Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Moon Space Science

NASA Begins Work on Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter 238

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
soldeed writes "Space.com is reporting the beginning of construction on the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Which is scheduled for launch in late fall of 2008. It will orbit the moon at fifty kilometers and image the entire surface at high resolution. A far Ultraviolet instrument will enable it to see into areas permanently in shadow and see if there is indeed ice there. LRO will count craters and image American and Soviet landing sites."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NASA Begins Work on Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter More

NASA Begins Work on Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter

Comments Filter:

  • A hoax indeed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Mrs. Grundy ( 680212 ) on Wednesday February 08, 2006 @05:21PM (#14673266) Homepage
    FTFA: Take note. For you "Apollo landings were a hoax" believers LROC's sightseeing abilities should set the record straight...

    Like I'm going to buy that. If they could fake the whole dog and pony show in the 60's do they really think we're so guallible as to beleive they can't doctor a few images? Like NASA doesn't have photoshop.

    On a more serious note, when I read these amazing stories I can't help think of Hamlet:

    What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! how infinite in faculties! in form and moving, how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension, how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals! And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me;

    Here we are performing these amazing feats of technology while down on the ground we are firebombing each other, mincing words about what is and isn't torture, and rioting in the street over a few line drawings. Part of me thinks we should focus our resources on problems here where our feet touch the ground, but another part thinks that we have tried that long enough and hopes that maybe by demonstrating how admirable our faculties really are we may move beyond our differences and inspire some solidarity.

    • On the topic of those who believe Appolo was a 'hoax'
      I have never ceased to be amazed by people's ability to believe in completely radiculous things, even in the face fo a mountain of evidence to the contrary. Did they land on the moon? They did. It's not a matter of belief but of fact. On the other hand, do I ascribe the world-shaking importance to it that many do? No. It may have been a big step for man, but even a big step, is just a step. We're forever expanding our horizons in science, this prob

      • Re:How can you be sure? (Score:5, Funny)

        by vertinox ( 846076 ) on Wednesday February 08, 2006 @06:06PM (#14673607)
        Did they land on the moon? They did. It's not a matter of belief but of fact.

        Are you sure? Have you seen imperical proof? Have you been to the moon? Have you personally met anyone who has been to the moon?

        For that matter... Can we prove that there was the cold war? Or maybe World War 2?

        Maybe my Grandfather was lying to me. Or better yet, he believed he was telling the truth and was brainwashed? What if there is a grand conspiracy to write text books and doctor photographs of events that never happened.

        I mean what if we had photoshop for centuries and our ancestors were simply making up events as they went along and all our history boooks are made up?

        How do can I prove that all my family members aren't actors and the universe isn't a big joke and all my memories aren't simply false and the universe isn't only 6 seconds old and god is a big supercomputer sitting in some aliens basement?

        I can't.

        So I'll have to assume everything everyone tells me is true... except the people who are lying to me. ;)

        Now I just have to figure out who is lying to me.
      • I was actually quite amazed at how well some of the materials actually worked that were used during the Apollo mission. My boss said that a this tape that I was using was actually used on the lander. It is called kapton tape. I stared at it and then realzed how easy it would be for someone to think that it's utterly useless. Anyone not in my position (consistently chucking copious amounts of it into UV chambers without it degrading for a week) would think of it being stupid yellow tape. For people who t
      • There's a pretty good debunking of the "Moon Hoax" theory here [uncyclopedia.org].

    • Re:A hoax indeed (Score:5, Funny)

      by Bogtha ( 906264 ) on Wednesday February 08, 2006 @05:29PM (#14673333)

      Take note. For you "Apollo landings were a hoax" believers LROC's sightseeing abilities should set the record straight...

      Actually, that's "Apollo landings theory " thank you very much.

    • Considering the expense of space exploration, deep exploration will need many nations to come together. What unites people more then a common goal?

      Also, there are many people, and not all of us are firebombing people.

    • Like I'm going to buy that. If they could fake the whole dog and pony show in the 60's do they really think we're so guallible as to beleive they can't doctor a few images? Like NASA doesn't have photoshop.

      Do you have any evidence they actually didn't go to the moon? Or are you just sufficiently unswayed by the evidence that exists? [Or, you're quite possibly being flippant on behalf of those who think it's a hoax =]

      For example, the lunar laser ranging [nasa.gov] experiment has been in place since then -- and it is

    • Soviets would not have let us get away with it (Score:5, Interesting)

      by soldeed ( 765559 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @01:27AM (#14675460)
      I am 45, and grew up during Apollo missions. I closely followed every mission. I KNOW it happened. It could not be faked. If you disagree, consider, If it were a hoax the Soviet Union and any other country with a radio telescope could tell it was. On launch mornings, the television coverage would include a shot of the Soviet "trawler" hanging off the coast observing the proceedings. In fact, the soviets were very interested in observing our spaceflights. They tracked them in orbit, they tracked them going , decending, acending, and returning from the moon, and then at the splashdown theres another "trawler" hangin around. It was easy to do! you did'nt need a powerful radar as the spacecraft was constantly beaming back telemetry data and radio transmissions in the clear. Unbeknownst to the rest of the world at the time because of their absolute secrecy, the Soviets manned lunar program [russianspaceweb.com]was having a little trouble with their N1 [myspacemuseum.com] boosters blowing up. In light of their own failure, and the general hostile attitude toward the United States, you cannot convince me that they would just stand by and let us evil capitalist pigs get away such a fakery! WE WENT!
  • The article doesn't mention if these images will be public domain or not. It would be really awesome if they were. At present, Google Moon [google.com] is pretty damn low-res (I know it was created as a joke, but still), being able to zoom in and out of high-resolution pictures of the moon would be really cool.

    • NASA World Wind has Moon and more (Score:5, Informative)

      by CarpetShark ( 865376 ) on Wednesday February 08, 2006 @05:37PM (#14673391)
      NASA World Wind, which is quite similar to Google Earth, also has Moons and stars etc. You can also "drive" across a landscape, following it's contours, rather than just having fly-bys that don't give a sense of the real heights etc. It's more focused on educational uses, and open source too. All in all, a very interesting alternative to google earth. I wish the two projects would collaborate.

      Having said all that, I get weird "application error" messages with the latest version. Seems to work for most people though. Anyone figured this out yet?

    • Re:Public Domain? (Score:3, Informative)

      by imemyself ( 757318 )
      AFAIK NASA generally doesn't copyright any of the images or data from their missions(Hubble might be an exception though, atleast for the first year). More info here [nasa.gov].
      • You all know the real reason why they're doing this, don't you? We're photographing the moon because of reports that the soviets have a lunar base where they're harvesting human embryo's. Bush intends to nuke them.

        And they'll probably use it to deploy images of a fake landing site, like anybody's ever going to believe that we really landed on the moon. Everybody knows that was made up.

    • Re:Public Domain? (Score:5, Informative)

      by AKAImBatman ( 238306 ) <akaimbatman@gmaiBLUEl.com minus berry> on Wednesday February 08, 2006 @05:54PM (#14673525) Homepage Journal
      Government agencies are not allowed to hold copyrights. If the images belonged to a third party that NASA contracted out to, then you might have an issue. Fortuanetly, it's usually NASA's mission to get those photos, so they belong to NASA even if NASA contract for the space vehicle to be built by someone else.

      NASA's page on the subject. [nasa.gov]

  • Why This Moon Mission Is Important (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Real World Stuff ( 561780 ) <real_world_stuff&hotmail,com> on Wednesday February 08, 2006 @05:22PM (#14673277) Journal
    Ultimately, where there is ice, there is water. And with water, life is sustainable. Earth has a unique situation in thatwe have plenty of water, but based on present propulsion methods, it is terribly expensive to get it off the Earth. The Moon on the other hand may afford us a resource more accessably in lifting terms. Ultimately the Moon is just a small step in further space exploration.

    Louis Friedman said "Carl Sagan remarked, many years ago, that the Moon could end up a detour, rather than a stepping stone, to Mars. How lunar missions would lead to a Mars landing must be closely examined. The essential requirement is to keep the focus on sending humans to Mars -- investigating conditions of life and habitability on that planet."

    This desire to exlore mars is reliant on our mastering reaching and taming the moon.
    • Wouldn't it be relatively cheap to duplicate the rovers we've already sent to Mars and get more definitive answers about composition?
    • Ultimately, where there is ice, there is water. And with water, life is sustainable.

      Ah, reminds me of one of the greatest quotes of our age:

      "The Moon is essentially in the same orbit... The Moon is somewhat the same distance from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe."

      Sorry, I couldn't resist. Your post so much reminded me of our poor former Vice-President [quotationspage.com]. A

    • Re:Why This Moon Mission Is Important (Score:4, Funny)

      by corbettw ( 214229 ) on Wednesday February 08, 2006 @06:21PM (#14673709) Journal
      Ultimately, where there is [water in a solid form], there is water.

      Really? You dont say?
    • This desire to exlore mars is reliant on our mastering reaching and taming the moon.

      This is not the case. "The Case For Mars" clearly puts forward a case for the opposite, that the Moon is a diversion, that Mars is much richer in natural resources than the moon, and much more habitable. Not only is the moon less habitable, but there is very little science of any import to do there compared to Mars. Mars could have a self sustaining base, which that is very improbable on the Moon.
    • ...that the ice they are talking about is frozen H2O. NASA is horrifically low on money, so when its administrators start talking about locating stashes of "ice" and "snow", one has to wonder...

  • The Bigger Picture (Score:5, Informative)

    by lightyear4 ( 852813 ) on Wednesday February 08, 2006 @05:34PM (#14673371)
    The LRO, from TFA, is the opening volley of spacecraft in response to President George W. Bush's multi-billion dollar Vision for Space Exploration that he outlined in January 2004. Now, thats curious. The other NASA article [slashdot.org] we saw today made me reflect upon the sad reality of NASA funding. From THAT article [newscientistspace.com], we have the following information regarding its purse:
    • $6.234 billion for space operations, such as the shuttle and the International Space Station
    • $5.330 billion for science
    • $3.978 billion for exploration systems, including the development of the shuttle's replacement, the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV)
    • $0.724 billion for aeronautics research
    And another quote:

    The science programme, which Griffin called one of the nation's "crown jewels", increases by just 1.5% compared to 2006. Furthermore, science will receive annual increases of just 1.0% from 2008 to 2011, according to the budget request.

    Such slow growth is down to NASA removing $2 billion from the science budget over the next five years to help cover projected cost overruns of $3 billion to $5 billion to fly the shuttles safely until they are retired in 2010.

    Now, "crown jewel" NASA has been and can be; however, at the moment, it is a poor belittled child forced to do too much with too little. Bush proclaimed that the US shall return to the moon and regain its prestige in the international space community. Fine. But what irks me is that his words seem now, in retrospect, as political posturing carrying little weight. What progress can NASA truly be expected to make without enough funding? Sure, theres the national deficit, and NASA is a massive bureaucracy in and of itself that could do with a little less dead wood. But when you consider the costs of Apollo and Gemnini in today's dollars, the comparison between what IS being done and what COULD be done is a telling one.
    • Why dont they just mothball the space shuttle and get everything to ISS on Soviet Soyuz capsules and on conventional rockets (e.g. Titan, Delta, whatever the soviets have)?
      • Why dont they just mothball the space shuttle and get everything to ISS on Soviet Soyuz capsules and on conventional rockets (e.g. Titan, Delta, whatever the soviets have)?

        Unfortunately, to do that now would be to admit that it's been money down the rat hole. The only way to not lose credibility is to pretend it's OK and keep pouring that money...

  • Google Moon! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MavEtJu ( 241979 ) <<gro.ujtevam> <ta> <todhsals>> on Wednesday February 08, 2006 @05:53PM (#14673511) Homepage
    It will orbit the moon at fifty kilometers and image the entire surface at high resolution.

    I see a business opportunity for Google coming up!

    (and am waiting for the The Register's Black Helicopters Report about it)

  • Maybe they can... (Score:4, Funny)

    by rAiNsT0rm ( 877553 ) on Wednesday February 08, 2006 @05:55PM (#14673531) Homepage
    Take some photo's of any evidence that may be left on the moon from the original trip to finally shut all the whack-job fucks up about us not going to the moon for real initially.
    • Take some photo's of any evidence that may be left on the moon from the original trip to finally shut all the whack-job ....

      I agree it would DEFINITELY be interesting to see. I am thinking though, since the last man to stand on the Moon was Eugene Cernan in December 1972 that most of that evidence has been blown away or buried by dust particles.
      Maybe if they get high-res scans of the landing areas they can see if anything remains.

      I'll see you on the Dark Side of the Moon. [wikimedia.org]

      • Blown Away? By what, exactly? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Ellis D. Tripp ( 755736 ) on Wednesday February 08, 2006 @06:19PM (#14673695) Homepage
        There isn't any air to do any "blowing".....

      • Re:Evidence may have been blown away (Score:5, Informative)

        by necro81 ( 917438 ) on Wednesday February 08, 2006 @06:25PM (#14673725) Journal
        I don't think so - the remnants of the landings site are almost certainly in pristine condition. The moon has (essentially) no atmosphere for winds to blow around, and no atmospheric dust to settle on the site. There are no corrosives to eat away at the remaining equipment - principally the lower half of the LEM. Earthquakes are pretty weak and rare, so there is basically no chance that the sites have been swallowed up.

        I can think of only two mechanisms that could bring about wholesale changes to the sites. First a large meteor could have landed on or near the landing site and obliterated it, or covered it with debris. An impact like that would require a substantially-sized meteor - I'd guess on the order of 10 kg. Those kinds of impacts are rare enough as it is, and the chances of any one Apollo site being hit with one are miniscule, let alone all 6. Second, the intense radiation has weakened the man-made objects left behind to the point that they have crumbled to dust. This may be true of the plastics, but the metal remains would be nearly impervious to it, at least on the timescale of decades.

        The lunar explorations (robotic and manned) have proven that the Moon's surface does not change quickly. The Apollo astronauts fully expected that their footprints would still be visible in the dust thousands of years from now. In a million years, there may indeed be nothing left of the Apollo sites. On the whole, however, the Moon's surface has not changed during the whole timescale of human civilization.

    • Take some photo's of any evidence that may be left on the moon from the original trip to finally shut all the whack-job fucks up about us not going to the moon for real initially.

      Heh. They're too far gone to be shut up. Almost by definition, they don't listen to reason. I predict it'll be about forty seconds from the release of the first NASA photo till the first screams of "PHOTOSHOP!" from the nutcases.

  • Moon Landing (Score:2, Funny)

    by mercury7 ( 212316 )
    If this mission is a success, President Bush hopes that it will lead to a manned landing on the Moon at some point in the future.

  • Chinese (Score:3, Funny)

    by sammyo ( 166904 ) on Wednesday February 08, 2006 @06:17PM (#14673686) Journal
    I'll be pretty funny if on the first pass it
    sends back images of Chinese workers waving.

  • Details about the spacecraft and its capabilities (Score:3, Informative)

    by rufey ( 683902 ) on Wednesday February 08, 2006 @06:20PM (#14673699)
    You can get the details of the spacecraft from Goddard Space Flight Center [nasa.gov].
  • If the probe will be orbiting 50 km from the lunar surface, then it will be about twice as close as the Apollo CSM ever got. The typical orbiting distance for that was about 60 nautical miles (about 100 km). By contrast, spy satellites for the military in a Low Earth Orbit are about 500 km above the Earth's surface, and they can (purportedly) read lisence plates. Naturally, the LRO won't be the size, or have the capabilities, of a military spy satellite. Even so, considering the advances in camera techn
    • if I remember right, they're going for 5cm accuracy. Had to research this mission for my design class this year. We're using the LRO data to choose where we land our sample return. 5 freaking centimeters!

  • Now What Will THe Hoaxers Say? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by AlterTick ( 665659 ) on Wednesday February 08, 2006 @07:38PM (#14674125)
    For months I've been reading the ApolloHoax.net/clavius.org forum [proboards21.com] wherein a handful of ignorant goofballs continuously argue with scores of rational people about whether the moon landings were faked. When asked what it will take to prove to them that the landings are real, most essentially essentially evade the question because they're not interested in the truth-- they want to believe the conspiracy. But one nut at least likes to ask "why doesn't NASA go back and take some pictures if it's really true?" The rebuttal is usually along the lines of "even if they did, you'd claim THOSE were faked too". It will be interesting to see how long it takes him to start shouting "PHOTOSHOP!" once the pics come out...

    Really, I think the best proof that it's not a hoax is that there's no way that many people could keep a secret for that long.


    • Really, I think the best proof that it's not a hoax is that there's no way that many people could keep a secret for that long.

      Never worked in the defense industry, have you? There is PLENTY that gets locked down and stays that way. F o r e v e r.

      Stanton Friedman did a great rebuttal of that misconception on one of his Roswell books. Before you laugh too loud, have a look into his background.
  • Hey it looks like this story isn't regarded important enough to get it's own department.

    How about from the did-they-or-didn't-they dept

    Yes, I have no life.

  • Lissen, everyone knows (well, the top 50% of us do) that the Apollo moon landings were faked, and of course these new Lunar orbitors will be also!

    As proof, I offer you the fact, not theory, that fully 50% of the American people are below average intelligence. Do you think any OTHER country on this planet exhibits these dismal intellectual statistics? How could the USA have ever gone to the moon with this average IQ level?

    For that matter, there is no such thing as North America (or South Americ

Slashdot Top Deals

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell

Close