MAX-C/ExoMars, Dual NASA/ESA rovers slated for 2018 launch |
MAX-C/ExoMars, Dual NASA/ESA rovers slated for 2018 launch |
Mar 18 2010, 08:25 AM
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 239 Joined: 18-December 07 From: New York Member No.: 3982 |
In case anyone doesn't know the 22nd MEPAG meeting is going on March 17th and 18th.
On the presentations posted for the first day there is one titled "Mars Sample Return (three element architecture)." On the 5th slide it states that during to the "Team X" study, the aeroshell was increased in diameter from 4.5m to 4.7m in order to accommodate both MAX-C and ExoMars together. I took a look at the specifications for the Atlas 5 launch vehicle and found on page 6-4 and 6-21 that the maximum diameter of the payload bay was 4.572m. Is it possible to fit a 4.7m aeroshell in a 4.572m payload bay? I know this mission is still in the early planning stage and that these numbers should be taken with a huge grain of salt; but this looks like a pretty big oversight. |
|
|
Apr 22 2011, 07:11 PM
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 239 Joined: 18-December 07 From: New York Member No.: 3982 |
This is going a little off topic so I apologize.
What I meant was that none of the Flagship missions coming out of the decadal come anywhere close to $1.2B. (The least expensive being the Enceladus Orbiter at $1.9B.) I think it's more likely that they'll choose a fifth New Frontiers mission instead, with any leftovers being folded into other missions or the DSN. I really hope I'm wrong. (Keep in mind that the mission costs from the decadal are only CATE studies, not final mission costs.) Edit: NF-6 not NF-5. |
|
|
Apr 22 2011, 09:53 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Founder Group: Chairman Posts: 14432 Joined: 8-February 04 Member No.: 1 |
This is going a little off topic so I apologize. What I meant was that none of the Flagship missions coming out of the decadal come anywhere close to $1.2B. That's because the none of the mission were proposed that could do that, moreover, the Decadal survey was done with a budget in mind that is now clearly not going to be available. Plus - that's the NASA part of the project budget... the total expenditure would still be very very firmly in the $2B+ range. Thus take the Max-C architecture and split it between US and ESA and it becomes affordable and the logical next mission going on the recommendations of the Decadal. This new idea essentially gets both NASA and ESA a large stake in a flagship mission, and little more than New Frontiers costs to each. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 24th April 2024 - 11:52 PM |
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. |