New Frontiers 5 Selection |
New Frontiers 5 Selection |
Sep 3 2022, 03:34 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 715 Joined: 22-April 05 Member No.: 351 |
Here is a community announcement just put out by NASA. Total mission PI costs of $1.2B, earliest launch in 2031.
Estimated Release of draft AO …...November 2022 (target) Estimated Release of final AO ……November 2023 (target) Estimated Proposal due date ……..March 2024 (target) This community announcement is the fifth in a series to provide an advance notice of NASA’s Science Mission Directorate (SMD) plan to release an Announcement of Opportunity (AO) to solicit New Frontiers Program mission investigations. The New Frontiers Program conducts Principal Investigator (PI)-led space science investigations in SMD’s planetary programs under a not-to-exceed cost cap for the PI-Managed Mission Cost (PMMC). The target release date for the final AO is Fall 2023. This NF5 announcement shares some policies under consideration for the AO and invites public comment to NASA. The policies described in this announcement are not final. Public feedback to this announcement will be considered by NASA as part of the ongoing AO preparation process to revise these and other policies. SMD’s Planetary Science Division (PSD) estimates the policies in this announcement may have the most significant impact on proposers’ responses to the AO. The draft policies offered for public comment are the following: Mission Themes: Mission investigations will be limited to the following mission themes (listed without priority), with the science objectives specified in either the Decadal Survey [solarsystem.nasa.gov] or the previously issued New Frontiers 4 AO [nspires.nasaprs.com]: · Comet Surface Sample Return · Lunar South Pole-Aitken Basin Sample Return · Ocean Worlds (only Enceladus) · Saturn Probe · Io Observer · Lunar Geophysical Network Cost Cap: PI-Managed Mission Cost (PMMC) for investigations will have two cost caps. The PMMC for Phases A-D will be capped at $900M (FY22$) with exclusions as noted in this announcement. The PMMC for Phase E will be capped at $300M (FY22$) with exclusions as noted in this announcement. The now-standard 25% minimum reserve on Phases A-D will be required within the PMMC. Development of flight or ground software, ground hardware, or testbed development or refurbishment that occurs after launch will be considered deferred Phase C/D work and their costs will be included under the PMMC cost cap for Phases A-D. Only costs related to spacecraft and science operations will be considered part of the Phase E PMMC cost cap. Lower-cost investigations and cost-efficient operations are encouraged. Step 2 Selections: NASA intends to select up to three proposals to proceed to Step 2 to conduct a mission concept study followed by downselection of up to one mission investigation to proceed into development. NASA will provide $5M (Real Year$) to each selectee(s) for this mission concept study. Government Furnished Equipment (GFE)/Tech Incentives: NASA currently does not plan to offer an incentive to infuse particular NASA-developed technologies under the New Frontiers 5 AO. NASA will revisit the availability, utility, and readiness of technologies prior to the release of the final AO. Launch Readiness Date: Mission investigations must be ready to launch no earlier than Fall 2031 and no later than Fall 2034. Launch Vehicle: Launch Vehicle costs and procurement will be the responsibility of NASA. NASA intends to offer all launch vehicle performance capabilities (defined in previous AOs from Low through High) as GFE. Its cost will not be included in the PMMC. The cost of mission specific and special launch services (i.e., larger fairing or the flight of nuclear materials) will be included within the PMMC. Details of these specialized costs are still under discussion. Non-U.S. Contributions: The value of non-U.S. contributions remains constrained as was done for recent New Frontiers and Discovery Program AOs. The total value of non-U.S. contributions may not exceed one-third of the PMMC for phases A-D, and the value of non-U.S. contributions to the science payload may not exceed one-third of the total payload cost. In addition, NASA and ESA are working to formalize a partnership for the New Frontiers 5 AO that would make available an ESA contribution to proposers. The contribution can include hardware procured by ESA from European vendors and/or other services, such as ground segment support, to be considered under ESA responsibility. Scientific instruments are explicitly not included as an option under this potential partnership. Nuclear Power Sources: Mission investigations may utilize radioisotope power systems (RPS) provided by NASA. Radioisotope Heater Units (RHUs) also are available for use as localized heat sources. For electrical power, up to one Next Generation Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (RTG) will be offered by NASA. Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (MMRTGs) are not planned to be offered under the New Frontiers 5 AO. The cost for the Next Generation RTG and/or RHUs and associated specialized launch services will be included within the PMMC. Information on these costs and the performance characteristics of the Next Generation RTG and RHUs will be made available at a later date. Additional Opportunities: As has been done for the two most recent New Frontiers and Discovery Program AOs, requests for including Student Collaborations, Science Enhancement Options, and Technology Demonstrations are deferred to the Step-2 mission concept study. Though deferred, information on these opportunities will be provided no later than the AO release date. NASA has not approved the issuance of the New Frontiers AO and this notification does not obligate NASA to issue the AO and solicit proposals. Any costs incurred by prospective investigators in preparing submissions in response to this notification or the planned Draft and Final New Frontiers 5 AO are incurred completely at the submitter's own risk Further information will be posted on the New Frontiers Program Acquisition Page at https://newfrontiers.larc.nasa.gov/NF5/ [newfrontiers.larc.nasa.gov] as it becomes available. Questions and feedback on the draft policies in this notice are due by October 31, 2022. The draft AO expected to be released in November 2022 presents an additional opportunity to comment on the draft policies in this notice. Questions and feedback may be emailed to Dr. Curt Niebur, the New Frontiers Program Lead Scientist, via curt.niebur@nasa.gov. -------------------- |
|
|
Aug 30 2023, 09:17 PM
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 204 Joined: 20-November 05 From: Mare Desiderii Member No.: 563 |
New Frontiers 5 Announcement of Opportunity delayed from this year until no earlier than 2026; mission themes may be revised (sources: Space News, 'community announcement' on the NF5 site)
|
|
|
Sep 1 2023, 12:55 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 715 Joined: 22-April 05 Member No.: 351 |
New Frontiers 5 Announcement of Opportunity delayed from this year until no earlier than 2026; mission themes may be revised (sources: Space News, 'community announcement' on the NF5 site) In the past, the Committee on Astrobiology and Planetary Science (CAPS), which would be tasked with drawing up the new mission themes, has turned to the previous Decadal Survey for guidance on recommending changes to the New Frontiers mission. If that happens again, then CAPS could be guided by the summation of missions identified in the last Decadal Survey for what was envisioned as three NF selections, now seemingly reduced to one. Here's an updated list of the envisioned New Frontier mission candidate list evolution. NF 5 (originally to be selected early 2020’s) • Comet Surface Sample Return (CSSR) • Io Observer • Lunar Geophysical Network (LGN) • Lunar South Pole-Aitken Basin (SPA) single location Sample Return • Ocean Worlds (only Enceladus) • Saturn Probe • Venus In Situ Explorer (VISE) NF 6 (originally to be selected mid 2020’s) Drop mission selected in NF 5 and these two candidates: • • Retain • Comet Surface Sample Return (CSSR) • Lunar Geophysical Network (LGN) • Ocean Worlds (only Enceladus) • Saturn Probe • Venus In Situ Explorer (VISE) Add • Centaur Orbiter and Lander (CORAL) • Ceres sample return • Titan Orbiter *Replaced with Endurance-A sampling rover (directed mission) funded by lunar program NF 7 (originally to be selected early 2030s) Drop missions selected in NF 5 & 6 • Comet Surface Sample Return (CSSR) • Lunar Geophysical Network (LGN) • Ocean Worlds (only Enceladus) • Saturn Probe • Venus In Situ Explorer (VISE) • Centaur Orbiter and Lander (CORAL) • Ceres sample return • Titan Orbiter Add • Triton Ocean World Surveyor -------------------- |
|
|
Sep 1 2023, 06:07 PM
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 251 Joined: 14-January 22 Member No.: 9140 |
Interesting (and mainly, unfortunate) set of details.
I wonder if to some extent the upcoming four Juno passes of Io steal a bit of the rationale for the Io Observer to make the list… Not that it fulfills all of those objectives, but it addresses them just a bit in comparison to the other missions. And, a similar comment re: the Lunar South Pole mission, which is somewhat being addressed by other agencies and the human spaceflight program. It's starting to seem possible if not likely that for anyone who isn't currently quite young, many of these missions are not going to occur in the span of a human lifetime. |
|
|
Sep 1 2023, 06:55 PM
Post
#5
|
|
Senior Member Group: Moderator Posts: 3242 Joined: 11-February 04 From: Tucson, AZ Member No.: 23 |
Not really. A lot of the questions an Io mission would seek to answer can't really be answered by the Juno encounters. JunoCam doesn't have the resolution or the image cadence. JIRAM doesn't have the wavelength coverage to do eruption temperature measurements (and the stuck mirror basically makes the spectrometer not all that useful even for the wavelength span it CAN do). The encounter timing and encounter altitude isn't optimized for measuring libration, the induced magnetic field, or gravity field. Don't get me wrong, I am VERY excited about an Io encounter, but no, Juno is not a substitute for a dedicated mission. It does help fill the gap between Galileo/NH and an Io Observer/EC/JUICE. And it definitely adds so much needed data points, like acting as a "scout" for North polar geology.
The bigger concern is that CAPS will do what the Decadal did and think, well, IVO was successful in Discovery so why does it need to be a NF mission, neglecting a lot of programatic issues that helped make IVO successful last go around but won't be successful in the future, like putting Phase E back in the PI-managed cost. -------------------- &@^^!% Jim! I'm a geologist, not a physicist!
The Gish Bar Times - A Blog all about Jupiter's Moon Io |
|
|
Sep 1 2023, 07:58 PM
Post
#6
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2542 Joined: 13-September 05 Member No.: 497 |
The bigger concern is that CAPS will do what the Decadal did and think, well, IVO was successful in Discovery so why does it need to be a NF mission... I've read the Decadal text about this (see below) several times and I'm not really certain what they're driving at. If all they're saying is that if IVO gets picked for Discovery it shouldn't be allowed for NF, then duh. FWIW, if I were running things, the decadal would restrict itself to listing and ranking science goals, and not have any restriction on mission selection at all. I feel like that's more like things worked in the old COMPLEX days. From https://science.nasa.gov/science-red/s3fs-p...2%80%932032.pdf QUOTE Two missions on the NF-5 list of mission themes do not appear on the above lists for NF-6 and NF-7: Io Observer and SPA sample return. The committee carefully considered the Io Observer NF theme in light of the success of the IVO Discovery mission in reaching Phase A. In their 2020 report 19 , CAPS stated “If NASA’s exploration of Io proceeds via the selection of the IVO Discovery mission, then based on the IVO Step 1 proposal, inclusion of Io Observer would be redundant scientifically and its inclusion in NF5 would strongly warrant reconsideration.” The committee reaffirms the importance of Io as unique body. Not only is it important to understanding tidal dissipation and resulting active volcanic, tectonic, and plasma processes, but also, for example, to providing an important analog to young terrestrial planets and tidally heated exoplanets. The committee anticipates that Io Observer will have an opportunity to compete in NF- 5. The selection of IVO for Phase A study demonstrates that fundamental Io science can also be achieved via the Discovery program, and this may be increasingly true with time as power systems and launch vehicles continue to evolve. These factors placed this theme at lower priority for NF-6 and NF-7 than other themes that clearly require a medium-class mission to complete their core science. -------------------- Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.
|
|
|
Sep 26 2023, 02:19 AM
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 613 Joined: 23-February 07 From: Occasionally in Columbia, MD Member No.: 1764 |
(VolcanoPele) I've read the Decadal text about this (see below) several times and I'm not really certain what they're driving at. If all they're saying is that if IVO gets picked for Discovery it shouldn't be allowed for NF, then duh. Possible Discovery viability neednt be fatal to NF : recall OSIRIS-REx was once a Discovery proposal called just OSIRIS. I think its upsell-reproposal to NF was seen as lower risk with a beefed-up in-situ payload. The cost-wallahs in the review process are much more favorably disposed to a slightly bigger mission with generous margins than a (perhaps ideally more efficient) more focussed mission squeezed into a smaller program budget with shoestring margins. FWIW, if I were running things, the decadal would restrict itself to listing and ranking science goals, and not have any restriction on mission selection at all. I feel like that's more like things worked in the old COMPLEX days. Are you sure you are not running things? Arguably this is how things have worked out in NF - JUNO was not in a mission list, it was an orbiter with a microwave spectrometer that was argued to meet the goals laid out for a Jupiter probe mission, IIRC.... - the introduction of Titan/Enceladus to NF4 did not specify a mission architecture (arguably it had in mind a Titan+Enceladus flyby mission like JET). Nobody - myself included - had Dragonfly in mind when the target list was announced, but we responded to the science goals in the AO (to the point of having payload elements that a more results-focused concept might not have included) |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 27th September 2024 - 08:28 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. |