Is Europa really the "highest priority" of the community?, Cleave said it was at LPSC? |
Is Europa really the "highest priority" of the community?, Cleave said it was at LPSC? |
Mar 15 2006, 05:50 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2517 Joined: 13-September 05 Member No.: 497 |
From Emily's LPSC blog: "Bob Pappalardo would not sit down until he got Cleave to acknowledge that Europa is the consensus highest priority of the planetary science community."
Cleave was obviously poorly prepared for this session, but I don't see that this acknowledgement is either meaningful or particularly accurate. If Europa were the "highest priority" of the PS community as a whole, then one might wonder why we were spending all this money on Mars. I could easily imagine that Europa is the highest priority of the outer planets community, but frankly I was surprised when Europa Orbiter appeared in the '07 budget (presumably the result of some serious lobbying on someone's part.) It was pretty obvious to me then that there would be no money for it, especially in the aftermath of JPL running the old EO project into the ground with cost overruns and engineering upscopes. (And JIMO is best forgotten.) Don't get me wrong, I would love to be involved with a Europa mission (we did what I think was a good proposal design for EO) but I don't see either the money or the political support being there in the near term. I know it's frustrating, but one has to be realistic, and it might help to avoid the aura of entitlement that I perceive is building in some parts of the community (not referring to you, Bob). Of course, I am just a lowly engineer. -------------------- Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.
|
|
|
Mar 18 2006, 01:40 AM
Post
#46
|
|
Merciless Robot Group: Admin Posts: 8784 Joined: 8-December 05 From: Los Angeles Member No.: 602 |
Mark Peplow has an update in his LPSC blog. Definitely some wisdom there, and let's face it: In this new budgetary climate, it's time to go for the low-hanging fruit. Based on our best current information, an Enceladus landing/investigation is much less daunting from a complexity and risk perspective than going to Europa, and therefore it might be much more palatible to the "suits"...and quite possibly cheaper. If nothing else, an Enceladus lander would undoubtedly refine the technologies needed to tackle Europa with less mission risk. -------------------- A few will take this knowledge and use this power of a dream realized as a force for change, an impetus for further discovery to make less ancient dreams real.
|
|
|
Mar 18 2006, 04:55 AM
Post
#47
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 599 Joined: 26-August 05 Member No.: 476 |
|
|
|
Mar 18 2006, 01:39 PM
Post
#48
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2488 Joined: 17-April 05 From: Glasgow, Scotland, UK Member No.: 239 |
Rosetta is another. Aaargh! How could I have, er, you know? Damn. Bob Shaw -------------------- Remember: Time Flies like the wind - but Fruit Flies like bananas!
|
|
|
Mar 18 2006, 04:50 PM
Post
#49
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 3419 Joined: 9-February 04 From: Minneapolis, MN, USA Member No.: 15 |
First, as I said, Mars is in a category all by itself -- the NASA brass recognize it as a gold mine for them funding-wise, and so missions for it are considered super-high priority by NASA regardless of what the actual planetary-science community thinks. (Jeff Bell tells me that Mars scientists, who benefit from this, are bitterly known by other planetary scientists as the "Mars Mafia".) I'll bet this "Mars Mafia" sits around and endlessly reinforces their own notions that we ought to cancel all non-Mars planetary exploration, on the theory that all the money that's being "wasted" on these flagship missions to non-Mars destinations will automatically get spent on more Mars probes -- eh, Bruce? -the other Doug -------------------- “The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right.” -Mark Twain
|
|
|
Mar 18 2006, 04:57 PM
Post
#50
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 444 Joined: 1-July 05 From: New York City Member No.: 424 |
Emily Lakdawalla's latest blog entry has a characteristically thorough and insightful discussion of the debate over outer planets exploration strategies. I would love to see the graphics she refers to, especially the diagram prepared by Torrence Johnson.
I'll take this opportunity to agree with the Cosmic Rocker's comment that "Emily's blog has become _the_ blog to read for the latest summary of planetary news." The level of detail she provides permits "planet spotters" to have a sense of vicarious participation in the business of planetary science that would otherwise be very difficult to achieve. Lots of us are jealous of her job, but it's hard to imagine anyone doing it better. TTT |
|
|
Mar 18 2006, 05:35 PM
Post
#51
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2488 Joined: 17-April 05 From: Glasgow, Scotland, UK Member No.: 239 |
An improved version of the list:
Active interplanetary spacecraft currently returning science data: 1. Messenger 2. Venus Express 3. SMART-1 4. Ulysses 5. MGS 6. Mars Odyssey 7. MRO 8. Mars Express 9. Spirit 10. Opportunity 11. New Horizons 12. Rosetta 13. Cassini 14. Voyager 1 15. Voyager 2 Semi-active interplanetary spacecraft: 16. Hayabusa Spacecraft in orbital storage, with potential for extended missions: 17. Deep Impact 18. Stardust Spacecraft in orbital storage, with no planned extended mission: 19. Genesis The list does not include science spacecraft in Solar orbit; those included have all had, or are planned to have, at least one encounter with a body other than the Earth. Bob Shaw -------------------- Remember: Time Flies like the wind - but Fruit Flies like bananas!
|
|
|
Mar 18 2006, 05:49 PM
Post
#52
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2454 Joined: 8-July 05 From: NGC 5907 Member No.: 430 |
Though it has not been heard from since 2000, Pioneer 6 may still
be phoning home solar data since its launch in 1965: http://www.space.com/news/spaceagencies/pi...act_001209.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_6 -------------------- "After having some business dealings with men, I am occasionally chagrined,
and feel as if I had done some wrong, and it is hard to forget the ugly circumstance. I see that such intercourse long continued would make one thoroughly prosaic, hard, and coarse. But the longest intercourse with Nature, though in her rudest moods, does not thus harden and make coarse. A hard, sensible man whom we liken to a rock is indeed much harder than a rock. From hard, coarse, insensible men with whom I have no sympathy, I go to commune with the rocks, whose hearts are comparatively soft." - Henry David Thoreau, November 15, 1853 |
|
|
Guest_BruceMoomaw_* |
Mar 19 2006, 12:54 AM
Post
#53
|
Guests |
I'll bet this "Mars Mafia" sits around and endlessly reinforces their own notions that we ought to cancel all non-Mars planetary exploration, on the theory that all the money that's being "wasted" on these flagship missions to non-Mars destinations will automatically get spent on more Mars probes -- eh, Bruce? -the other Doug Well, they're certainly trying to maximize spending on Mars probes at the expense of other planetary exploration and space science. That's why they're called the "Mars Mafia", after all. And, no, they don't think that "all" the money spent on other types of space science would go to Mars probes if those other space science missions were cancelled -- any more than I think that "all" the money spent on the manned space program would go to the unmanned space program if the manned program were cancelled. They just realize, like any sensible person, that a significant slice of it would. |
|
|
Guest_BruceMoomaw_* |
Mar 19 2006, 01:22 AM
Post
#54
|
Guests |
Emily Lakdawalla's latest blog entry has a characteristically thorough and insightful discussion of the debate over outer planets exploration strategies. I would love to see the graphics she refers to, especially the diagram prepared by Torrence Johnson. I'll take this opportunity to agree with the Cosmic Rocker's comment that "Emily's blog has become _the_ blog to read for the latest summary of planetary news." The level of detail she provides permits "planet spotters" to have a sense of vicarious participation in the business of planetary science that would otherwise be very difficult to achieve. Lots of us are jealous of her job, but it's hard to imagine anyone doing it better. TTT It was an excellent piece of work -- and I also agree with the conclusion the group seems to be trending toward. Namely, that we already KNOW what the next necessary step is in exploring Europa -- the Orbiter -- whereas we don't have any clear idea yet what we should do at Titan and/or Enceladus, and will need several more years of Cassini observations to decide. Therefore, first things first: unless Cassini turns up something really spectacular and radical -- and the only thing I can think of that might adequately upset the applecart would be the discovery by Cassini of very complex organics in Enceladus' plume -- we should proceed with pushing Europa Orbiter first. (That's where Flagship-class missions are concerned. The one other possibility -- finding valid New Frontiers-class missions to send to any of those three worlds -- is an entirely separate matter anyway, and will be handled separately.) |
|
|
Mar 19 2006, 06:42 AM
Post
#55
|
|
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 5172 Joined: 4-August 05 From: Pasadena, CA, USA, Earth Member No.: 454 |
Aw, shucks, guys...
I think only very few diehard Titan fans would seriously advocate Titan over Europa today, for the reasons thoroughly covered by Torrence. Europa first, then Titan. But I sure hope we don't have to wait for the CEV to be developed before another flagship mission is started. If that happens, by that time Europa may well have some tough competition. I've still got my Hayabusa notes to write up...stay tuned for that (but probably not until after the weekend). --Emily -------------------- My website - My Patreon - @elakdawalla on Twitter - Please support unmannedspaceflight.com by donating here.
|
|
|
Mar 19 2006, 08:53 PM
Post
#56
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 220 Joined: 13-October 05 Member No.: 528 |
This whole situation reminds me a lot of the early 80s. I will admit that we are in much better shape on the whole, with many missions flying, and several in developement. But in one reguard it seems like history repeating itself. The planetary scientists are obsessed with one mission, and a very expensive mission it is. They keep pushing it, and are circling the wagons insisting it is the one true next step. Yet the message continues to be from above: we can't fund a mission that big right now.
Well, that was about where we were with the Mars Sample Return mission in the post Viking years. Everyone kept pushing big missions, and the biggest was MSR. It took major pressure from NASA headquarters (and Congress) to get the point across that MSR wasn't going to happen as the next mission to Mars, and wasn't there something, anything, that could fly in the meantime. Eventually NASA scaled back on Venus Radar Mapper... and Magellen was approved. Only a year later Mars Observer was approved. They were the first new starts in seven years, and the only happened because political reality was finally admitted, and NASA submitted missions that were low enough cost to fit within the current budget reality. I agree with someone earlier who stated that it's one thing to get a 600 million dollar New Horizons Pluto mission approved by grass roots lobbying, but quite another to get a Flagship mission approved using the same game plan. If history is a guide here, I'd think the best move at this point would be for the OPAG and like minded scientists to accept that a 1.4 billion dollar mission just is not going to happen. But a 700-800 million dollar mission might stand a chance. Better to focus on moving up the next New Frontiers mission and having the competition be based on Outer planets only (Comets and Venus will have to wait). There is still a LOT that a Galileo type tour of the Jovian system could teach us, not only about Europa but also Io and the rest. |
|
|
Mar 19 2006, 09:07 PM
Post
#57
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2517 Joined: 13-September 05 Member No.: 497 |
Emily Lakdawalla's latest blog entry has a characteristically thorough and insightful discussion of the debate over outer planets exploration strategies. I wonder if one problem is that both Galileo and Cassini have been very expensive missions. I think the OP community might have been better served by a larger number of somewhat smaller missions. Unfortunately the FBC pendulum has swung far away from smaller missions, and it is hard to build constituencies for them -- big missions tend to force coalitions between groups that otherwise would be competing for the same resources. -------------------- Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.
|
|
|
Guest_BruceMoomaw_* |
Mar 20 2006, 01:42 AM
Post
#58
|
Guests |
There are other problems with running small missions to the outer System. First, the outer System is just unavoidably bloody hard and expensive to explore -- only one Discovery finalist has ever been aimed at an outer world, and it isn't that easy to properly explore them even with New Frontiers-class missions.
Second, the things we have been trying to observe -- unlike those in the inner System -- usually comprise miniature solar systems in their own right, and they include a hell of a lot of different types of physical phenomena that are going on simultaneously and interacting with each other, so that you need simultaneous observations of them with a large number of different instruments to properly understand them. It's not impossible to break them up -- Galileo and Cassini, for instance, could theoretically have been broken up into three missions each, consisting of an entry probe, a spin-stabilized magnetospheric orbiter, and a fully stabilized remote-sensing orbiter -- but the total cost of all this is a lot higher than for a single unified craft, and again you're going to miss some important simultaneous overlapping observations from instruments on the three separate missions. Third, the gap between missions to an outer world is so damn unavoidably long. If you find something interesting from an initial simple and low-cost outer-world spacecraft that is worthy of investigation with another type of instruments, then, no matter how much funding you've got, you have to twiddle your thumbs for YEARS, or decades, before that additional set of instruments can get there -- which provides another strong motive to carry as many different kinds of instruments as you can on the very first mission. |
|
|
Mar 20 2006, 10:31 AM
Post
#59
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 307 Joined: 16-March 05 Member No.: 198 |
I agree with someone earlier who stated that it's one thing to get a 600 million dollar New Horizons Pluto mission approved by grass roots lobbying, but quite another to get a Flagship mission approved using the same game plan. But would such a mission tell us anything significantly more about Europa that would allow NASA to drop the need for a dedicated Europa orbiter and go straight to the lander-cum-borer-cum-diver mission? If there still needs to be an EO first somewhere down the track wouldn't that make another Galileo-type-tour, for all the useful science it might acquire, merely a stopgap mission?If history is a guide here, I'd think the best move at this point would be for the OPAG and like minded scientists to accept that a 1.4 billion dollar mission just is not going to happen. But a 700-800 million dollar mission might stand a chance. Better to focus on moving up the next New Frontiers mission and having the competition be based on Outer planets only (Comets and Venus will have to wait). There is still a LOT that a Galileo type tour of the Jovian system could teach us, not only about Europa but also Io and the rest. ====== Stephen |
|
|
Mar 20 2006, 01:15 PM
Post
#60
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 3648 Joined: 1-October 05 From: Croatia Member No.: 523 |
But would such a mission tell us anything significantly more about Europa that would allow NASA to drop the need for a dedicated Europa orbiter and go straight to the lander-cum-borer-cum-diver mission? If there still needs to be an EO first somewhere down the track wouldn't that make another Galileo-type-tour, for all the useful science it might acquire, merely a stopgap mission? Actually, the proposal for EO was that it would spend something like a year and a half doing a Galileo-type tour of the 3 Galileans, adjusting its orbit in preparation for Europa orbit insertion and then the primary science phase would begin, lasting 'only' a month or so. So you already get a tour with the orbiter as is. A dedicated tour-only mission seems like a waste of time and resources in that light. -------------------- |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 8th June 2024 - 06:44 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. |