there is no booked launch for a SpaceX Falcon 9 http://aviationweek.com/space/mexico-buys-ride-moonQuoteAstrobotic has a published price of $1.2 million per kilogram to deliver payloads to the lunar surface, which is well within Mexico’s price range. The exact size and mass of the AEM payload is still to be determined, depending on the results of the agency’s RFP, according to Astrobotic CEO John Thornton...The company has planned a launch with SpaceX, but has not booked the mission yet, Thornton says. That could be important, because the X Prize Foundation has extended the deadline for a lunar landing by one year, to Dec. 31, 2016, and stipulated that at least one contestant must have scheduled a launch by the end of this year.In terms of real world launch manifest bookings, 2016 should be pretty much spoken for.And here is the roundabout ( but obvious ) explanation of why the launch has not been bookedPittsburgh’s Astrobotic signs Mexican Space Agency for trip to the moonQuoteSigning Mexico up as a customer also moves Astrobotic one step closer to having enough paying customers to win it the now-8-year-old Google Lunar XPrize it has been pursuing since it was created...Astrobotic and CMU are still pursuing that prize and hope they can get enough private payload customers in the next year to pay to lease a Falcon 9 rocket from SpaceX and launch some time in 2016. In other words, Astrobotic has not been able to secure funding or financing for actually paying for the launch themselves, and they hope to get other agencies/organizations to pay them enough so that they can pay SpaceX.
Too bad they're not ready to go. SpaceX might give them a deal on the RTF launch.
QuoteSigning Mexico up as a customer also moves Astrobotic one step closer to having enough paying customers to win it the now-8-year-old Google Lunar XPrize it has been pursuing since it was created...Astrobotic and CMU are still pursuing that prize and hope they can get enough private payload customers in the next year to pay to lease a Falcon 9 rocket from SpaceX and launch some time in 2016.
Astrobotic and United Launch Alliance Announce Mission to the MoonJuly 26, 2017Rust Belt Company, Astrobotic selects ULA to launch its Peregrine Lander in 2019 for lunar mission 50 years after Apollo 11Pittsburgh, PA – Astrobotic and United Launch Alliance (ULA) proudly announce today that Astrobotic’s Peregrine Lunar Lander will be onboard a ULA launch vehicle in 2019, during the 50th anniversary of Apollo 11.“Astrobotic is thrilled to select a ULA launch vehicle as the means to get Peregrine to the Moon,” said John Thornton, CEO of Astrobotic. “By launching with ULA, Astrobotic can rest assured our payload customers will ride on a proven launch vehicle with a solid track record of success. Together, our two organizations will honor the past and trail blaze the lunar future.”This effort is a big step in realizing Astrobotic’s goal of creating a Rust Belt based international gateway to the Moon. The Peregrine Lunar Lander will fly 35 kilograms of customer payloads on its first mission, with the option to upgrade to 265 kilograms on future missions. Already 11 deals from six nations have been signed for this 2019 mission. The first mission in 2019 will serve as a key demonstration of service for NASA, international space agencies, and companies looking to carry out missions to the Moon. This announcement comes as Astrobotic continues to advance Peregrine toward flight, with the preliminary design review of the vehicle having already taken place in November 2016.“Technical credibility and signed deals remain key differentiators for Astrobotic as a lunar delivery company. Our customers and partners know that our 10 years of lunar lander development work has made us the world leader in this market,” said Thornton.“We are thrilled that Astrobotic has selected ULA to launch the Peregrine Lander to the Moon,” said ULA president and CEO, Tory Bruno. “The Moon is the next great frontier, but in a different way than when Neil Armstrong landed there. Enabling technologies like those from Astrobotic will allow people to live and work in the space between here and the Moon and take advantage of all those resources in a way that is sustainable.”ULA joins a world-class team of mission partners led by Astrobotic. These partners include NASA, who is providing Astrobotic access to some of the best spacecraft engineers and facilities in the world, as part of NASA’s Lunar CATALYST Program; Airbus DS, who brings world-class spacecraft experience in human spaceflight and exploration and leverages previous lander development work with the European Space Agency; and Deutsche Post DHL Group, the world’s leading mail and logistics company, who is the “Official Logistics Provider for Astrobotic’s First Mission to the Moon.” ###About Astrobotic:Astrobotic Technology Inc. is a lunar logistics company that delivers payloads to the Moon for companies, governments, universities, non-profits, and individuals. The company’s spacecraft accommodates multiple customer payloads on a single flight, offering flexibility at an industry-defining low price of $1.2 million per kilogram. Astrobotic is an official partner with NASA through the Lunar CATALYST program, has 23 prior and ongoing NASA contracts, a commercial partnership with Airbus DS, a corporate sponsorship with DHL, 11 deals for its first mission to the Moon, and 110 customer payloads in the pipeline for upcoming missions. Astrobotic was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, PA.About ULA:With more than a century of combined heritage, United Launch Alliance is the nation’s most experienced and reliable launch service provider. ULA has successfully delivered more than 115 satellites to orbit that provide critical capabilities for troops in the field, aid meteorologists in tracking severe weather, enable personal device-based GPS navigation and unlock the mysteries of our solar system. For more information on ULA, visit the ULA website at www.ulalaunch.com, or call the ULA Launch Hotline at 1-877-ULA-4321 (852-4321). Join the conversation at www.facebook.com/ulalaunch, twitter.com/ulalaunch and instagram.com/ulalaunch.
Wow, I can't believe I opened this thread back in 2011. I'm surprised Astro has the funds to afford a ula rocket, but maybe it's ridesharing in some way. Regardless, SpX has lost a potentially high visibility customer, since this is also their Lunar Xprize mission (though..., maybe not, since Google nor the Xprize got any mention in the PR...huh?)
With Chris's permission, an update on this mission. Its now launching on ULA (I assume Atlas) ...