Author Topic: Resource Prospector  (Read 106862 times)

Offline DistantTemple

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2002
  • England
  • Liked: 1701
  • Likes Given: 2839
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.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
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

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2002
  • England
  • Liked: 1701
  • Likes Given: 2839
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.

Offline ccdengr

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 660
  • Liked: 491
  • Likes Given: 73
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).

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
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: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
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: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • Likes Given: 2
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

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3863
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 8095
  • Likes Given: 943
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

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2002
  • England
  • Liked: 1701
  • Likes Given: 2839
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: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
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: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • Likes Given: 2
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: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • Likes Given: 2
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: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
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: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • Likes Given: 2
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.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8755
  • Liked: 4671
  • Likes Given: 768
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: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • Likes Given: 2
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: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
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: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • Likes Given: 2
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.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
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: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
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.


Tags: Audi rover 
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0