-
#20
by
VSECOTSPE
on 26 Oct, 2023 03:59
-
If there is a need for small missions then why not do a downsized version of the Discovery program? The size of those missions has grown a lot over the years. The first one, Lunar Prospector, had an inflation adjusted cost of $123 milllion. The recent DART mission was $357 million. Small missions that fit under your $365 million limit are certainly viable.
NASA did try something like that with the SIMPLEX program, but the rideshare strategy really didn't work. If the smallest planetary launch vehicle is a Falcon 9 costing $75 million, then a $55 million limit like SIMPLEX won't work. $300 million probably would.
You answered your own question. Most/all of the low-hanging Discovery fruit has been picked. Competitive planetary research that can continue pushing back the scientific frontier requires more expensive missions than what Discovery started with a quarter century ago. And even if we can identify a couple low-cost yet competitive missions, the rideshare concept has not worked out for anyone (even instruments on comsats to GEO, forget different planetary targets).
For the most part, CLPS is not in that category of competitive research at the scientific frontier. It was a way for Zurbuchen to garner additional funding for planetary science from the larger human lunar return initiative by marrying some low-cost, independent platforms to research that, while not competitive at the Discovery or higher level, was still good and worthwhile. Why folks want to look that gift-horse in the mouth is rather boggling.
CLPS was really industrial policy
It’s not. Per Zurbuchen, It’s about getting more research done, getting more experience with fight projects in the pipeline, and maybe figuring out a way to get more bang for the buck. It may also have the salutary effect of creating some new providers and competition in planetary science spacecraft. But that’s not industrial policy. The budget is just not there to do this kind of work with traditional providers in a Class 2 environment. It requires of lower-cost providers in a Class 3 environment. These firms are enablers for this work. They’re not receiving hand-outs.
The science has very much been an afterthought.
No, the program had to be kicked off using research and instruments that were as close to off-the-shelf as possible. The selection process since then has and will continue to mature.
Nor is there any strategy for Artemis support.
Like so many human space flight efforts, Artemis programmatics are a joke. That’s not the fault of CLPS.
The VIPER rover is moderately expensive, and there is only one of them. Not a good fit for landers with a high failure rate.
What high failure rate? What database of past CLPS missions are you looking at to make up these false statements?
-
#21
by
Athelstane
on 04 Nov, 2023 22:48
-
Not all the science payloads are cheap. The VIPER rover is moderately expensive, and there is only one of them. Not a good fit for [unproven landers].
And clearly, NASA has decided it agrees with you, given that they have greatly increased the budget to accommodate more refinement of the design and a lot more testing of the lander!
But VIPER is clearly a unique case for CLPS missions. None of the other missions awarded are asking contractors to deliver anything like that.
(For the record, though, I do increasingly share the concern that Dr Z's team set the award amounts a little low for CLPS. I would not jump up to the $300-400M level, but I can at least see a case for increasing awards by 30-50% and simply dropping a couple future awards to accommodate it in the budget. Maxar might well have gone bankrupt no matter what, but it still looks like a warning sign to me.)
-
#22
by
tbellman
on 04 Nov, 2023 23:18
-
Maxar might well have gone bankrupt no matter what, but it still looks like a warning sign to me.
I suppose you mean Masten, not Maxar?
-
#23
by
Athelstane
on 04 Nov, 2023 23:32
-
Maxar might well have gone bankrupt no matter what, but it still looks like a warning sign to me.
I suppose you mean Masten, not Maxar?
Yes. Argh. Brainfart.
-
#24
by
Don2
on 05 Nov, 2023 05:24
-
IM-1 delayed to Jan 12th, so it look like Peregrine will be going first on Dec 24th. Three months from now we will know a lot more about this program.
-
#25
by
Athelstane
on 14 Nov, 2023 13:02
-
IM-1 and Peregrine may end up attempting landings on consecutive days?
A launch on Jan. 12 would set up the spacecraft for a landing attempt on the moon Jan. 19. While IM-1 is now scheduled to launch after Astrobotic’s Peregrine lander, slated to lift off on the inaugural Vulcan Centaur Dec. 24, it may land before Peregrine, which is taking a less direct trajectory to the moon. Altemus said in the call that he understood that, if Peregrine launches on time, it would attempt its landing Jan. 20, a day after IM-1.
https://spacenews.com/intuitive-machines-planning-up-to-three-lunar-lander-missions-in-2024/The main point of the article, though, is that Intuitive says they will attempt to do three CLPS missions in 2024.
-
#26
by
Phil Stooke
on 14 Nov, 2023 18:45
-
This is an update of an earlier post:
-----------------
If there are no more delays (a big IF, certainly) Astrobotic's lander will launch before IM-1, currently aiming for 24 December. If Intuitive Machines launches on 12 January the landings would actually happen close together, round about the 19th of January, and SLIM is also set to land at the same time.
It is possible that we will see three landing attempts in a single week. If we assume every landing happens about 2 days after sunrise (so descent imaging is not too complicated by shadows) they would occur in the order of increasing west longitude, i.e. SLIM, then Intuitive, then Astrobotic. Dates might be roughly January 18, 20 and 23 (Thursday, Saturday, Tuesday).
------------------
Astrobotic says the date is uncertain, as after all we don't know exactly which day they will launch. But the landing can't be too much later than c. Jan. 23-25 because of the lighting. So either they land in that week or they delay a whole month.
The important thing, though, is that SLIM is in the mix too. They are aiming for a landing on the 19th, but that is the time in Japan.
-
#27
by
cryogenicvalve
on 23 Jan, 2024 12:09
-
Scott Manley said in his recent video that IM1 is in May:
Time in the video 11:00 to 11:10
Did you hear that perhaps anywhere else? Perhaps he made a mistake?
-
#28
by
zubenelgenubi
on 31 Jan, 2024 20:12
-
CLPS IM-1 What's On Board Briefing Media Teleconference
-
#29
by
zubenelgenubi
on 31 Jan, 2024 21:56
-
-
#30
by
Phil Stooke
on 31 Jan, 2024 23:15
-
-
#31
by
cryogenicvalve
on 07 Feb, 2024 19:48
-
Oh, nice, it looks like it will be launched with legs fully extended.
-
#32
by
redliox
on 14 Feb, 2024 01:24
-
Is Odysseus launching tonight or tomorrow?
-
#33
by
Lampyridae
on 14 Feb, 2024 06:34
-
Is Odysseus launching tonight or tomorrow?
SpaceX says Thursday early am. I suppose for most Americans that's Wednesday still?
https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1757623502289686797?s=20Standing down from tonight’s attempt due to off-nominal methane temperatures prior to stepping into methane load. Now targeting Thursday, February 15 at 1:05 a.m. ET for Falcon 9's launch of the
@Int_Machines
IM-1 mission from Florida → http://spacex.com/launches
-
#34
by
deltaV
on 14 Feb, 2024 06:36
-
Is Odysseus launching tonight or tomorrow?
That's a question for this mission's launch thread in the SpaceX missions section of the forum.
-
#35
by
Phil Stooke
on 14 Feb, 2024 07:26
-
Intuitive Machines seems to be unable to provide any kind of worthwhile map of the landing site so I suppose I will have to do it for them. It would really help to have a map of the landing ellipse.
-
#36
by
Phil Stooke
on 14 Feb, 2024 20:36
-
To illustrate the frustration of not having a definitive map of the target, here's a screenshot from Quickmap showing the position defined by coordinates at the Planetary Science Advisory Committee meeting in June 2023 (80.297º S, 1.2613º E) and the map illustrated on the LRO camera website (
https://www.lroc.asu.edu/posts/1321 ). They are 3000 m apart. The LRO site is much smoother than the PSAC site. On the other hand we must remember that the LROC NAC images in that Quickmap image still have small errors of registration and can't be counted on to be exact. But they won't be 3000 m out.
-
#37
by
ChrisC
on 15 Feb, 2024 18:31
-
-
#38
by
theinternetftw
on 15 Feb, 2024 19:22
-
The
JPL Horizons system has some useful information about IM-1 if you go try to generate ephemeris for the spacecraft. (Search for IM-1 as target body.)
I'm not sure it's 100% correct because I'm not sure the F9 2nd stage did a 185 km x 60,000 km pseudo-parking orbit before TLI.
Jonathan's attempt at reconstructing the TLEs after SECO-1 (and my own eyes watching the broadcast) suggest a 160 km x 230 km parking orbit, and his SECO-2 reconstruction suggests a full TLI burn from the 2nd stage to moon orbit distance, with a 60,000km orbit never occurring at all.
Still, it's worth quoting in full, I think.
BACKGROUND
Intuitive Machine's Nova-C class IM-1 lunar lander "Odysseus" launched
February 15, 2024 @ 06:05 UTC from LC-39A at Cape Canaveral (USA) on a
SpaceX Falcon 9.
It will be the first commercial lunar lander by a private company, and was
selected through NASA's CLPS initiative.
It is planned to land on the Moon about 9 days after launch (~Feb 24) and
operate for about 7 days after touchdown (until local sunset), about 300 km
from the south pole at crater Malapert A. This is close to the Malapert
Massif, a candidate landing zone for NASA's Artemis III manned-mission.
The Falcon 9 second stage will place the spacecraft into a 185 x 60000 km
Earth orbit. After ~35 minutes of coasting, the second stage will then propel
Odysseus into a Trans-Lunar Orbit (TLO) intercepting the Moon's orbit.
Deployment of the spacecraft is to occur 48 minutes and 24 seconds after
launch when the second stage will use spring force to push the lander away.
Odysseus will make three small adjustment burns en route before the TLO
trajectory takes IM-1 behind the Moon. The main engine autonomous Lunar
Orbit Injection (LOI) burn will place Odysseus into a near-circular 100-km
Low-Lunar Orbit.
Throughout twelve 2-hour-long orbits of the Moon, checks of all spacecraft
systems will be completed before committing to a lunar descent.
The autonomous Descent Orbit Burn will take place on the far side of the
Moon and reduce the craft's orbit to 10 kilometers above the landing site.
The craft will then coast for an hour before powered descent.
The Nova-C class main engine is designed to burn continuously throughout the
powered descent. The lander will be slowed by 1,800 meters per second, then
pitched over to assume landing attitude when 30 meters above the lunar
surface, before bringing the craft to a soft landing.
PURPOSE
The mission' primary objective is to deliver a variety of payloads to the
Moon's south pole region, a part of the Moon that remains unexplored and is
a target for later NASA Artemis manned missions. These payloads include
scientific instruments and technology demonstrations that aim to inform
future human and robotic exploration of the Moon.
SPACECRAFT
Hexagonal cylinder 4.3 m tall, 1.57 m wide, on six landing legs.
Launch mass : 1908 kg
Solar panels : ~200 Watts
PROPULSION
Liquid methane and liquid oxygen
ISP > 320 sec.
SCIENCE INSTRUMENTS
NASA
ROLSES: Radio Observations of the Lunar Surface Photoelectron Sheath
LRA: Laser Retro-Reflector Array
NDL: Navigation Doppler Lidar for Precise Velocity and Range Sensing
SCALPSS: Stereo Cameras for Lunar Plume-Surface Studies
LN-1: Lunar Node 1 Navigation Demonstrator (S-band navigation beacon)
RFMG: Radio Frequency Mass Gauge statement
Commerical
Columbia Sportswear: Omni-heat infinity thermal material
Embry-Riddle: Eaglecam
Jeff Koons: Moon Phases (125 artwork items)
International Lunar Observatory Association: ILO-X
Galactic Legacy Labs: LUNAPRISE
Lonestar Data Holdings Inc.
-
#39
by
theinternetftw
on 15 Feb, 2024 19:29
-