Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Unmanned Spaceflight.com _ Jupiter _ March OPAG presentations available

Posted by: vjkane Apr 8 2008, 09:37 PM

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)



Posted by: tedstryk Apr 8 2008, 11:31 PM

Option A for Argo, which includes a Jupiter flyby, is also a possibility, and was the one that was spoken of at the LPSC.

Posted by: tedstryk Apr 9 2008, 12:13 AM

I will add one more thing. If the spacecraft is still going on the seventh year of its extended mission, I hope they give it an 8th year if at all possible. If I am not mistaken, Saturn will be due for the next great white spot at that time.

Posted by: volcanopele Apr 9 2008, 12:29 AM

A few blog posts with my thoughts:

http://gishbar.blogspot.com/2008/04/io-volcanic-observer.html
http://gishbar.blogspot.com/2008/04/preliminary-report-on-jupiter-joint-sdt.html

A lot of interesting stuff. If the Jupiter/Europa mission wins, I will certainly be rooting for the Titan Mare In Situ Mission. If TANDEM wins, then the next Discovery mission better be IVO!

Also note the lack of aerocapture of TANDEM.

Posted by: vjkane Apr 9 2008, 12:47 AM

Some more thoughts on the presentations. First of all, NASA's decision time frame (2010) and ESA's (2011) may make for difficult instrument selections. If ESA is in, then their scientists will want to compete for instruments on the NASA-supplied orbiter. However, is that realistic given that ESA won't decide until 2011? Anyone know?

However, given NASA's tight budgets, they might welcome opening up the orbiters to foreign-funded instruments.

If Titan is chosen for the Flagship mission, then an Io observer that could also observe other Jovian system bodies would become very attractive. I still have my doubts that this can be done on a Discovery budget, even with NASA providing the power source at no cost.

Posted by: edstrick Apr 9 2008, 10:20 AM

"...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..."

yes, Yes, YES!!!!!!

Posted by: ngunn Apr 9 2008, 11:19 AM

QUOTE (vjkane @ Apr 9 2008, 01:47 AM) *
Some more thoughts on the presentations. First of all, NASA's decision time frame (2010) and ESA's (2011) may make for difficult instrument selections. If ESA is in, then their scientists will want to compete for instruments on the NASA-supplied orbiter. However, is that realistic given that ESA won't decide until 2011? Anyone know?


Seems like the pace is quickening. This is from the Neibur presentation:

Outer Planets Flagship Mission:
The Road Ahead
• Summer 2008: Preliminary mission study reports
•Summer 2008: Independent TMC and Science
review
• Fall 2008: Teams revise reports based on review
results
• Late Fall 2008: HQ and ESA downselect to one
OPF mission
• Early 2009: Begin Phase A, including release of
instrument AO

 Outer_Planets_Flagship_Mission.doc ( 23.5K ) : 660
 

Posted by: ngunn Apr 9 2008, 11:34 AM

A couple of comments on the Titan proposal. I'm very happy to see more different types of in situ probes back up for consideration, especially a lake probe. I can understand why NASA has decided not to risk making the whole mission rely on aerocapture, but reading between the lines direct aerocapture at Titan could still be on the cards for one or more of the in situ elements. I'd certainly like to see it pioneered.

Posted by: vjkane Apr 9 2008, 02:04 PM

QUOTE (ngunn @ Apr 9 2008, 12:34 PM) *
direct aerocapture at Titan could still be on the cards for one or more of the in situ elements. I'd certainly like to see it pioneered.

I think that a separate launch and carrier craft for the in situ missions makes a lot of sense. It removes any dependency on ESA for NASA's design (NASA can find other ways to either use the extra mass or a smaller launcher).

Posted by: infocat13 Apr 9 2008, 09:09 PM

QUOTE (vjkane @ Apr 8 2008, 04:37 PM) *
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)



Cassini XXM,
I was hoping for the centaur option,I wonder how much fuel would be remaining after the centaur encounter and would it have been only an encounter or a orbital mission?
the paper states a three year flight time and less then a year to set up the Saturn escape.
The paper states 20 years to Uranus with little likelihood of science when we got there! ha !
but then......................voyager has lasted at least as long so we are talking money here for a long cruise

ARGO,
I like this idea!
why not make this the mission to test out the Stirling power generator? the Stirling is to be provided "free" to the PI. Several of the trajectories mentioned includes Venus earth mars flybys in addition to the Saturn flyby...........GRAND TOUR in 2017!
of course the answer here is Stirling will fly sooner then that.


"The Boat",
Is not!
its a submarine, you would think with all the waste heat from the generater could be used to heat just a little of the cryogenic lake water to provide propusion.





Posted by: vjkane Apr 9 2008, 09:44 PM

QUOTE (infocat13 @ Apr 9 2008, 10:09 PM) *
ARGO,
I like this idea!
why not make this the mission to test out the Stirling power generator? the Stirling is to be provided "free" to the PI. Several of the trajectories mentioned includes Venus earth mars flybys in addition to the Saturn flyby...........GRAND TOUR in 2017!
of course the answer here is Stirling will fly sooner then that.

ARGO will probably barely fit in a $800M funding profile; Discovery missions are limited to ~$450M (I forget the exact limit).

Posted by: Roly Apr 10 2008, 02:47 PM

Very exciting to read the OPAG reports, I look forward to them after every meeting.

I had a question regarding the descoping of the Europa Orbiter. To what extent does the deletion of the Narrow Angle Camera damage the ability to characterize the surface for a future (distant future...) lander? Is the ~10m of the Medium Angle Camera sufficient? Obviously it will do a better job than no camera at all, which sounds like the alternative.

I suspect the extended mission of the orbiter would be very limited, but if the final disposal of the spacecraft is Europa impact, could the sensor be designed to minimize smearing, perhaps allowing the return of a few very high resolution images in the final few orbits? Maybe borrowing from the experience of 'cProto' motion compensation?

It will be excellent to hear from the instrument study meeting too.

Posted by: gpurcell Apr 10 2008, 07:55 PM

Very interesting stuff, thanks for posting.

The compromise position is becoming clearer--the losing planet of the flagship mission gets a Stirling-powered Discovery class consolation prize.

Posted by: vjkane Apr 10 2008, 10:50 PM

QUOTE (Roly @ Apr 10 2008, 03:47 PM) *
I had a question regarding the descoping of the Europa Orbiter. To what extent does the deletion of the Narrow Angle Camera damage the ability to characterize the surface for a future (distant future...) lander? Is the ~10m of the Medium Angle Camera sufficient? Obviously it will do a better job than no camera at all, which sounds like the alternative.

A few months ago, I posted the attached file on resolutions of *narrow* angle cameras for the Europa Explorer and Jovian System Explorer. If the new Europa proposal is selected for the flagship and a narrow angle camera is not added back into the payload, then I believe that the resolution of the medium camera will be about 1/10 that of the EE resolution in the attached file.

 camera_resolutions.txt ( 1.47K ) : 416
 

Posted by: vjkane Apr 11 2008, 06:56 AM

I looked up the specs on New Horizon's LORRI camera. It's resolution appears to be the same as that of the EE narrow angle camera listed in the document attached to the previous post.

LORRI weights ~8.5kg. If you add filters and shielding for radiation, then the EE narrow angle camera weight of ~15kg suggests that the possible EE narrow angle camera is similar in performance to LORRI (but with filters).

Posted by: volcanopele Apr 11 2008, 07:01 AM

Actually, the LORRI camera has an IFOV of 4.95 µm, while the EE NAC (as baselined last year) has an IFOV of 10 µm. The EE narrow angle camera has a similar resolution as Galileo's SSI.

Posted by: vjkane Apr 14 2008, 04:22 AM

This week's Aviation Week as an article about the two outer planet Flagship proposals. The description of the Titan mission suggests that the orbiter would not orbit Titan, only Saturn. The OPAG presentation clearly says that the orbiter would orbit Titan after Saturn system studies. So, Aviation Week may be wrong, or this could be a new plan to fit within the budget and mass cap. (I hope the article is wrong!)

Here is the description from AW:

Titan/Saturn System Mission (TSSM) would image the lakes, streams and other extraordinary terrain of Saturn’s enigmatic moon, which is covered in organics—the building blocks of early life. The mission would center on a “Montgolfier” hot air balloon that would float for perhaps two years at low altitude in Titan’s methane atmosphere. The imaging balloon would also carry two or three surface probes with two-day lifetimes that could be dropped on areas of special interest. One probe, the methane lake boat, or submarine, would explore one of the most bizarre surfaces in the solar system. A companion TSSM orbiter would orbit Saturn and focus on Enceladus

Posted by: vjkane Apr 14 2008, 04:26 AM

QUOTE (volcanopele @ Apr 11 2008, 07:01 AM) *
Actually, the LORRI camera has an IFOV of 4.95 µm, while the EE NAC (as baselined last year) has an IFOV of 10 µm. The EE narrow angle camera has a similar resolution as Galileo's SSI.

Jason, do you know the Cassini NA IFOV? And is there a simple formula for converting IFOV to m resolution at a given distance?

Posted by: rlorenz Apr 14 2008, 07:50 AM

QUOTE (vjkane @ Apr 14 2008, 12:22 AM) *
This week's Aviation Week as an article about the two outer planet Flagship proposals. The description of the Titan mission suggests that the orbiter would not orbit Titan, only Saturn. The OPAG presentation clearly says that the orbiter would orbit Titan after Saturn system studies. So, Aviation Week may be wrong, or this could be a new plan to fit within the budget and mass cap. (I hope the article is wrong!)

Here is the description from AW:.....A companion TSSM orbiter would orbit Saturn and focus on Enceladus[/i]


I think AW has garbled this (maybe got mixed up with what *had* been proposed for TANDEM last year,
and what is being planned in the Joint NASA-ESA TSSM study)

TSSM would eventually enter orbit around Titan. Still being worked how long it would orbit Saturn
(and encounter Enceladus) before it does so.

Posted by: ugordan Apr 14 2008, 08:31 AM

QUOTE (vjkane @ Apr 14 2008, 06:26 AM) *
Jason, do you know the Cassini NA IFOV? And is there a simple formula for converting IFOV to m resolution at a given distance?

Cassini NAC has an IFOV of 6 µrad. Simply multiplying that figure by distance of the target object gives you the pixel scale in input distance units. Note that to actually resolve objects at that distance, they'd need to be something like twice that in size.
For example, http://ciclops.org/view.php?id=1250 was taken from a slant distance of 319 000 m, multiply by 6E-6 rad and you get around 2 meters/pixel. The actual image was binned 2x2 so the pixel scale was reduced to 4 meters/pixel. That can resolve objects around 8 m in size and larger.

Posted by: vjkane Apr 14 2008, 02:59 PM

QUOTE (rlorenz @ Apr 14 2008, 07:50 AM) *
TSSM would eventually enter orbit around Titan. Still being worked how long it would orbit Saturn
(and encounter Enceladus) before it does so.

I'd hoped that's the case. Being able to study Enceladus is a nice option of the new plan, although I suspect that the problems of carrying all the extra mass for fuel are giving the teams serious issues.

Posted by: vjkane Apr 15 2008, 01:37 AM

QUOTE (rlorenz @ Apr 14 2008, 07:50 AM) *
I think AW has garbled this (maybe got mixed up with what *had* been proposed for TANDEM last year,
and what is being planned in the Joint NASA-ESA TSSM study)

AWST also said that the in situ probe would be a balloon with three dropped landers. Has this been decided, or is this still just one of the options?

Posted by: DFortes Apr 15 2008, 09:55 AM

QUOTE (rlorenz @ Apr 14 2008, 08:50 AM) *
I think AW has garbled this (maybe got mixed up with what *had* been proposed for TANDEM last year,
and what is being planned in the Joint NASA-ESA TSSM study)



Spaceflight Now and Astronomy Now are carrying similar 'misinformation'

http://www.astronomynow.com/news/080404laplacetandem/

Don't believe everything you read...

Posted by: rlorenz Apr 15 2008, 11:44 AM

QUOTE (vjkane @ Apr 14 2008, 09:37 PM) *
AWST also said that the in situ probe would be a balloon with three dropped landers. Has this been decided, or is this still just one of the options?


Nothing has been decided yet, but these are the options being explored. Remains to be seen
whether all of these can be accommodated. It will be some months before the study is
complete

Posted by: Stephen Apr 17 2008, 03:56 AM

After reading the proposal for the http://www.lpi.usra.edu/opag/march_08_meeting/presentations/greeley.pdf at the http://www.lpi.usra.edu/opag/march_08_meeting/agenda.html what strikes me most is that it's really three separate missions bundled together and presented as one OPF! Not only would NASA, ESA, and JAXA each have their own orbiter, each of those orbiters would be launched on separate launch vehicles at (maybe widely varying) occasions.

Granted that each of those orbiters would have differing goals, but then that's hardly the point! Consider NASA's contribution, the Europan Orbiter. The report estimates it will cost $2.4 billion. Unfortunately, NASA only has $2.1 billion in the kitty to pay for it (which in turn has, not unnaturally, produced what I take to be a certain amount of handwringing). However, instead of ESA and JAXA riding to the rescue to make up the shortfall they will instead be spending their money on their own orbiters.

Indeed if the ESA and JAXA will be contributing anything (other than science personnel) to the EO it is not spelt out in that document as far as I can make out.

That is not say all three orbiters are not exciting, worthwhile endeavours, but is that really the way these international space missions are supposed to work?

On the face of it it's difficult to call this one an international mission at all. With all due respect to those who put that presentation together it looks more like three national missions bundled together for marketing purposes.
======
Stephen

Posted by: vjkane Apr 17 2008, 05:48 AM

QUOTE (Stephen @ Apr 17 2008, 03:56 AM) *
On the face of it it's difficult to call this one an international mission at all. With all due respect to those who put that presentation together it looks more like three national missions bundled together for marketing purposes.
======
Stephen

I would disagree. Each mission addresses key areas of Jovian science that no single craft can. One orbits Europa. Another conducts long term studies of Io and Jupiter and possibly orbits Ganymede. Another studies the magnetosphere in a second location, which has been a long term goal of the fields and particles community for Jupiter. Instrument development and science teams would be shared across all three missions.

Posted by: Stephen Apr 17 2008, 10:38 AM

QUOTE (vjkane @ Apr 17 2008, 03:48 PM) *
Each mission addresses key areas of Jovian science that no single craft can.

I do not doubt that at all, especially given the descoping of the version of the Europan Orbiter now being proposed versus the one proposed http://www.lpi.usra.edu/opag/europa2007_final_report.pdf (caution! 95 mb PDF file). The one now being proposed appears to be the cheaper ($2.4 billion) "floor mission" rather than more expensive ($3.3 billion) "baseline mission" (see page 4-4 of that earlier report); and given that there is still a shortfall of some $300 million ($2.4 billion estimate vs $2.1 billion funding available) then chances are the EO may face more descoping before the project even gets the green light, much less flies--unless somebody rides to the rescue with more cash. (And given the past history of NASA projects ballooning in costs as development progresses even that additional descoping may not be the end of the bad news for the EO project.)

A more sensible solution (just MHO) would have been for the Jovian OPF guys to settle on one or the other--either an EO or an JSO--to which both NASA and the ESA would contribute. By trying to have both (plus a possible Japanese orbiter) their ambitions may well wind up exceeding their funding levels.

QUOTE (vjkane @ Apr 17 2008, 03:48 PM) *
Instrument development and science teams would be shared across all three missions.

Glad to hear it.

But tell me: how much of NASA's $2.1 billion for the next OPF will be spent on ESA's JSO and how much ESA funding will be spent on NASA's EO?

As far as I can make out there isn't enough for NASA to pay for that $2.4 billion EO plus make a sensible contribution to the JSO (which I see from http://www.lpi.usra.edu/opag/jso_final_report.pdf (caution! 45 mb PDF file) will cost $3.1 billion for the "baseline mission" and $2.7 billion for the "descope mission" (page 1-4).)

By my maths that means (assuming the descoped version of each) EO + JSO == $4.8 billion!

How much of that is NASA going to be contributing towards?

With Cassini NASA paid for 80% of the mission, with the ESA and the Italians paying the remainder. Will that be the split again? If so, then someone will need to tell Congress to come with a couple of billion dollars more!

On the other hand given NASA's present committment isn't enough to even cover the cost of EO just how much will it be able to contribute towards the JSO?

As far as I can see the major rationale for these international missions is to offset costs. If all NASA can contribute to the JSO is a few token pennies while the ESA won't be able to contribute much to the EO because it will have a $2.7 billion bill to pay for the JSO then will these really be INTERnational missions or will they turn out to be merely national ones with a little personnel mixing from foreign agencies?
======
Stephen

Posted by: djellison Apr 17 2008, 10:45 AM

Unfortunately, it's very VERY hard to do international colab at any level other than the hard-cut offs ( i.e. Cassini / Hugyens ) or the instrument level ( although look at the Phoenix MET for how hard that's been). The transferring of pure cash is not a wise move in terms of public opinion.

Other than contributing whole spacecraft, or just instruments - I'm not sure what you're suggesting Stephen.



Posted by: vjkane Apr 17 2008, 02:38 PM

QUOTE (Stephen @ Apr 17 2008, 10:38 AM) *
A more sensible solution (just MHO) would have been for the Jovian OPF guys to settle on one or the other--either an EO or an JSO--to which both NASA and the ESA would contribute. By trying to have both (plus a possible Japanese orbiter) their ambitions may well wind up exceeding their funding levels.

As far as I can make out there isn't enough for NASA to pay for that $2.4 billion EO plus make a sensible contribution to the JSO (which I see from http://www.lpi.usra.edu/opag/jso_final_report.pdf (caution! 45 mb PDF file) will cost $3.1 billion for the "baseline mission" and $2.7 billion for the "descope mission" (page 1-4).)

By my maths that means (assuming the descoped version of each) EO + JSO == $4.8 billion!

I agree that in a perfect world, the best use of ESA's money for Jupiter would be to add an extra $600-800M (I forget the euro figures) into a single more capable craft. However, there are strong justifications for a second craft to do studies that a Europa-bound orbiter wouldn't want to linger around to do.

I do not agree with your budget analysis. ESA's craft (without instrument costs, which are borne by the individual countries) is capped at that $600-800M. ESA will not be spending $2.7-3.1B. Based on Juno (which will cost about the same with instrument costs), a solar powered Jovian orbiter can be built for this price range. I have serious doubts about whether it can also orbit Ganymede, but it could do dozens of flybys at different longitudes and lattitudes. I think a craft that observes Jupiter and Io for a number of years and conducts many flybys of Ganymede is a good candidate mission. You apparently disagree, and that's what's makes forums interesting for all.

Posted by: Greg Hullender Apr 18 2008, 04:26 PM

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

Posted by: centsworth_II Apr 18 2008, 05:26 PM

QUOTE (Greg Hullender @ Apr 18 2008, 11:26 AM) *
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. :-)

In a way it does work that way. All the Europeans need to do is convert their contribution from Euros to
dollars and it would be twice as much (dollars) as it would have been a few years ago. Now if the Europeans
cut their contribution in Euros to keep the dollar amount the same as it would have been a few years ago,
now THAT would be CHEAP! Of course everything costs twice what it did a few years ago.

Posted by: djellison Apr 18 2008, 06:16 PM

Again - you're talking as if ESA's going to write a big fat cheque to NASA. That's not how it can work - politically, that's an unacceptable thing to do. You do things like 'we'll do the launch vehicle, if we can have two instruments onboard' or 'you do the orbiter, we'll do the lander' but not ' here's a billion dollars, can we have in please?'

Doug

Posted by: JRehling Apr 18 2008, 07:05 PM

[...]

Posted by: vjkane Apr 19 2008, 02:29 AM

QUOTE (JRehling @ Apr 18 2008, 07:05 PM) *
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?

I believe there is usually some attempt to balance the number of instruments and membership on the science teams based on relative contributions. This isn't always followed. I don't believe that the German space agency is helping to pay for MER or Dawn even though they have instruments on both craft. In this case, I believe that foreign contribution is based on

What will be interesting with this Flagship decision. NASA will decide on its mission in the next year, and ESA will decide in 2011 (as I remember) whether or not they will participate. So NASA will have to decide on the mission without being able to count on ESA contributing a complementary craft (Jovian orbiter or Titan in situ). Yet the cost of the instruments will be a major factor in deciding what kind of mission can be flown to either target.

This also makes the choice of mission interesting. If NASA cannot depend on ESA, then it has to decide based only on the orbiter science. So the decision has to be made on:

Europa science plus Jovian, Io (possibly), and Ganymede observations

Titan orbital science plus Enceladus observations

(I discount other Saturn observations in the belief that this craft is unlikely to improve on Cassini observations.)

I believe that Titan orbiter + in situ craft from ESA + Enceladus observations as better science than Europa science plus the ESA contribution of a Jupiter/Ganymede observer. However, if the in situ Titan craft cannot be counted on, then I think that the Europa mission gets the nod on science.

This process will be very interesting to watch unfold.

Posted by: Mariner9 Apr 19 2008, 05:14 AM

QUOTE (JRehling @ Apr 18 2008, 12:05 PM) *
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.

Posted by: nprev Apr 19 2008, 06:00 AM

Well said. Realpolitik is what it is, and frankly when it comes to the comparatively extremely small investments that are made in UMSF, the immediate and long-term societial/technological ROIs are immense.

There's a lot of--usually sarcastic--focus on direct spin-offs, mostly because critics do not recognize (or comprehend?) this fact.

Perhaps there's a heuristic to be derived here: The more difficult a technical problem is to solve, the more benefits from both solutions and alternative approaches--even if not adopted--can be harvested. Ideas often spring from previous ideas, which is probably why nobody's working on an improved version of the flint axe instead of proposals for new interplanetary spacecraft right now...

Posted by: SFJCody Apr 19 2008, 07:18 AM

I favour the Titan/Saturn mission because the mission elements would be more reliant on each other than the Europa/Jupiter mission. Remember the International Solar Polar mission? How easy it was for NASA to cancel its part and leave ESA with a single spacecraft. Compare to Cassini/Huygens, a spacecraft US politicians tried but failed to kill in the early 90s. Huygens saved Cassini from the fate of CRAF.

Posted by: imipak Apr 19 2008, 09:49 AM

QUOTE (vjkane @ Apr 19 2008, 02:29 AM) *
I don't believe that the German space agency is helping to pay for MER or Dawn even though they have instruments on both craft.


The German government funded development of the Mössbauer spectrometers on MER; does R&D count as "paying for MER"?


QUOTE (JRehling @ Apr 18 2008, 07:05 PM) *
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?


The value each agency places on the value of prestige, having the control centre on their territory, of flying instruments or publishing papers are subject to different weightings. As ESA isn't a national agency like NASA, the game-theory functions of their funding strategies are probably a lot different from NASA's.

Posted by: tedstryk Apr 19 2008, 02:21 PM

QUOTE
(I discount other Saturn observations in the belief that this craft is unlikely to improve on Cassini observations.)


I don't know. A modern infrared camera might prove extremely valuable in studying Saturn and the rings.



Posted by: vjkane Apr 19 2008, 05:12 PM

QUOTE (imipak @ Apr 19 2008, 09:49 AM) *
The German government funded development of the Mössbauer spectrometers on MER; does R&D count as "paying for MER"?

Usually the pro quid pro includes $ contributions beyond simply paying for the instrument. In other words, if you help pay for other costs of the mission (a separate craft, the launch vehicle, sub-systems in the craft, tracking, data relay), then you get the opportunity to contribute (and pay for!) instruments and representation on the science teams of other instruments.

NASA is providing the relay for ExoMars, for example, and in return gets to include an instrument.

However, where a foreign group has better expertise (apparently the case for the alpha-x-ray spectrometers on both Sojourner and MER), then the pro quid pro is apparently relaxed. Similarly, when the mission funding can't stretch to cover the development of all the instruments, other agencies are invited to partner and cover only that portion of the mission cost. This appears to be true on Dawn and Juno.

Posted by: vjkane Apr 19 2008, 05:18 PM

QUOTE (tedstryk @ Apr 19 2008, 02:21 PM) *
I don't know. A modern infrared camera might prove extremely valuable in studying Saturn and the rings.

Thanks for pointing this out. It does improve the value of the Saturn/Titan orbiter even if ESA choses not to participate.

In fact, my conclusion from these two studies is that NASA should fly both (about 7 years apart) instead of the Mars sample return. The cost of both missions is probably about equal to the cost of one of the less ambitious MSR concepts and much less risky.

Posted by: Stephen Apr 21 2008, 07:03 AM

QUOTE (djellison @ Apr 17 2008, 08:45 PM) *
Other than contributing whole spacecraft, or just instruments - I'm not sure what you're suggesting Stephen.

I think you're missing my point.

When I said in my previous post that the proposal ESO/JSO/JAXA project looked more like a group of national missions "bundled together for marketing purposes" that was partially based on this line in the Jovian project's http://www.lpi.usra.edu/opag/march_08_meeting/presentations/greeley.pdf:
"Independent launches allow decoupled development schedules"

"[I]ndependent launches" obviously means separate launch vehicles for each orbiter--as opposed to both sharing one vehicle. Less obvious is that "decoupled development schedules" implies development programs for each orbiter that are to some degree independent of each other.

Having independent launches and "decoupled" development schedules would be just what you would expect if those orbiters were indeed separate projects only loosely tied together rather than one integral project with two elements integrated with one another to some degree (as for example was the case with Cassini-Huygens) or one project with twin elements (eg the MERs or the Voyagers).

They are also hardly going to help cut the overall cost of the project to make both more affordable to those who will be paying the bills. The Jovian proposal outlined in the recent presentation is not so much one flagship mission with two elements totalling $2+ billion as one flagship mission with two $2+ billion elements: a $2+ billion EO and a $2+ billion JSO! (And thus a grand total cost in excess of $4 billion.)

Can NASA and the ESA, even together, afford a $4+ billion mission to Jupiter?

I dunno, but judging from the tea leaves displayed--or rather not displayed--in the recent OPAG presentation someone may have doubts. That OPAG presentation was noticable for the absence of details on the JSO. It is not as if they don't exist. That presentation pulled the EO ones from the 2007 EO report. The fact that the presenters did not do the same for the JSO could be interpreted to mean that somewhere there is an argument still going on as to what kind of JSO the ESA will be funding.

Personally I wish both orbiters could fly. If that is not achievable then the next best option would be a fully funded EO or a fully funded JSO, with or without a smaller and less ambitious version of the other riding along with the main orbiter (a la Huygens with Cassini) which would be released when the two arrived in the Jovian system. One of the two could still be provided by NASA and the other by the ESA.

At the moment though that doesn't seem what the Jovian team has in mind.

Persevering with both multi-billion dollar craft but not enough funding for both is not likely to produce a happy ending. Either there will be no Jovian mission at all (because the Titan one will get picked instead) or a large funding hole will open up which someone will have to fill in, most likely with bits and pieces of the mission which could not be paid for, to the likely detriment of the mission as a whole. For example, if NASA can't even pay for the EO as it stands out of that $2.1 billion where will it be getting the funds from to pay for a substantial contribution to the JSO? Or will it be a case of NASA saying to the ESA you guys put a $10 million instrument on our orbiter and we'll put a $10 million instrument on yours?
======
Stephen

Posted by: djellison Apr 21 2008, 07:27 AM

Still not getting your point. We're no where near the end of the discussion as to what ESA and NASA might not fly. You're making an assumption about flying X and then finding funding to also get onboard Y. As yet - we don't know if X or Y will fly, or who will contribute, in what way, to which. There are far too many unknowns and options to establish what may or may not happen.

And remember - you're not going to have 'substantial contributions' from one space agency to another. You can have instruments going across, maybe a very large sub system ( HGA on Cassini for example ) but that's it.

Doug

Posted by: volcanopele Apr 21 2008, 07:39 AM

Decoupled development schedules doesn't necessarily imply that these probes would be developed under different programs, however they are necessary due to the different schedules demands placed on the approved project by NASA and ESA. At least for the Jupiter mission, NASA wants the Europa Orbiter out the door by 2017 at the latest, while ESA won't get JPO out the door until 2018 at the earliest, 2020 if they couple it with Japan's Magnetospheric Orbiter. Obviously such requirements will necessitate decoupled development schedules and independent launches. But it isn't meant to imply that these would be two separate programs. Unusual yes, but I can definitely see science teams being shared between the two spacecraft, for example, imaging teams having the same makeup on both spacecraft.

What is more disconcerting, as vjkane has pointed out, is that ESA has an added downselection process which could nix their contribution IF they choose to go with a gravity wave or X-ray observatory instead. NASA will go with their contribution with a new start in FY09 while ESA can't get started until FY11.

As far as JPO not being discussed by Ron Greeley at OPAG, well, that is a little worrisome, but considering that we are early in this process of development, I will choose to chalk that up to them not getting to that component in the mission yet. Perhaps their stateside meetings have focused on the Europa Orbiter while the meetings on the other side of the Atlantic will get into the nitty-gritty of ESA's contribution.

Posted by: ngunn Apr 21 2008, 08:46 AM

Here's a question. Which of the two possible outer planets mission contributions is more likely to beat off the observatories in ESA's downselection? I'm guessing that's the Titan balloon-plus-landers. There is already a small corner of Titan that is forever Europe in the public mind (over here at least) - and it's unfinished business.

Posted by: Stephen Apr 21 2008, 10:57 AM

QUOTE (djellison @ Apr 21 2008, 05:27 PM) *
Still not getting your point. We're no where near the end of the discussion as to what ESA and NASA might not fly. You're making an assumption about flying X and then finding funding to also get onboard Y. As yet - we don't know if X or Y will fly, or who will contribute, in what way, to which. There are far too many unknowns and options to establish what may or may not happen.

Now you've lost me! I have no idea which assumption of mine you're alluding to with your X and Y. Please clarify!

But that aside...

Correct me if I'm wrong but some time later this year, c. November, isn't there a decision expected as as to which OPF will proceed (and thus get entitled to that $2.1 billion dollars of NASA's for the next OPF): the Jovian one or the Saturnian one?
NASA and ESA will both down-select to one outer planet mission this fall, [Curt] Niebur [program officer for outer planets research at NASA headquarters in Washington] explained [http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080415-st-nasa-esa-outer-planets.html].

Granted nothing's going to be flying for quite some time. It may even be that the 2015/7 OPF, whichever it may be, will never fly at all. It's happened before. (By my count this has to be at least the third attempt to get an EO off the ground, after the original EO and JIMO.)

Nevertheless in one sense time is rapidly running out. After November there will only be one team, not two, in line for the 2015/7 slot. The losers will have to cool their heels until the time comes to decide who will get the next OPF slot in c.2025. (I got that date, BTW, from one of the presentations shown at the recent OPAG meeting.)

I would hate for it to be third time unlucky for the EO team.
======
Stephen

Posted by: Stephen Apr 21 2008, 11:15 AM

QUOTE (volcanopele @ Apr 21 2008, 05:39 PM) *
Decoupled development schedules doesn't necessarily imply that these probes would be developed under different programs, however they are necessary due to the different schedules demands placed on the approved project by NASA and ESA. At least for the Jupiter mission, NASA wants the Europa Orbiter out the door by 2017 at the latest, while ESA won't get JPO out the door until 2018 at the earliest, 2020 if they couple it with Japan's Magnetospheric Orbiter.

That merely begs the question of why the EO and the JSO are being connected in such a fashion in the first place? They are arguably different missions with different objectives, developed at different rates (due to differing priorities; NASA apparently doesn't want to be held up by those lackidaisaical Europeans smile.gif ), and are even being (probably) launched at different times.

They're both orbiters, they're both going to Jupiter, and they (may) carry some of the other country's instruments on them. (Is that all they have in common?)

If so then that could equally describe (mutatis mutandis) Mars Express and MRO: both orbiters, both going to Mars, both carrying a related country's instruments on them.
======
Stephen

Posted by: Mark6 Apr 21 2008, 01:30 PM

QUOTE (vjkane @ Apr 8 2008, 09:37 PM) *
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/opag/march_08_meeting/agenda.html

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)

I am a little puzzled.

My understanding is that the whole point of an ASRG-powered Discovery mission is to validate Stirling engine technology so it could be applied to outer planet missions down the road. But if the Discovery mission in question has a very long transit time (Titan boat, Trojan lander), doesn't that put off the validation -- and next ASRG-powered mission design, -- well into 2020's? Or is it sufficient, from the viewpoint of power systems people, to say "OK, our Titan boat has been in flight for three years and ASRG is working fine -- it's validated"?

Of course, for Moon polar landers and such the above does not apply. And I wonder if that will be a factor in selecting them.

Posted by: djellison Apr 21 2008, 01:53 PM

QUOTE (Mark6 @ Apr 21 2008, 02:30 PM) *
But if the Discovery mission in question has a very long transit time (Titan boat, Trojan lander), doesn't that put off the validation


Shove the thing in space, anywhere, for X-years, and you're validated. If those X-Years are a cruise somewhere....then hell, you get longer duration testing, but it doesn't really matter when the science starts - the power supply's doing it's thing from the get-go. If you were testing a new type of sensor or camera or whatever, then yes, a long cruise might be annoying - but for a flight-system part such as comms, power, avionics - I'd have thought that essentially, flight is flight.

Doug

Posted by: vjkane Apr 21 2008, 04:14 PM

QUOTE (ngunn @ Apr 21 2008, 08:46 AM) *
Here's a question. Which of the two possible outer planets mission contributions is more likely to beat off the observatories in ESA's downselection? I'm guessing that's the Titan balloon-plus-landers. There is already a small corner of Titan that is forever Europe in the public mind (over here at least) - and it's unfinished business.

I agree. I think that if NASA picks the Europa mission, ESA is likely to decide that their Jupiter orbiter (and possibly Ganymede orbiter) covers too much of the same ground already covered by Galileo and then the Europa orbiter's Jupiter system observations. In this case, Europe, in my opinion, is likely to pick one of the other science missions.

If NASA picks the Titan mission, then I think Europe is much more to also pick the Titan mission. However, this is not certain. So NASA cannot use the possibility of ESA's decision to decide between the two missions.

Isn't this fun? It seems like a version of the prisoner's dilemma.

Posted by: stevesliva Apr 21 2008, 07:33 PM

The prisoner's dilemma requires that the two parties not be allowed to communicate. Apt?

(I'll also say that the discussion between djellison and stephen seems to be fundamentally about whether mission objectives should be chosen, and bid out to the lowest bidder, rather than interfered with by national or institutional fiefdoms. Ideally, we'd develop objectives and have a competitive bid process for the lowest cost achievement of those objectives. But we have instead a beauty contest among objectives, with funding tied to a specific bidder. Once you win funding, you've got a monopoly on dollars for that objective, regardless of how much of it you waste.)

Posted by: Mariner9 Apr 22 2008, 06:28 AM

QUOTE (Stephen @ Apr 20 2008, 11:03 PM) *
They are also hardly going to help cut the overall cost of the project to make both more affordable to those who will be paying the bills. The Jovian proposal outlined in the recent presentation is not so much one flagship mission with two elements totalling $2+ billion as one flagship mission with two $2+ billion elements: a $2+ billion EO and a $2+ billion JSO! (And thus a grand total cost in excess of $4 billion.)

Can NASA and the ESA, even together, afford a $4+ billion mission to Jupiter?

Stephen



While I agree with many of the points you have made, I strongly doubt that the Jupiter orbiter that the ESA contributes would come anywhere close to 2 billion dollars. You keep basing your numbers on the JSO study that NASA did. There is no reason to assume that ESA would be bound to that study's basic assumptions or conclusions at all.

I was astounded when I read the JSO and the Europa Orbiter Flagship studies. The engineers put just about every instrument known to man on those craft, about the only thing those ships were missing were gold plated kitchen sinks. In fairness to the studies' authors, NASA ground rules were to design a flagship mission with a soft budget cap of 3 billion dollars. As a result, all the studies came back at around 3 billion (mostly on the plus side as I recall). But while the Titan flagship mission actually had reasonable downscope options putting the costs down to 2 billion for the Titan Orbiter, the JSO and Europa studies really didn't. Those ships were big, and expensive.

So, right off the bat I would point out that the JSO that NASA came up with is a very big cumbersome beast, and I think ESA is very unlikely to even contemplate trying to match it.

Other considerations are that ESA would likely be using Solar power, which is as I understand it somewhat cheaper than RTGs. Another thing to note is that JSO was supposed to be a solo mission, trying to accomplish every possible study it could for the entire Jovian system. However, with the Europa Orbiter being flown by NASA, the ESA JSO can fly a somewhat reduced number of instruments, and smaller optics (I had the impression that the hi-res imaging system on the JSO was going to be rather large).

So for the ESA mission we are talking about a smaller vehicle, fewer instruments, and a cheaper power supply. It will be tough to manage the 1 billion dollar cost cap they are shooting for, but considering that the instrument cost is not factored into their budget, they can very possibly manage it.


Posted by: Juramike May 5 2008, 03:12 PM

It was close, but it looks like Europa edged out Titan for the solar system's awesomest moon:
http://io9.com/386452/satellite-smackdown-++-which-moon-is-the-solar-systems-awesomest

Posted by: ngunn May 5 2008, 09:25 PM

QUOTE (Juramike @ May 5 2008, 04:12 PM) *
It was close, but it looks like Europa edged out Titan for the solar system's awesomest moon:
http://io9.com/386452/satellite-smackdown-++-which-moon-is-the-solar-systems-awesomest


'Don't mess with the moon with the water ocean under the ice'

Well which would that be then? wink.gif

Posted by: Juramike May 5 2008, 09:44 PM

QUOTE (ngunn @ May 5 2008, 04:25 PM) *
'Don't mess with the moon with the water ocean under the ice'

Well which would that be then? wink.gif


Oh...right....

Whoo-hoo! Titan and Europa are tied! laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

Posted by: tedstryk May 6 2008, 04:26 AM

I'm sorry, but whoever voted for colonizing Io is worthy of a Darwin award.

Posted by: nprev May 6 2008, 04:43 AM

Mmm...natural 10cm-thick lead cranial shielding perhaps, Ted? rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Juramike Jul 9 2008, 04:09 PM

space.com http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080708-st-special-earth.html on why Earth is so special for life.

Good summary, but the best part is that this sentence: "Though other bodies in our solar system, such as Saturn's moon Titan, seem like they could have once been hospitable to some form of life,"

This is the first recent article I've read that mentions "life in our solar system" and "Titan" but makes NO MENTION OF EUROPA.

Has the popular tide started to turn towards Saturn's largest moon?

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)