New Frontiers 5 Selection Options

[vjkane]

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.

[vjkane]

Looking at this list of NF5 candidate missions (see previous post), one can speculate on concepts that might be considered higher scientific priority based on the recent Decadal Survey report. Others read the Decadal differently?

Proposals have been made to previous Discovery and/or NF competitions for all these targets except the lunar geophysical network. However, the community promoting this latter concept has been working on developing the design and science rational. I would expect high quality proposals for all the candidate missions, except for possibly the lunar sample return.

The lunar SPA sample return mission concept, which would collect samples from directly around a single landing location, may now be considered obsolete. The last Decadal argued that answering key questions about the formation and history of the moon would require samples from a number of locations. The Decadal report strongly endorsed a competing concept for the Endurance rover to do a ~2000 km traverse to collect samples (top lunar priority). So, the science behind an SPA sample return was strongly endorsed by the Decadal, but the implication was that a roving mission is needed.

Clearly prioritized target:

Enceladus multiflyby - Enceladus was clearly prioritized as a target by the last Decadal, and its importance was emphasized by the report prioritizing both an NF and flagship mission. In addition, considerable work has been done to mature instrument designs for a multiflyby mission.

Next tier?

Comet sample return - comets are a high priority and the last NF selection produced a strong mission concept. Two other concepts were also proposed in the last competition.

Lunar geophysical network - The community promoting this concept has done a lot of work to mature the design concepts and to create a strong science rational.

Lower priority?

Saturn probe
Io observer

Both have strong science rationales and mature (especially for Io) mission concepts. However, neither target seemed to be prioritized as the targets above were in the Decadal report.

[mcaplinger]

Looking at this list of NF5 candidate missions (see previous post), one can speculate on concepts that might be considered higher scientific priority based on the recent Decadal Survey report.

I think history would support the contention that there is not a large correlation between decadals and which missions are actually selected.

My take, FWIW: the lunar missions are DOA due to confusion with the HSF program if nothing else. Enceladus and Saturn will be judged too risky/immature. Io is too redundant with the other upcoming jovian missions.

Assuming they even issue the AO due to budget issues.

Forgive my cynicism (if that's what you want to call it) -- I've been in the business for a long time.

[vjkane]

Enceladus and Saturn will be judged too risky/immature.

I'm not in the field, so I'll admit my ignorance. I'm looking to learn, so hence my exploration hoping you may have some specifics.

The Enceladus and Saturn missions to me seem like the lower risk targets.

The Enceladus mission has to enter Saturn's orbit and execute a series of flybys of Titan (gravity assists) and Enceladus. That seems to be well proven capabilities. Are the instruments your concern?

The Saturn mission, other than the mission duration, seems to have similar complexity to the DAVINCI mission.

Again, there are many subtleties that I'm likely not aware of

[StargazeInWonder]

The Saturn entry probe seems like its rationale has been seriously undermined by the combination of the Galileo entry probe and Juno at Jupiter. The former was supposed to establish planet-wide abundances of H2O, NH3, etc. It obviously hit an anomalous region. Juno revealed that these compounds vary dramatically in abundance across latitude and depth, so no single entry probe could possibly answer the questions in a fundamental way. It's not that one unlucky location was atypical, but that there's no such thing as typical. Unless there's good reason to believe that Saturn would be different, then no Saturn entry probe will answer these questions for Saturn.

Other objectives would be unaffected; noble gas isotope ratios and certain structural information would probably be measurable in the hoped-for ways, so the mission would definitely accomplish some important goals, but losing one set of objectives would subtract significantly from the return on investment.

[mcaplinger]

The Enceladus mission has to enter Saturn's orbit and execute a series of flybys of Titan (gravity assists) and Enceladus. That seems to be well proven capabilities. Are the instruments your concern?

Yes, that and overall mission duration.

The Saturn mission, other than the mission duration, seems to have similar complexity to the DAVINCI mission.

Fair enough (I can't speak to the similarity of instrumentation) but it's a long way to go for such a short period of data-taking, and missions that take all their data in a short period without any do-overs are always going to be perceived (rightly IMHO) as more risky.

It seems to me that, after Dragonfly, another mission to Saturn is unlikely to get picked next regardless of how worthy it is.

[mcaplinger]

The Saturn entry probe seems like its rationale has been seriously undermined by the combination of the Galileo entry probe and Juno at Jupiter.

I'd be surprised if advocates of a Saturn probe don't have answers to those objections, valid or otherwise.
See slide 14 in https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/2016000...20160009334.pdf though it is at best heuristic

[vjkane]

I'd be surprised if advocates of a Saturn probe don't have answers to those objections, valid or otherwise.
See slide 14 in https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/2016000...20160009334.pdf though it is at best heuristic

Appreciate the link

[vjkane]

A couple of more observations on the candidate list

First, I just realized that the Venus in situ concept (combined atmospheric probe and surface analysis) was not included in the just released NF5 candidate list despite being on the list for NF5 from the previous 2012 Decadal (which provides the list for this competition).

I expect that this is due to ensuring a diversity of solar system exploration after the selection of three Venus missions, overlap with the DAVINCI mission specifically, and publicly stated concerns over whether the surface sampling required under the prior requirements could be done within the NF cost constraints.

The Venus mission was included in a list of expected NF5 candidates in a November 2020 community announcement, before the competition was delayed.

Second, Blackstar on the NASA Spaceflight forum (and a participant in the last two planetary Decadal's) has some interesting observations on the inclusion of a the Endurance rover as a preferred implementation for lunar SPA sample return:

Endurance concept background

[StargazeInWonder]

I'd be surprised if advocates of a Saturn probe don't have answers to those objections, valid or otherwise.
See slide 14 in … though it is at best heuristic

Thanks; that's very informative. There's no doubt that the Saturn probe mission could return some very interesting science. If it manages to win the competition, the data will be great to have. And I'm sure that the teams are rarely going to be silent in response to any possible objections. And I guess that at this point, an entry probe is probably the best choice for any mission that is dedicated to the planet Saturn, since Cassini closed out its extended mission with a pseudo-Juno internal structure campaign. I guess that DAVINCI+ even makes it a little more interesting to get the noble gas isotope data from as many different atmospheres as possible.

[mcaplinger]

...I just realized that the Venus in situ concept (combined atmospheric probe and surface analysis) was not included in the just released NF5 candidate list

Thank goodness, because if they had left it on some group(s) would have insisted on proposing it, despite the IMHO essentially zero chance that another Venus mission would be selected at this point. And I hate to see people bang their heads against a wall like that, having done it myself more than once

...some interesting observations on the inclusion of a the Endurance rover as a preferred implementation for lunar SPA sample return

We can't talk about Endurance-A here, but the desire of the lunar community to not spend SMD money while moving the goalposts on the original fairly simple SPA sample return mission is what I was talking about when I said lunar missions were unlikely to be selected as part of an NF AO in the current environment.
https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/leag2022/pdf/5031.pdf

FWIW, if I was writing the NF AO I wouldn't allow any lunar missions in the first place.

[volcanopele]

Io is too redundant with the other upcoming jovian missions.

How? Neither JUICE nor Europa Clipper have Io flybys planned and won't come any closer than Europa. Juno has two planned encounters but its instruments aren't optimized for looking at smaller targets like Io (not saying I don't appreciate what it CAN get, just that its instruments and trajectory aren't optimized for Io science).

Lower priority?

Saturn probe
Io observer

Both have strong science rationales and mature (especially for Io) mission concepts. However, neither target seemed to be prioritized as the targets above were in the Decadal report.

Io Observer was removed for NF-6 and NF-7, but not for NF-5 in the decadal. So one could argue that this is Io Observer's shot at getting selected.

[mcaplinger]

How? Neither JUICE nor Europa Clipper have Io flybys planned and won't come any closer than Europa.

Of course you're right scientifically; I should have said "will be viewed as redundant" rather than "is redundant".

Politically, I think it's very unlikely that an Io mission will get selected when two other big missions will be active in the jovian system; the Io community is just not big enough to make that happen.

But this is just my own take, obviously.

Hard to say what EC will ultimately do; they have understandably hunkered down to a very Europa-centric plan but one could hope that might loosen in an extended mission.

[vjkane]

The Saturn entry probe seems like its rationale has been seriously undermined by the combination of the Galileo entry probe and Juno at Jupiter. The former was supposed to establish planet-wide abundances of H2O, NH3, etc. It obviously hit an anomalous region. Juno revealed that these compounds vary dramatically in abundance across latitude and depth, so no single entry probe could possibly answer the questions in a fundamental way. It's not that one unlucky location was atypical, but that there's no such thing as typical. Unless there's good reason to believe that Saturn would be different, then no Saturn entry probe will answer these questions for Saturn.

Other objectives would be unaffected; noble gas isotope ratios and certain structural information would probably be measurable in the hoped-for ways, so the mission would definitely accomplish some important goals, but losing one set of objectives would subtract significantly from the return on investment.

There was a concept for a Juno-like Uranus orbiter that would carry a Juno-style microwave radiometer. That could track the spatial distributions of gases at Uranus as was done at Jupiter.

[vjkane]

Hard to say what EC will ultimately do; they have understandably hunkered down to a very Europa-centric plan but one could hope that might loosen in an extended mission.

Several years ago at a public presentation about the Clipper mission, the now-retired project manager said that his private hope was that the spacecraft's end would come with an impact on Io. He emphasized that this was the (then; nor is it the current) plan. A personal hope.