Not sure where Three Forks is. This is the map from the abstract in my post above. You can see the current rover position, which I think has taken ~25 km to get there. The highest priority location to go to for this and the other abstracts is Monument Valley. As you can see, it is a long distance, and even more if the rover has to return to the crater floor.

I'm wondering if even the Northwest and Southwest Rim locations would be considered within reach of the rover has to return to the crater floor.

The journal Science published an article about the progress of the Perseverance sampling mission. It also stated that the project management is engaged in a key debate: should the rover sample only the crater and then return to the crater floor or also sample the ancient terrains beyond the crater?

For those who don't remember, the top two choices of the scientific community for sending Perseverance to were Jezero crater and the ancient terrain nearby. For a long time, the expectation that if healthy, the rover would leave the crater and sample both areas. (How lucky are we that they are next to each other?)

Landing the craft to return the samples is simpler on the crater floor - lower elevation (denser atmosphere) and large flat areas.

The debate was hinted at by the abstracts presented at the recent LPSC conference, where several argue for sampling beyond the crater.

Science article: https://www.science.org/content/article/nas...ines-signs-life

Relevant LPSC abstracts:

https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2024/pdf/1336.pdf

https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2024/pdf/2079.pdf

https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2024/pdf/2377.pdf

Note: I personally (for all that doesn't matter) want to see Perseverance go well beyond the crater.

There is an apparent cost: the launch of the DAVINCI mission has been delayed.

The budget request doesn't give a reason for the DAVINCI delay, but it may have been to free up a funding wedge for VERITAS.

Here is the language from the budget request:

"This budget supports the VERITAS mission to launch during an available Venus opportunity in
2031-2032. NASA reduced the future Discovery and Planetary SmallSat budgets which will delay the
release of the next Discovery and SIMPLEx AOs to no earlier than FY 2026. This budget also delays the
DAVINCI mission launch from 2029 to an available Venus opportunity in the 2031-2032 timeframe."

DAVINCI will release its probe on it's third encounter with Venus (the multiple encounters allow the probe to be targeted to the desired descent region).

I believe that VERITAS will enter orbit on its first Venus encounter, but there will be a delay to the prime mapping mission for an extended period of aerobraking. EnVision's prime mission will be delayed for the same reason.

For all three missions, it appears that their prime data collection will begin in the 2033-2035 period.

I wonder how Ingenuity landed with this much damage to its rotors and also remained upright. Will be interesting to read the final assessments.

Slightly off topic, but since this is the current active Juno forum: I understand that the Juno extended mission is expected to end by September 2025. Is this driven by a decision to dispose of the orbiter (presumably into Jupiter)? Or is this a current funding deadline with another extension possible?

That's a nice sharp image

There are two problems.

First is what flow of funding the political system is willing to provide? It appears that huge buckets of $s up front is out, but NASA doesn't know what the sustainable level will be yet

Second is that several parts of the design, in particular the orbital capsule and how many samples it will carry, are technically immature and for a rushed program puts the entire program at risk

It appears that NASA is presuming a much smaller annual funding flow. Over the next year, they will re-architect the program to match what they expect. In parallel, they will use funds available this year to mature design of critical systems.

Solstice, with it's tilt toward the sun and Earth, is only necessary if the probe is doing direct to Earth communications (and if you want to do some imaging). There have been proposals for lake landers that are short-lived and relay their data back through their carrier craft. They can land and carry out their measurements in darkness.

I plotted out the resolutions in the tables that volcanopele posted versus date.

I looks like the mission will tweak the orbits in 2025 to keep 3 encounters at nearly the same resolution. I wonder if the geometry of the imaging/lighting is particularly favorable then.

Any hardware to allow long term tracking - a beacon and presumably solar cells to power it -- adds to the mass that has to be launched off of Mars. The parking orbit also would need to be high enough to effectively eliminate long term atmospheric drag.

In many ways, the sample mass is strongly related to the number of individual tubes returned. Each tube has a volume and likely mass.

Each study in a terrestrial lab will require distributing some of the sample, some immediately, some decades from now (as has been done with the Apollo lunar samples).

For ~$8B, how much volume and distinct sampling sites makes the effort worth it. Certainly not a single grain of sediment nor a single chip of rock.

I read this section as the review committee making a recommendation on the minimum mass and diversity of the collected samples that would make the expense worth it. That is a key driver of the entire effort.

NASA's managers announced today that they are "pausing" or "slowing" down the Mars sample return mission development.

Links to two articles below.

Immediate future work will focus on the system to deliver the samples to orbit. The articles don't make it clear what that means. It could mean that NASA would launch the samples into orbit and then collect them some (maybe many years) later. I don't believe that's what is meant. A small canister in orbit could easily be lost to tracking, but alternatively the samples are safe if left on the Martian surface. I think that what this means is that NASA will focus on refining the launch and sample capsule designs. These were elements that the recent review stated were least defined but the definition of which had the greatest impact on the full design of the return architecture.

Space Policy Online: https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/nasa-pau...essing-options/

Space News: https://spacenews.com/nasa-slows-down-work-...et-uncertainty/

At a recent meeting (I forget which one), Bolton said that they could tweak the orbits for additional Io observations. Presumably this uses fuel faster.

However, once the Io encounters are over, I wonder if the team will adopt a strategy of fuel conservation to extend observations as long as possible. I'm sure this is utterly unrealistic, but it would be awesome if Juno was still operating when Clipper and JUICE arrive to provide fields and particles observations from a third location within the magnetosphere.

The next OPAG meeting is in a couple of weeks I believe, and there will be an update on the Juno meeting. I expect a focus on the upcoming Io encounters but perhaps there will be a slide on longer term plans.

This seems to have been a complete surprise, and I haven't seen any speculation as to the motivation. As stevesliva says, still many steps ahead.

A journal paper on the L'Ralph instrument capabilities and implementation is available

L’Ralph: A Visible/Infrared Spectral Imager for the Lucy Mission to the Trojans

The paper is open access.

The draft NF5 AO released, I believe last January, had language allowing ESA contributions to the selected mission. The language is below and and least for me, somewhat vague.

Now that the AO release has been delayed until at least 2026, this possible contribution may change.

From the draft AO:

5.6.7.1 European Space Agency (ESA) Partnership and Contribution
NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA) have formalized a partnership for the NF5 mission that provides an optional contribution(s). The contribution(s) may include hardware procured by ESA from European vendors and/or other services, such as ground segment support, to be considered under ESA responsibility. A list of various hardware contributions in five cost bins is provided in the Program Library. Scientific instruments are explicitly not included as an option under this contribution. The list includes items such as antennae, transponders, solar array, propulsion tanks, etc. and contains at least one piece of hardware for every mission theme allowed in the AO. Proposers may choose multiple items from this list up to the maximum total contribution value allowed.
During Step 1 proposers should direct questions about the ESA contribution options to the New Frontiers Program Scientist (Section 6.1.5). Technical information about contribution options will also be posted in the Program Library. Proposers will not engage directly with ESA until the Concept Study begins after selection. At that time, ESA will appoint a technical liaison to work directly with proposers.
After Step-1 selection ESA will select, in consultation with NASA and the PI(s), a minimum of two scientists from ESA member states to join each of the teams conducting a Concept Study. These scientists will serve as Co-Is with the same rights and responsibilities as the pre-existing Co-Is on the team

In the past, the Committee on Astrobiology and Planetary Science (CAPS), which would be tasked with drawing up the new mission themes, has turned to the previous Decadal Survey for guidance on recommending changes to the New Frontiers mission. If that happens again, then CAPS could be guided by the summation of missions identified in the last Decadal Survey for what was envisioned as three NF selections, now seemingly reduced to one.

Here's an updated list of the envisioned New Frontier mission candidate list evolution.

NF 5 (originally to be selected early 2020’s)

• Comet Surface Sample Return (CSSR)
• Io Observer
• Lunar Geophysical Network (LGN)
• Lunar South Pole-Aitken Basin (SPA) single location Sample Return
• Ocean Worlds (only Enceladus)
• Saturn Probe
• Venus In Situ Explorer (VISE)

NF 6 (originally to be selected mid 2020’s)

Drop mission selected in NF 5 and these two candidates:
• Io Observer
• *Lunar South Pole-Aitken Basin (SPA) single location Sample Return

Retain
• Comet Surface Sample Return (CSSR)
• Lunar Geophysical Network (LGN)
• Ocean Worlds (only Enceladus)
• Saturn Probe
• Venus In Situ Explorer (VISE)

Add
• Centaur Orbiter and Lander (CORAL)
• Ceres sample return
• Titan Orbiter

*Replaced with Endurance-A sampling rover (directed mission) funded by lunar program

NF 7 (originally to be selected early 2030s)

Drop missions selected in NF 5 & 6

• Comet Surface Sample Return (CSSR)
• Lunar Geophysical Network (LGN)
• Ocean Worlds (only Enceladus)
• Saturn Probe
• Venus In Situ Explorer (VISE)
• Centaur Orbiter and Lander (CORAL)
• Ceres sample return
• Titan Orbiter

Add
• Triton Ocean World Surveyor

There have been several proposed solar powered Discovery and New Frontiers-class missions for the Saturnian system across 2-3 competitions. I've never heard that the reasons they weren't chosen was because of the proposed use of solar power. Two of the losing teams gave debriefs on the reviews of their proposals at an OPAG meeting, and solar power wasn't mentioned.

Given how small this community is, if solar power wasn't going to get past reviewers (and the reviews assess technical feasibility), I think that would be known by now in the community. The recent Decadal Survey Enceladus multiflyby concept used RTG, and they note was that RTGs were more mass efficient.

I don't think that we can say for certain about solar power at Saturn until a mission is selected, but there are good examples of professionals in the field believing they can will mission concepts using solar power.

BTW, NASA is offering up to two MMRTGs for the upcoming NF5 competition. Missions have been proposed to each of the candidate destinations using solar power. If the winning mission does use solar power, the fuel could be repackaged into a next get RTG and offered to a Uranus mission. (Repackage for more efficient and long lived thermocouples than MMRTGs.) This would give the mission about a third of what's been desired in most Uranus flagship orbiter concept designs, or about enough for a NF-class orbiter. The alternative, per the recent OPAG meeting is to miss the early 2030s window and wait until the mid or late 2030s and much long flight times.


Space News: Plutonium availability constrains plans for future planetary missions

There are good engineers working the issue(s). I wish them the best, and with their skills and luck, we will have a functioning camera for the close Io encounters.

Whatever happens, wow! for all the great images so far, and many thanks to those who have processed them for our enjoyment.

Anyone know how many more perijoves before the Io encounters next year?

Full draft NF5 AO is now available:

https://go.nasa.gov/NF5DraftAO" target="_blank"> https://go.nasa.gov/NF5DraftAO

Interestingly, there's an incentive to collaborate on proposals (and the selected mission) with ESA:

"NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA) have formalized a partnership for the NF5 mission that provides an optional contribution(s). The contribution(s) may include hardware procured by ESA from European vendors and/or other services, such as ground segment support, to be considered under ESA responsibility."

In the ESA system, instruments are paid for by the individual nations; presumably ESA is offering to collaborate under the assumption that there also would be instrument(s) from European nations.

Other key points:

Proposals prepared in response to this AO must describe an investigation that addresses at least one out of any of the six mission themes described below. These themes, listed without priority, are:
• Comet Surface Sample Return
• Io Observer
• Lunar Geophysical Network
• Lunar South Pole-Aitken Basin Sample Return
• Ocean Worlds (only Enceladus), and
• Saturn Probe.

The following schedule describes the planned major milestones for this AO:
AO Release Date ...........................................November 2023 (target)
Preproposal Conference .........................................................AO Release + ~3 weeks (target)
Mandatory Notice of Intent to Propose Deadline
at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time ....................................................AO Release + 4-6 weeks (target)
Electronic Proposal Submittal Deadline
at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time ....................................................April 2024 (target)
Letters of Commitment Due (with Proposal).........................April 2024 (target)
Deadline for Augmented Submission via the NASA Box service
at 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time ......................................................April 2024 (target)
Step-1 Selections Announced (target) ...................................December 2024 (target)
Initiate Phase A Concept Studies (target) ..............................January 2025 (target)
Phase A Concept Study Reports Due (target) ........................January 2026 (target)
Down-selection of Investigation for Flight (target) ...............…October 2026
AO-Required Launch Readiness Date ...................................January 1, 2031, to December 31, 2034

Very cool comparison. Thanks for posting this.

From the press conference here were the microwave radiometer images for the two moons

I sat in on the press conference (but was at the conference for the science portion). Was surprised at how few press members were there. I think that about all of them are in the video (I'm in a back corner and not visible).

I was just at the annual American Geophysical Union meeting. Preliminary results for the the Europa flyby were presented (assume papers like those just published for the Ganymede flyby will be available for Europa in a yearish).

Two key highlights:

1) No plumes were detected during this flyby with this set of instruments

2) The microwave profiles of the interior ice structures of Ganymede and Europa are very different. The presenters noted that at one frequency, the microwave results for Europa were consistent with a homogeneous transition layer to water but that MUCH more work was needed to interpret the data.

So, stay tuned.

I was also impressed with the quality of the images from JunoCam, which was never designed for satellite imaging or mapping.