New Frontiers 5 Selection |
![]() ![]() |
New Frontiers 5 Selection |
![]()
Post
#31
|
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 706 Joined: 22-April 05 Member No.: 351 ![]() |
I see very little evidence that Chinese plans have influenced NASA plans in any way. The Chinese have also said they intend to return martian samples by 2031 (see https://www.space.com/china-return-mars-samples-earth-2031 ) but that has had no effect on NASA/ESA's MSR plans. I'm not sure that's a good analogy. For Mars, China and the US plan to sample very different regions using different approaches. For the moon, they would both be targeting the SPA basin sampling from immediately surrounding the landing site. Both would rake samples from the surface to collect rock fragments delivered from a much larger are by impacts. -------------------- |
|
|
![]()
Post
#32
|
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 228 Joined: 14-January 22 Member No.: 9140 ![]() |
The Chinese plan to return a sample from Mars in the early 2030s reminds me of the Soviet mission to return a sample from the Moon that crashed on July 21, 1969. It's hard to consider the timing coincidental.
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#33
|
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 706 Joined: 22-April 05 Member No.: 351 ![]() |
The Chinese plan to return a sample from Mars in the early 2030s reminds me of the Soviet mission to return a sample from the Moon that crashed on July 21, 1969. It's hard to consider the timing coincidental. The Chinese have racked up success after success in their lunar and Martian missions. Not sure that this a fair comparison. -------------------- |
|
|
![]()
Post
#34
|
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 228 Joined: 14-January 22 Member No.: 9140 ![]() |
The Soviets had a successful lunar program at the time, too. Not much earlier, they had notched "firsts" that the U.S. hadn't matched. What I see in common is that when one program (as it happens in both cases, the U.S.) is about to achieve a certain first (as it happens in both cases, sample return), another program schedules an effort to accomplish that goal first, with a less elaborate process. There's no particular demerit in doing so. But it's worth noting that the NASA/ESA MSR is going to take longer and also attempt something more complicated.
Back to the New Frontiers case for lunar samples from the SPA region, it seems like in this case, China's isn't simpler or less scientifically interesting than NASA's and it might potentially make a later NASA effort redundant. (Well, relatively redundant; there's always the potential to learn more from two missions than from one.) |
|
|
![]()
Post
#35
|
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 200 Joined: 20-November 05 From: Mare Desiderii Member No.: 563 ![]() |
New Frontiers 5 Announcement of Opportunity delayed from this year until no earlier than 2026; mission themes may be revised (sources: Space News, 'community announcement' on the NF5 site)
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#36
|
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 706 Joined: 22-April 05 Member No.: 351 ![]() |
New Frontiers 5 Announcement of Opportunity delayed from this year until no earlier than 2026; mission themes may be revised (sources: Space News, 'community announcement' on the NF5 site) 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 2020s) 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 2020s) Drop mission selected in NF 5 and these two candidates: 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 -------------------- |
|
|
![]()
Post
#37
|
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 228 Joined: 14-January 22 Member No.: 9140 ![]() |
Interesting (and mainly, unfortunate) set of details.
I wonder if to some extent the upcoming four Juno passes of Io steal a bit of the rationale for the Io Observer to make the list Not that it fulfills all of those objectives, but it addresses them just a bit in comparison to the other missions. And, a similar comment re: the Lunar South Pole mission, which is somewhat being addressed by other agencies and the human spaceflight program. It's starting to seem possible if not likely that for anyone who isn't currently quite young, many of these missions are not going to occur in the span of a human lifetime. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#38
|
|
![]() Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Moderator Posts: 3233 Joined: 11-February 04 From: Tucson, AZ Member No.: 23 ![]() |
Not really. A lot of the questions an Io mission would seek to answer can't really be answered by the Juno encounters. JunoCam doesn't have the resolution or the image cadence. JIRAM doesn't have the wavelength coverage to do eruption temperature measurements (and the stuck mirror basically makes the spectrometer not all that useful even for the wavelength span it CAN do). The encounter timing and encounter altitude isn't optimized for measuring libration, the induced magnetic field, or gravity field. Don't get me wrong, I am VERY excited about an Io encounter, but no, Juno is not a substitute for a dedicated mission. It does help fill the gap between Galileo/NH and an Io Observer/EC/JUICE. And it definitely adds so much needed data points, like acting as a "scout" for North polar geology.
The bigger concern is that CAPS will do what the Decadal did and think, well, IVO was successful in Discovery so why does it need to be a NF mission, neglecting a lot of programatic issues that helped make IVO successful last go around but won't be successful in the future, like putting Phase E back in the PI-managed cost. -------------------- &@^^!% Jim! I'm a geologist, not a physicist!
The Gish Bar Times - A Blog all about Jupiter's Moon Io |
|
|
![]()
Post
#39
|
|
Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 2511 Joined: 13-September 05 Member No.: 497 ![]() |
The bigger concern is that CAPS will do what the Decadal did and think, well, IVO was successful in Discovery so why does it need to be a NF mission... I've read the Decadal text about this (see below) several times and I'm not really certain what they're driving at. If all they're saying is that if IVO gets picked for Discovery it shouldn't be allowed for NF, then duh. FWIW, if I were running things, the decadal would restrict itself to listing and ranking science goals, and not have any restriction on mission selection at all. I feel like that's more like things worked in the old COMPLEX days. From https://science.nasa.gov/science-red/s3fs-p...2%80%932032.pdf QUOTE Two missions on the NF-5 list of mission themes do not appear on the above lists for NF-6 and NF-7: Io Observer and SPA sample return. The committee carefully considered the Io Observer NF theme in light of the success of the IVO Discovery mission in reaching Phase A. In their 2020 report 19 , CAPS stated If NASAs exploration of Io proceeds via the selection of the IVO Discovery mission, then based on the IVO Step 1 proposal, inclusion of Io Observer would be redundant scientifically and its inclusion in NF5 would strongly warrant reconsideration. The committee reaffirms the importance of Io as unique body. Not only is it important to understanding tidal dissipation and resulting active volcanic, tectonic, and plasma processes, but also, for example, to providing an important analog to young terrestrial planets and tidally heated exoplanets. The committee anticipates that Io Observer will have an opportunity to compete in NF- 5. The selection of IVO for Phase A study demonstrates that fundamental Io science can also be achieved via the Discovery program, and this may be increasingly true with time as power systems and launch vehicles continue to evolve. These factors placed this theme at lower priority for NF-6 and NF-7 than other themes that clearly require a medium-class mission to complete their core science. -------------------- Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#40
|
|
![]() Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Moderator Posts: 3233 Joined: 11-February 04 From: Tucson, AZ Member No.: 23 ![]() |
Discussion of JIRAM's mirror issues moved to a separate topic:
http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?showtopic=8778 -------------------- &@^^!% Jim! I'm a geologist, not a physicist!
The Gish Bar Times - A Blog all about Jupiter's Moon Io |
|
|
![]()
Post
#41
|
|
![]() Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 610 Joined: 23-February 07 From: Occasionally in Columbia, MD Member No.: 1764 ![]() |
(VolcanoPele) I've read the Decadal text about this (see below) several times and I'm not really certain what they're driving at. If all they're saying is that if IVO gets picked for Discovery it shouldn't be allowed for NF, then duh. Possible Discovery viability neednt be fatal to NF : recall OSIRIS-REx was once a Discovery proposal called just OSIRIS. I think its upsell-reproposal to NF was seen as lower risk with a beefed-up in-situ payload. The cost-wallahs in the review process are much more favorably disposed to a slightly bigger mission with generous margins than a (perhaps ideally more efficient) more focussed mission squeezed into a smaller program budget with shoestring margins. FWIW, if I were running things, the decadal would restrict itself to listing and ranking science goals, and not have any restriction on mission selection at all. I feel like that's more like things worked in the old COMPLEX days. Are you sure you are not running things? Arguably this is how things have worked out in NF - JUNO was not in a mission list, it was an orbiter with a microwave spectrometer that was argued to meet the goals laid out for a Jupiter probe mission, IIRC.... - the introduction of Titan/Enceladus to NF4 did not specify a mission architecture (arguably it had in mind a Titan+Enceladus flyby mission like JET). Nobody - myself included - had Dragonfly in mind when the target list was announced, but we responded to the science goals in the AO (to the point of having payload elements that a more results-focused concept might not have included) |
|
|
![]()
Post
#42
|
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 238 Joined: 28-October 12 Member No.: 6732 ![]() |
There is some kind of advocacy of joint ESA-NASA PI-led competed missions.
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#43
|
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 706 Joined: 22-April 05 Member No.: 351 ![]() |
There is some kind of advocacy of joint ESA-NASA PI-led competed missions. 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 -------------------- |
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 29th April 2024 - 01:36 AM |
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. |
![]() |