Moon Lcross Impact

[SPLog]

I heard about this today NASA is crashing a big arse object into the moon so they can collect data on the debris plume. Sounds fun.



Lunar CRater Observation and Sensing Satellite
Projected impact at the lunar South Pole is currently: Oct 9, 2009 at 1131 UTC.

LCROSS launched with the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) aboard an Atlas V rocket from Cape Canaveral, Fla., on June 18, 2009 at 2:32 p.m. PDT. The LCROSS shepherding spacecraft and the Atlas V’s Centaur upper stage rocket executed a fly-by of the moon on June 23, 2009 (LCROSS lunar swingby video stream coverage) and entered into an elongated Earth orbit to position LCROSS for impact on a lunar pole. On final approach, the shepherding spacecraft and Centaur will separate. The Centaur will act as a heavy impactor to create a debris plume that will rise above the lunar surface. Projected impact at the lunar South Pole is currently: Oct 9, 2009 at 4:30 a.m. PDT. Following four minutes behind, the shepherding spacecraft will fly through the debris plume, collecting and relaying data back to Earth before impacting the lunar surface and creating a second debris plume.

The debris plumes are expected to be visible from Earth- and space-based telescopes 10-to-12 inches and larger.

[Andy Chee]

Reminds me of Sam & Max:Season 1 and the "earthquake generator"

[osiris777]

damn it, missed the live video

[SPLog]

I missed the live feed but it was a bit off a fizz with all the hype that NASA was bombing the moon and which will bring the destruction of the moon and Earth etc etc... all funny stuff but the actual event was rather dull.

NASA's Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite, or LCROSS, created twin impacts on the moon's surface early Friday in a search for water ice. Scientists will analyze data from the spacecraft's instruments to assess whether water ice is present.

The satellite traveled 5.6 million miles during an historic 113-day mission that ended in the Cabeus crater, a permanently shadowed region near the moon's south pole. The spacecraft was launched June 18 as a companion mission to the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter from NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

"The LCROSS science instruments worked exceedingly well and returned a wealth of data that will greatly improve our understanding of our closest celestial neighbor," said Anthony Colaprete, LCROSS principal investigator and project scientist at NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, Calif. "The team is excited to dive into data."

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVYKjR1sJY4]YouTube - LCROSS Lunar Impact[/ame]

[SPLog]

LCROSS team members discuss preliminary results from the lunar impact and take questions from the media

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEV4IoUh_Gk]YouTube - LCROSS Post-Impact News Conference[/ame]

[trash]

I wonder if they got some advice from mythbusters ?

Yeah, you could land a probe on the moon and test for water, bugger that... the audience will love it if you smack it in at 9km/s.

[humax300]

Trash,you can correct me here but I thought the last Indian probe (from India) proved that lots of water(or could have been ice) had been detected.

[Uncle Fester]

I wonder if they are cheating and had water on board the empty rocket stage.
The moon needs a bit more publicity.

[trash]

Dunno ... I haven't been following the moon exploration that closely.

[Gerbertron]

The money could have been better spent
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Csj7vMKy4EI]YouTube - mr show-blow up moon[/ame]

[SCT]

Trash,you can correct me here but I thought the last Indian probe (from India) proved that lots of water(or could have been ice) had been detected.

Not water or ice.
There appears to be some evidence of water molecules (H2O) and hydroxyl ions (_OH) incorporated in the lunar minerals.


Future lunar bases could conceivably utilise these raw materials to manufacture water and oxygen to support manned bases as well as fuel manufacture for lunar based exploration missions.
Missions that are launched from the lunar surface would require far less fuel in order to achieve escape velocities and would allow a probe or other spacecraft to carry more fuel onboard allowing (for example) faster trip times to Mars or other destinations within our solar system as it would be able to carry out an acceleration burn longer with a greater fuel load than would be possible for earth based launches.

Of course an interstellar mission with any kind of a reasonable timeframe for a return mission would require a different kind of propulsion system that is currently not available although some form of an ion drive is probably the most likely starting point for this type of craft.

[trash]

Of course an interstellar mission with any kind of a reasonable timeframe for a return mission would require a different kind of propulsion system that is currently not available...

Depending on which of our stellar neighbours your planning on visiting, I would suggest that a "return" mission is going to require ..... the kind of propulsion system that is never going to be available.

A one way interstellar mission with current technology is theoretically possible, the stability of the cargo cannot be assured.
Imagine living the rest of your life inside your house with no windows. Any windows you did have would only give you a clear view of the night sky and nothing else.
You could have a telephone, internet connection and even cable TV in your house, but ever day, the latency increases by a few tens of seconds.

After 10 years, you'd throw yourself out an airlock.

[kcsoft]

i reckon nasa is looking for oil!!!

welcome to the united states of the moon!

there will be a new interstellar war on terror!

[trash]

Oil on the moon not quite.
It can be expected to find similar non organic or sedimentary minerals on the moon, but it's geology is slightly different from earth even though they have a common origin.
The moon has acquired more material outside of the core since it's formation, but for the most part, the surface of the moon is not much different from volcanic ash.

One thing it does have a lot of that Earth does not is Helium-3. There may be fusion applications for the material. If this kind of fusion technology was viable, then moon mining missions would become important.

Recovering Methane from the moons of outter planets might appear to be of interest, but the energy involved in retrieving it would seem better we stay at home. Recovering fissile material from other planets might be feasible in the very distant future, but capturing sunlight and converting it into chemical energy would appear to be ultimate goal or making fusion power small and cheap is where everything will end up.

[kcsoft]

Oil on the moon not quite.
It can be expected to find similar non organic or sedimentary minerals on the moon, but it's geology is slightly different from earth even though they have a common origin.
The moon has acquired more material outside of the core since it's formation, but for the most part, the surface of the moon is not much different from volcanic ash.

One thing it does have a lot of that Earth does not is Helium-3. There may be fusion applications for the material. If this kind of fusion technology was viable, then moon mining missions would become important.

Recovering Methane from the moons of outter planets might appear to be of interest, but the energy involved in retrieving it would seem better we stay at home. Recovering fissile material from other planets might be feasible in the very distant future, but capturing sunlight and converting it into chemical energy would appear to be ultimate goal or making fusion power small and cheap is where everything will end up.

i still smell an alterior motive....
there's something they're not telling us.
we can't be that desperate for resources that we're going to destroy/rape moons and other planets.

[trash]

They're not after resources, it's much cheaper to find everything here on earth. Bulk Helium 3 is about the only exception and we have no need for it right now.

Space exploration is more about science than anything else. The problem is it is expensive, complex and risky to send humans into space. The reason for doing so is that humans can make decisions and react in ways that machines cannot.

Compare the time and effort it takes for a robotic rover to move around on Mars with a human spending just a couple of hours on the surface. He can recognise and select rocks from thousands of interest in seconds, within even basic equipment on the ground he can learn more about one rock in minutes than an entire robotic mission could.

The most important things we gain from deep space missions is knowledge, and second experience. The things we learn now will pave the way for future generations like the mercury, gemini and apollo missions have done for us.

Moon missions really are a dress rehearsal for a Mars mission while doing their own research. The Russians know that they have the ability to get to the moon, and even offer it as a space tourist package. The last quote I saw from them was ~$100 million usd. For that they will take you to Lunar orbit and bring you back. If you want to decend to the surface, well they haven't quoted for that yet.
A soyuz capsule has the ability to do the journey. A progress cargo ship can bring up a the extra stages for soyuz to achieve escape velocity.

The Americans need to consider this carefully. Use very small reliable boosters to get equipment and people into orbit. The Russians do it so well and so cheap, so using them to just get your people into space may be the way to go.
A vehicle is constructed in space and this takes astronauts to the moon and it brings them back. Modules are used to refuel these transit vehicles. Again, they should be small and light. There's no need for luxury, they're nothing but a lunar taxi. They may carry a LEM if one isn't sent to the moon remotely first. The incoming crew vehicle docks with the remote LEM, the crew decend, the old crew come back up and return to earth.
There is always a spare transit vehicle in orbit from the original one way mission.
coming back to earth, bring the transit vehicle back to earth orbit rather than de-orbiting it like apollo. A Soyuz mission picks up the crew or exchanges crews.

For a Mars mission, things are a little more complex because there is no rescue plan. The crew is just too far away to help. So insurance and redundancy need to be built into the mission.

First step is to send a supply ship to Mars orbit.
Next is to send a return vehicle fuelled ready to come back, with a descent vehicle and an ascent vehicle and put it on the surface remotely.
Next is to drop equipment on the surface.
Then finally to run the manned mission with the lander and ascent vehicles.

The crew then has an insurance policy. If any one part fails, there is enough redundancy
in the mission to give crew some chance.