Notifications
Clear all

Why don't we have a gps type satellite on the moon?

12 Posts
11 Users
0 Reactions
81 Views
nate-the-surveyor
(@nate-the-surveyor)
Posts: 10522
Member
Topic starter
 

I was thinking putting three satellites on the moon would give you a small triangle and would give you some interesting information from a GPS point of view. It could augment our GPS system. And being on the moon, could provide 3 units, mounted together.
I'm just bringing it up.
Why, or why not?
N

 
Posted : April 21, 2017 4:51 am
(@deleted-user)
Posts: 8349
Member
 

[MEDIA=youtube]-e5CtbbZL-k[/MEDIA]

 
Posted : April 21, 2017 5:57 am
(@mark-mayer)
Posts: 3368
Member
 

Nate The Surveyor, post: 424683, member: 291 wrote: Why, or why not?

Probably a cost/benefit thing. Soft landing a unit on the moon would cost a lot more than orbiting one. In fact I'd guess it would cost more than orbiting a few dozen of them.

 
Posted : April 21, 2017 7:32 am
(@dan-patterson)
Posts: 1272
Member
 

Also, I'm thinking your triangle would be incredibly small compared to the distance from the earth to the moon. Those three would essentially be the same as having just one given their relative proximity to each other vs the distance they are measuring.

 
Posted : April 21, 2017 7:38 am
bill93
(@bill93)
Posts: 9865
Member
 

The moon is on average 19 times the distance of the GPS satellite orbits.

So you have
-high cost of delivery and soft landing on moon
-weak signal unless you build it with high power transmitters (and big solar array, hard to deploy on landing)
-much more complicated calculations for position, involving moon's orbit and libration
to gain
-Little more benefit than one more satellite, because of the small angle between any number on moon. You might gain in resolving ambiguities, but not much in DOP.

 
Posted : April 21, 2017 8:49 am

(@clearcut)
Posts: 937
Member
 

Seems to be the type of question pondered up after partaking in a communal peace pipe with the local hill-billies.

 
Posted : April 21, 2017 4:06 pm
(@rj-schneider)
Posts: 2784
Member
 

clearcut, post: 424806, member: 297 wrote: Seems to be the type of question pondered up after partaking in a communal peace pipe with the local hill-billies.

Somehow this whole thing led to Youtubing Claire Torry in Pink Floyd's Great Gig in the Sky

[MEDIA=youtube]cVBCE3gaNxc[/MEDIA]

 
Posted : April 21, 2017 4:17 pm
(@james-fleming)
Posts: 5696
Member
 

Two words....moon people

[MEDIA=youtube]NOG3eus4ZSo[/MEDIA]

 
Posted : April 21, 2017 4:39 pm
(@hlbennettpls)
Posts: 321
Member
 

 
Posted : April 21, 2017 5:12 pm
(@deleted-user)
Posts: 8349
Member
 

James Fleming, post: 424815, member: 136 wrote: Two words....moon people

[MEDIA=youtube]NOG3eus4ZSo[/MEDIA]

[MEDIA=youtube]_FrdVdKlxUk[/MEDIA]

 
Posted : April 21, 2017 5:37 pm

(@spledeus)
Posts: 2772
Member
 

My brother asked me something similar a year ago. It was more along the line of obtaining better elevations probably thought of from the Big Bang episode where the geeks blasted a laser at a target on the moon and determined an expected distance.

I would prefer an array of photo satellites to see the whole moon at once. Same with mars and all the other planets. This originates from the Martian and the gaps in visibility from the lack of satellites. Does not help us until we really start mapping.

 
Posted : April 21, 2017 6:06 pm
(@chris-bouffard)
Posts: 1455
Member
 

How about orbit, rotation and the revolving Earth? Not to mention that the moon is not on an equidistant orbit.

 
Posted : April 23, 2017 8:23 am