| User | Post |
|
1:39 am
November 22, 2009
|
Luke Maurits
| | Adelaide, Australia | |
| Admin
| posts 1483 | |
|
|
I have created this new "mission planning" forum so that there is an obvious place to have important discussions about "big picture" aspects of the mission as a whole and do not fit neatly into a single workgroup. Examples of the kinds of things that are appropriate to discuss here are questions like:
- Do we really want to go with a two launch approach, where the first launch sends the lunar lander into lunar orbit via a low energy transfer orbit and the second launch sends the CSM into lunar orbit via a Hohmann transfer orbit, or stick with a single launch approach like Apollo? There has been much suppot for the two launch approach so far, but I feel like this is based more on the coolness factor of low energy transfers and not on principled estimates of which will be cheaper/easier etc.
- How exactly will the astronaut's transfer from the CM to the LM proceed?
- What exactly might we want to do during lunar EVA and what equipment will it require?
- Do we want the CM to splashdown into an ocean (ala Apollo), to land softly on solid ground (ala Soyuz), or for the astronaut to eject and parachute (ala Vostok)?
|
Main CLLARE workgroups: Mission Planning, Navigation and Guidance. I do maths, physics, C, Python and Java.
|
|
|
7:42 am
November 22, 2009
|
Rocket-To-The-Moon
| | Altus, Oklahoma, USA | |
| Member | posts 685 | |
|
|
This is a good idea. Even though we think that we know our general plan, it is time to really sit down and discuss it in greater detail. brmj, Robert, and myself had a productive conversation on Wave a few days ago. I know that you are supposed to be able to incoporate waves onto external pages, but I don't know if that feature is enabled yet.
|
Main Workgroups: Propulsion & Spacecraft Engineering
|
|
|
2:08 pm
November 22, 2009
|
noumena
| | |
| Member | posts 36 | |
|
|
I haven't seen anything yet on where on the moon the lunar lander would… land. Perhaps that would go under this heading as well?
|
|
|
9:02 pm
November 22, 2009
|
Luke Maurits
| | Adelaide, Australia | |
| Admin
| posts 1483 | |
|
|
Yep, this is exactly the place to discuss that sort of thing – and that is an important question. If you have any ideas relating to what would make good/bad landing sites, feel free to start a thread about it!
|
Main CLLARE workgroups: Mission Planning, Navigation and Guidance. I do maths, physics, C, Python and Java.
|
|
|
9:15 pm
November 22, 2009
|
Rocket-To-The-Moon
| | Altus, Oklahoma, USA | |
| Member | posts 685 | |
|
|
I don' t think that we are planning on doing serious science so an ideal landing site would probably be something with forgiving terrain and optimal communications with Earth. Where that is at, I don't know.
Here is a list of prior landing sites.
Here is a good discussion on the topic.
|
Main Workgroups: Propulsion & Spacecraft Engineering
|
|
|
9:25 pm
November 22, 2009
|
Luke Maurits
| | Adelaide, Australia | |
| Admin
| posts 1483 | |
|
|
Rocket-To-The-Moon said:
I don' t think that we are planning on doing serious science
Really? I think it would be nice if we could, although I'm not sure how realistic it is.
We should think about landing sites from an orbits point of view, too. If our landing site is located along the Earth-Moon orbital plane then we won't have to make additional inclination-changing burns after our lunar capture burn and before our trans Earth injection, which would be good.
PS: Congrats on 100 posts, Rocket. :)
|
Main CLLARE workgroups: Mission Planning, Navigation and Guidance. I do maths, physics, C, Python and Java.
|
|
Login 
Register 
Search 
Home
Topic RSS 
