Talk:Lunar Precursor Robotic Program
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Die conspiracy theories!!!
"LRO's high-resolution mapping will show some of the larger pieces of equipment previously left on the Moon"
So then it will once and for all prove the "the Moon Landings were Faked!" conspiracy theories wrong? Great! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC).
To further bury the Apollo Landing Hoax theory, we need to petition Dr. Mike Griffin (NASA Administrator) to send Orion 13/LSAM 3 (the first planned post-Apollo manned landing) five miles from Tranquility Base and bring home the flag, pieces of the Eagle and the garbage left behind by Neil and Buzz. Rwboa22 18:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Trust me, the more missions we send to the moon, the more ammunition the conspiracy theorists will have. They'll take everything as evidence of a coverup. I worked on the Mars Odyssey, Mars Global Surveyor, and Mars Exploration Rover missions, and every time we published new data, the Mars nuts crawled out of the woodwork to accuse us of image manipulation. The higher the resolution and the more voluminous the data, the more often natural phenomena will show geologic structures that by chance happen to have "unnatural-looking" geometry. I now work on the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, and I look forward to some crazy lunar conspiracy wackos jumping all over our findings.James A. Stewart 23:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
It dosen't matter what prove we come up with. the nutters don't want to believe that the moon landings were real (though in my oppion that is an insult to the greatest achivement of mankind!) so they will invent any theory, any so-called proof in order to keep themselves in the dark. Skeletor 0 (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The Centaur is fueled by hydrogen and oxygen. How will they ensure it is completely vented before impact? If it isn't, the H2 and O2 will contaminate the ejecta readings by simulating water being in the plume of debris.188.8.131.52 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 01:58, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't "narrow-angle cameras (NAC) and a single wide-angle camera (NAC)" read "narrow-angle cameras (NAC) and a single wide-angle camera (WAC)"? -- Aewold 03:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello - I just noticed in the infobox that the launch vehicle is labeled as the Atlas V. On the National Space Science Data Center's homepage, the vehicle is listed as being a Delta 2. Which is correct? E_dog95' Hi ' 08:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Boeing does not list LRO as an Atlas V launch. (sdsds - talk) 08:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- The original launch vehicle was a Delta II, but it's now an "Atlas 5 401", according to http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/masterCatalog.do?sc=LUNARRO. That page actually lists Delta II in the infobox on the right, but the body of the document reports Atlas 5 401. I know they upgraded the launch vehicle to allow for a heavier payload, but I can't find a definitive, non-contradictory source. A secondary source is http://space.skyrocket.de/index_frame.htm?http://www.skyrocket.de/space/doc_sdat/lro.htm. I'm not going to add a reference to the page unless I can dig one up on a nasa.gov site. James A. Stewart (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- OK - Thanks both of u for chiming in here. I've looked more closely at this & am ready to make the change. I'm modifying the Atlas V listing in the infobox to include the version number (401). We have two existing refs that agree on this. They're used in two discreet locations within the article, but I'll prolly list them in the userbox with the name change. Other editors are likely to notice the contradictory reports. E_dog95' Hi ' 08:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think that separate articles for the spacecraft, and a central article for the programme, would be a better system. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 10:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- I completely agree. Can we put this back to how it was? Does anyone strongly object? Matt 12:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC) (I wrote the original comment above.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk)
- I have split them. I have kept LCROSS as a subsection in the LRO article, but if anyone wants to make that a separate article too then I, for one, have no objection. Matt 18:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk)
Closest thing to going to the moon
On the LRO website, you can submit your name to be recorded onto a disc that will fly with the mission when it launches sometime in late October. It's pretty cool, there's no catch to it. You just click the link, type in your name and hit "Submit." You even get a little certificate. It might be relevant to this article as cool stuff like this is often included on other mission pages, like some of the things shuttle astronauts take with them for example. -- HurricaneERIC - Class of '08: XVII Maius MMVIII 08:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Craters for LCROSS impact
It has been suggested at Talk:Shackleton (crater)#LCROSS that LCROSS will "impact Faustini and Shoemaker craters" but not Shackleton. Is that the current plan? This (Lunar Precursor Robotic Program) article does not seem to specify it, nor cite any source for the planned impact location. Is there yet a published plan-of-record in this regard? (sdsds - talk) 00:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, "NASA Takes Aim at Moon with Double Sledgehammer" currently lists Faustini and Shoemaker craters as the targets. But perhaps it is best to wait until the plans are finalized?—RJH (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Update - 2014
This is a good web page to start the article update: http://www.redorbit.com/topics/lunar-precursor-robotic-program/ Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)