-
Astrobotic Technology Annouces Lunar Mission on SpaceX Falcon 9
by
wjbarnett
on 06 Feb, 2011 14:38
-
-
#1
by
mr. mark
on 06 Feb, 2011 15:56
-
Fantastic news! I really can't wait for this launch. It has always been my hope that Spacex would demonstrate BEO capability and this seems to be a great start. Can't wait until the probe pulls up and gets a closeup of the Apollo 11 landing site. Just imagine the look on the moon hoaxers faces then. lol
-
#2
by
simonbp
on 06 Feb, 2011 16:08
-
They really shouldn't be going to 11; that's scared ground. Any of the other sites would okay, but 11 should be left as is...
-
#3
by
robertross
on 06 Feb, 2011 16:08
-
That's cool
-
#4
by
ugordan
on 06 Feb, 2011 16:11
-
They really shouldn't be going to 11; that's scared ground. Any of the other sites would okay, but 11 should be left as is...
Any GLXP rover would IIRC be allowed to come within 500 meters of the Apollo 11 site, observe it with HD cameras etc from that distance, but not physically enter the site.
-
#5
by
Robotbeat
on 06 Feb, 2011 16:13
-
They really shouldn't be going to 11; that's scared ground. Any of the other sites would okay, but 11 should be left as is...
Looking at it doesn't necessarily mean disturbing the footprints of Neil and Buzz, unless the probe is nearsighted.
-
#6
by
arnezami
on 06 Feb, 2011 16:14
-
-
#7
by
MikeAtkinson
on 06 Feb, 2011 16:16
-
I second that they shouldn't be going to 11. Not just because it should be left pristine due its high historical value, but also that site was chosen because it was boring, 15,16 or 17 would seem to be better choices.
-
#8
by
mr. mark
on 06 Feb, 2011 16:18
-
This is a great video for the lunar probe.
-
#9
by
aquanaut99
on 06 Feb, 2011 16:26
-
I second that they shouldn't be going to 11. Not just because it should be left pristine due its high historical value, but also that site was chosen because it was boring, 15,16 or 17 would seem to be better choices.
I agree. The most interesting Apollo landing sites were those chosen during the J missions. But I would prefer that they land in an unexplored area. Maybe the lunar poles?
Incidentally, even if they shot up-close photos of the Apollo lunar landers and astronauts footprints, I predict that will not be enough to silence the moon-hoaxers. I'm sure they will find some ludicrous way to continue denying it (and probably accusing SpaceX of being part of the conspiracy).
-
#10
by
swampcat
on 06 Feb, 2011 17:22
-
They really shouldn't be going to 11; that's scared ground. Any of the other sites would okay, but 11 should be left as is...
So the ground is afraid of something?
My only concern would be how good their landing navigation turns out to be. They say they will be aiming for a 100m landing zone, but they are using untried hardware. Let's just hope they don't miss by too much.
-
#11
by
Comga
on 06 Feb, 2011 18:58
-
They really shouldn't be going to 11; that's sacred ground. Any of the other sites would okay, but 11 should be left as is...
Looking at it doesn't necessarily mean disturbing the footprints of Neil and Buzz, unless the probe is nearsighted.
Agreed. At 5 cm/sec they can cover ~4 km per Earth day and up to 60 km per lunar day. They should be able to move the aim point well away from the Apollo 11 site. They do say they will land several kilometers away. The odds of accidentally coming down on the Apollo 11 footprints should be pretty remote. It might help that they are planning an offset to the south, and should be landing east-to-west.
There are also good maps now from LRO so they can approach along a path that doesn't disturb any footprints. Looks like coming "up-sun" from the West right past the ALSEP to the "big" crater would do it.
Overall, this is really exciting. It is not beyond the realm of the possible, which is more than I have seen for a while concerning Moon landers.
-
#12
by
ugordan
on 06 Feb, 2011 19:04
-
It is not beyond the realm of the possible, which is more than I have seen for a while concerning Moon landers.
It's also carrying with it a very real likelihood of some failure preventing a safe landing, IMHO.
Still, it would be pretty cool to see this happen.
-
#13
by
tigerade
on 06 Feb, 2011 19:05
-
Really cool news. However, does the Falcon 9 second stage actually hold enough fuel to make it to lunar orbit, or will this require some kind of modification?
-
#14
by
ugordan
on 06 Feb, 2011 19:09
-
However, does the Falcon 9 second stage actually hold enough fuel to make it to lunar orbit, or will this require some kind of modification?
To make it to lunar orbit? No.
To send about 2-2.5 metric tons through TLI, maybe, depends on how the actual performance of F9 so far is working out and then correct that for expected Block 2 numbers.
-
#15
by
Jason1701
on 06 Feb, 2011 19:09
-
They really shouldn't be going to 11; that's scared ground. Any of the other sites would okay, but 11 should be left as is...
Any GLXP rover would IIRC be allowed to come within 500 meters of the Apollo 11 site, observe it with HD cameras etc from that distance, but not physically enter the site.
I'm sure they'll remain a respectful distance away. Maybe they'll circle the site. I imagine that in 50-100 years we'll have a visitor's center built around 11, but not intruding within the footprints.
@tigerade:
From Astrobiotic's website it looks like they have a pretty hefty descent stage. It looks similar to a Fregat. The F9 will probably perform only the TLI burn, and then the descent stage will do LOI and landing.
-
#16
by
Comga
on 06 Feb, 2011 19:09
-
Really cool news. However, does the Falcon 9 second stage actually hold enough fuel to make it to lunar orbit, or will this require some kind of modification?
The Falcon 9 second stage is not anticipated to go into lunar orbit. (Besides fuel it doesn't have the lifetime even if one wanted to take that inefficient approach.) Watch the video. The spacecraft will do LOI, deorbit, and landing burns.
-
#17
by
mr. mark
on 06 Feb, 2011 19:14
-
In the classroom style lander video they are saying that they are using a shuttle engine for landing. What engine would that be?
-
#18
by
ugordan
on 06 Feb, 2011 19:23
-
A Shuttle RCS thruster I'd guess, apparently 870 lbf thrust which sounds like the right size for this thing.
-
#19
by
rklaehn
on 06 Feb, 2011 19:40
-
