Is Apollo 11’s lunar module still in orbit around the moon? [video]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBHbLV7xEhc

by weregiraffe • 5 years ago

106 23 5 years ago

youtube.com

netman21• 5 years ago

This is great. Love the encouragement at the end for amateur space research.

detritus• 5 years ago

I had "Hullo, it's Scott Manley here.." going around my head before the YouTube page opened, confirming as much :)

ncmncm• 5 years ago

tl;dw: Things left adrift in lunar orbit tend to crash into the moon before long both because the moon is gravitationally not spherical, and because the moon is in a complicated dance with the sun and the earth.

But there is a substantial chance that it hasn't crashed yet, and it's interesting why.

MayeulC• 5 years ago

Right, this is a bit clickbaity so I was skeptical at first, but it's a Scott Manley video, and it's pretty interesting to watch, with a few comments on the tools used, and simulation visualizations.

rbanffy3• 5 years ago

Great. Now we should fund an effort to locate it and, at some point, recover it and tug it back to either the surface, to start a museum near the first settlements, or LEO, to join the ISS as artifacts of an orbital museum.

techdragon2• 5 years ago

Better move quickly because we plan to de-orbit the ISS soon…

Personally I think we should just tug the ISS up a decent bit higher (50 to 100 year decay?) on the final crewed mission, and then mothball it. So we have enough time to build a big enough, actually permanent, space station that the ISS can be put inside that as a museum exhibit.

I also think Hubble deserves a robot tug boost too because that’s another priceless artefact with a retirement plan of “burn up over the South Pacific”

rbanffy3• 5 years ago

I think we should just tug the ISS up a decent bit higher

Both are really bad ideas. Every time something hits the ISS there will be some high-speed fragment coming off on a weird trajectory. The higher the ISS is, the higher the chance those fragments will not deorbit themselves.

Everything parked in orbit is a potential source of high-velocity impactors for everything else parked at a similar altitude.

It'd be nice if we could deorbit it whole inside the cargo compartment of a "Galaxy class SpaceX Starship", much bigger than the current one and going to space on top of a Ultraheavy, composed of 3 attached Superheavy boosters.

We could also surround it with lots (and LOTS) of inflatable heat shields to slow it down and then parachute it to a sensible landing site.

If we get Starship functional before the ISS's demise, we can even think of doing that kind of stunt.

Imagine it whole hanging from the ceiling of a museum.

Or, if a propulsive landing is possible, imagine it hanging from the ceiling of a museum in Shackleton City.

----------

The Hubble would also need a visit to upgrade and replace some components too. Maybe sending a Starship to bring it back, then relaunch it after an upgrade on land.

It's crazy how the economics of Starship make even ludicrous ideas like these look perfectly doable.

euroderf2• 5 years ago

Both ideas are great! So how much rocket billionaire cash would these plans require ? Tell Bezos and Musk they can have nameplates attached, and merch revenues.

dogma1138• 5 years ago

Something like Starship should be able to bring it back to earth, in fact looking at the economy for starship this mission might not cost more than what it cost to send up Musk’s roadster.

dnautics• 5 years ago

How cool would it be to attach an ion engine to it, bring it back, aerobrake it gently back into earth orbit, scoop it up with a starship maw, and land it?

new_realist• 5 years ago

Surely if it's still in orbit, is is reflective enough to be occasionally observed by telescopes on Earth.

lisper• 5 years ago

Yes, if you know where and when to look.

dredmorbius• 5 years ago

More likely by radar reflection, as the module has metalic components with a high reflection signature, as discussed in the video.

peter303• 5 years ago

The Moons gravity is more lumpy than the Earths due to variety ofnear surface terrains. I doubt whether a closein orbit would be stable for a long period of time.

Some of the modules were smashed into the surface to provide seismic sources of a known momentum.

GhostVII• 5 years ago

Thats what this video is about, determining if the specific orbit the module is in is stable or not based on the gravity lumpiness

mrfusion• 5 years ago

Why just 11? Why not the first 10?

croutonwagon• 5 years ago

The first 10 Apollo missions didn’t go to the moon. They were baby steps to get 11 kids n the more on.

euroderf2• 5 years ago

Not to the surface.

frosted-flakes• 5 years ago

9 and 10 orbited the moon, and 10's lunar module came within 50000 feet of the surface.

8bitsrule• 5 years ago

The story of the PFS-1 and -2 sats released by Apollo 15 and 16 may predict the fate of 'Eagle' ascent. (PFS-2's initial orbit was 52x66 miles.)

https://web.archive.org/web/20090725122356/http://science.na...

Is Apollo 11’s lunar module still in orbit around the moon? [video]

Related Stories