My Assistant
| Posted on: Apr 12 2006, 03:07 PM | |
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 242 Joined: 21-December 04 Member No.: 127 |
Well, if he can still get two new vehicles out of the Discovery budget it would be great...make up a great deal for the gap in missions. |
| Forum: Cometary and Asteroid Missions · Post Preview: #50346 · Replies: 96 · Views: 120906 |
| Posted on: Apr 11 2006, 10:38 PM | |
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 242 Joined: 21-December 04 Member No.: 127 |
QUOTE The other thing is when you do overrun - if there is an overrun - we don't print money in the basement of Headquarters. The reason we have cost caps is so that we can plan our budgets. If there is an overrun that money will come from somewhere else. It will probably come from the next mission in that line - Scout, Discovery, New Frontiers - whatever. So ... not like any one ever intends to overrun - but I did at least want to clarify that and give everyone an opportunity to ask questions since I know that this is something of a new issue." Well, that's really what we figured, isn't it? Goodbye Mission of Opportunity, maybe a year schedule slip for the Discovery competition.... |
| Forum: Cometary and Asteroid Missions · Post Preview: #50269 · Replies: 96 · Views: 120906 |
| Posted on: Apr 11 2006, 01:21 PM | |
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 242 Joined: 21-December 04 Member No.: 127 |
LRO's current projected cost is $396 million, which puts it in the borderline between Discovery and New Frontiers. The piggyback LCROSS is projected at $73 million -- with what accuracy, God knows, since it strikes me as a fairly intricate mission, much more so than JPL's Lunar Impactor. (I've heard an unconfirmed rumor that Griffin picked it because of a desire to make Ames Research Center into a major player in the deep-space program.) You know, this isn't an illegitimate desire. I love JPL, but having competition for them is a good thing, I'd say. |
| Forum: Lunar Exploration · Post Preview: #50183 · Replies: 31 · Views: 29884 |
| Posted on: Apr 9 2006, 02:55 AM | |
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 242 Joined: 21-December 04 Member No.: 127 |
If the girl is still going after Victoria, the mottled terrain to the E/SE might have additional startigraphic detail in it. |
| Forum: Opportunity · Post Preview: #49882 · Replies: 3597 · Views: 3531461 |
| Posted on: Apr 7 2006, 04:44 PM | |
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 242 Joined: 21-December 04 Member No.: 127 |
I'd like to suggest that non-cosmology oriented space observatories, like Kepler and TPF, be included in scope of UMSF, as they are specifically designed to provide data on planetary bodies. Similarly, I think technology demonstration missions like the ST flights of the New Millenium Program also fit in the scope of UMSF. My 0.02. |
| Forum: Forum Management Topics · Post Preview: #49748 · Replies: 113 · Views: 342267 |
| Posted on: Apr 7 2006, 04:23 PM | |
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 242 Joined: 21-December 04 Member No.: 127 |
Looks like they whacked the program managers from JPL and Orbital. |
| Forum: Cometary and Asteroid Missions · Post Preview: #49746 · Replies: 96 · Views: 120906 |
| Posted on: Apr 7 2006, 12:58 AM | |
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 242 Joined: 21-December 04 Member No.: 127 |
Web site is back up, but no pix yet. |
| Forum: MRO 2005 · Post Preview: #49637 · Replies: 224 · Views: 152016 |
| Posted on: Mar 30 2006, 02:18 PM | |
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 242 Joined: 21-December 04 Member No.: 127 |
I think we have to accept that Spirit has become a "hopping" mission rather than a "roving" mission. Disappointing, yes...but better than a stationary or dead mission. |
| Forum: Spirit · Post Preview: #48414 · Replies: 260 · Views: 197456 |
| Posted on: Mar 29 2006, 09:19 PM | |
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 242 Joined: 21-December 04 Member No.: 127 |
Looking at the trajectory side view. I never realized that NH will encounter Pluto right near the point it passes the plane of the solar system. |
| Forum: New Horizons · Post Preview: #48283 · Replies: 211 · Views: 277816 |
| Posted on: Mar 28 2006, 05:40 PM | |
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 242 Joined: 21-December 04 Member No.: 127 |
http://dawn.jpl.nasa.gov/science/technology.asp Science Payload: |
| Forum: Cometary and Asteroid Missions · Post Preview: #48051 · Replies: 96 · Views: 120906 |
| Posted on: Mar 27 2006, 10:51 PM | |
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 242 Joined: 21-December 04 Member No.: 127 |
I am slightly glum over the reversal myself. I look forward to science from those asteroids, but I wonder about what we'll be losing. I worked for NASA. It was always clear that people made their moves, small and large, according to the past behavior of the capricious funding beast. What is going to stop the next Discovery selection from being an "arms race" between teams trying to be the one to most egregiously underestimate future costs (and to draw up a plan that encourages reviewers to do the same)? The goalpost has shifted from accomplishing a mission under the cap to initially convincing the review that you will be under the cap -- when you blow it, the money will come through anyway. Suppose then the Dawn go-ahead kills another year's selection, and the next selection has an overrun that kills another mission -- that's not good for the program in the long run. Well, one answer is to DQ proposals during the 2006 AO that are really stretching the envelope. Pick a good, solid, modest mission. Maybe refly CONTOUR, for example. A Deep Impact visit to an asteroid. See where the gaps are in Venus Express (particularly with the lopss of the PFS instrument) and have an orbiter that fills those gaps. Or (and I'm sure I'll have Bruce chasing me around with a pitchfork for this), use the 2006 Discovery slot for a modest, focused Mars mission in the 2011 launch window (e.g., methane detection or Netlander Mk. II). |
| Forum: Cometary and Asteroid Missions · Post Preview: #47933 · Replies: 248 · Views: 189713 |
| Posted on: Mar 27 2006, 09:16 PM | |
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 242 Joined: 21-December 04 Member No.: 127 |
Looks like NASA blinked. I think there will be a 2006 mission selected...but I would not be surprised, at all, to see the Missions of Opportunity zeroed out this time arounds to support the overrun (e.g., goodbye Deep Impact or Stardust extended missions). |
| Forum: Cometary and Asteroid Missions · Post Preview: #47912 · Replies: 248 · Views: 189713 |
| Posted on: Mar 26 2006, 02:42 PM | |
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 242 Joined: 21-December 04 Member No.: 127 |
We are also never again going to see two US Mars missions -- however small one of them may be -- launched in the same window, except perhaps for the pair of scaled-down "Midrovers" being considered for the 2016 opportunity if they don't go for a single bigger MSL follow-up instead. (That means that the current plan calls for only one more Mars Scout after 2011, in the 2018 window.) The story quoted above is from May 2005. Bruce, the Earth-side logisitics for handling TWO MSLs at the same time would be amazing. JPL was really stretched with the two MER rovers; MSL will be much more demanding (simply because it can do so much more). Beyond 2011, who can really say what will happen. A great deal will rest on the new Administration and the priorities they place in the budget. |
| Forum: MSL · Post Preview: #47708 · Replies: 72 · Views: 72242 |
| Posted on: Mar 24 2006, 04:15 PM | |
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 242 Joined: 21-December 04 Member No.: 127 |
So basically, unless someone invents a perpetual motion machine, this can be used to create strong, but short lasting gravity fields or weaker, but relatively longer lasting gravity fields (depending on how quickly you ramp up to the maximum RPM). Even if this can't be used to make artificial gravity plating in my space yaucht - its exciting to think that General Relativity has finally had a hole poked into it within my lifetime! Hm. Spin it fast enough for a surge of negative g acceleration away from a planetary body...a gravity rocket! |
| Forum: Telescopic Observations · Post Preview: #47360 · Replies: 44 · Views: 45676 |
| Posted on: Mar 24 2006, 04:12 PM | |
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 242 Joined: 21-December 04 Member No.: 127 |
|
| Forum: Cometary and Asteroid Missions · Post Preview: #47359 · Replies: 248 · Views: 189713 |
| Posted on: Mar 18 2006, 01:58 PM | |
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 242 Joined: 21-December 04 Member No.: 127 |
|
| Forum: Manned Spaceflight · Post Preview: #46303 · Replies: 75 · Views: 89938 |
| Posted on: Mar 16 2006, 01:57 PM | |
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 242 Joined: 21-December 04 Member No.: 127 |
If you're in your 20's - you have Cassini If you're in your 30's - you had Galileo If you're in your 40's - you had Voyager If you're in your 50's - you had Viking yes yes - lots of overlap and doesnt really sit in those catagories properly, it's a metaphor more than a real survey of the past - but there's nothing for our teenagers - where is their Voyager? Has there been a point in the last 40 years when the next really big mission wasnt at least in the planning stages? Doug Well, I'm in my 30s and what I mainly remember is the long, long gap with NOTHING in the 1980s. |
| Forum: Jupiter · Post Preview: #45893 · Replies: 113 · Views: 138074 |
| Posted on: Mar 16 2006, 01:39 PM | |
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 242 Joined: 21-December 04 Member No.: 127 |
|
| Forum: Sun · Post Preview: #45889 · Replies: 28 · Views: 41305 |
| Posted on: Mar 13 2006, 07:01 PM | |
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 242 Joined: 21-December 04 Member No.: 127 |
Ouch, that's GOTTA hurt. |
| Forum: Manned Spaceflight · Post Preview: #45394 · Replies: 75 · Views: 89938 |
| Posted on: Mar 12 2006, 02:23 AM | |
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 242 Joined: 21-December 04 Member No.: 127 |
|
| Forum: Manned Spaceflight · Post Preview: #45218 · Replies: 75 · Views: 89938 |
| Posted on: Mar 10 2006, 07:13 PM | |
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 242 Joined: 21-December 04 Member No.: 127 |
If the E-Ring is caused by the venting, why not try a Stardust-style sample return from THAT material, rather than dealing with all the issues required for a surface sample return? |
| Forum: Cassini general discussion and science results · Post Preview: #45009 · Replies: 58 · Views: 67949 |
| Posted on: Mar 8 2006, 11:40 PM | |
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 242 Joined: 21-December 04 Member No.: 127 |
Very interesting. A Kepler solution, perhaps? |
| Forum: Cometary and Asteroid Missions · Post Preview: #44710 · Replies: 248 · Views: 189713 |
| Posted on: Mar 7 2006, 04:32 PM | |
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 242 Joined: 21-December 04 Member No.: 127 |
From the Spaceflight Now article: In the period leading up to the stand down, worries also spread concerning several key spacecraft issues. Relying on a solar electric ion propulsion system, Dawn was to have carried a tank for the xenon gas propellant required by the three cutting edge engines. The xenon tank - composed of a titanium liner covered with composite wrapping - is located deep inside the spacecraft bus, and other pieces were added around it during the manufacturing process. I think this might have been the straw that broke the camel's back. I wonder if the Ceres encounter was going to be descoped as a result of the reduction in fuel. One descope too many, I suspect. |
| Forum: Cometary and Asteroid Missions · Post Preview: #44433 · Replies: 248 · Views: 189713 |
| Posted on: Mar 5 2006, 03:52 PM | |
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 242 Joined: 21-December 04 Member No.: 127 |
Just a silly little idea, but why couldn't you use the JUPITER atmosphere in an aerobraking manuever for the PROBE before it begins its descent to Europa? |
| Forum: Jupiter · Post Preview: #44207 · Replies: 46 · Views: 48468 |
| Posted on: Mar 3 2006, 04:45 AM | |
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 242 Joined: 21-December 04 Member No.: 127 |
Hrmpph. Well, I can't say that cancelling a mission that had gone so far over its cost cap was unjustified; but I do find it interesting that it gets the ax while Certain Other Programs which are both vastly huger and have vastly higher percentage cost overruns go shambling onwards as unstoppably (and productively) as Godzilla. That is true. But they also employ lots and lots of people in F-L-O-R-I-D-A. |
| Forum: Cometary and Asteroid Missions · Post Preview: #43931 · Replies: 248 · Views: 189713 |
New Replies No New Replies Hot Topic (New) Hot Topic (No New) |
Poll (New) Poll (No New) Locked Topic Moved Topic |
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 17th December 2024 - 03:12 AM |
|
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |
|