Parker Solar Probe, Take the Solar Plunge Options

[ljk4-1]

Any serious plans to send a probe into the Sun to explore its depths as far as possible?

What would help a probe last as long as it could and how deep could it get?

Could it even radio or laser out any data?

What about a Sun skimmer?

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

So THAT'S how they got so pink.

By the way, Solar Probe originally started out as one of that very unlikely trinity of missions that were set up under Goldin's tenure to supposedly develop the new technologies necessary to go to "the most difficult destinations in the Solar System" -- along with Europa Orbiter and the Pluto flyby. This program was commonly called "Fire & Ice", but had the awkward official name of "Outer Planets/Solar Probe". (Back in 1999 I wrote to Chris Chyba suggesting that it needed a better name, and proposing -- roll of drums -- "New Frontier". He was noncommittal. Alan Stern later told me that he'd considered that name for New Horizons, but decided that the JFK reference might make Bush even more hostile to the probe than he then was -- only to have O'Keefe later give that name to the entire middle-price planetary-probe program.)

Anyway, the idea -- which in retrospect seems utterly cockamamie -- was to connect these three utterly different missions by using the same "core spacecraft" for each of them. Goldin then decided to make things even worse by overriding the recommendation of COMPLEX that the Pluto probe -- which, unlike the other two, actually required NO new technology -- fly first in 2003; he ordered instead that Europa Orbiter be flown before the Pluto mission. The result, naturally, was to delay the Pluto mission further and further as the impracticality of doing Europa Orbiter any time in the near future became obvious -- but I was told at the October 2000 meeting of the Solar System Exploration Subcommittee that Goldin told an aide that he had actually done this (along with insisting on totally impractical super-miniaturization of the Pluto probe) as a subterfuge for getting rid of the Pluto mission altogether, on the grounds that "Nobody gives a damn about Pluto."

This is where, to my lasting amazement, I enter the story. I did an August 2000 piece for "SpaceDaily" proposing that not only did the Pluto mission not require any new technologies at all (unlike the other parts of OP/SP), but that it could be flown much more cheaply by simply mildly modifying the design of either of the two existing Discovery comet probes, Stardust and CONTOUR. A month later, NASA surprised everyone by suddenly putting out an AO for ideas for a cheap Pluto probe design -- which they made very clear they were doing extremely grudgingly, and with no desire to really fly the thing.

When I got to the SSES meeting in October, there were stacks of my article on the information table; and on the first day two guys from Lockheed Martin got up and presented the company's proposal for modifying "Stardust" for the Pluto mission -- which reflected my own suggestions down to the very last goddamn detail, except that the launch would not be possible before December 2004 and so required a bigger booster than my suggested November 2003 launch. They told me later that Lockmart had come up with the idea completely independently, which I believe -- it had not exactly been a hard idea for me to come up with. But, to my stupefaction, although I had come to that meeting just as a reporter, I discovered that in the process of asking the assembled scientists for information on various subjects I was also GIVING them some information, and so Michael Drake ended up letting me take a bigger role in the debate over Pluto than he was legally supposed to do. While there was universal agreement that the argument for a near-future Pluto/Kuiper flyby was overwhelmingly strong, on the last day there was a debate over whether they might "anger NASA" by recommending it, and I ended up giving them a mini-Agincourt speech to the effect that their official job was simply to recommend the best scientific strategy for flying planetary missions, that the Pluto mission was clearly part of this, and that if NASA turned it down anyway for non-scientific reasons the agency had no reason to blame them for recommending it.

Whether this made a difference or not, they DID very strongly advocate the mission in their report, and the scientific pressure for it simply got stronger and stronger, until we finally had the spectacle -- almost unprecedented at the time -- of the GOP Congress telling not only NASA but the White House itself to go a kite, and ordering inclusion of money for the mission in the NASA budget. (The 2002 Decadal Survey report forcefully recommending it was probably the last impetus necessary for this.)

I'm still trying to determine just how important my role in all this actually was; but it seems certain that Simon Mansfield (the editor of "SpaceDaily) and I had SOME effect. I later learned that NASA was actually shutting up any engineer or scientist from publicly proposing an economically designed Pluto mission by threatening to cut off their grants, and so Simon and I ended up innocently belling the cat by publicly proposing the idea for the very first time and thus making it impossible for NASA to hush up the idea any longer. This may or may not have been what forced it to put out that reluctant AO for ideas on just this subject a month later; but judging from my treatment at that SSES meeting a month after that, my article played at least some contributing role in getting NASA's planned cancellation of any Pluto flyby mission reversed.

New Horizons, of course, IS based on CONTOUR -- although much more loosely than its competitor "POSSI" was based on Stardust -- but I can't believe that I inspired that idea; there were surely engineers already thinking about it. But -- because, by pure dumb chance, Simon and I happened to be in exactly the right place at the right time -- I did play a role in getting it flown. I take for granted that I will never get the chance to do anything remotely as important for the rest of my life. (Not that I've quite given up the hope that someday lightning might strike twice -- although my recent plan to push a penetrator as a small piggyback lander for Europa Orbiter turned out to have a subtle but very important flaw in it pointed out at the recent COMPLEX meeting. Oh, well. Back to the drawing board.)

Anyway, in retrospect it's perfectly obvious that Europa Orbiter was the most complex of the three OP/SP missions and should therefore have been flown last, with the Pluto flyby going first and Solar Probe second. Thanks entirely to Crazy Dan Goldin, this didn't happen -- or we could have seen the Pluto mission launched, with considerably lower cost and more science return, in November 2003 (which would even have allowed it to do a very close Io flyby en route!) And Solar Probe is STILL a very important mission -- in terms of practical human benefit, maybe the most important of the three -- and badly needs to be flown.

[Bob Shaw]

Bruce:

Careful there Ted, or Crazy Dan might try to pull strings to have you nominated as the command pilot of a (briefly) manned Solar mission!

Of course, he'd stand every chance of getting the second seat reservation for himself...

...I wonder who'd get the third slot?

Bob Shaw

[lyford]

Bruce:

Careful there Ted, or Crazy Dan might try to pull strings to have you nominated as the command pilot of a (briefly) manned Solar mission!

Of course, he'd stand every chance of getting the second seat reservation for himself...

...I wonder who'd get the third slot?

Bob Shaw

Perhaps Hotblack Desiato?