Author Topic: Resource Prospector  (Read 79982 times)

Offline Astro_Zach

  • Member
  • Posts: 86
  • St. Louis
  • Liked: 133
  • Likes Given: 113
Resource Prospector
« on: 05/24/2015 08:40 PM »
In a recent NASA animation, the Falcon 9 is shown to launch a mission to the moon called "Resource Prospector."

Quote
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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMXWsiaEK6Q&feature=youtu.be
« Last Edit: 05/24/2015 08:41 PM by Astro_Zach »
Member of St. Louis Space Frontier, Gateway To Space Organization, National Space Society, Planetary Society. Veteran of 3 Launches. #SLSFiredUP Participant... Claim To Fame: I Was On NASA TV

Online docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4972
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 2086
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #1 on: 05/24/2015 08:45 PM »
DM

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4348
  • Liked: 652
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #2 on: 05/24/2015 09:16 PM »
What would be the mission lifespan?

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2480
  • Canada
  • Liked: 370
  • Likes Given: 581
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #3 on: 05/24/2015 09:38 PM »
Mission has already been done before (multiple times)!  Why?

Seriously, someone did an ISRU pathfinder mission on the moon already?

Offline Astro_Zach

  • Member
  • Posts: 86
  • St. Louis
  • Liked: 133
  • Likes Given: 113
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #4 on: 05/24/2015 09:39 PM »
What would be the mission lifespan?

Found these two PDFs.

The first one shows a nominal mission duration of what appears to be 40 hours

Looks like they're targeting 2018

http://sservi.nasa.gov/articles/nasa-looking-to-mine-water-on-the-moon-and-mars/

I got 2020 http://www.nasa.gov/resource-prospector
« Last Edit: 05/24/2015 09:43 PM by Astro_Zach »
Member of St. Louis Space Frontier, Gateway To Space Organization, National Space Society, Planetary Society. Veteran of 3 Launches. #SLSFiredUP Participant... Claim To Fame: I Was On NASA TV

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #5 on: 05/24/2015 09:42 PM »
What would be the mission lifespan?
Last I read on it was lifespan of a few days, don't think rover is designed to survive lunar night.

I would hope they choose one of the XPrize lunar landers.

Online symbios

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 244
  • Elon Musk fan
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 152
  • Likes Given: 702
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #6 on: 05/24/2015 10:07 PM »
Well, both where Russian and it was 45 YEARS ago, you would think that something has happened to upgrade the instruments during that time...?  ::)

Even if both did not apply, getting a sample from another area might be a reason by itself?
I'm a fan, not a fanatic...

Online JBF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1383
  • Liked: 389
  • Likes Given: 686
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #7 on: 05/24/2015 10:08 PM »
Lunokhod 1 (322 days / 6.5 miles):
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunokhod_1


Lunokhod 2 (4 months / 23 miles)
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunokhod_2

Yes but since then several probes including Chandrayaan-1 and LCROSS have indicated that there is a good chance for water.
"In principle, rocket engines are simple, but that’s the last place rocket engines are ever simple." Jeff Bezos

Online Semmel

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1447
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1244
  • Likes Given: 3402
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #8 on: 05/24/2015 11:35 PM »
Lunar night is difficult because most batteries must be warm in order to be charged. They dont operate at lunar night type of temperatures. In order to charge a battery when the solar panels see light, you have to start the heater first. That can be done by directly powering the heater from the solar panels before putting aside some energy that charges.

See here for a table of different battery types and their operation temperature:
http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/whats_the_best_battery
-40 deg C is the lowest in that list. The moon is far colder when dark. Surviving is tricky and costs mass which reduces the science payload.

PS: Exciting nevertheless!

Offline CuddlyRocket

Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #9 on: 05/25/2015 07:45 PM »
Nobody is going to drink 4.6 billion year old water anyways.
Most water on Earth is older than that!

Offline Ludus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1124
  • Liked: 515
  • Likes Given: 265
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #10 on: 05/29/2015 04:15 AM »
Nobody 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.

Offline simonbp

Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #11 on: 05/30/2015 05:04 AM »
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.

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2082
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 539
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #12 on: 05/30/2015 09:20 AM »
In a recent NASA animation, the Falcon 9 is shown to launch a mission to the moon called "Resource Prospector."

Quote
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
Crazy to think that this would be the first American mission to land on the moon in over 40 years.
« Last Edit: 05/30/2015 09:22 AM by manboy »
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Offline CuddlyRocket

Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #13 on: 05/31/2015 07:19 PM »
Nobody 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.

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!

Online docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4972
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 2086
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #14 on: 06/01/2015 08:16 AM »
Nobody 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.

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!

Orange County California is already doing 'toilet to tap.'

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/01/world/from-toilet-to-tap-water/
DM

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5155
  • Liked: 982
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #15 on: 08/11/2015 01:46 AM »
Recent update on RP


The deck here : http://lsaworkshops.com/_assets/pdf/wednesday_section/Colaprete_LSA_2015_RP_Overview.pptx

"We are still in Phase A, performance goal is to pass SRR ( system requirements review ) this year. Launch target 2020"

Presentation links from : http://lsaworkshops.com/program/lsa-5-abstracts-and-presentations#TB_inline?inlineId=docs_O_Konek;height=700&width=750&modal=1

EDIT: i have no clue why this is in SpaceX section ? They are pretty far from locking in the launch vehicle.

Also, its interesting that HEOMD lists completing SRR for this in FY2014 and FY2015 targets, and then again in FY2016

In contrast, Mars 2020 was also scheduled for FY2014 SRR, and : SRR/MDR completed  29  October 2014, Approved  for  Phase  B  by  Agency  Program  Management  Council  on  20  May  2015. PDR-1 scheduled for September 2015.
« Last Edit: 08/11/2015 02:01 AM by savuporo »
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Online high road

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 780
  • Europe
  • Liked: 220
  • Likes Given: 55
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #16 on: 08/11/2015 06:33 AM »
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.

Doesn't that usually work the other way around? The longer mineral water spends in the ground, the more 'pristine' it's supposed to be. Whereas every drop in the ocean is essentially dinosaur pee, every drop of tap water is recycled waste water, and astronauts drink their own sweat and urine. Chemically speaking, there's little difference between all that.

To be clear: so the idea here is to look for hydrogen beneath the top layer of the polar regions, without having to go into the permanently shaded craters. Is that correct?

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11378
  • Liked: 2892
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #17 on: 08/12/2015 10:38 PM »
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.

Offline a_langwich

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 211
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #18 on: 08/13/2015 12:02 AM »
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.

Given the disdain some scientists have for engineering projects, I would not be surprised.  (See, for example, the dismay and disdain mentioned on various websites for the ISRU project included on the Mars 2020 rover.)  Maybe part of the tension is like that between archeologists and builders.

How is Lunar Prospector ill-defined?

The back-burner status is probably related to the current desire to maximize exploration relevance to Mars and minimize previous exploration plans to stop off at the moon's surface.

As far as landers go, you would think NASA or JPL would consider an unmanned lunar lander to be laughably easy in comparison to Mars landers or outer planet orbiters, in terms of generous mass budget, lower deltaVs, short transit times, strong communication signals, and strong availability of solar power.

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5155
  • Liked: 982
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #19 on: 08/13/2015 03:18 AM »
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
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline a_langwich

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 211
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #20 on: 08/13/2015 05:54 AM »
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

Hopefully not for SMD, but through HEOMD.  It's an exploration mission, not a science mission.  Perhaps that's another reason it doesn't get any love.

Offline Warren Platts

Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #21 on: 08/13/2015 10:17 AM »
This is not a real mission.


In your opinion...

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.

Citation needed.

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.

Fortunately, LEAG does not have a monopoly on Lunar science within the USA nor anywhere else. It is but one faction among many.

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5155
  • Liked: 982
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #22 on: 08/13/2015 02:29 PM »
This is not a real mission.


In your opinion...

Objectively, real missions pass a series of formal reviews, starting with SRR, let their major construction contracts and lock in their launch vehicle slots.
RP is 'scheduled' for 2020 just as the next Mars rover is, so it should be clearing these milestones almost in a lockstep - and as any observer can confirm, this is not happening.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11378
  • Liked: 2892
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #23 on: 08/13/2015 06:55 PM »
Given the disdain some scientists have for engineering projects, I would not be surprised.

You misunderstand--they don't think it is a real mission. If they thought it was a real mission they would hop on board and propose some of their own instruments for it. And lunar scientists are interested in the lunar volatiles. They'd love to get their instruments into that stuff. When NASA decided to do LRO the scientists jumped onboard. They'll hitch their wagon to any horse that comes along.

It's just that this thing has been bopping around forever in programmatic purgatory. You'd have a hard time finding information on it because they never really publish anything and they don't issue regular reports. But for awhile they apparently had the Canadians onboard to develop a rover and then that fell apart. So now what they have is a lunar mission with a theoretical rocket purchase sometime in the future, no lander or rover, and a poorly-funded instrument development program. It's not real.

Offline Robert Thompson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1117
  • Liked: 82
  • Likes Given: 658
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #24 on: 08/14/2015 06:40 AM »
Status of RESOLVE?

Offline Warren Platts

Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #25 on: 08/14/2015 01:07 PM »
This month they'll be doing a full 3 day, real-time simulation of the mission, where guys at KSC are controlling a prototype rover and RESOLVE package at JSC:

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Multi_Use_Firing_Room_4_used_for_Resource_Prospector_Mission_Simulation_999.html

As for the rover, I heard the plan is they're going to do it "in-house", probably by JSC--that's where the ISRU guys are based. Ames (Colaprete is the PI) is doing the science--and if Tony Colaprete is not a bona fide lunar scientist, then nobody is....

As for the lander, if MoonEx can get their act together, they will probably get the contract.

As for rockets, there are lots of options--doesn't have to be SpaceX. It's probably small enough it could be launched as a secondary payload. (Yes, I know that primary payload operators tend to get concerned about secondary payloads containing lots of rocket fuel...)

As for LEAG, I don't understand their gripe, as it doesn't make any sense. The entire mission was designed with LEAG recommendations in mind. Sounds like sour grapes to me. No doubt many LEAG "lunar scientists" have already informally proposed their own instruments, but they have not been allowed onboard. However, if they can't get their pet instruments on board, that's mainly because it'll be a shoestring mission at best--this is no billion dollar MSL-sized project--and there simply isn't room. I myself think they should incorporate an XRF detector that could quantify heavy metal deposits, but it ain't gonna happen. Should I think that it's not a "real mission" because of that? I don't think so. Just because a mission isn't costing a billion bucks and is not being built on an accelerated schedule, that does not logically entail that it is not a "real mission". We shouldn't let the best be the enemy of the better.

As for updates, here's a recent presentation by Dr. Colaprete himself:



Actually, since the KSC involvement is coming out of the Swamp Works, I think Jim, the Night Gator, would know about as much as anyone about what's going on. Perhaps, if he sees this, he could share some knowledge.
« Last Edit: 08/14/2015 01:18 PM by Warren Platts »
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline turbopumpfeedback2

  • Member
  • Posts: 56
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #26 on: 09/15/2015 06:44 PM »
Well, I am personally very much excited about the RESOLVE  mission.

I have two sort of intuitive reasons to expect that it will be done on schedule.

The first reason is that A. Colaprete is on the team. I am quite impressed with the guy, he does not seem like a person that would waste time on nonsense. I mean, he made a first conclusive evidence of significant amount of water on the moon with a (cheap) 80m mission. 

Second. If there is a significant amount of usable water on the poles this may be quite significant. Just think: reusable lunar lander powered by the fuel from the moon.

This link hasn't been posted on this thread
www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/prospecting-moons-poles-180952182/?no-istwww.

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.

« Last Edit: 09/15/2015 06:55 PM by turbopumpfeedback2 »

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5155
  • Liked: 982
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #27 on: 09/15/2015 06:57 PM »
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.
Both of these claims are outdated and wrong ( the article is over a year old, too )
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline turbopumpfeedback2

  • Member
  • Posts: 56
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #28 on: 09/15/2015 07:21 PM »
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.
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)?
« Last Edit: 09/15/2015 07:22 PM by turbopumpfeedback2 »

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5155
  • Liked: 982
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #29 on: 09/15/2015 07:30 PM »
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.
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)?

If you read up in this thread, you'll find that the team goal for this year is to pass a System Requirements Review, which would officially move the project into Phase B of development.
However, this has been the goal for last couple of years now, and last time i heard, Colaprete said something about 'politics' being the blocker in an open forum.
« Last Edit: 09/15/2015 07:31 PM by savuporo »
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline turbopumpfeedback2

  • Member
  • Posts: 56
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #30 on: 09/15/2015 08:21 PM »
... Colaprete said something about 'politics' being the blocker in an open forum.

Oh no, this sounds really bad ... It really may be a long time before we see this mission fly.

Is there a video of this forum on youtube?
« Last Edit: 09/15/2015 08:51 PM by turbopumpfeedback2 »

Offline ThereIWas3

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 763
  • Liked: 350
  • Likes Given: 264
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #31 on: 09/21/2015 02:38 PM »
Another article of, I think, the same thing.  With pictures.  They talk about partnering with JAXA for the lander.   SpaceX F9 is mentioned as a possible launcher.

NASA Tests Lunar Rover Prototype with Eye Toward Flying Real Thing

Since NASA isn't doing anything real towards going to Mars, if they supported projects like this at least they would be seen to be doing something involving exploration toward that end.   And it's relatively cheap.
« Last Edit: 09/21/2015 08:30 PM by ThereIWas3 »
"If you want to build a ship, don’t drum up people to collect wood and don’t assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea" - Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11378
  • Liked: 2892
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #32 on: 10/05/2015 08:45 PM »
Anybody interested in finding out more about this program should attend this meeting:

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11378
  • Liked: 2892
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #33 on: 10/09/2015 05:12 PM »
The agenda for the LEAG meeting is up. Lots of different things going on, including discussions of ISRU.

http://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/leag2015/pdf/program.pdf


Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11378
  • Liked: 2892
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #34 on: 10/21/2015 06:31 PM »
Lots of interesting discussions at LEAG about this proposed mission. I assume that you guys have all been monitoring them.

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5155
  • Liked: 982
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #35 on: 10/21/2015 07:00 PM »
Lots of interesting discussions at LEAG about this proposed mission. I assume that you guys have all been monitoring them.
No we havent, some coverage would be awesome ;)
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline Warren Platts

Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #36 on: 10/21/2015 07:27 PM »
Lots of interesting discussions at LEAG about this proposed mission. I assume that you guys have all been monitoring them.

At every lunar conference, there are lots of interesting discussions about this proposed mission. The question is, is there any new information indicating that it's really going to happen?
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline turbopumpfeedback2

  • Member
  • Posts: 56
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #37 on: 11/17/2015 08:00 PM »
Presentation by Colaprete in LEAG meeting:

http://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/leag2015/presentations/Wednesday/Colaprete_RP_Goals_Measurements.pdf

Interestingly, he mentions the usage of lunar water to produce fuel on the surface of the moon and then send it using reusable lander to Lunar orbit/Lagrangian points to help mission to the Mars, slides 4 and 6.
« Last Edit: 11/17/2015 08:35 PM by turbopumpfeedback2 »

Offline AegeanBlue

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 508
  • Raleigh
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #38 on: 11/19/2015 06:14 AM »
Very nice presentation, but has there been any progress towards actually starting the mission, or is it still in the concept/risk reduction without building real hardware phase?

Offline GClark

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 350
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #39 on: 11/19/2015 01:20 PM »
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.

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3749
  • Liked: 581
  • Likes Given: 153
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #40 on: 11/19/2015 10:47 PM »
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.
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/about.html
http://science.nasa.gov/about-us/

That also supports one of my paranoid fanboy 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.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8477
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 348
  • Likes Given: 147
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #41 on: 11/20/2015 12:00 AM »
{snip}
That also supports one of my paranoid fanboy 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.

The Prospector Mission can be launched on a current medium sized launch vehicle. However to produce sufficient oxygen to support a Moon Base and LOX for ascent stages will require a large ISRU plant and some heavy mining equipment. If the set plus a lander goes over 53 tonnes then only an SLS can launch them to LEO.

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5155
  • Liked: 982
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #42 on: 04/01/2016 02:15 AM »
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.

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Status-of-AES-tagged.pdf

MAFOR FY16 MILESTONES
Apr 2016  Resource Prospector : Complete lunar lander study with Taiwan

Apparently Colapretegave a presentation at LPSC2016 on the status, would be interesting to hear what he said

http://www.planetary.brown.edu/html_pages/micro57program.htm

Tony Colaprete: Resource Prospector: Overview and Current Status.
Jen Heldmann: Resource Prospector: Science Goals & Implementation.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline AegeanBlue

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 508
  • Raleigh
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #43 on: 04/01/2016 01:05 PM »
On the HEOMD report it says later (p. 26):

Apr 2016  Resource Prospector : Complete lunar lander study with Taiwan

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5155
  • Liked: 982
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #44 on: 06/01/2016 02:41 PM »
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline Phil Stooke

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 474
  • Canada
  • Liked: 284
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #45 on: 06/01/2016 02:49 PM »
Or, just making progress and hoping for the best?

Offline AegeanBlue

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 508
  • Raleigh
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #46 on: 06/05/2016 05:21 AM »
There is a 4 article on Resource Prospector in the current edition of Room magazine. The gist is that their main achievement is having the RP15 earth prototype to test what they can put on the actual spacecraft. They do not intend to develop a lander, I think it said that they intended to procure one from the commercial sector (GLXP winners?). Their estimated price is $250 mil without the launch vehicle with a launch date of 2021. They are using COTS part: the battery comes from Robonaut, most of the sensors were COTS used for LCROSS and the UV spectrometer also with LADEE. They will not use RAD hard electronics because they do not intend the mission to last long, only achieve limited goals in limited time. The general gist I got was that it is a LCROSS followup with similar philosophy, albeit different goals. The other feeling I got was that they were hoping for money and a ride to the moon to materialize. My sense is that the project will probably scrape resources for HEOMD and SMD to keep going, as in some unspent money some fiscal year diverted there or helping test a control center that needs a mission to test to see if the renovation worked, though both these directorates already have side missions with launches to send resources (e.g. STPSat-2 payloads, EM-1 cubesats). It's best chance IMO, and if anyone else has insider info please share, is as a secondary payload on EM-2. Otherwise it might just languish on the back burner until its people retire

Offline Space Core

  • Member
  • Posts: 7
  • "I'm the best at space."
  • US
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 146
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #47 on: 07/19/2016 05:51 PM »
"NASA orders lunar lander from Taiwan"

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2016/07/19/2003651332

tl;dr  Chungshan Institute of Science and Technology will build a lander for Resource Prospector to the sum of ~$47 million.  Expected to be completed by 2018 and launch in the early 2020s, if mission is approved.  Not much more in details beyond what's already been stated in this thread.

Edit: Found another article, this one stating the mass of the lander at 3.7 metric tons.

Apologies in advance, it's Yahoo! News.  You'll be fine, so long as you don't read the comments.  /RaidersOfTheLostArk
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/taiwan-lunar-lander-nasa-moon-mining-mission-114229535.html
« Last Edit: 07/19/2016 06:09 PM by Space Core »

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5155
  • Liked: 982
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #48 on: 11/01/2016 09:54 PM »
Rubbing some salt in for kicks.
Quote
Green shows list of upcoming international lunar missions. He's having conversations w/Russia, S Korea others on how NASA can participate.
https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/793514212098203648

Notice the wishful 2020 date for Resource Prospector ?

Lets take a look :
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20160009272.pdf
FY21/22 launch at best. SRR has been pushed year by year for last 3 years or so.



Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline Phil Stooke

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 474
  • Canada
  • Liked: 284
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #49 on: 11/07/2016 08:04 PM »
"SRR has been pushed year by year for last 3 years or so."

Although iterations of it are tied to particular dates (of necessity, so the illumination and Earth comm can be modelled accurately for any given scenario), it is still a concept being explored for a future flight.  It's not like a mission in active development which is being delayed due to technical or budgetary problems.  Eventually the concept may be taken up - it is important, and will be more so if the Moon occupies a larger role in the future than it has for NASA in the last few years. 

 I have followed the reports from LEAG, LPSC etc. for the last 5 years on this, and the scenarios of mission ops and the software needed to plan ops are becoming more mature all the time.  That's where the progress is, real progress.  When the stars align it will be ready to go. 

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16626
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 5427
  • Likes Given: 678
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #50 on: 11/11/2016 06:28 AM »
Notice the wishful 2020 date for Resource Prospector ?

Lets take a look :
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20160009272.pdf
FY21/22 launch at best. SRR has been pushed year by year for last 3 years or so.

FY21 begins in October 2020, so 2020 would be the earliest they could launch.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #51 on: 11/22/2016 04:33 PM »
Could Moon express MX1e with its 10kg science payload be capable of determining ice content of Lunar craters.

Offline Phil Stooke

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 474
  • Canada
  • Liked: 284
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #52 on: 11/27/2016 07:11 PM »
The first MoonEx mission is thought to be to middle latitudes, not a pole.  But a small vehicle like that might be able to carry a small radar sounder, and a few hops might help locate some ice (the goal is to measure the horizontal and vertical distributiuon of ice in the regolith).  So someone needs to buy space on a future lander to do exactly that (i.e a client of MoonEx, not MoonEx itself).

Offline AegeanBlue

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 508
  • Raleigh
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #53 on: 01/13/2017 04:26 PM »
An article on Resource Prospector has appeared online. Does not say much:

Now Space article


Edit/Lar: Long link!
« Last Edit: 01/18/2017 08:49 PM by Lar »

Offline turbopumpfeedback2

  • Member
  • Posts: 56
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #54 on: 01/13/2017 08:49 PM »
Talk by Daniel Andrews (RP manager) from about a month ago at google:




Offline AegeanBlue

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 508
  • Raleigh
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #55 on: 01/17/2017 04:56 AM »
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? He never mentioned the Taiwanese involvement. They are trying to avoid doing an all out test of the whole rover on a vacuum chamber, hanging from a rope to simulate lunar gravity and driving over lunar soil simulant. Skimping on testing worked out so well during the Faster Cheaper Better era ...

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5155
  • Liked: 982
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #56 on: 01/17/2017 05:19 AM »
"We are single-string, meaning no redundancy .."

What the actual frump ? They are sending a lunar lander with single-string avionics if they can squeeze by ? That makes no sense.

Edit:
Interesting talk. So the project moved from Phase A to Phase B. Did NASA formally approve a new start?

Nope, that's not what was said at all. Still pending SRR in FY17, which would be gate for phase B. Effectively this means it's pushed back another year, again.
« Last Edit: 01/17/2017 05:50 AM by savuporo »
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline AegeanBlue

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 508
  • Raleigh
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #57 on: 01/18/2017 08:32 PM »
I thought I saw in the presentation at the end, where he was talking about the status, a slide that they were in Phase B, component testing. I can be totally wrong, I am not claiming infallibility.

They are moving forward, slowly, using whatever funding they can scrape. They definitely have too much risk, single points of failure, insufficient testing. On the flip side though they are definitely maturing, if they can mitigate enough risk to actually meet the success criteria when they launch though is open. It is obvious that they have no ride to the moon, from the very beginning the idea is to be a cheap add on to the next moon mission. If they do not have a ride there is no point in rushing forward. So the question is, what mission is willing to offer them a ride? Can they fit to EM-2? If New Frontiers 4 selects a mission to South Pole Aitken, how do they interact with that? Would they be competitive or complementary? In a few months, when the Presidential transition is over and some decisions have been taken, we will see if this mission will move out of development hell into actual production.

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5155
  • Liked: 982
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #58 on: 01/18/2017 09:18 PM »
So 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.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8477
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 348
  • Likes Given: 147
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #59 on: 01/19/2017 06:50 AM »
So 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.

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5155
  • Liked: 982
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #60 on: 01/19/2017 06:55 AM »
Resource Prospector will just have to hope that Lunar CATALYST successfully produces a lander.
This acronym/initative appears to be dead as a doornail
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8477
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 348
  • Likes Given: 147
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #61 on: 01/19/2017 07:30 AM »
Resource Prospector will just have to hope that Lunar CATALYST successfully produces a lander.
This acronym/initative appears to be dead as a doornail

Someone needs to tell the firms involved. Masten Space has just put a picture of its XL-1 lunar lander on its website.

(Alternatively do not tell them they may finish it.)
http://masten.aero/vehicles-2

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5155
  • Liked: 982
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #62 on: 01/19/2017 05:04 PM »
Masten Space has just put a picture of its XL-1 lunar lander on its website.
Really ? Okay then
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #63 on: 01/24/2017 12:13 AM »
So 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.
Astrobotic is most likely at 250kg to surface.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8477
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 348
  • Likes Given: 147
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #64 on: 01/24/2017 07:39 AM »
It will be interesting to see if anyone terns up for the Annual Reviews in March.

Offline turbopumpfeedback2

  • Member
  • Posts: 56
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #65 on: 01/25/2017 07:31 PM »
It appears that one politician is completely into lunar ice utilization:

http://bridenstine.house.gov/blog/?postid=772

this might give RP a boost.

Note: I don't know much about US politics (never been to US), or who this politician is.
« Last Edit: 01/25/2017 09:08 PM by turbopumpfeedback2 »

Offline JH

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 284
  • Liked: 145
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #66 on: 01/25/2017 11:56 PM »
He is widely rumored to be the nominee for NASA administrator.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #67 on: 01/26/2017 02:15 AM »
With 2 lunar XPrize landers and some rovers available, NASA only needs to develop payloads and pay for missions.  The other plus is lead times can be <2yrs on missions.

Offline AegeanBlue

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 508
  • Raleigh
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #68 on: 04/14/2017 04:29 AM »
It seems that the Trump transition team asked NASA about Resource Prospector among other things:

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/trump-transition-nasa-foia-moon

Offline AegeanBlue

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 508
  • Raleigh
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #69 on: 05/06/2017 03:34 AM »
Some more details on what the Trump administration asked and a -small- overview of the project

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2017/05/01/nasas-resource-prospector-rover-search-lunar-volatiles/

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1628
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #70 on: 05/07/2017 04:58 PM »
Some more details on what the Trump administration asked and a -small- overview of the project

http://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.

So NASA explores the moon and the world chooses whether to be involved with investing the money needed to start mining it. NASA track record indicates it will share the resulting finding of the exploration- with other countries doing the exploration, it might be a matter more in doubt.
Deciding that NASA should mine the Moon, would/could be a mistake AND could be seen as conflicting with the treaty.
NASA should spend less than 10 year doing a lunar exploration program, then start a major Mars exploration program. The purpose of a NASA mars exploration program would be to determine whether [or when] settlements on Mars could be viable. If the the Moon can be commercially mined this could part of answer of whether people of Earth could have settlements on Mars. Though if there isn't minable lunar water, it's still possible that mars settlements could be possible- and it's unrelated to whether one can explore Mars [Or NASA Mars exploration should not depend upon lunar water mining- but if lunar water begins, NASA could decide to buy the lunar water for use in it's Mars exploration- or NASA simply buys water and rocket fuel in space and does have to be concerned about how or where it's from].
Or if get Mars having settlements [a private sector activity] one will have a market for rocket fuel in the space environment- but one should confuse future NASA Mars bases needed for exploration, with future human settlements on Mars. Or many countries have scientific bases at the Antarctic, but don't we don't have settlements in the Antarctic.
 
« Last Edit: 05/07/2017 05:07 PM by gbaikie »

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16626
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 5427
  • Likes Given: 678
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #71 on: 05/08/2017 10:17 AM »
Some more details on what the Trump administration asked and a -small- overview of the project

http://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.

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.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2480
  • Canada
  • Liked: 370
  • Likes Given: 581
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #72 on: 05/08/2017 12:03 PM »
Some more details on what the Trump administration asked and a -small- overview of the project

http://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.
There might be as a legal issue with who gets the taxes & user fees from the mining company. I do not believe that a mining company will get free extraction of resources off Earth from the OST AIUI.

Offline Phil Stooke

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 474
  • Canada
  • Liked: 284
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #73 on: 05/08/2017 01:58 PM »
Extracting resources (and maybe doing the manufacturing) in space rather than on Earth reduces the burden of pollution and environmental degradation on Earth, which directly benefits people who have to breathe the air and drink the water, i.e. everybody.   Jeff Bezos has talked about this recently but it's an older idea.  There are more benefits than purely economic ones.  So it's all about how you promote it. 

Offline Warren Platts

Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #74 on: 05/14/2017 12:12 PM »
And how you go about it. It's hard to argue that burning tonnes of kerosene and solid rocket propellant is good for the environment.
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline Phil Stooke

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 474
  • Canada
  • Liked: 284
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #75 on: 05/14/2017 12:16 PM »
Right!  You're not going up and down every time.  You are moving the action off the Earth. 

Offline ELinder

  • Member
  • Posts: 23
  • Cleveland, OH
    • Erich Linder Photography
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #76 on: 05/30/2017 04:04 PM »
Seen a few weeks ago on the NASA Houston Level 9 Tour. The docent described the wheels as being the actual ones going to the moon, but as it was sitting on the shop floor I took it to mean the final design.

Erich

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5155
  • Liked: 982
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #77 on: 10/12/2017 04:31 PM »
https://twitter.com/carolynmich/status/918493618993860609

Quote
The LEAG community strongly supports Resource Prospector to be flown without delay. #leag2017
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline Don2

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 124
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #78 on: 10/13/2017 12:37 AM »
I argued in favor of something like Resource Prospector on another thread. With increasing NASA interest in the moon something like it seems long overdue.

One of the main goals should be to discover a potential base site and a site for a future manned landing. A base site needs near continuous sunlight and accessible ice nearby. It also needs continuous direct to earth communications and a safe landing area.

The manned program should pay the price because lunar water is not a top science priority but it is a vital topic for any manned lunar base. Lunar ice deposits would also make a good target for a future manned landing. If astronauts return to the moon, I don't think they will be able to get away with just repeating what was done 50 years ago. Digging up some lunar ice and returning it to earth would make the mission different from and better than the Apollo missions. It would be prospecting a potentially valuable resource.

While NASA is spending lots of money on SLS and Orion, they lack a really good reason to return to the lunar surface. The discovery of an easily accessible lunar ice deposit could provide a reason to go. There is already data from orbiters pointing to the presence of water in the polar regions, but you need an exact location and depth for the ice before you can plan a manned landing or a base for ISRU.


Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5155
  • Liked: 982
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #79 on: 10/13/2017 12:51 AM »
Just being able to land at the poles, keep a probe in communications and powered long enough would be a significant advancement in state of the art in engineering, its almost worth doing just for that.
Also i sincerely hope they will end up getting enough budget to build a long-lived one, as supposed to one-sortie high risk trip to crater and then done, which seemed to be the POR as of last checkin.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4348
  • Liked: 652
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #80 on: 10/13/2017 03:32 AM »
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?

Offline AegeanBlue

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 508
  • Raleigh
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #81 on: 10/13/2017 09:32 PM »
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?

I am pretty sure that it is, but it looks highly improbable to me. If you look back at the Google lecture the PI has said that he has found interest in the space mining community, but who is really willing to pay $200 million to get this to launch? Also, if NASA is willing to pony up this kind of money, they might just approve the new start as opposed to using a convoluted method. Bigelow was willing to invest something like $100-$150 million of his own money because of the Space Hotel angle, before CCDev appeared in the horizon. The most you can hope IMO is something like Dawn, where Orbital was willing to give up its profit in the cost plus contract because they wanted experience with an ion motor spacecraft, something lucrative today with geostationary satellites. Orbital never offered to take any cost, only to give up its profit.

Offline Don2

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 124
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #82 on: 10/15/2017 08:09 PM »
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?

The payload for Resource Prospector are fairly generic space science instruments, so I don't think there would be a lot to license. Also I don't see the point of going commercial. The customer for the data is the government, and the private sector has no experience building planetary rovers.

Offline AegeanBlue

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 508
  • Raleigh
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #83 on: 10/16/2017 09:53 PM »
Cross posted from the Space Science thread. SpaceNews' article about LEAG has a couple of paragraphs about RP. The mission is approaching PDR. My understanding is approval of PDR means an official new start, and an official start is a political decision.

http://spacenews.com/nasa-studying-potential-cooperation-on-russian-lunar-science-missions/


Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #84 on: 10/17/2017 12:13 AM »
Looking to user commercial lander for RP if funded. They've been working on rover and its payload for few years now with their limited budget. Lander was always problem as a NASA one would need significant funding. That was why there were trying to get international partners to provide it. An offshelf commercial lander should be lot more affordable and more importantly know fixed price combined with launch.

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5155
  • Liked: 982
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #85 on: 10/17/2017 03:32 AM »
..Lander was always problem as a NASA one would need significant funding.

So will "commercial"
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline AegeanBlue

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 508
  • Raleigh
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #86 on: 10/18/2017 08:35 PM »
Quote

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.


From http://spacenews.com/companies-seek-roles-in-nasas-return-to-the-moon/
« Last Edit: 10/18/2017 08:36 PM by AegeanBlue »

Offline AegeanBlue

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 508
  • Raleigh
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #87 on: 10/25/2017 04:52 PM »
The findings of the October 2017 LEAG meeting are up (will the presentations go up some day?) and slide 8 is about Resource Prospector

https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/leag2017/Meeting-Findings.pdf

In case the png is not up, it is a strong recommendation to go forward. Is that enough to push the mission to phase B? 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 and RP is experimental enough to not be deemed too critical to avoid this option. Still, just because a plausible path is visible it does not mean that it will be followed. In the end RP right now is where the ATHENA rover is compared to Spirit/Opportunity, lots of work needs to be done before we have flight hardware.

Offline Warren Platts

Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #88 on: 10/27/2017 12:25 AM »
The payload for Resource Prospector are fairly generic space science instruments

They're not even going to have an XRF on it. Lame if you ask me....
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5155
  • Liked: 982
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #89 on: 10/27/2017 03:52 AM »
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...
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.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline AegeanBlue

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 508
  • Raleigh
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #90 on: 10/27/2017 05:22 PM »
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...
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.

It's more realistic in that before they just prayed that a foreign partner will develop a lander, as opposed to now where BO intends to develop the lander, eventually. I agree, Blue Origin is nowhere near actually having the lander, but it still is better than the earlier plan of waiting for a foreign white knight

Offline Phil Stooke

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 474
  • Canada
  • Liked: 284
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #91 on: 10/29/2017 04:32 PM »
"they just prayed that a foreign partner will develop a lander"

It's called negotiating with partners.

Offline AegeanBlue

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 508
  • Raleigh
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #92 on: 11/03/2017 09:33 PM »
LEAG October 2017 presentations are up, including one of the two about Resource Prospector:

https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/leag2017/presentations/tuesday/colaprete.pdf

Offline AegeanBlue

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 508
  • Raleigh
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #93 on: 11/03/2017 10:19 PM »
So, my understanding is that they did a bit more testing on the RP-15 testbed on earth and did more complicated mission planning, 4 traverses in the Northern and Southern polar region. They are moving towards phase B, sometime in the spring from what I understand.

Offline DreamyPickle

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 188
  • Home
  • Liked: 80
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #94 on: 11/04/2017 12:32 AM »
I know that "perfect is the enemy of the good" and all that but wouldn't this mission be vastly more effective with an RTG for power and heat? Right now they are only designing for only a few days of surface operations until the first night. Using an RTG would allow them to operate for a much longer period and go deep inside the permanently shadowed regions (which are also the most interesting).

Long-term operation at low temperatures would be difficult but it maybe it could be tested on the ground in a thermal chamber?

Offline AegeanBlue

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 508
  • Raleigh
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #95 on: 11/04/2017 01:38 AM »
Resource Prospector is first and foremost a mission on the cheap. If you read higher up this thread it seriously lacks redundancy to the point we might see a failure of the Mars Polar Lander/ Mars Climate Orbiter magnitude. Adding RTGs is very expensive, both in terms of complexity to the mission and in actual cost itself; see for example how Europa Clipper is going for solar rather than RTG. A high risk low cost mission like Resource Prospector really does not have that ability.

Offline AegeanBlue

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 508
  • Raleigh
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #96 on: 11/10/2017 09:29 PM »

Offline AegeanBlue

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 508
  • Raleigh
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #97 on: 11/10/2017 09:45 PM »
Surprisingly (for me) there was a third presentation, on the drill of Resource Prospector

https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/leag2017/presentations/wednesday/zacny2.pdf

Offline AegeanBlue

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 508
  • Raleigh
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #98 on: 12/18/2017 10:42 PM »
An article on Resource Prospector from the Houston Chronicle, that really does not say much. Only thing it really says is that RP prospects water:

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/NASA-s-lunar-rover-could-enable-deep-space-12437664.php

Offline AegeanBlue

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 508
  • Raleigh
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #99 on: 12/29/2017 08:39 PM »
One slide from the HEOMD Nasa advisory council November 30 2017 presentation mentioned Resource Prospector. Just mentioned the aims: No status, no timeline

Offline Warren Platts

Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #100 on: 03/06/2018 07:00 PM »
Quick question for anybody: What would be the landing requirements for RPM, assuming landing in a polar location, in terms of dry mass, propellant, and delta v?
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline AegeanBlue

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 508
  • Raleigh
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #101 on: 04/26/2018 10:04 PM »
It seems that Resource Prospector has been cancelled, because there is letter from LEAG asking Brindestine to reconsider:

http://spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=51363

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16626
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 5427
  • Likes Given: 678
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #102 on: 04/27/2018 04:53 AM »
Here's the relevant sentence. Here's hoping Bridenstine can start on the right foot by getting this decision reversed.

"We now understand RP was cancelled on 23 April 2018 and the project has been asked to close down by the end of May."
« Last Edit: 04/27/2018 07:32 AM by Steven Pietrobon »
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10628
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 7484
  • Likes Given: 5248
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #103 on: 04/27/2018 06:40 AM »
That's unfortunate, this project has puttered around the edges for a very long time and should have gotten a shot.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline Bananas_on_Mars

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 150
  • Liked: 88
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #104 on: 04/27/2018 08:27 AM »
That's unfortunate, this project has puttered around the edges for a very long time and should have gotten a shot.
Well, maybe i understand this the right way...


Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #105 on: 04/27/2018 11:19 AM »
 I doubt development effort will go to waste chances are technology will be applied to other rover missions even if its only subsets of RP payload.

Offline daveklingler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 507
  • Liked: 156
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #106 on: 04/27/2018 07:33 PM »
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.

Offline AegeanBlue

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 508
  • Raleigh
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #107 on: 04/27/2018 08:59 PM »
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.

New Glenn and BFR are not impending. New Glenn is per Blue Origin expected in 2020, BFR per Elon Musk in 2024 and both of these dates are a bit aspirational. Resource Prospector is (was?) a very high risk mission, I assume Class D including the launch vehicle, meaning that you could see it at the equivalent of STP-2. New Glenn and BFR would be available for Class D 1 year after first launch. For Class A missions, it would probably take closer to 5 years. If SMD was prioritizing cost rather than success, the Parker Solar Probe would be flying on the Falcon Heavy rather than Delta IV Heavy. Look up the Europa missions thread, they did try to get a Falcon Heavy price for Europa Clipper but SpaceX was not forthcoming.

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6531
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 6231
  • Likes Given: 1874
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #108 on: 04/27/2018 09:16 PM »
Here's the relevant sentence. Here's hoping Bridenstine can start on the right foot by getting this decision reversed.

Doesn’t look like it:

Quote
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!

https://twitter.com/jimbridenstine/status/989975389870215169

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5521
  • Liked: 1060
  • Likes Given: 664
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #109 on: 04/27/2018 09:16 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: 04/27/2018 09:17 PM by Proponent »

Offline Phil Stooke

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 474
  • Canada
  • Liked: 284
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #110 on: 04/27/2018 09:35 PM »
It has been discussed for a teleoperated sample return on the far side and could certainly apply to other samples oif desired.


Offline Johnnyhinbos

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1377
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 1601
  • Likes Given: 222
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #112 on: 04/28/2018 01:41 AM »
Here is another article on it

www.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
The Verge piece was published on April 27 at 9:45 AM.

Bridenstein tweeted the same day at 5:11 PM, “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!”

Bridenstein trumps The Verge (pun intended??)
John Hanzl. Author, action / adventure www.johnhanzl.com

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6233
  • Liked: 4054
  • Likes Given: 5567
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #113 on: 04/28/2018 11:33 AM »
It has been discussed for a teleoperated sample return on the far side and could certainly apply to other samples oif desired.

Why do sample returns at all.  Let's go to the surface and set up lab facilities in situ.
Geologists on the surface can do more investigation in a day than a rover in a year.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline DistantTemple

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 271
  • England
  • Liked: 156
  • Likes Given: 292
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #114 on: 04/28/2018 06:03 PM »
I have just scanned this whole thread, reading bits. It appears that Resource Prospector was never properly funded, never had a planned launch partner, didn't include a lander, and wasn't built to the normal standards of a planetary rover with electronic redundancy and hardening etc.  I have no idea if its size is to support advanced scientific instruments, or if its design has been optimised. I am very surprised at the small wheels, that are likely to have a problem with 10cm stones! and possibly sinking into soft sand as their full cross sectional area is low. Was it really thought out carefully?

Considering the waste of a failed mission, the political risk of promoting a project that fails, and the risk of a setback in the moon programme, it seems that this project would need redesign from the ground up anyway! And since its been hanging around for a few years others have been making progress, including the Chinese, and the 5 finalists in the Google Lunar X prize, its design might be ready for a rehash anyway.

ISTM if real money is to go into a new moon programme, it would be better to perhaps absorb ideas from other projects like Resource Prospector, but generally put the effort and money into new projects, where there is an incentive to work intensively and quickly, and achieve a robust rover.
We can always grow new new dendrites. Reach out and make connections and your world will burst with new insights. Then repose in consciousness.

Offline DistantTemple

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 271
  • England
  • Liked: 156
  • Likes Given: 292
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #115 on: 04/28/2018 06:05 PM »
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
We can always grow new new dendrites. Reach out and make connections and your world will burst with new insights. Then repose in consciousness.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11378
  • Liked: 2892
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #116 on: 04/28/2018 07:25 PM »
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

They were "progressing" for a long time.


Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11378
  • Liked: 2892
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #117 on: 04/28/2018 07:41 PM »
I've read a few of the articles about this cancellation. They're generally poor. I've also read some of the commentary, and it's worse (it's amazing how people who had never heard of RP are suddenly up in arms that NASA would cancel it. Sacre bleu! And it's amusing how some people have reflexively blamed this on SLS, which is also responsible for tooth decay and chaos in the Middle East).

It helps to understand what RP was and why it was. RP really was pretty much the last gasp of the 2005 Vision for Space Exploration (remember that?). VSE called for creating some "lunar precursor" missions to fly before humans landed on the Moon. Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter was the only one that got approved, and it was highly successful. These were NOT science missions, but LRO was built with the science community's input and help. It was a model of cooperation.

What came out of that was a funding line to do further lunar missions. And one of the concepts for a mission was a rover that would look for resources on the Moon. But as you know, the VSE got canceled, and even before that happened the robotic lunar program funding line became a political football. It's all very convoluted and murky, but RP in essence became a make-work project for NASA civil servants who did not have an active project to work on--there was money allocated for RP and people were put on that project (sometimes even if they had no relevant skills/knowledge for the task). That's not to say that no good work was done on it. There was some good work. But it was much more of a make-work project than a development program.

If you dig back through presentations made at LEAG meetings, probably as far back as 2011, you can find references to RP or its precursor proposals. But at least five years ago it was clear that NASA had no plans to actually build a rover and fly it. (Note: by "NASA" I mean HEOMD, because RP was technically an HEOMD project and remember that HEOMD's lunar goal was eliminated in the FY11 budget, so it made no sense for HEOMD to do a "precursor" mission to the Moon when they had no plans to go to the Moon.)

I went to a number of LEAG meetings and whenever RP came up for discussion there was just a lot of confusion. NASA officials could never really explain when and how RP would fly. NASA was not going to build a lander, for instance, and at times it was not even going to build a rover. So Resource Prospector for the most part was a collection of instrument proposals, but no supporting hardware: no rover, no lander, no launch vehicle.

So, here we are and people are complaining about how terrible it is that Resource Prospector has been canceled. Except that there were no real plans to fly it at all.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11378
  • Liked: 2892
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #118 on: 04/28/2018 07:43 PM »
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.

Orion-MoonRise was based on this concept. Never got anywhere.

Online ccdengr

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 122
  • Liked: 61
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #119 on: 04/28/2018 08:53 PM »
Why 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.

Offline DistantTemple

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 271
  • England
  • Liked: 156
  • Likes Given: 292
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #120 on: 04/28/2018 09:10 PM »
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

They were "progressing" for a long time.
Astrobiotic was a Lunar XPrize participant, and now has a NASA contract... OK its only to develop a tinsy-winsy 2Kg rover!!! Which seems a waste when they have a larger one looking like its ready to go!
astrobotic-awarded-nasa-contract-to-develop-cuberover-for-lunar-missions

Edit: And there is the Audi lunar rover, with a prototype (or actual rover?) built, and I think it is intended for a production run, to reduce individual price! audi-innovation/audi-moon-landing-project
« Last Edit: 04/28/2018 09:19 PM by DistantTemple »
We can always grow new new dendrites. Reach out and make connections and your world will burst with new insights. Then repose in consciousness.

Online envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4607
  • Liked: 2530
  • Likes Given: 1389
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #121 on: 04/28/2018 09:14 PM »
Why 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.

Offline DistantTemple

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 271
  • England
  • Liked: 156
  • Likes Given: 292
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #122 on: 04/28/2018 09:19 PM »
The Audi Rover. No science payloads apart from imaging I think.
« Last Edit: 04/28/2018 09:21 PM by DistantTemple »
We can always grow new new dendrites. Reach out and make connections and your world will burst with new insights. Then repose in consciousness.

Online ccdengr

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 122
  • Liked: 61
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #123 on: 04/28/2018 09:29 PM »
It'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).

Online envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4607
  • Liked: 2530
  • Likes Given: 1389
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #124 on: 04/28/2018 09:31 PM »
It'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).

True on the actual return part, but that don't help much if you can't find the samples you want - which is a lot easier with a geologist on site. We generally don't send rovers after geological samples on Earth.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8477
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 348
  • Likes Given: 147
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #125 on: 04/28/2018 10:32 PM »
Go with what you have. For the next 4 years or so NASA has the landers being produced under the Lunar CATALYST initiative. Depending on make they can land 35kg and 100kg payloads. Consequently that is the maximum mass of each rover. The processing equipment and drill could be on separate landers.

Larger landers are being planned, if NASA can get the money.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11378
  • Liked: 2892
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #126 on: 04/28/2018 10:53 PM »
Go 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.

Offline Johnnyhinbos

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1377
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 1601
  • Likes Given: 222
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #127 on: 04/29/2018 01:05 AM »
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
John Hanzl. Author, action / adventure www.johnhanzl.com

Offline DistantTemple

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 271
  • England
  • Liked: 156
  • Likes Given: 292
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #128 on: 04/29/2018 01:46 AM »
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
"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.
We can always grow new new dendrites. Reach out and make connections and your world will burst with new insights. Then repose in consciousness.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8477
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 348
  • Likes Given: 147
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #129 on: 04/29/2018 06:43 AM »
Go 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.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11378
  • Liked: 2892
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #130 on: 04/29/2018 11:29 AM »
Go 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.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11378
  • Liked: 2892
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #131 on: 04/29/2018 11:31 AM »
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
"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.

And as I noted above, RP was always basically just instruments. NASA had never committed to anything else. They were not going to build the lander, at times they would not commit to building a rover, and I think that at one point they committed to buying a launch if somebody else did all the other stuff, but then backed off of that.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8477
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 348
  • Likes Given: 147
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #132 on: 04/29/2018 02:17 PM »
Go 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.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11378
  • Liked: 2892
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #133 on: 04/29/2018 04:29 PM »
All too true. The Moon Express prototype lander's launch to lunar orbit is booked for this year, 2018. I added a safety margin.

And in summer 2017 ME was saying that they would launch by the end of that year, and didn't show any photos of actual flight hardware. This led some people to be... skeptical.

Online russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4691
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1186
  • Likes Given: 594
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #134 on: 04/29/2018 04:58 PM »
Astrobotic is willing to provide this lander for RP: https://www.astrobotic.com/griffin

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11378
  • Liked: 2892
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #135 on: 04/29/2018 06:16 PM »
Astrobotic is willing to provide this lander for RP: https://www.astrobotic.com/griffin

The problem was that NASA wasn't willing to pay for a lander.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8477
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 348
  • Likes Given: 147
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #136 on: 04/30/2018 11:58 AM »
Astrobotic is willing to provide this lander for RP: https://www.astrobotic.com/griffin

The 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.
Ref: NASA courts commercial options for Lunar Landers
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45262.0

and
Ref: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45580.0

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11378
  • Liked: 2892
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #137 on: 04/30/2018 02:15 PM »

It 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.

Online envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4607
  • Liked: 2530
  • Likes Given: 1389
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #138 on: 04/30/2018 03:47 PM »
Go 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.

Unless it's 20 years away.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8477
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 348
  • Likes Given: 147
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #139 on: 05/01/2018 05:06 AM »

It 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.

Fortunately NASA started several years ago. The small landers are testing their engines so small payloads could be sent to the Moon within 3-4 years by a university. It is the people that will have to wait 10-20 years.


Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11378
  • Liked: 2892
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #140 on: 05/01/2018 10:33 AM »
The 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.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #141 on: 05/01/2018 04:14 PM »
The 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.


Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11378
  • Liked: 2892
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #142 on: 05/01/2018 05:46 PM »
]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.


No. That's not what was going on at all.

Online russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4691
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1186
  • Likes Given: 594
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #143 on: 05/01/2018 06:23 PM »
The 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.


Astrobotic is simultaneously building Peregrine and Griffin and are somewhat comparable with MX-1 and MX-2 respectively,

Offline Phil Stooke

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 474
  • Canada
  • Liked: 284
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #144 on: 05/01/2018 07:41 PM »
The most significant thing to come out of the RP work was the very sophisticated software needed for mission planning - using the excellent topographic datasets we have now to map the very dynamic lighting and communication environment and to plan rover operations.  This work has been reported at LEAG annual meetings, LPSC meetings, NASA Lunar Science Forums (and variant names for those meetings, held at NASA Ames each July), and elsewhere. 

First it helped plan short-lived missions in areas experiencing fleeting illumination as shadows sweep across the landing area.  Later it was used to plan longer missions which could charge up in areas of persistent sunlight and dip into shadows when the lighting permitted.  All that work remains, and will be invaluable for planning any future variation of RP that might arise.  I should also point out that Astrobotic has done similar work independently, and an illustration of it can be seen on their website. 

The attached map illustrates some of these studies, part of a larger project to record this material.  This area is north of Haworth crater and southwest of Malapert Mountain, at about 86.5 south, 350 east.

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6531
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 6231
  • Likes Given: 1874
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #145 on: 05/03/2018 05:52 PM »
Quote
May 3, 2018

NASA Expands Plans for Moon Exploration: More Missions, More Science

NASA 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.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-expands-plans-for-moon-exploration-more-missions-more-science

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11378
  • Liked: 2892
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Resource Prospector
« Reply #146 on: 05/03/2018 10:29 PM »
NASA Statement on Resource Prospector and RESOLVE Costs

Status Report From: NASA HQ
Posted: Thursday, May 3, 2018

NASA's early prototype work on the Regolith and Environmental Science and Oxygen and Lunar Volatiles Extraction or RESOLVE project, which was an integrated set of general prospecting payloads, provided the basis for the initial instruments for the Resource Prospector (RP) mission concept. The agency invested an estimated $22 million in RESOLVE's early technology development/prototyping efforts. Since the RP team was formed in 2014 after the completion of a mission concept review, NASA has invested an estimated total of $80 million toward refining the mission concept and mission-specific risk reduction activities.. NASA's overall Resource Prospector work toward risk reduction activities to advance instrument developments, component technologies including rover components, and innovation mission operations concepts will help inform future missions. An agency review to send selected instruments from Resource Prospector to the Moon is ongoing.


Tags: Audi rover