March OPAG presentations available |
March OPAG presentations available |
Apr 8 2008, 09:37 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 706 Joined: 22-April 05 Member No.: 351 |
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/opag/march_08_meeting/agenda.html
LOTS of interesting material here. Some highlights that interested me: Cassini extended-extended mission (XXM) could last 7 years and end with a series of very close (10,000's km) polar orbits through the D ring gap to enable close in gravity and magnetometer mapping a la Juno Argo proposal would be a New Horizon's class fly by of a Trojan, Saturn, Neptune/Triton, and one or more KBOs for ~$800M (but requires radioactive power source, so would seem to be out of contention for next New Frontiers) Joint Jupiter mission design. NASA supplied Europa orbiter now required to conduct Jupiter system science including up to 4 Io flybys. To fit within the $2.1B cap (with 33% margin), Europa orbit would be reduced to 60 days and several instruments from the Flagship proposal would be dropped including the narrow angle camera) Titan mission. Aerocapture no longer allowed, so craft would enter Saturn orbit first. Potentially allows new Enceladus observations. (Editorial note: Presentation was long on concepts, short on specifics. If this is an indication of the maturity of the mission concept, this does not bode well. I hope that this is only the style of presentation chosen by the presenter). Nature of ESA in situ probe(s) to be decided. ESA Cosmic Vision outer planet mission. ESA is considering three missions for the next cosmic vision mission: an outer planets joint mission with NASA (Jupiter or Titan/Saturn), XEUS (X-ray observatory), or LISA (gravity wave observatory). Down select to two of the three end of '09, final single mission selected in 2011. Radioisotope power. Lots of technical update, but a gem in the backup, the ASRG (Sterling engine) mission concepts being studied in more detail than I've seen elsewhere: Moon polar rover (2 concepts) Titan boat(!) Io observer Trojan lander Comet lander Comet coma rendezvou sample return Mars lander drill ("a tour through Martian history") Venus balloons (2) -------------------- |
|
|
Apr 18 2008, 04:26 PM
Post
#2
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1018 Joined: 29-November 05 From: Seattle, WA, USA Member No.: 590 |
I don't suppose the Euro being worth twice as much now as it was a few years ago helps? I'd like to think that means the Europeans could contribute twice as much, but somehow I think it doesn't work that way. :-)
--Greg |
|
|
Apr 18 2008, 07:05 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2530 Joined: 20-April 05 Member No.: 321 |
[...]
|
|
|
Apr 19 2008, 05:14 AM
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 220 Joined: 13-October 05 Member No.: 528 |
Here's a policy question. If two space agencies are collaborating on a mission, what's the marginal incentive for one to pay more/less for the mission? (As noted earlier, this won't involve margins of a dollar/Euro/yen. It would mean something like separate crafts -- which is a very large quantum -- or instruments, a smaller quantum.) If space agencies A and B have agree to fly one craft, with each building and operating 4 instruments, what's the upside/downside for A to instead fly 3 and B to fly 5? A saves budget, but loses, what -- prestige? What are the "economics" of this? First off, when we talk about prestige, it's not really the prestige of the particular scientific or exploration accomplisment. It is more the prestige of 'our country or countries did this'. Furthur, I think prestige is only one part of the equation, and possibly not even the biggest part. I think the main point is that the money spent by each country (or agency) gets spent internally. This is to promote and sustain local industry and scientific capability. And since economies are intertwined, for every dollar (or Euro) spent on an engineer in company A, an portion of that dollar is spent by company A on a subcontractor. The subcontractor then spends part of that dollar on one or more of his suppliers and .... etc etc etc. Beyond that, when those engineers and subcontractors are not working on this particular space project, they can apply all their experience to build something else. Something that they might not have ever had the skills to do if they hadn't built that particular spacecraft. Those of us on this board focus on the incredible scientific returns on these missions, and the "wow" factor of going out there. I think the politicians are more focused on 'I helped our local industry thrive'. And that's just fine. It works out well for everyone. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 20th May 2024 - 10:46 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. |