NASA probes approaching the moon

  • Context: NASA 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Naty1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Moon Nasa Probes
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on NASA's recent lunar missions, specifically focusing on the spacecraft's approaches to the Moon and their intended studies of the Moon's gravity field. Participants explore the implications of these missions, including technical aspects of orbital mechanics and the historical context of NASA's space activities.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that NASA has two spacecraft involved in lunar studies, with one currently orbiting and another approaching the Moon.
  • Another participant highlights the significant uncertainty in the Moon's gravity field, particularly on the far side, and the goal of achieving a more precise gravity model.
  • There is a mention of the spacecraft needing to transition to lower orbits before scientific operations can commence.
  • Some participants express surprise at NASA's ongoing activities in space, questioning the impact of political decisions on these missions.
  • Discussion includes the cost-effectiveness of outsourcing human launch services compared to previous Shuttle missions.
  • One participant raises a question about the fuel-saving strategies employed in the lunar missions, seeking clarification on how fuel savings are achieved despite the longer travel time.
  • Another participant explains the concept of weak stability boundary theory and its application in the missions, suggesting it allowed for significant fuel savings while extending the travel duration.
  • There is a follow-up inquiry about a specific engine burn during the mission, indicating some confusion about the fuel usage in relation to the mission's approach.
  • Participants also mention other NASA missions, indicating a broader context of ongoing space exploration beyond the lunar missions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of curiosity and skepticism regarding NASA's activities and the technical details of the lunar missions. There is no clear consensus on the effectiveness of the fuel-saving strategies or the implications of political decisions on NASA's operations.

Contextual Notes

Some discussions involve assumptions about the efficiency of fuel usage and the technical details of orbital mechanics, which may not be fully resolved. The conversation also touches on historical context regarding NASA's funding and mission priorities.

Physics news on Phys.org
This satellite pair will give a much better picture of the Moon's gravity field, especially the field on the far side. Uncertainty of the gravity field on the far side of the Moon is about 100 mGal, 10 times greater than the 10 mGal uncertainty on the near side. The goal is a uniform 0.1 mGal, or 10-6 m/s2, uncertainty gravity model. (1 Gal, or 1 galileo, is an acceleration of 1 cm/s2.)
 
Latest news is that both are in initial elliptical polar orbits. They've got to get down to ~35 mile high circular orbits before the 'science' can begin...

linky
 
I was surprised to see any NASA activity in space: I thought President Obama pretty
much shut them down...but maybe that was only manned spaceflight?
 
Naty1 said:
I was surprised to see any NASA activity in space: I thought President Obama pretty
much shut them down...but maybe that was only manned spaceflight?
Credit goes to Bush, not Obama, for the end of the Shuttle program. Credit Obama for canceling the Constellation project. However, development of the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle is ongoing. (Without a rocket on which to put it. Different story.) For now, the US is outsourcing human launch services to Russia. At $62.7 million a pop.
 
D H said:
For now, the US is outsourcing human launch services to Russia. At $62.7 million a pop.

Which is significantly cheaper than the $450 million for each Shuttle mission.

There's a lot of depressing things about the idea of the US having no manned space capability of its own, but the cost isn't one of them (at least if the Shuttle is the US's only manned space program).
 
This voyage to the moon was "fuel saving", though it took longer. How does this work? You still have to escape Earth, still have to slow down (brake) into moon orbit -- how do you manage to save fuel? And about how much fuel (%-wise) is saved?
 
Oldfart said:
This voyage to the moon was "fuel saving", though it took longer. How does this work? You still have to escape Earth, still have to slow down (brake) into moon orbit -- how do you manage to save fuel? And about how much fuel (%-wise) is saved?
The missions took advantage of some features of the restricted four body problem. Here the four bodies are the Earth, the Moon, the Sun, and the spacecraft (the "restricted" body, meaning an object with negligible mass). A vehicle that goes into the vicinity of the Moon by going through the space in the vicinity of the Earth-Moon L1 or L2 point with the right energy will automatically enter lunar orbit without need for any burn. It will be captured ballistically. So how to get this "right" energy? One way is to have the vehicle slowly inch its way there. That's what was done with Hiten.

These missions did something different. They instead took advantage of a weak coupling between the Sun-Earth and Earth-Moon systems. The name for the underlying theory is weak stability boundary theory. Taking advantage of this apparently saved about 150 m/s Δv, but at the cost of increasing the flight to the Moon from the 3 to 4 day mission for a direct transfer to 60 or more days.
 
Thanks for the reply! Space.com says there was a 40-minute burn of the main engine to insert one of the Grail spacecraft into lunar orbit, so I'm still a bit confused about this. See http://www.space.com/14102-nasa-grail- spacecraft -moon-orbit-2012.html. My best guess, from what you say, is that this burn actually did not use very much fuel, or at least not as much as would be needed to brake from a "direct" approach to the moon.
 
  • #10
Naty1 said:
I was surprised to see any NASA activity in space: I thought President Obama pretty
much shut them down...but maybe that was only manned spaceflight?
The New Horizons probe is en route to Pluto, just beyond the orbit of Uranus.

Cassini is still orbiting in the Saturn system returning excellent data.

Juno is en route to Jupiter for detailed studies of the planet, rather than its satellites. (It is due a final sling shot gravity boost past Earth next year, though it is currently out beyond Mars.)

Oddysey is still functioning, I think, in Martian orbit and the Opportunity rover is wintering at Endeavour crater.

Mars Science Laboratory, a one ton lander, is due to arrive in August.

Messenger continues its program in orbit around Mercury and NASA has extended funding for a further year of data collection.

Dawn is in orbit around the asteroid Vesta, but will leave in a year or two for the dwarf planet Ceres.

There are also a plethora of probes in orbit around the Earth returning science information, plus space telescopes, sun observatories, etc. And don't forget NASA still receive data from both Voyager spacecraft , launched in 1977. They are 114 and 94 AU from the sun, nearing the edge of the solar system.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 63 ·
3
Replies
63
Views
11K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
12K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
6K
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
15K