March OPAG presentations available Options

[vjkane]

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)

[Greg Hullender]

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

[JRehling]

[...]

[vjkane]

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.

[imipak]

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"?

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.

[vjkane]

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.