Comments on: Moon missions and space policy

By: Harold LaValley

Harold LaValley — Mon, 08 Nov 2004 19:48:32 +0000

I found the Nasa exploration link that says what is known for moon missions as stated by Jeff.
http://www.exploration.nasa.gov/documents/level0_explore_req.pdf

By: Harold LaValley

Harold LaValley — Mon, 08 Nov 2004 17:01:37 +0000

Well in a day an age that we live in where it takes roughly a decade from nothing to actual launch, would it not be prudent to actual think about what we need to do before man can go and to find ways to get the probes built faster to keep to that once a year time frame.

By: Jeff Foust

Jeff Foust — Fri, 05 Nov 2004 20:35:32 +0000

Harold,

NASA’s exploration planning documents have stated that LRO is intended to be the first in a series of missions, roughly one per year, that will include orbiters, landers, and possibly sample return missions. Details on what those missions will be have yet to be worked out, and probably won’t for some time.

By: Harold LaValley

Harold LaValley — Fri, 05 Nov 2004 19:24:01 +0000

So far this is all I have found Lunar-A – JAXA (Japan) Lunar Orbiter and Penetrator Mission (2005)
SELENE – JAXA (Japan) Lunar Orbiter Mission (2006)
with the only Nasa mission being in a preliminary stage.
Moonrise – NASA New Frontiers sample return mission under study

By: Harold LaValley

Harold LaValley — Fri, 05 Nov 2004 04:06:25 +0000

I know that the Mars proposals have missions planned every two years but this is the first I have heard of moon missions beyound the LRO.

By: kert

kert — Mon, 01 Nov 2004 13:15:56 +0000

“First off, I believe that Mr. Muncy’s post is based on an erroneous premise. My understanding is that NASA is planning at least one robotic lunar mission a year through 2020.”

OK, im confused. Why are those plans not entirely public ? Why cant i just go to a website and look at the planned schedules and missions and goals for each and every one of them ?

By: Mark R. Whittington

Mark R. Whittington — Mon, 01 Nov 2004 04:37:04 +0000

First off, I believe that Mr. Muncy’s post is based on an erroneous premise. My understanding is that NASA is planning at least one robotic lunar mission a year through 2020.

Second, I think that it is quite a leap to take the fact that the LRO is being built in house (and I realize that there are legitiment arguments about doing that vrs a commercial mission) and saying, “So much for developing and settling the Moon.”

By: Jim Muncy

Jim Muncy — Mon, 01 Nov 2004 04:14:23 +0000

One of the problems with Goddard’s LRO mission is that it’s another single, monolithic planetary science mission. It presumes that there only really needs to be one lunar prospecting mission, instead of a stream of smaller cheaper missions that create a lunar telecom/navigation/reconnaissance infrastructure, much of which could be done commercially. And one of the instruments being pushed for the LRO is useless for the Moon, but is necessary for Mars. Apparently they’re using LRO as a testbed for Mars instruments.

So much for developing and settling the Moon.

By: Robert G. Oler

Robert G. Oler — Sun, 31 Oct 2004 14:17:01 +0000

The operative point is that despite the musings of some EVERY CHANCE NASA gets to use alt.spce internally it opts for well NASA space.

And the ADministrator doesnt change that.

Where is the evidence of reform?

Robert

By: Mark R. Whittington

Mark R. Whittington — Sun, 31 Oct 2004 13:38:14 +0000

I wonder who in the Congress is actually pushing for a commercial LRO mission. Sounds like an interesting basis for a debate after the election. If Bush wins, of course.