NASA spent $79 Million on LCROSS mission!

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by ngchunter

 

You seem to have a lot of information about satellites.
6,000 kg?

Yes, optical satellite tracking is a hobby of mine.

Why does it have to be so heavy?

For all the reasons I outlined earlier; big transmitters and receivers require bigger power sources, bigger processors, which requires bigger energy storage, which requires bigger thermal control, which also all requires a bigger chassis, etc, etc, etc...

Don't we have the technology to make things smaller and lighter?
Lightweight polyalloys?
Miniaturization?

Smaller microchips are more susceptible to cosmic rays and other random hits of radiation that can damage electronics. The world's fastest processors are probably far more susceptible to radiation than a living organism.

The whole thing also needs to be rugged to be absolutely sure it can withstand the rigors of launching on a rocket, and it needs to be carefully designed to attain a tolerable temperature in space.

Have you seen a HD Cam recently?

Yes, and again, modern electronics are not space hardened or worthy. But the camera is only the beginning of your issue, I don't understand why you keep bringing it up? Are you trying to oversimplify it intentionally? You can't just focus on the camera part of the issue, the camera's worthless if it can't withstand launch or you can't get the video down in realtime!

I think we can bring the costs and weight down if we think about it.
Instead of a dedicated Comm Satellite, how about a small
space station 22,300 miles away that is manned by NASA
personnel?

Bad idea. The van allen belts may not be an issue if you're just passing through, but if you stay there day after day you're going to be in serious trouble. I also don't understand how this would make anything easier with regards to bandwidth limitations of a lunar probe?

We are going to retire the Space Shuttles soon.
Here is an idea. Think with me.
We launch Discovery. In the payload area we put small booster
rockets.

I believe it was after Challenger exploded that they decided to no longer allow any significant amount of fuel to go in a shuttle's payload bay. Things like boosters are strictly verboten.

Rendezvous with the ISS.
Attach/install small boosters rockets. Head out to the
small space station 22,000 miles away and dock.
Leave it there and as an emergency escape vehicle for
the NASA personnel.

I have some doubts about the ability of the orbiter to safely re-enter from that altitude; its heat shield is not as good as Apollo's with regard to temperature tolerance and energy rejection because it's only designed to handle low earth orbit re-entries, not mid-earth orbit. The shuttle is also much weaker structurally than a capsule. Whereas Apollo's capsules could easily survive very high G re-entries, the shuttle is limited to 2.5g's, no more. It definitely could not survive a trans-lunar re-entry at 11km/sec, from 22,000 miles maybe it could (I'd have to sim it), but you're cutting it close to the edge of survivability.

reply to post by jra


I don't need it to be as good as Hubble.
I just need it to be good.
We would have something to show for our investment.
Would the air bag landing system work on the moon
like it did on Mars?
As of now we blew $79 million and what do we have today???

[edit on 11-10-2009 by Eurisko2012]

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
I don't need it to be as good as Hubble.
I just need it to be good.

But what would be the point of it? It wouldn't be able to compete with Hubble and the other space based telescopes. Plus what if the mirror gets dusty? It would way cheaper just to put a 12" telescope in Earth orbit as a mini-Hubble, then to send one to the Moon.

We would have something to show for our investment.

Why not put cameras and other instruments that would serve a useful purpose for studying the Moon itself? Rather than putting a telescope on it. That would be worth the investment.

Would the air bag landing system work on the moon
like it did on Mars?

Yes, but you'd need rockets to help slow it down first before it hit.

As of now we blew $79 million and what do we have today???

A lot of interesting data that still needs to be studied further.

reply to post by ngchunter


The van allen belts?
I had to search Wiki just to see what you were talking about.

I see now.

I'm sure the technology exists to shield a space station from the
radiation.
Sheets of lead for example.
Probably one reason the Comm Sats weigh so much.
- sheets of lead -
One thing we really need today is artificial gravity so we can walk around
on the new and improved space station.
That rotating wheel idea would have the aliens laughing at us.
I know the technology exists and the government is sitting on it
because it is dual use technology.
I think we had a Gravity Wave Caterpillar Drive thrown in
our laps July 1947 Roswell, New Mexico.
We have been sitting on very advanced technology for over
60 years.
BTW, i think the hull of the UFOs are made out of
Aluminum Oxynitride.
Very strong ceramic that can be injection molded.
Also provides armor properties. - bullet proof glass -
ALON when polished becomes transparent.
Hull = Unpolished ALON
Windows = polished ALON
See my Avatar pic.
It looks like MJ-12 threw in a little Magnesium to make it
stronger and give it that marble ice cream appearance.
The Chinese use ALON on their best tanks.
Withstands many T-72 direct hits!
The moon base on the south pole should also be made
out of ALON. -Surmet : Engineering

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
I'm sure the technology exists to shield a space station from the
radiation.
Sheets of lead for example.

That's the worst material you could choose. The Van Allen belts consist of high-energy protons and electrons. When they interact with lead, it creates a secondary radiation called "Bremsstrahlung" which are essentially x-rays. Lighter metals like Aluminium are a better choice (the lower the atomic number the better). Combine that with Polyethylene or other non metallic materials and that would make it even better.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
I'm sure the technology exists to shield a space station from the
radiation.
Sheets of lead for example.

Lead is not a magical solution to radiation. It's the worst kind of shield for that kind of radiation. There are options with fibrous insulation and certain polymers, but that will only attenuate the levels, not stop it altogether. Long stays in the belt similar to stays on ISS would not be feasible. Comm sats use space hardened equipment which usually consists of chips and processors that are slower than what we use on earth in order to be less sensitive to radiation. Lead is neither desirable nor useful.

*I see JRA beat me to it.

[edit on 12-10-2009 by ngchunter]

...Plus, a rover with a drill sent to Cabeus crater looking for water would probably need to have an RTG power source (which is very expensive), or some other expensive power source.

NASA's usual "cheap" method of providing power is solar panels. The water-ice is there supposedly because it is in a perpetually dark crater. Obviously solar panels would be useless in a perpetually dark crater.

[edit on 10/12/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
I'm sure the technology exists to shield a space station from the
radiation.
Sheets of lead for example.

That's the worst material you could choose. The Van Allen belts consist of high-energy protons and electrons. When they interact with lead, it creates a secondary radiation called "Bremsstrahlung" which are essentially x-rays. Lighter metals like Aluminium are a better choice (the lower the atomic number the better). Combine that with Polyethylene or other non metallic materials and that would make it even better.

--------------------------------------------------------
How in the world did you find a word called "Bremsstrahlung"?
What do you do for living? Rocket scientist?
How about sheets of copper?

--------------------------------------------------
I just checked Wiki - 3 millimeters of Aluminum does the trick!
----------------------------------------------------
It looks like the bulkheads of my space station needs layers
of shielding. 7 inch thick ALON hull/ 3 mm of Aluminum/
a sheet of lead for radiation/ a sheet of copper [EMF shielding]
---------------------------------------------------
I'm glad you suggested Aluminum . Did you check out ALON yet?
Aluminum 23/ Oxygen27 / Nitrogen5
- Transparent Aluminum -

P.S. Wiki has a description of "Bremstrahlung".
High end math involved.

[edit on 12-10-2009 by Eurisko2012]

[edit on 12-10-2009 by Eurisko2012]

[edit on 12-10-2009 by Eurisko2012]

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
...Plus, a rover with a drill sent to Cabeus crater looking for water would probably need to have an RTG power source (which is very expensive), or some other expensive power source.

NASA's usual "cheap" method of providing power is solar panels. The water-ice is there supposedly because it is in a perpetually dark crater. Obviously solar panels would be useless in a perpetually dark crater.

[edit on 10/12/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

Can't you use a Hydrogen Fuel Cell to get DC Power?

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by Gakus
rofl simple fact is 79million should be enough to cover hundreds of trips to the moon

Based on what information? $79 million wouldn't even cover one Shuttle launch, let alone hundreds of trips to the Moon.

am i the only person who sees a SERIOUS problem in which NASA spends it money?

I would agree that NASA probably isn't as efficient with money as they could be, but what Government agency is? That still doesn't change the fact that going to the Moon is expensive.

I would love to see your evidence showing that it's actually cheaper.

Originally posted by Gakus
so the problem being?

rofl simple fact is 79million should be enough to cover hundreds of trips to the moon

am i the only person who sees a SERIOUS problem in which NASA spends it money?

#ing sheep thinking it actually costs that much

rofllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

Ok, if I'm an "f*ing sheep" and 79 mil is enough for hundreds of trips to the moon, why doesn't someone do it just once for about 790,000 (a hundredth the cost) and earn a huge profit?

The Google Lunar X PRIZE is a
$30 million competition for the
first privately funded team to
send a robot to the moon, travel
500 meters and transmit video,
images and data back to the Earth.
www.googlelunarxprize.org...

Heck, they're not even requiring you to transmit live 1080p video, so this should be simple! /sarc

[edit on 16-10-2009 by ngchunter]

Well we must have NASA doing things once in a while.
I really miss the Moon Landings as perhaps I missed so many,
I must have been very busy.

With all the controversy now days I see a lot of old videos.
Walter Cronkite sure loved to report the details.

Why can't NASA just show us all the old landing sites as sort
of a celebration, make more stamps and good times again.
Make and publish new photos taken real time in the next few
few years.

Heck I don't care if the photos are called CGI and actually are cgi,
just get us back in the saddle again.

Let celebrate the good times, official celebrations are the biggest
part of what government is all about.
Even celebrate some great scientific discoveries once in awhile.

reply to post by TeslaandLyne


Any chance we could install advertising on the moon?
Once the moon base is up and running on the south pole
i can see a huge green Apple logo during a full moon!
Apple would pay $25 million for that.

Lighting up the Moon might just take one power tower.
But the vibrations might set the Moon free and drift away.
Its best we can't do much with the knowledge we have.
(Electrical pressure waves have physical effects over gravity.)
(Something we don't know.)

Some say we have to do something with the Moon and
I suppose some do not.

So full Moon ads might be far away in time.
The garbage that goes up on bill boards make it a blessing
we can't go to the Moon.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
What else could we have spent that $79 million on?
How about just $50 million landing a cool looking large rover
that can drill for water!
Put a 12 inch Meade telescope on it so it can send back images like the
Hubble Telescope.

Oh! Have it look for Helium 3 while it's there!

yeah...too bad they couldn't spend a couple thousand dollars for a decent camera...both of those cameras looked like they got them from the parts storeroom of NASA...what next, kodak brownie cameras from the 60's???

and the room the "controllers" were in?? what is that?...looked like a one of those 20 ft contruction trailers you see at housing sites. throw up a couple of NASA banners, put in some computers sitting on some 49 dollar fold-up plastic wal-mart tables and VIOLA!!! NASA MISSION CONTROL!!!!

and the IR camera??? did they order that from the used FLIR camera store?? i saw the ghost hunters show and they had a better IR camera than that.

and since i'm on a roll we put men on the moon 40 years ago...and they took an unmanned vehicle and dropped it on the moon...so the celebration was for what??? hitting the moon??? what?... has it shrunk??? they crashed into the moon, not pluto. it's only 230,000 miles from earth!! i got more mileage on my 1997 chevy lumina.

[edit on 17-10-2009 by jimmyx]

reply to post by TeslaandLyne


I was thinking a huge green balloon in the shape of an Apple
logo. Full moon gone? Deflate and store in the shed.
Ford logo would also look good. - Blue and white -

reply to post by jimmyx


It's too bad they couldn't put a small earth moon camera on the
Hubble. I would like to see the Hubble telescope put inside a
small space station someday. Hubble down below. NASA living
quarters in a saucer shaped dome up top.
Forget the solar panels. Just use hydrogen fuel cells.

Originally posted by jimmyx
yeah...too bad they couldn't spend a couple thousand dollars for a decent camera...both of those cameras looked like they got them from the parts storeroom of NASA.

You do realize that they were streaming video footage and other data from nine different instruments all at once right? And they don't exactly have a high speed broadband connection up there either. I think it would have been difficult to stream live HD quality video from just one camera, let alone nine.

All the cameras are commercially available at places like Ecliptic enterprises, UKAoptics and Ocean Optics just to name a few.

and the room the "controllers" were in?? what is that?...looked like a one of those 20 ft contruction trailers you see at housing sites.

Most missions, especially a small ones like LCROSS don't need a huge MCC.

reply to post by jra


Cool videos. Shuttle launches with a different point of view.
Ecliptic Videos

[edit on 17-10-2009 by Eurisko2012]

[edit on 17-10-2009 by Eurisko2012]