Talk:Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Spaceflight (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Moon  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Moon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Moon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject United States (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


Is there any naming significance to it's similarity to the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter ? (talk) 06:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

To be really sincere, I feel that actually should be named the Lunar Orbiter 6, in the "apollo redux" context, a.k.a. Project Orion....

Best regards from Italy, dott.Piergiorgio (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

mention of conspiracy theories[edit]

It's good that the article mentions how the loony... ahem, lunar conspiracy theories will be further discredited. It should be kept in the article.-- (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

No. We shouldn't give those looneys credit by mentioning them on every ocassion. To people with the ability of thinking, the conspiracy need not to be discredited further - it never had credit. And those who believe into this nonsense will never change their mind just because of more photos of things that have been photographed so many times before. --Kucharek (talk) 08:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Keeping a balanced view does not mean that the hypothesis that the Earth is flat is to be presented as equally plausible. It does not mean that the denial of the holocaust deserves half of the article's space. Is does not mean to merely 'list' views indiscriminately without considering their intrinsic value. It means that facts and arguments should be presented according to their truthfulness, accuracy and verifiability, even if this effectively means the virtual exclusion of other 'ideas'. BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Verifiability, original research, and especially undue weight cover this topic quite well. As editors, it is not our place to question truth, it is our place to verify reliable sources. Of course, the reliability of sources can be and often is questioned and debated, but that is really a separate issue. Since NASA actually cited this as a (minor) benefit of the mission, mention of discrediting lunar conspiracy theories is perfectly appropriate (with sources, obviously). On the other hand expanding coverage beyond the scope of the sourced material, by including a history of those conspiracy theories for example, is not appropriate.
V = I * R (talk) 15:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
LRO is mentioned at Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories and Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings. I don't think it is worth mentioning in this article, at least until it images the landing sites. Then maybe. Bubba73 (talk), 18:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC) our place to verify reliable sources.
Exactly. There is an absolute absence of a "reliable source" that the Apollo Mission was fake. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

blurry, pixelated images of the moon with arrows and text prove that man landed on the moon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

They are merely corroborating evidence to the known facts of the missions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

New images[edit]

I just made quite a few changes:

  • United States to NASA in lead (USA is mentioned several times right afterward)
  • Zapped one launch image (to make room)
  • Added hi res image of LRO (seemed at least one pic of the real McCoy was in order)
  • Added microchip panel image (maybe I was going too far)

Looks a smidgen cramped. Maybe move onboard instrument image to left. Maybe zap last image or move it left. Please feel free to rearrange or revert what I've done.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I like it. I made one small chage in the placement of th "microchip panel" image, but other then that I think the changes were helpful.
V = I * R (talk) 11:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you kindly. Nice fit there 'Ohms law'. Dandy work. Ever heard of 'Cole's law'?....(thinly sliced cabbage).--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

first image[edit]

It would be good if the caption of the first image could state its scale. What is the size of the area covered? Bubba73 (talk), 01:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done

Thanks! I hereby authenticate this response as awesome. (talk) 06:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

An interesting article from NASA[edit]

I just came across this article on NASA's page about how the LRO has photographed some of the past Moon Landing sites [1]. They say that these shots were taken while the LRO was still going into orbit and that they do plan on taking higher resolution shots of the landing sites, but already you can make out the tracks the astronauts made on the moon. I don't know if this can be worked into the article as much as to keep an eye on it for future additions if the community so agrees. Either way I thought it was kind of cool. Brothejr (talk) 00:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Very, very cool. I hope that as soon as higher res. shots come, somebody will put them into the article. Supercool. The [2] should be put into Apollo 14.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
The German version of this article offers a nice example of how to integrate Apollo landing site photos . Those pictures would be so " in your face" to the apollo-conspiracy-theorists and a deserved approval for an extraordinary accomplishment. i hope you will add pictures soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
The question would be to put in those low res shots or wait till they take the higher resolution shots? Brothejr (talk) 09:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Somebody should add the images. I also heard that LRO would be capable of seeing the Russian robotic landers. It also has yet to image Apollo 12. Is there any information on when an image of any of those will be available?--SkiDragon (talk) 02:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

V = I * R (talk) 05:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Peer review[edit]

Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review in order to move it towards GA status. Any feedback would be appreciated.

Ω (talk) 00:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

RJHall comments:

  • I'd like to see more in-depth coverage of the spacecraft instruments, especially LAMP and LEND. Are the instruments any better than on Clementine (spacecraft)? Please give some details.
  • Please include some information about the propulsion and maneuvering system, the avionics and a few details about the orbital inclination and period. How much propellant is it carrying?
  • Is this vehicle solar powered? It appears so but the text doesn't say. Does it have batteries?
  • What is the communication system?
  • Is NASA actively compensating for MASCONs? I.e. periodic orbital adjustments?
  • How does this mission complement the other current missions to the Moon?

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Flexplan -- is it an advertorial?[edit]

I'm vaguely troubled by the section devoted to "flexplan", the mission planning software. There isn't a comparable level of detail (nor do I think it urgently needed) decribing the companies involved in the onboard instruments. It reads to me just a little like an advertorial for the company making the software. Unless there's strong consensus that's it's an important part of the article, I'd like to remove it. Lissajous (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've removed it. I was going to leave a copy here of the material removed, but it's available as revision [319368217] of the page history. Lissajous (talk) 10:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Alleged Moon Landing[edit]

Until it's proven with evidence, I suggest adding 'alleged' to the image captions. Blurry photos with arrows and text do not accurately show any landing sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but this won't fly here. Unless you can find a reliable source calling these sites "alleged" you cannot use this adjective on your own. This would be original research. Please also consult the policy of WP:V covering verifiability. Dr.K.praxislogos 06:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do low orbits need reboosts[edit]

Apollo sites from Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter says "LRO has now returned to its circular orbit of 50 km above the surface. This altitude requires monthly reboosts and since keeping LRO in that orbit would quickly exhaust the remaining fuel, in mid-December [2011], LRO will move to an elliptical orbit, (30 km over south pole and 200 km over north pole). LRO will be able to stay in this orbit for several more years."

Could article say : Why does the 50km orbit need monthly reboosts ?
and why doesn't the elliptical orbit that comes down to 30 km ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The (approximately) circular orbit is low at all points of the trajectory, which means it's subjected to a multitude of gravitational fluctuations each revolution from the various mountains, valleys, craters and large "mascons" (mass concentrations) beneath the mare regions. These generate a lot of drag which alters the orbit, bringing its periapsis progressively downward. Without reboosts the shape of the orbit will eventually intersect the lunar surface. At higher altitudes the fluctuations have less relative influence on the orbit over lengthy stretches of time. The 30 x 200 elliptical orbit spends most of its time at high altitudes than low ones, so the need for reboosts is much less frequent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Does gravity drag really happen around bodies less dense than neutron stars? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
It does not make sense to call it "gravity drag"; drag implies a physical interference with air molecules or radiation. But yes, the effect is real and does not depend on extreme density, rather the uneven distribution of the mass of the body. It is better termed a gravitational perturbation; it was famously discovered at the Moon when one of the subsatellites released on an Apollo mission unexpectedly crashed prematurely. It also occurs on the Earth (though to a lesser degree), due to the Earth's well-known oblate spheroid shape. A spacecraft's orbit will change over time, even if it is high enough to avoid atmospheric drag. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Gravity is commonly cited as a form of drag. It's also called "Dynamical Friction". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Spacecraft power[edit]

1850W seems abnormally high. This website states 460W — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

NACs specifications[edit]

Probably this article needs some specifications of Narrow Angle Cameras (NACs) - to address common question "Why on images of Earth we can distinguish cars and humans, and on NAC's images whole Apollos are presented as just few pixels?" NACs have 195-mm mirrors and weight 16.4 kg both, in comparison to cameras on earth imaging satellites, having 0.5-1 meter optics and weighting hundreds of kilograms. (talk) 04:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Second extended mission[edit]

Here's a source which confirms funding for the 2nd extended mission :

Hope that's of some help Chrislintott (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I thought so at the beginning, but the Senior Panel is independent from NASA and it can only advice, not decide. It is influential though, and it makes the 2nd extension is more likely. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Fn 28[edit]

Fn 28 links to the current page of the Huntsville Times, not to the article cited. Kdammers (talk) 12:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - Ref 28, fixed. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Rather than use an entirely different citation, I've restored the old one and used an link to preserve the original information. Huntster (t @ c) 03:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Needs to be updated[edit]

Parts of this article were obviously written before its flight, and thus talk in terms of plans: "LRO will do such-and-such". These should be changed from future to past tense as the craft accomplished specific objectives (or not). JustinTime55 (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)