Let's get live video footage from the moon - on the moon

Let's face it: We had the technology do do a live video stream from the moon 40 years ago, using a simple VHF transmitter powered by first generation solar panels. I am sure there are a lot of reasons, the US government didn't do this, yet I can't get this idea out of my head, because it is "managable".

We see stories from kids launching rockets into space, making photos of he earths orbit, even "pet funerals" in outer space - yet no one has ever launched a project to simply place a cam on the moon?

My work involves R&D and programming as well as traditional design, yet I am a total nut when it comes to physics. I have plenty of free time and over the past two years, me and two friends developed plans for a unit that could do the job - for now on paper.

Let's assume we created a minimalistic robotic machine, 8 cameras supporting 360 degree view angles, an independent moving/rotating mechanism, any kind of main + secondary transmitter, motion detectors and 4 infrared units among other things. Let's also assume that we figured out how to supply that whole thing with enough energy. Weight: 82kg. Dimensions: 64cm x 64cm x 64cm.

My two major problems are uplink/downlink (e.g. communications - transmitter/receiver) and transportation. Secondary problems would be frequency jamming, radiation, technical failures, collision, misplacement.

Before saying that I am crazy and that it can't be done, let's just explore possibilities, step by step. I remember years ago, ATS was a place where projects (well, not of this scale) became reality, even headlines.

Let's do a "How to send a 80kg package to the moon and land it safely for Dummies"

Best,
George

Actually not a bad idea, OP. It would not be hard for us to do by any means and may yield some very interesting results. It's definitely with in the scope of "doable." Nice post. S+F

It's a nice idea and with the right funding and engineering very do able. The could go all over the place depending on what kind of launch method was used and how good a picture you wanted from the moon.

The biggest problem would be the rocket, which would cost billions to build and develop. I think the robot would be doable on a limited budget. But not getting it there would spoil the fun.

I think the only problem is the fact that there is no atmosphere on the moon.....supposedly.

So one of two things is going to happen.

A. We put a video camera on the moon and it may as well have been a still camera because absolutely NOTHING changes from minute to minute, hour to hour, day to day, it all stays the same.

B. We put a video camera on the moon and get to see for ourselves that NASA is full of # and there absolutely IS an atmosphere on the moon. We see dust blowing around,clouds moving,etc.

Either or, aint gonna happen.

Originally posted by absente

Let's do a "How to send a 80kg package to the moon and land it safely for Dummies"

Best,
George

Ok
www.googlelunarxprize.org...

Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by absente

Let's do a "How to send a 80kg package to the moon and land it safely for Dummies"

Best,
George

Ok
www.googlelunarxprize.org...

Very interesting, Phage. I don't know how you find these things, but it's an interesting link.

An even better idea would be to send multiple live broadcasting cameras to the moon. I've always wondered if the government would allow civilians to do such a thing.

reply to post by -PLB-


Getting there would be a problem. I think a sub orbital launch system would be neat. Might save a little on the fuel budget depending on how it was pulled off. But with a small payload of only 173 lb goal I think it could be done.

reply to post by -PLB-


No, not billions.

It all depends on the R&D of the delivery plattform (e.g. rocket). If you are doing a solar based approach (from earths orbit to the moon) it could really cost a lot more, yet it's more secure. If we use a multi-stage rocket system, powered only by fuel it will be cheaper, yet more mass. Someone with more knowledge please correct me - I am not competent enough on that one.

Speaking of power, launching a rocket to the Moon from a height of 35 km would take 10.73645 kg of fuel per 1 kg of rocket mass - at least that's the information I found on various forums on google - is this a correct value, or does it depend on the shape of the rocket?

Great Idea, wonder why they didn't leave live cameras going when they landed on the Moon.Seems like a simple thing to do since they were already there.

Originally posted by ObjectZero
reply to post by -PLB-

 

Getting there would be a problem. I think a sub orbital launch system would be neat. Might save a little on the fuel budget depending on how it was pulled off. But with a small payload of only 173 lb goal I think it could be done.

It saves too little, only 4%. E.g., for an orbit of 200 km about 96% of the energy goes into attaining orbital velocity while only 4% goes into attaining orbital altitude.

Originally posted by RocksFromSpace
Great Idea, wonder why they didn't leave live cameras going when they landed on the Moon.Seems like a simple thing to do since they were already there.

I've wondered about that as well. But we won't know why till we try sending something.

Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by absente

Let's do a "How to send a 80kg package to the moon and land it safely for Dummies"

Best,
George

Ok
www.googlelunarxprize.org...

thanks for the link, I wasn't aware there existed something like this. That puts things in a whole new perspective.

Edit: I browsed trough the participants - almost all the teams are backed by or themselves "lunar companies", providing "space services" to third parties. This whole thing looks too commercial to me. Their mission is to land an object and move it 500 feet while capturing HD image footage - nothing more.

I am trying to put a thing out there that can send images for years while exploring the surface in miles. I guess that's a major difference. I am not motivated by money either, it's my pure fascination for space and science that keeps me going with that project. And I am sure once one the moon, I can either debunk some conspiracies, or debunk some official government stories, which sounds good to me either.

This has been a dream of mine for years. Here is my idea on how to save on the weight and size of the rocket and the amount of fuel needed for the launch of said rocket.

This past weekend we watched a man jump from the edge of space from a balloon. Why couldn't the same method be used to launch a small rocket with a payload from the upper most reaches of our atmosphere to the Moon?

Less fuel would be needed to reach orbit from the launch point, which would be 22 miles or more above sea level.

Once in orbit, the transit vehicle would come around the earth and use gravity to gain speed, do a burn to break orbit and head to the moon.

I wonder how much paper work would need to be filled out just to launch the rocket?

reply to post by mikemck1976


Still have to figure out a way to control the landing (or crash) location on the moon. I'm sure NASA would be really pissed if you parked next to one of their landing sites.

Originally posted by Screwed
I think the only problem is the fact that there is no atmosphere on the moon.....supposedly.

So one of two things is going to happen.

A. We put a video camera on the moon and it may as well have been a still camera because absolutely NOTHING changes from minute to minute, hour to hour, day to day, it all stays the same.

B. We put a video camera on the moon and get to see for ourselves that NASA is full of # and there absolutely IS an atmosphere on the moon. We see dust blowing around,clouds moving,etc.

Either or, aint gonna happen.

Yes. It would need to be a rover for it to be interesting enough. A video camera on a simple lander (non-rover) would see all around it once, and then...see nothing new.

A rover similar to the Russian Lunokhod program (but with better live resolution) would be interesting:
en.wikipedia.org...

OP, I recommend that anyone hnestly considering doing this first download and run a fedw sims on the %orbiterspaceflightsim" it was created by a NASA ebgineer, and runs on real world physics. Using existing heavy lift, and lunar insertion technologies.

Here is the download: orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk...

This is a great open source platform for realworrld testing, you can make a virtual model of any design concepts and test them out before launch, so they can be debugged and ran through the paces, so you get all the kinkss worked out.

I am very open to any and all help I could provide, I love the idea, and think it is long overdue.

reply to post by mikemck1976

You will save only 4% of the fuel by doing a balloon approach. Most of the energy used is to attain orbital attitude, reaching escape velocity in order to overcome earth's gravitation.


reply to post by Box of Rain

The design of my machine is capable of moving in any direction - even if it turns over, etc. Yet est. top speed will be 2-3 km/h on optimal terrain, meaning under 1 km/h on moons surface.



reply to post by inverslyproportional

Thanks for the link, I guess it's a good way for a first check and then conforming it with "real math" if it has success. Nice find!