[Note: I am live tweeting the Hubble servicing mission on my @BANews Twitter feed. Sunday is when they fix STIS, and I'll be hanging on the NASA video feed for every second of it!]
 |
The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, NASA’s first step in (what better be) a return to the Moon, has been delayed from June 2 to June 17. It’ll be launched on an Atlas with a Centaur upper stage rocket. After LRO is deployed and sent lunarward, the Centaur will be aimed at the Moon as well, but on a collision course. It’ll slam into the Moon so that LRO can observe the impact and learn about the lunar surface (and presumably what’s beneath it as well). Since a Centaur has never been used in this way before, NASA is delaying the launch so they make sure some valve issues are understood and under control.
Delaying a lunar shot isn’t that bad, since the Moon only goes around the Earth. That makes timing easier; it’s aiming at other planets that’s harder to delay since their relative positions around the Sun — and therefore their velocities — can change by so much with time. This two week delay for LRO is frustrating but not a huge problem, unless you’re impatient like me when it comes to launches.
May 16th, 2009 at 11:06 am
I am extremely impatient with delayed launches. It’s just that space is so freaking huge that discoveries don’t seem to happen fast enough, and it takes a long time to get one of those suckers up. Worse yet is when exploring far away things like Saturn, Jupiter, and Pluto recently. They freaking take a long time time to get there, like a decade. I will be like what? Around my mid 20s years of age when New Horizon gets there. And look at Mercury, they can’t just stop there, they have to pass through it 3 times before stabilizing in orbit, although it did manage to get cool pictures.
May 16th, 2009 at 11:46 am
*disappointed*
May 16th, 2009 at 11:46 am
question:
you answered well enough why the Hubbell can’t be used to shut up moon landing conspiracy theorists… Will the LRO be able to take a damn picture of the rover?
May 16th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
@techskeptic:
According to WP:
“LROC will fly several times over the historic Apollo lunar landing sites, with the camera’s high resolution, the lunar rovers and Lunar Module descent stages and their respective shadows will be clearly visible.”
That *STILL* won’t convince the hardcore nutters, though. For instance, I found this hilarious paragraph when looking up the Flat-earth Society:
In 1956, Samuel Shenton took over the Universal Zetetic Society and founded the Flat Earth Society. The organization took a hit when satellite images taken from outer space showed the Earth as a sphere rather than flat, but they were not fazed. Shenton remarked: “It’s easy to see how a photograph like that could fool the untrained eye.”
Only time will tell to see how Joe Rogan reacts to the upcoming LRO photos.
May 16th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Sadly I agree, they will simply claim the photos are fake. Can we launch conspiracy theorists to the moon? Whats with Joe Rogan? I apparently missed something.
May 16th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
@techskeptic: Phil and Joe went head-to-head on Penn Radio a couple of years ago. Apparently Joe was really convinced by some of the hoax proponents’ arguments. The 2 radio shows were hilarious, the second with Joe doing a Gish Gallop of rapid-fire nonsense.
Phil also did a post of the entire debacle here:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/01/31/memories-rogan-and-me/
There’s several links in there to a few different versions of it, and maybe a couple of other blog posts, I think. You can find more from there.
Dunno if he’s changed his tune since the Mythbusters episode, haven’t heard any updates
LRO will show how hardcore he is, I guess.
May 16th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Genuine question: What’s the argument for funding a return to the moon over other NASA projects? I ask as a space enthusiast (and graduate student in astrophysics) whose primary interests lie away from planetary science. What’s the scientific value of a return trip?
May 16th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
@IBY…
Awe, you’ll be in your mid-20s when NH gets to Pluto. Sheesh.
When I was in my mid-20s Pluto was still a planet!!! 
But (somewhat) seriously… how much do you know about orbital mechanics, and what it takes to get a space mission to a specific target? They can’t just fly MESSENGER right up to Mercury and put on the brakes like it’s the Enterprise, the Galactica or Serenity. But I agree – I’m also impatient to get missions going.
May 16th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Jeremy,
There may be very little scientific need to put astronauts back on the Moon. I do think there’s real value to more in-situ exploaration of the Moon. In particular, a broader, more representative set of geological samplings from the surface (including the far-side and polar regions) might guide better theories of the Moon’s origin.
But I’m sure that this can be done nowadays with robots. Think of how much value has been delivered by robots on Mars. And in the case of the Moon, operator’s on Earth can traverse the surface nearly in real time. The intrinsic value of lunar astronauts is very slim, on the whole.
May 16th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Hate to hijack the thread, but: Stop the Presses: There’s been a major paleontological find!
More here: http://paleonews.wordpress.com/2009/05/12/2009-05-12-darwinius-masillae-lanello-mancante-dellevoluzione-umana-missing-link-of-human-evolution/
Film at 11.
May 16th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Oh no, space junk wasn’t bad enough, now we’re dumping more on the moon!
The Centaur crash will be interesting; how will the rocket be pointed at the moon – will it still have fuel to burn after separation from the orbiter or will it just be given a little nudge after separation?
Maybe someone can develop a Wal.E to put on the moon. Charge batteries, run around like crazy, prepare for the long lunar night, wake up and repeat. Surviving the lunar night would be a huge challenge though.
May 16th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
@Tom Huffman: The only problem with that is that there *is no* missing link. The ‘missing link’ is a myth and a propaganda tool of creationists. Yet another intermediate species is good news though.
May 16th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Question: I remember on Astronomy Cast a while back Pamela Gay saying that there will soon be a mission to the moon where they slam a big thingy into it, and are going to time it along side a full moon so as to allow amateur astronomers be able to see it with even an 8″ scope (which I have, so naturally I’m very curious). Is this that mission?
May 16th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
They can go with the tourists, if any HBs are still around then. Richard Branson, or his successor, might even find it an amusing publicity stunt to pay the fare for a few of them. NASA I trust has better uses for its (our) money.
Probably none, in the usual sense, but I’d say the scientific value would be in getting people more interested in, and supportive of, science.
May 16th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
With the launch delay, when is the projected lunar impact & what will be the phase?
May 17th, 2009 at 12:51 am
One could argue that there is a lot of scientific value in learning how to survive for an extended period on the moon (or anywhere else, outside the protective magnetic field of the earth), and that this knowledge is just as valuable as, say, the exact composition of the atmosphere of Pluto.
Don’t get me wrong; I look forward to the day New Horizon reaches it’s destination, but I’m really excited of the prospects of human exploration.
Slightly on the topic of human exploration; Given the problems with replacing some of the components on Hubble, who still believes this could’ve been solved by a robotic mission?
May 17th, 2009 at 1:17 am
I think Hubble may be a bad example… I saw something the other day that pointed out that, for the cost of a manned servicing mission, we could put up a whole new telescope (with unmanned delivery). Kinda dampened my enthusiasm for the mission.
May 17th, 2009 at 3:57 am
@Nemo
“Probably none, in the usual sense, but I’d say the scientific value would be in getting people more interested in, and supportive of, science.”
There actually is a lot of scientific value of having people there. Look at the trouble Phoenix had dealing with the soil on Mars because scientists could not predict how clumpy it would be. A human can get around this much more easily than a robotic mission. They’re still great, but you’ll see a lot more accomplished quicker once a field geologist gets on site.
May 17th, 2009 at 4:17 am
Why colonize and inhabit the Solar System (and beyond?)? Again, no guarantee of anything, but if our species does not it will go extinct.
However, even if it does become extinct, all those satellites, spacecraft, etc, will be “monuments” to our species; even millions of years from now. So, if some future ET finally “finds” and explores this Solar System, there will be artifacts of a prior “intelligent” species with Earth as the focus even though all of our Earth evidence might be naturally recycled.
May 17th, 2009 at 5:00 am
@IBY
When I was at school in the ’50s I was convinced that in my lifetime we (ie humans as opposed to any particular country) would not only get to the moon but to Mars & Venus too (the temperature & pressure on Venus weren’t known at that time). I watched the first TV images transmitted via satellite from the US to the UK; followed the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo missions and saw Neil Armstrong take that first step onto the Moon.
Then it all seemed to fade away. Sure there was Skylab, Voyager, Soyuz, Pioneer etc., then the space shuttle, but the energy & excitement of the late ’50s and the ’60s dissipated – the space race seemed to be going on at snails pace. What it all boils down to is that the general public, the great unwashed if you like, lost interest after the space race was won (by the USA) and lost (by the USSR).
Whether you like it or not, and I know many contributors to this blog don’t like it, manned space missions are going to be the only way to get the interest and the funds necessary to get back to level of the ’60s. I hope you don’t suffer the same level of frustration & disappointment that I have.
May 17th, 2009 at 8:06 am
@Some Canadian Skeptic
Don’t know exactly when you heard that Astronomy cast, however, so far (recently) three objects have struck the Moon. The first was the Chandrayaan 1 (India) Moon Impact Probe which struck the surface near the South Pole on the 14 Nov 2008. A camera onboard took some still images as it crashed near a crater called Shoemaker, but no image campaign by astronomers on Earth observed the event as it was too far south out of view.
The second such object that struck very recently was the mini satellite, Okina, from the Kaguya (Japan) spacecraft on the 12 Feb last. It struck on the farside — the side which we can never observe from Earth because of the orbital mechanics between the Earth and the Moon — so that was a no-go. Incedentallly, there’s another small mini satellite involved here, callled Ouna, so that too might end up on the surface shortly as well as the main orbiter, Kaguya, itself. The latest I have is that the crash(s) will occur this June on the nearside, but please DON’T QUOTE ME ON THAT quite yet as these things change like the weather. If it does occur, however, you and your trusty 8″ telescope could see the event — all depending on advanced announcements, location, and timing etc.
And, finallly, the third object was the Chang’e 1 (China) spacecaft on the 1 March last. It did stike on the side of the Moon that faces us in a region known as Mare Fecunditatis (near where the US Luna 16 probe also landed back in 1970s). But, as to any observations made of the crash from Earth, I don’t think we had the time to do such a campaign as only a day later we only found out from NHK News that it had done so
Hope that helps?
John
PS — I recently produced a new Moon Atlas 2009 in 20 Maps, so that might help you prepare for any crash (and landing) events in the near future. It’s full of detail — nearly 3000 features, and comes in three formats for any type of telescope out there. Do have a peek ww w.moonposter.ie
May 17th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Steve A Said:
“A human can get around this much more easily than a robotic mission. They’re still great, but you’ll see a lot more accomplished quicker once a field geologist gets on site.”
Robots now are getting more done than any field geologist will do for quite a number of years. It’s fallacious to point out how much more a human could do on-location than robots [currently] do. With each robot comes experience, and at a lot lower cost all around than sending out people. For the cost of one crewed expedition to Mars, we can put a dozen robots there, on greatly varied locations.
And remember, if all you want is to keep people in the equation, then that’s no problem. People are always in the picture, right here on Earth.
May 17th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Chet Twarog Said:
“Why colonize and inhabit the Solar System (and beyond?)? Again, no guarantee of anything, but if our species does not it will go extinct.”
In the long run we’ll go extinct no matter how many planets we live on. And what makes you think other planets don’t hold the same kinds of perils we face here on Earth?
May 17th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Chet Twarog Says:
Why colonize and inhabit the Solar System (and beyond?)? Again, no guarantee of anything, but if our species does not it will go extinct.
However, even if it does become extinct, all those satellites, spacecraft, etc, will be “monuments” to our species; even millions of years from now.
This comment triggered my memory that there is now a series Life After People (on History Channel?) that shows what would happen after X months/years moving forward. They have NOT mentioned what would happen to the satellites and probes after various times, and I suspect that any Earth orbiters would wind up deorbiting because of the ever-so-slight friction with the extended atmosphere (not to mention the variation in the density of the atmosphere from solar events).
Voyagers, etc. that are independent of planets would probably continue, but I suspect that while any orbiting (Earth, Mars, etc.) satellites would eventually wind up ‘falling from the sky’.
That would be an interesting episode for LAP. (IM[NS]HO)
J/P=?
May 17th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Not true. Once we get just a handful of stellar systems we will grow exponentially till fill the whole galaxy so there would be no way of getting extinct.
May 17th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
like the one who can do 5 minutes of geologist work in a week ? Or the one who needs several years to move a distance you could cover in half an hour ?
May 17th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
T_U_T Said:
“Not true. Once we get just a handful of stellar systems we will grow exponentially till fill the whole galaxy so there would be no way of getting extinct.”
So you think the Universe will always be conducive to our longevity? That’s a premature assumption, at best.
and:
“like the one who can do 5 minutes of geologist work in a week ? Or the one who needs several years to move a distance you could cover in half an hour ?”
You should open up a can of reading comprehension. The robots are exploring Mars NOW, not ten years from now. Excuse me, I should rephrase that: PEOPLE are exploring Mars NOW. The tools in-use are robots.
IN FACT, robots are at this moment parked in places where human crews could ever venture.
May 17th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Universe will die of thermal death one day. But we ‘d have a trillion or so years to figure how to get to some other universe.
yeah. robots are better, than humans but only when there is no human around. Makes sense
May 17th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
T_U_T Said:
“Universe will die of thermal death one day. But we ‘d have a trillion or so years to figure how to get to some other universe.”
We can only figure that out if there are so-called other universes. Do you have any compelling evidence that there are others?
And do you really have the slightest comprehension what it means for “us” to exist for a trillion years? That’s just a word that’s all too easy to spit out. Humans haven’t existed for even a millionth that long. There’s no particular reason to *believe* we’ll continue indefinitely. For that matter, what makes you think that after a million or a billion more years that our descendants will even be human? We could evolve into creatures so ghastly and vulgar that you’d be ashamed to call them your kin.
“yeah. robots are better, than humans but only when there is no human around. Makes sense”
It’s not just robots. It’s instruments and methodology. Astronomers were learning things about the Universe before the word “robot” was even coined. It remains that way even today. Most of what’s known about the Universe has been discovered by people from a distance. Should we retire all our telescopes? Our seismographs? Our spectrometers? Should physicists give up exploring the elements because there are no people small enough to walk the nuclei?
May 17th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
No. And it is irrelevant. If we try searching for them and there are not, we lose nothing. But if they are, and we give up, we lose everything. So as long as probability of their existence is not exactly zero, trying is the only rational choice.
Of course there is. Complete lack of catastrophes that can wipe out entire galaxy cluster at once.
They will be still our descendants. How exactly would they decide to call themselves is absofuckinlutely irrelevant.
But equally, we could evolve into beautiful angelic beings of pure goodness. If it were unreasonable to try just because it could go all wrong, then even going out of the bed in the morning would be unreasonable.
that is a mighty gigaparsec sized straw man. I did not want to stop anything but humans, I merely pointed out, that where human can get, he can do more than a robot.
May 18th, 2009 at 12:24 am
Wow. Almost every sentence wrong. Let’s pick this mess apart.
No. And it is irrelevant. If there aren’t and we try anyway, we lose nothing. If there are, and we don’t try, we lose everything. So, as long as there is a nonzero chance that they are there, we should try.
No. Nobody has. And there is no other way to finding it out than trying.
Of course there is. There is no catastrophe that can wipe out entire local group of gallaxies. So, as long as we spread through it we would be indestructible.
Founder effect, disruptive selection and reproductive isolation make it sure that our descendants will split into large number of species. But it is completely irrelevant what species our descendants will nominally be, as long as the re will be any.
Some of them will surely monsters. And equally, some of them will be beautiful angelic creatures of pure goodness. But this line of reasoning is irrelevant at best, and selfdestructive at worst. If one had to give up just because it could go all wrong, you would not be capable of even getting out of the bed in the morning. Because, you don’t know, you could just go mad and kill a lot of people if you get out.
This is a multi gigaparsec sized straw man. You took my “dont’ abandon humans, they can make themselves usefull if we figure out how to get them there” and turned it into “abandon anything but humans” which is blatant nonsense you.ve made up and put it in my mouth
May 18th, 2009 at 2:08 am
“some valve issues are understood and under control”
They’re just playing Left 4 Dead
May 18th, 2009 at 8:35 am
T_U_T Said:
“Blah, blah, blah, …”
Wow. All that just so you can rationalise why you can’t stand not having warm bodies in-situ to the same labor that robots can do. You say that it takes a week for one of today’s robots to do what a field geologist could do in five minutes? So? Is that somehow a bad thing, that it takes a week? Are you really so impatient? You should be grateful you weren’t born a hundred years ago, when you would’ve waited a hell of a lot longer than a week. You’d have spend your entire life not knowing what we now know, thanks to robots.
May 18th, 2009 at 9:48 am
> “Blah, blah, blah, …”
You dont have antything on your defense, don’t you?
> You say that it takes a week for one of today’s robots to do what a field geologist
> could do in five minutes?”
At least you admit it now. :>
> Is that somehow a bad thing, that it takes a week?
Of course it is bad thing, and this have nothing to do with patience or lack of. This is matter of efficiency and progress.
I will omit nonsequitors.
May 18th, 2009 at 10:28 am
@ T.E.L and T_U_T
So, to sum up:
T.E.L. says it’s better to put robots in space than humans, and since humans are going to go extinct eventually we shouldn’t even try to colonize space.
T_U_T says that both robots and humans have their place in space, and that the best way to assure our premature extinction is not to colonize space.
Did I miss anything? I know whose side I’m on.
May 18th, 2009 at 10:29 am
MaDeR Said:
“Of course it is bad thing, and this have nothing to do with patience or lack of. This is matter of efficiency and progress.”
What makes you think the present situation is lacking in efficiency and progress? How many assays of martian rocks did we have 20 years ago? Answer: zero. Progress is being made, and it’s being done efficiently. Toting a bunch of hungry bodies along makes space exploration at least an order of magnitude more expensive, and they can make it harder for the instruments to do their jobs. Many of the solar images taken aboard Skylab were ruined because there were men bouncing off the walls? The Soviet Union traversed more of the Moon’s surface than the U.S. did, without making even a single bootprint. Just think of how much better a Lunokhod could be made today, compared to 40 years ago.
But whatever. You think that the pace of technological progress is somehow holding us back. I ponder that notion as I speak to you from a place which may be up to several thousand kilometers from wherever you happen to be. Perhaps you think the internet is keeping us from conducting this conversation.
May 18th, 2009 at 10:36 am
Chris A. Said:
“T.E.L. says it’s better to put robots in space than humans, and since humans are going to go extinct eventually we shouldn’t even try to colonize space.”
Feel free to open up a fresh can of reading comprehension. My argument wasn’t that we ought NEVER to colonize space. My comment about extinction was to show that “our long-range survival as a species” doesn’t mean that we now exist in a situation where it’s preferable to spend what little we have for putting hungry bodies on Mars. We’re nowhere near being able to colonize other planets. Right now we’re just at the phase where we’re LEARNING about other planets, and that evidently can be done effectively with remote instruments.
May 18th, 2009 at 10:56 am
While it may be true that robots can do the grunt work of the science in the exploration of space easier and for less, NOTHING can compare to the human experience of actually being there.
I understand the need for robotic exploration, I would not mind seeing one manned mission to the moon per year. If for no other reason than to hear, first hand their experience of actually being there. My dream is that someday, in the not too distant future, ordinary folks will have that experience for themselves. Others seems to be to get the science done for the least amount of money possible.
May 18th, 2009 at 11:22 am
@T.E.L.
Feel free to open up a fresh can of manners. And throw out the can of sarcasm–it’s getting stale.
Reading comprehension is only relevant when you actually put your arguments in writing, irrespective of whether you have them in your head. To wit, in response to the argument (paraphrased) “We must colonize space or go extinct” you responded with:
“In the long run we’ll go extinct no matter how many planets we live on. And what makes you think other planets don’t hold the same kinds of perils we face here on Earth?”
A reasonable person would interpret your statement as “we shouldn’t try to colonize space since we’re going to go extinct anyway and space is hostile” (as many did).
So, please explain how you expected a reader is to comprehend that what you MEANT was:
“Good point, but we’re still a long way from being able to colonize.”
To which I would respond: “True, but we still have a lot to learn about how to keep humans alive in space. Therefore, is it ever too soon to start trying to figure that out (given that human extinction from cosmic events like a K-T type impactor could be mere decades away)?”
You also did a nice job of putting words in other peoples’ mouths with the ridiculous straw man of “Should we retire all our telescopes? Our seismographs? Our spectrometers? Should physicists give up exploring the elements because there are no people small enough to walk the nuclei?” No one here suggested anything of the kind, so perhaps you should be searching the pantry for your own “can of reading comprehension.”
May 20th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
7. Jeremy Says:
May 16th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Genuine question: What’s the argument for funding a return to the moon over other NASA projects? I ask as a space enthusiast (and graduate student in astrophysics) whose primary interests lie away from planetary science. What’s the scientific value of a return trip?
We still don’t know very much about our moon, with only some 50 plus years of studying the moon its unlikely that we’ve learned everything there is to know already. Not to mention, once you have an answer in science you don’t just automatically accept it and move on. No, you test and retest until all reasonable questions have been answered. So I would say there is plenty of scientific reason to return to the moon.
From just learning about the moon, to using the moon as a test-bed. The thing that people have a problem with is whether or not there is sufficient reason to return to the moon manned. I think there is, if only because you don’t just blast off to Mars with green astronauts. Especially when your experience on another celestial body is limited in the first place.
Six missions to the lunar surface, that’s it, and we’re going to blast off to Mars on what we learned on those six missions?
Of course there is the argument whether we should have manned missions or not, but again I think we should. Why? Eventually we’re going to have to leave this planet to insure that the human race continues. Of course some believe that we’ll kill ourselves first, but giving up should never be an option. If it was why should we do anything?
I give a damn about the future, I know my views aren’t shared. The vast majority of humanity after all only gives a damn about it self, nobody seems to care about the future generations. Just their own amusement, and enjoyment here and now.
Then there is the older generation, who is angry and bitter and cares even less for the next generation. All they care about is that the world didn’t turn out the way they thought it would, but then again they weren’t being realistic in their hopes and dreams in the first place.
There is so much more to life, so much more to this wonderful world and the wonder of our universe. Yet it isn’t enough, humanity has to be a spoiled child who isn’t happy with anything. Hmph.
May 23rd, 2009 at 12:26 am
There seems to be an attempt by you and others to associate the alien artifact and lunar base question with the apollo hoax people.
Obviously, these are two different questions.
Alan Sturm, George Leonard and others have identified specific locations on the lunar surface which appear to be anomalous.
If you are so confident that there are no alien artifacts why don’t you recommend the the LRO imaging these sites?
The MRO did this for the “face on mars” and it Hoagland was proven wrong. Shouldn’t you want the same for the moon?
Fact:
1. Former employees of the Air Force and NASA have reported that structures were images during the Apollo years.
2. There are currently 3 orbiters circling the moon. Chinese, Japanese and Indian but no images are available of reasonable resolution (1 pixel =500m) are available of the suspicious sites.
3. None of these orbiters have imaged any of the anomalous structure sites identified by Leonard, Sturm, and others.
So, I have the courage of my own convictions. Do you? I will place a simple $100 bet with you, Phil Plait, that the LRO will NOT image the Leonard and Sturm sites. Deal or no deal?
If it does, I will give $100 to SETI, but if it doesn’t you can donate$100 to MUFON.
My suspicion is that the LRO will image some of the apollo sites, but will malfunction before it does anything else. Or, it will completely fail at launch.
The moon will keep her secrets (from the general public at least).