A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Science Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

New Russian Moon probe



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 6th 06, 11:44 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.moderated
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default New Russian Moon probe

Interesting concept- launch penatrator probes from lunar orbit:
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/new...aw060506p2.xml

Pat

  #2  
Old June 7th 06, 02:11 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.moderated
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default New Russian Moon probe

Pat Flannery writes:

Interesting concept- launch penatrator probes from lunar orbit:
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/new...aw060506p2.xml


From the same article:


"The Russian lunar mission is to follow the launch in 2009 of a Russian
sample return flight to the Martian moon Phobos as part of a renewal of
Russian robotic planetary exploration, Moiseev told Aviation Week &
Space Technology."



Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  #3  
Old June 8th 06, 11:32 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.moderated
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default New Russian Moon probe

Oddly LUNAR-A has been on hold, as having been NASA sequestered out of
sight and thus out of mind for more than a decade. So what's the big
freaking technological deal of sticking probes into moons?
-
Brad Guth


Pat Flannery wrote:
Interesting concept- launch penatrator probes from lunar orbit:
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/new...aw060506p2.xml

Pat


  #4  
Old June 9th 06, 01:51 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.moderated
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default New Russian Moon probe

Brad Guth wrote:

Oddly LUNAR-A has been on hold, as having been NASA sequestered out of
sight and thus out of mind for more than a decade. So what's the big
freaking technological deal of sticking probes into moons?
-
Brad Guth



Well, I've had the doctor stick a temperature probe in my moon on
occasion. :-P

Pat

  #5  
Old June 10th 06, 04:49 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.moderated
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default New Russian Moon probe

In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote:
Interesting concept- launch penatrator probes from lunar orbit...


The challenging part is *undecelerated* penetrators, which would be a
substantial advance on the current state of the art, if they can pull it
off.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

  #6  
Old June 10th 06, 06:02 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.moderated
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default New Russian Moon probe

Henry Spencer wrote:

In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote:


Interesting concept- launch penatrator probes from lunar orbit...



The challenging part is *undecelerated* penetrators, which would be a
substantial advance on the current state of the art, if they can pull it
off.


The article seemed to imply a probe dispensing "bus" that would drop the
probes as it fell toward the lunar surface in a descending spiral from
lunar orbit.
This technology would by-and-large be based on existing ICBM technology
for MIRV deployment (i.e. It spins, and hurls the probes off of its
normal ballistic trajectory at various speeds and release points during
that rotation at various altitudes in its descent to make sure they hit
their intended destinations).
Is this classified? That's the most logical way of making a MIRV bus work.

Pat

  #7  
Old June 10th 06, 06:10 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.moderated
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default New Russian Moon probe

Henry Spencer wrote:

In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote:


Interesting concept- launch penatrator probes from lunar orbit...



The challenging part is *undecelerated* penetrators, which would be a
substantial advance on the current state of the art, if they can pull it
off.



You know what comes in handy here? Those dual warheaded antitank
missiles. The probes fire an explosive charge in their noses just at
impact, to halve the impact G's as they contact the lunar surface. A
single impact deceleration becomes two separated by microseconds, each
of which becomes half as severe.
End result: Overall impact stress on the probe becomes around 2/3rds
what would be needed without this system.

Pat

  #8  
Old June 10th 06, 03:00 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.moderated
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default New Russian Moon probe

Pat Flannery wrote:
Well, I've had the doctor stick a temperature probe in my moon on
occasion. :-P

Pat

GOT ACTUALY PROOF! Pat?

It seems the hard-science of merely dropping something of a probe from
a given distance above our extremely nearby and still salty moon isn't
available, at least not any more so than our science for understanding
the survival of raw ice coexisting in nearby space is available.
Instead we have lots of the usual NASA and of their media hyped
hocus-pocus worth of conjectures as having been extracted from their
remote soft-science, as having since been moderated to death in order
to carefully suit the given follow-the-money agenda of their
infomercial or bust day.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4871934.stm
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/X_...ep_Impact.html
As reported by the obviously christian revised infomercial-science as
contributed from UK/US scientists using our spendy Swift telescope,
whereas the Tempel-1 impactor of merely 370 km is now via their
religiously correct NASA being reported as having eventually released
250,000 tonnes worth of water from that otherwise mostly dusty/pumice
comet, therefore whatever other tonnage of physical impact debris from
the less than 10.2 km/s encounter is somewhat missing in action. For
some reason the actual hard-science pertaining to whatever's of other
than the release of water/ice isn't the least bit important to their
follow-the-money trail of whatever their infomercial or bust God wants
to hear about.

By way of many such instruments and of individuals as supposedly having
good expertise, At first impact it supposedly vaporised 4500~5000
tonnes of water, but surprisingly had released even more tonnage worth
of dust. Yet other perfectly viable science had placed the initial
impact at taking out a firm crater mass worth of debris as having
ejected only 1000 tonnes, which seems a little wussy by comparison of
what had somehow leaked and/or emerged as amounting to the 250,000
tonnes worth of just the raw element of water/ice ever since that
little impactor event, which might otherwise have to suggest upon
another good amount of primary and secondary tonnage that'll pertain to
whatever else got vaporised or having continued to melt and
subsequently vaporise/leak away.

That's actually suggesting quite an impressive impactor ratio of just
the water/ice becoming worth 250,000t per 0.37t = 675,675:1, suggesting
that perhaps the grand total of everything involved might be greater
than 1e6:1, which could come in real handy for the task of terraforming
our moon into having a bit more of an atmosphere.

Supposedly Tempel-1 continually leaks at a rate of 16,000 tonnes of
water/ice per day, and to think that's merely 5.84e6t/year or 5.84e6 m3
worth per year and still oddly never manages to get itself any smaller
or by such an amount of having less physical mass per year. I guess
those conditional laws of physics, as they apply to such comets and
asteroids that'll manage to keep their faith-based infomercial-science
going strong will never fail to amaze us village idiots.

Now we have ESA's Don Quijote mission, with their spendy Hildago mother
ship and of it's Sancho companion impactor, which is obviously also
avoiding the usage of our nearby salty moon that was once upon a time
an icy proto-moon of an asteroid as initially coated with perhaps 262
km worth of salty ice.

I've previously suggested a very cost effective and relatively low-tech
notion of impacting our moon with large blocks or spheres of dry-ice
containing the likes of Ra and LRn as their core, or as for merely
containing salty ice, or perhaps as offering an impactor core of spent
nuclear fuel representing as good as anything since the moon is already
a gamma and hard-X-ray environment (a solid form of Van Allen zone) to
start off with. Unfortunately, at least thus far we've established
absolutely no such hard-science as to raw ice coexisting upon or even
within our moon, or even as having coexisted in nearby space, much less
after having impacted with such ice upon our physically dark and TBI
nasty moon, that which so badly needs to get terraformed, into at least
offering something of a local atmosphere made of heavy enough elements,
that which only the most robust of robotics would tend to appreciate.
-
Brad Guth

  #9  
Old June 10th 06, 07:35 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.moderated
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default New Russian Moon probe

In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote:
What was the total G deceleration of our Galileo probe a it hit
Jupiter's atmosphere?


It peaked at 230 G.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is the Moon Hollow? Sleuths? Imperishable Stars Misc 46 October 8th 04 04:08 PM
The Apollo Hoax FAQ darla Astronomy Misc 15 July 25th 04 02:57 PM
The apollo faq the inquirer UK Astronomy 5 April 15th 04 04:45 AM
The Apollo FAQ (moon landings were faked) Nathan Jones Misc 8 February 4th 04 07:48 PM
First Moonwalk? A Russian Perspective Astronaut Misc 0 January 31st 04 04:11 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.