Here's the article:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1199

And here:

http://www.space.com/news/060316_nasa_moonlander.html

Quote:

NASA has been rethinking its robotic lunar exploration strategy over the last 18 months and recently concluded that it has no immediate need for any unmanned Moon missions beyond the heavily-instrumented Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) currently in development for a late 2008 or early 2009 launch.


So, it seems we won't have a moon lander soon. It's a bit worrisome, because original plans called for lunar landers, lunar rovers, sample returns and so on.

This is because NASA knows it won't be flying anything beyond the taxi version of the CEV, and that only into LEO, for another 20 or 30 years. Funding is just plain drying up for LSAM and Ares V development, and the Orion program will almost certainly not reach for the Moon for at least another quarter of a century. If ever.

-the other Doug

I won't comment CEV ( just being afraid to receive a warning ), so I'd like to focus my thread entirely on the unmanned program.
So are there another proposals for landers I'm not familiar with?

1. Crash lander for LRO
2. Penetrators for Lunar A ( probably being cancelled )
3. SELENE B
4. Luna-Glob landers

Oh, I wasn't making any comments about the value of manned vs unmanned lunar programs. I was just saying that the *unmanned* program that was being planned was primarily designed to support manned lunar operations, and the most obvious reason for NASA seeing no need for it now is because they understand that there won't *be* manned lunar operations for some time to come.

I mean, it seems a very simple cause-effect relationship, to me...

-the other Doug

It's very sad that people disparage the scientific value of the Moon. There are a lot of questions left unanswered since the last missions. I do hope that LRO will make some big discoveries so people could return the robotic crafts to the moon.

Deleted by member.

Oh, please, no one get me wrong. I'm 1000% for a robust unmanned lunar program, really. I think there is an awful lot left to be learned about and from the Moon.

And personally, those bright sun-soaked sands beckon me.

-the other Doug

Also, the Moon is easier target than Mars and the other planets.
There are several missions proposed for the near future and all of them are orbiters. While it's good for the scientific value, a new lander+new pics could promote the Moon idea to the public.

What missions are NEEDED. 1) To provide information in support of future human exploration, 2) To provide priority science that's just not the sort of things you do as part of manned missions?

We NEED to determine the nature and distribution and abundance of volatiles in the polar cold traps. The orbiter missions and LCROSS impactors will do a comprehensive first-look of inspecting the cold traps. We have to wait for those missions comletion and preliminary data cross-analysis to have a good first-idea of what questions about the volatiles to ask next. Some sort of rover/hopper mission into the cold-traps will be needed to really get ground truth that orbiters just can't get.

Missions that are irrelevant in the operational context of manned missions are network science with hard landers or penetrators.... gravity mapper missions like the "GRACE" mission at earth with 2 satellites chasing each other in orbit, using laser-radar to see distance changes between them to sense gravity anomalies.. (good engineering data for manned operations, but it HAS to be unmanned). There's serious science nterest in a small lunar atmosphere/environment orbiter to study the moon's exosphere-atmosphere before we dump far more gasses into the moon's environment that it's entire atmosphere mass..

The problem is that both the Administration, AND Congress have under-funded NASA compared to that they've authorized and ordered NASA to do.

It's like people with obesity problems who DON'T eat too much. <Glandular or whatever> Below some calorie intake, everybody will lose weight. Griffin's out of fat to trim (that he can).. he's trying to trim an ounce of flesh here... an ounce there and hope the patient doesn't die!

Well, it's not like we haven't seen variations on this theme before... ...question is, can we accomplish the necessary objectives within these constraints?

I'd love to see one or more landers as well...heck, rovers. Thing is, I'm not sure they're necessary to support the espoused goal of paving the way for brief human expeditions. We have Apollo ground truth with respect to human factors, and LRO should provide ample information to select suitable landing sites.

Now, if the entire lunar exploration objective was reframed into something like "Conduct a detailed geological survey of the Moon with an emphasis on locating resources for future human occupation" then it's okay for Ares to become merely 'Soyuz on steroids' for access to LEO, as long as an aggressive UMSF campaign on the Moon happens at the same time. Getting answers here would certainly help formulate long-term manned flight strategy, and it seems cost-effective if they decide to pursue it.

My opinion: Permanent lunar occupation won't happen unless and until we find a site with enough indigenous volatiles to sustain a minimal colony. Any other way is just too expensive, and therefore vulnerable to funding cuts. Smart money's still on the South Pole, but we need to look at the whole sphere in detail in order to assure that we're not missing more lucrative locales, such as places where recent (or current!) outgassing may occur...

The Moon would be a great place for advanced VR interface rover, combining minimal time delay with a virtual presence in an alien enviornment. Stereo HD video would be provided, with the view changing as the driver turnd their head, Mechanical arms perhaps even bearing copies of human hands would to allow interaction with the enviornment as one could have handling samples in the lunar recieving lab rock boxes through gloves. Such advanced rovers could establish human telepresence in numerous hostile enviornments as variations are taylored for them.

Don

It seems to me that the only thing that will get more U.S. unmanned lunar missions funded is good old fashioned competition. Things aren't like they were in Cold War days, but there would be nothing like a bruise to the ego from a Japanese or European lander to wake up American bean counters. Having led in moon exploration since the Lunar Orbiter/Surveyor missions in the 60's, I guess my country just takes it for granted. It's too bad presidents and Congresses have degenerated to bodies that can only be reactive and not pro-active, but if that what it takes...

I haven't kept up with other countries' funded long-range plans, but I think the Japanese have been working on a lunar lander. It would be the best thing for the U.S. lunar program if they would succeed. I can see it now: Congressional hearings on how we could have let them do this before we did it. If they only had mirrors...

Actually, that seems to be in work, ML. China & India have plans for lunar probes as well.

As an American myself, I don't care who flies these missions as long as the fundamental science gets done!

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against international cooperation in space exploration, but I do think competition is a useful thing. It can motivate people to do their very best. And it's a much friendlier kind of competition than existed in the 60's. I'm all for other countries contributing to our missions, and vice versa,
but once in a while it's nice to have a U.S. mission, something to take a little pride in. I'm sure other countries feel the same way about their space programs.

As an American working at ESA, I'm all for international efforts. But based on what I've seen, no one wants to work with NASA on unmanned projects anymore. Sad, but true. When people are looking at new projects at ESA, the feeling I get is that if you come into the room with a joint program with NASA, the proposal is dead on arrival. Given ITAR, unpredictable funding, feelings based on the international political/military situation, the way the ISS and JSF have gone, and the impression that NASA just wants people's money but not real partners (i.e. wants total control with a few subcontractors), I don't know if co-operation will work anymore.

I see loads of international co-operation within ESA, it is just with anyone but NASA. So I think all NASA has at this point is competition. I sure hope it changes, though.

Things are getting into place...

“Space cooperation is an important element in overall Europe-Russia cooperation. This meeting has proved very useful as concrete work plans have been established”.
“The cooperation between Europe and Russia in the area of launchers should serve as a model for cooperation in other areas such as exploration, space science and space applications. If the two sides pool their resources, the result will be even more outstanding than it is today”.
Mr Dordain, Director General of ESA

I knew we were in for trouble 20 years ago. At that time I think the Japanese were not yet partners on ISS (could be wrong) but the Europeans were definately signed up with the Columbus module.

After ESA joins up NASA and Congress made it clear that in the "International" Space Station project, the US must take the lead in all areas, and would build the first laboratory module (later named Destiny).

So here we are asking ESA to pony up with money and hardware, and be "partners", but the US would build something that duplicated their efforts and if possible eclipse them. Slam. ESA becomes a very junior partner (at best) right at the start.

I've read in several places about the decision ESA made to not go with Kliper (the Russian space plane design) and instead went for studies on ACTS (basically a Next-Generation Soyuz). Most speculation centers on that on Kliper ESA could find themselves ending up primarily acting as a funding resource, but on ACTS they would be responsible for major hardware portions of the vehicle. So they would be a major partner on the project, and most of the money they spent on ACTS would be spent on home based industries.

Sorry for the diversion into Manned Space territory.... I was just trying to make a point about political motives involved in any kind of partnerships across the borders.

I read Don Merritt's post with great concern. Whilst there is much to be gained from global coopertation without NASA there would be so much more payoff if the cooperation included the leading player. There may be benefits in attempting difficult tasks in a number of independent ways, and for that reason I follow the gathering momentum in Europe and elsewhere with avid interest, but I am glad that there is clearly complete cooperation - and mixing - among the scientists on both sides of the pond. The separation, if it is real, seems to be confined to project management issues.
By involving internationally binding commitments, European-style 'red tape' can actually deliver consistency of purpose and trust between partners. If there is a reason why NASA cannot join in with this I hope the problem is overcome soon. Meanwhile I salute the marvellous joint projects already in place - Hubble - SOHO - Cassini-Huygens . . .