Slashdot Mirror


NASA Plans Robotic Lunar Scouts

bleckywelcky writes "NASA's plan to send robotic scouts to the moon in advance of astronauts is starting to take shape, but politics and the presidential election are stalling progress. Yet, NASA is already designing the first of the robotic explorers. The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter would return a global topographical map of the moon, measure deep space radiation in lunar orbit and attempt to find water ice at the lunar poles. Read the whole story."

12 of 122 comments (clear)

  1. Jesus, what next? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sure sure, and next thing you know they'll tell you they'll send a man on the moon. Sheesh...

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  2. Backwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ummm... isn't this a bit backwards? First send men, wait 30 years then send robots?

  3. Lunar Scouts by gtkuhn · · Score: 5, Funny

    Will they get special moon badges?

  4. Sharing Technology with Mars Rovers by iamlucky13 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Since NASA, with Lockheed and Boeing, is spending a fair amount of money on developing radio-thermo generator for the Martian surface laboratory, in addition to the chassis, it would seem to make sense to attempt to share the technology (and associated costs) between the two missions. This could save some money and give NASA more long term experience in developing, using, and maintaining standardized systems. I'm sure some of the instruments could be useful. For example, I don't know about current plans, but there had been talk of equipping a Martian mission, I think the sample return, with a drill for taking a deep subsurface core sample, with hopes of finding a permafrost layer. I expect it could be adapted fairly easily to be used on the lunar surface as well.

  5. Re:Won't they just quit? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Leave it to the private companies, they've given ample evidence of capability superior to NASA's

    Some dude flying a light aircraft at 360,000 ft for several seconds in 2004 doesn't even remotely qualify as proving superior to NASA's putting tons of men and equipment on another planet and bringing back many pounds of samples back on earth in 1969, sorry.

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  6. Green Cheese Mining by shubert1966 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well that's cool. It's a lot less expensive to send robots than it is to send people. They'll do more science. It'd be really cool if the robots could manipulate objects and construct a green house or a solar array or a water generating plant to sotre resources for future visits.

    Does the lunar soil have nutrients for plant life or would we have to send it up too?

    --
    Stuff that matters.
  7. So when is NASA... by dokebi · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...going to do a surface magnetic scan to look for the Monolith?

    --
    In Soviet Russia, articles before post read *you*!
  8. Re:Long day by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I read the title as "NASA Plans Robotic Lunar Scots"
    Was wondering what kind of kilts the robots would have.


    And here folks, we have a perfect example of method #34 of getting a +1:Funny rating on Slashdot. Let's detail a generic recipe for this method:

    1 - Quickly peruse the blurb, lift a sentence out of it

    2 - Quote the sentence in your post, pretend you read something else, presumably funny, by changing whatever word you want to anything you want.

    3 - Make some witty comment about what you supposedly thought, or wondered, or believed, by supposedly mis-reading the sentence.

    4 - Don't forget to indicate, somewhere in your post or in the title, that you're tired, you need coffee or you generally need rest, to explain why you would mis-read the sentence in the first place

    Voilà, no need to find a genuine sentence that's funny, just make up your own with some context and watch yourself be modded up!

    That, people, concludes the Slashdot lesson for the day...

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  9. NASA should take a lesson on these mission types by ravenspear · · Score: 5, Informative

    from the Lunar Prospector team. They flew a robotic craft around the moon for 19 months and collected detailed surface data all for a cost of only $65 million. Some say this was NASA's most cost effective mission ever. It originally met opposition because no one believed it could be done that cheap. But despite the low price tag, the data it produced was 10 times better than expected.

  10. Re:Won't they just quit? by purfledspruce · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Just think about this for a second. Here we have Rocket Scientists, real actual rocket scientists, who have done this before, and things still get messed up. What if we do leave this to amateurs? How many people will die because of small problems that private companies--who have never done this before--don't anticipate?

    And your cost estimate is waaay off. While NASA as a whole gets about $15 billion a year, the Genesis mission had a total cost to NASA of about $216 million, spread over several years for design, development, launch, and operations. You were two orders of magnitude wrong: http://www.xs4all.nl/~carlkop/genesis.html

    And really, Space Ship One had problems on its first flight. Just check out http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/06/21/suborbita l.test/

    It's just lucky that the problems weren't such that they would be fatal. After all, who would expect that a cold day could blow up a Space Shuttle? Or that a piece of foam the size of a backpack would cause another to disintegrate, when dozens of pieces of foam usually strike the leading edge of the wing?

    Your comment actually shows that you don't know how complex spacecraft are. Take a look at http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/spacecraft/index.cfm

    Consider how bad the radiation environment of space is. Without a magnetosphere to guard it, a spacecraft has to take the full brunt of the radiation put out by the sun, as well as any quasars, pulsars, black holes, and other sources. It's not like you can go buy a radiation hardened computer at your local Best Buy.

    So, really, you might be tired of NASA, but nobody, and I mean NOBODY but NASA could have made the two Mars rovers, put them on Mars, and kept them functioning as long as they have.

    You might be tired of NASA, but we are only just now beginning to understand how the solar system formed, and the Cassini probe is a large part of why we might be able to figure it out.

    You might be tired of NASA, but I'm not.

  11. Re:Won't they just quit? by xbsd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am so very tired of NASA. They may have accomplished some amazing feats, but they screw up so many things (sensors upside down, feet not meters, bad insulation, etc), and every time someone there miscalculates, BAM! there goes $10 billion of misappropriated taxpayer money.

    I rather spend 10 billion in the space program than 120 billion in a stupid war in the Middle East.

  12. 35 years behind the Russians by peter303 · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Russian space program sent the Lunokhod 1 rover to the moon in 1970 and Lunakhod 2 in 1973. Lunakhod 1 lived 8 months, moved over 10.5 km, and returned 20,000 pictures. Lunakhod 2 operated 4 months, moved 37 km, and returned 80,000 pictures.