Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: vjkane Sep 3 2022, 03:34 PM

Here is a community announcement just put out by NASA. Total mission PI costs of $1.2B, earliest launch in 2031.


Estimated Release of draft AO …...November 2022 (target)

Estimated Release of final AO ……November 2023 (target)

Estimated Proposal due date ……..March 2024 (target)


This community announcement is the fifth in a series to provide an advance notice of NASA’s Science Mission Directorate (SMD) plan to release an Announcement of Opportunity (AO) to solicit New Frontiers Program mission investigations. The New Frontiers Program conducts Principal Investigator (PI)-led space science investigations in SMD’s planetary programs under a not-to-exceed cost cap for the PI-Managed Mission Cost (PMMC). The target release date for the final AO is Fall 2023. This NF5 announcement shares some policies under consideration for the AO and invites public comment to NASA.

The policies described in this announcement are not final. Public feedback to this announcement will be considered by NASA as part of the ongoing AO preparation process to revise these and other policies. SMD’s Planetary Science Division (PSD) estimates the policies in this announcement may have the most significant impact on proposers’ responses to the AO.

The draft policies offered for public comment are the following:

Mission Themes: Mission investigations will be limited to the following mission themes (listed without priority), with the science objectives specified in either the Decadal Survey [solarsystem.nasa.gov] or the previously issued New Frontiers 4 AO [nspires.nasaprs.com]:

· Comet Surface Sample Return
· Lunar South Pole-Aitken Basin Sample Return
· Ocean Worlds (only Enceladus)
· Saturn Probe
· Io Observer
· Lunar Geophysical Network


Cost Cap: PI-Managed Mission Cost (PMMC) for investigations will have two cost caps. The PMMC for Phases A-D will be capped at $900M (FY22$) with exclusions as noted in this announcement. The PMMC for Phase E will be capped at $300M (FY22$) with exclusions as noted in this announcement. The now-standard 25% minimum reserve on Phases A-D will be required within the PMMC. Development of flight or ground software, ground hardware, or testbed development or refurbishment that occurs after launch will be considered deferred Phase C/D work and their costs will be included under the PMMC cost cap for Phases A-D. Only costs related to spacecraft and science operations will be considered part of the Phase E PMMC cost cap. Lower-cost investigations and cost-efficient operations are encouraged.

Step 2 Selections: NASA intends to select up to three proposals to proceed to Step 2 to conduct a mission concept study followed by downselection of up to one mission investigation to proceed into development. NASA will provide $5M (Real Year$) to each selectee(s) for this mission concept study.

Government Furnished Equipment (GFE)/Tech Incentives: NASA currently does not plan to offer an incentive to infuse particular NASA-developed technologies under the New Frontiers 5 AO. NASA will revisit the availability, utility, and readiness of technologies prior to the release of the final AO.

Launch Readiness Date: Mission investigations must be ready to launch no earlier than Fall 2031 and no later than Fall 2034.

Launch Vehicle: Launch Vehicle costs and procurement will be the responsibility of NASA. NASA intends to offer all launch vehicle performance capabilities (defined in previous AOs from Low through High) as GFE. Its cost will not be included in the PMMC. The cost of mission specific and special launch services (i.e., larger fairing or the flight of nuclear materials) will be included within the PMMC. Details of these specialized costs are still under discussion.

Non-U.S. Contributions: The value of non-U.S. contributions remains constrained as was done for recent New Frontiers and Discovery Program AOs. The total value of non-U.S. contributions may not exceed one-third of the PMMC for phases A-D, and the value of non-U.S. contributions to the science payload may not exceed one-third of the total payload cost.

In addition, NASA and ESA are working to formalize a partnership for the New Frontiers 5 AO that would make available an ESA contribution to proposers. The contribution can include hardware procured by ESA from European vendors and/or other services, such as ground segment support, to be considered under ESA responsibility. Scientific instruments are explicitly not included as an option under this potential partnership.

Nuclear Power Sources: Mission investigations may utilize radioisotope power systems (RPS) provided by NASA. Radioisotope Heater Units (RHUs) also are available for use as localized heat sources. For electrical power, up to one Next Generation Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (RTG) will be offered by NASA. Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (MMRTGs) are not planned to be offered under the New Frontiers 5 AO. The cost for the Next Generation RTG and/or RHUs and associated specialized launch services will be included within the PMMC. Information on these costs and the performance characteristics of the Next Generation RTG and RHUs will be made available at a later date.

Additional Opportunities: As has been done for the two most recent New Frontiers and Discovery Program AOs, requests for including Student Collaborations, Science Enhancement Options, and Technology Demonstrations are deferred to the Step-2 mission concept study. Though deferred, information on these opportunities will be provided no later than the AO release date.

NASA has not approved the issuance of the New Frontiers AO and this notification does not obligate NASA to issue the AO and solicit proposals. Any costs incurred by prospective investigators in preparing submissions in response to this notification or the planned Draft and Final New Frontiers 5 AO are incurred completely at the submitter's own risk

Further information will be posted on the New Frontiers Program Acquisition Page at https://newfrontiers.larc.nasa.gov/NF5/ [newfrontiers.larc.nasa.gov] as it becomes available. Questions and feedback on the draft policies in this notice are due by October 31, 2022. The draft AO expected to be released in November 2022 presents an additional opportunity to comment on the draft policies in this notice. Questions and feedback may be emailed to Dr. Curt Niebur, the New Frontiers Program Lead Scientist, via curt.niebur@nasa.gov.

Posted by: vjkane Sep 3 2022, 06:39 PM

Looking at this list of NF5 candidate missions (see previous post), one can speculate on concepts that might be considered higher scientific priority based on the recent Decadal Survey report. Others read the Decadal differently?

Proposals have been made to previous Discovery and/or NF competitions for all these targets except the lunar geophysical network. However, the community promoting this latter concept has been working on developing the design and science rational. I would expect high quality proposals for all the candidate missions, except for possibly the lunar sample return.

The lunar SPA sample return mission concept, which would collect samples from directly around a single landing location, may now be considered obsolete. The last Decadal argued that answering key questions about the formation and history of the moon would require samples from a number of locations. The Decadal report strongly endorsed a competing concept for the Endurance rover to do a ~2000 km traverse to collect samples (top lunar priority). So, the science behind an SPA sample return was strongly endorsed by the Decadal, but the implication was that a roving mission is needed.

Clearly prioritized target:

Enceladus multiflyby - Enceladus was clearly prioritized as a target by the last Decadal, and its importance was emphasized by the report prioritizing both an NF and flagship mission. In addition, considerable work has been done to mature instrument designs for a multiflyby mission.

Next tier?

Comet sample return - comets are a high priority and the last NF selection produced a strong mission concept. Two other concepts were also proposed in the last competition.

Lunar geophysical network - The community promoting this concept has done a lot of work to mature the design concepts and to create a strong science rational.

Lower priority?

Saturn probe
Io observer

Both have strong science rationales and mature (especially for Io) mission concepts. However, neither target seemed to be prioritized as the targets above were in the Decadal report.

Posted by: mcaplinger Sep 3 2022, 07:00 PM

I think history would support the contention that there is not a large correlation between decadals and which missions are actually selected.

My take, FWIW: the lunar missions are DOA due to confusion with the HSF program if nothing else. Enceladus and Saturn will be judged too risky/immature. Io is too redundant with the other upcoming jovian missions.

Assuming they even issue the AO due to budget issues.

Forgive my cynicism (if that's what you want to call it) -- I've been in the business for a long time.

Posted by: vjkane Sep 3 2022, 09:44 PM

I'm not in the field, so I'll admit my ignorance. I'm looking to learn, so hence my exploration hoping you may have some specifics.

The Enceladus and Saturn missions to me seem like the lower risk targets.

The Enceladus mission has to enter Saturn's orbit and execute a series of flybys of Titan (gravity assists) and Enceladus. That seems to be well proven capabilities. Are the instruments your concern?

The Saturn mission, other than the mission duration, seems to have similar complexity to the DAVINCI mission.

Again, there are many subtleties that I'm likely not aware of

Posted by: StargazeInWonder Sep 3 2022, 11:27 PM

The Saturn entry probe seems like its rationale has been seriously undermined by the combination of the Galileo entry probe and Juno at Jupiter. The former was supposed to establish planet-wide abundances of H2O, NH3, etc. It obviously hit an anomalous region. Juno revealed that these compounds vary dramatically in abundance across latitude and depth, so no single entry probe could possibly answer the questions in a fundamental way. It's not that one unlucky location was atypical, but that there's no such thing as typical. Unless there's good reason to believe that Saturn would be different, then no Saturn entry probe will answer these questions for Saturn.

Other objectives would be unaffected; noble gas isotope ratios and certain structural information would probably be measurable in the hoped-for ways, so the mission would definitely accomplish some important goals, but losing one set of objectives would subtract significantly from the return on investment.

Posted by: mcaplinger Sep 3 2022, 11:35 PM

Yes, that and overall mission duration.

Fair enough (I can't speak to the similarity of instrumentation) but it's a long way to go for such a short period of data-taking, and missions that take all their data in a short period without any do-overs are always going to be perceived (rightly IMHO) as more risky.

It seems to me that, after Dragonfly, another mission to Saturn is unlikely to get picked next regardless of how worthy it is.

Posted by: mcaplinger Sep 3 2022, 11:40 PM

I'd be surprised if advocates of a Saturn probe don't have answers to those objections, valid or otherwise.
See slide 14 in https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20160009334/downloads/20160009334.pdf though it is at best heuristic

Posted by: vjkane Sep 4 2022, 02:36 PM

Appreciate the link

Posted by: vjkane Sep 4 2022, 02:44 PM

A couple of more observations on the candidate list

First, I just realized that the Venus in situ concept (combined atmospheric probe and surface analysis) was not included in the just released NF5 candidate list despite being on the list for NF5 from the previous 2012 Decadal (which provides the list for this competition).

I expect that this is due to ensuring a diversity of solar system exploration after the selection of three Venus missions, overlap with the DAVINCI mission specifically, and publicly stated concerns over whether the surface sampling required under the prior requirements could be done within the NF cost constraints.

The Venus mission was included in a list of expected NF5 candidates in a November 2020 community announcement, before the competition was delayed.

Second, Blackstar on the NASA Spaceflight forum (and a participant in the last two planetary Decadal's) has some interesting observations on the inclusion of a the Endurance rover as a preferred implementation for lunar SPA sample return:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=57108.msg2404272#msg2404272

Posted by: StargazeInWonder Sep 4 2022, 07:09 PM

Thanks; that's very informative. There's no doubt that the Saturn probe mission could return some very interesting science. If it manages to win the competition, the data will be great to have. And I'm sure that the teams are rarely going to be silent in response to any possible objections. And I guess that at this point, an entry probe is probably the best choice for any mission that is dedicated to the planet Saturn, since Cassini closed out its extended mission with a pseudo-Juno internal structure campaign. I guess that DAVINCI+ even makes it a little more interesting to get the noble gas isotope data from as many different atmospheres as possible.

Posted by: mcaplinger Sep 4 2022, 07:09 PM

Thank goodness, because if they had left it on some group(s) would have insisted on proposing it, despite the IMHO essentially zero chance that another Venus mission would be selected at this point. And I hate to see people bang their heads against a wall like that, having done it myself more than once


We can't talk about Endurance-A here, but the desire of the lunar community to not spend SMD money while moving the goalposts on the original fairly simple SPA sample return mission is what I was talking about when I said lunar missions were unlikely to be selected as part of an NF AO in the current environment.
https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/leag2022/pdf/5031.pdf

FWIW, if I was writing the NF AO I wouldn't allow any lunar missions in the first place.

Posted by: volcanopele Sep 6 2022, 05:11 PM

How? Neither JUICE nor Europa Clipper have Io flybys planned and won't come any closer than Europa. Juno has two planned encounters but its instruments aren't optimized for looking at smaller targets like Io (not saying I don't appreciate what it CAN get, just that its instruments and trajectory aren't optimized for Io science).

Io Observer was removed for NF-6 and NF-7, but not for NF-5 in the decadal. So one could argue that this is Io Observer's shot at getting selected.

Posted by: mcaplinger Sep 6 2022, 05:42 PM

Of course you're right scientifically; I should have said "will be viewed as redundant" rather than "is redundant".

Politically, I think it's very unlikely that an Io mission will get selected when two other big missions will be active in the jovian system; the Io community is just not big enough to make that happen.

But this is just my own take, obviously.

Hard to say what EC will ultimately do; they have understandably hunkered down to a very Europa-centric plan but one could hope that might loosen in an extended mission.

Posted by: vjkane Sep 6 2022, 07:46 PM

There was a concept for a Juno-like Uranus orbiter that would carry a Juno-style microwave radiometer. That could track the spatial distributions of gases at Uranus as was done at Jupiter.

Posted by: vjkane Sep 6 2022, 08:15 PM

Several years ago at a public presentation about the Clipper mission, the now-retired project manager said that his private hope was that the spacecraft's end would come with an impact on Io. He emphasized that this was the (then; nor is it the current) plan. A personal hope.

Posted by: volcanopele Sep 6 2022, 09:52 PM

Besides, the redundancy argument didn't stop NASA from selecting two Venus missions, or ESA from selecting another Venus mission shortly afterward. There are also benefits to doing whole system science. Given the delays to NF5, any Io mission would now arrive after JUICE has wrapped up its mission and possibly after EC.

I know you right, it is a bit of an uphill climb, but given NASA's recent history with the Discovery selections, I don't think the issue of other Jupiter-system missions in the early 2030s will be an issue for an Io observer.

Posted by: mcaplinger Sep 6 2022, 11:14 PM

Admittedly, I would not have predicted that outcome either. And ESA's thought process in that case is a mystery to me.

It's not like anyone asked me to participate in an Io proposal, so it makes no difference how I feel about it. At various times I have had to do a ton of work to support proposals that seemed like long shots to me. Most of the time I've been right, but I've been wrong just often enough to make it impossible to write anything off.

Posted by: vjkane Sep 7 2022, 03:01 AM

NASA's selection of VERITAS and DAVINCI wasn't surprising since their measurements are complimentary. The EnVision selection was surprising to me. It has three unique instruments compared to VERITAS, but its main instrument is the SAR. From technical descriptions I've read, the design and frequency of VERITAS and EnVision's SARs are substantially different and will result in revealing different features. However, I'm a complete layman when it comes to SAR technologies and measurements, and I don't understand the science value of the different SAR measurements .

Posted by: StargazeInWonder Sep 7 2022, 08:47 AM

Veritas's SAR has a wavelength of about 3 cm and Envision's will be about 10 cm, so at the very least they will measure roughness at two different spatial frequencies, so for areas where both instruments map the same area, we will in a sense get two-"color" maps of Venus's roughness. Add in Magellan (12.6 cm) and that will be three "colors." That seems likely to provide some nice characterization of the surface textures, but it's up to the specifics of venusian geography just what science that will result in – just as, in visible light, some areas of various surfaces are colorful, yielding useful information, and some areas are bland.

Posted by: mcaplinger Sep 7 2022, 03:38 PM

Fair enough, but that is a back-rationalization, not an explanation of how the two missions were selected. FWIW, I see no evidence that ESA considered synergy with the NASA missions at all. The selections were likely pure coincidence (an ANTZ/BUG'S LIFE situation, if you will.)

We seem to have gone from a perception that Magellan did everything there was to be done (common in the 90s and 00s) to a perception that Magellan data was so awful that redoing Magellan with somewhat higher resolution (Envision claims 30 m/pxl globally and 10 m/pxl in selected regions, Magellan was nominally 75 m/pxl but probably not that good globally) is absolutely revolutionary. It will be interesting to see a new generation of scientists confused by SAR data

I'm sure one can find lengthy descriptions of why Envision SAR will be so much better. Maybe they're even true.

Posted by: StargazeInWonder Sep 7 2022, 05:59 PM

I wouldn't try to guess about the details that went into the selection of Envision, but note that at the final decision, after NASA had chosen its two Venus missions, Envision was selected over just one other finalist, so it's even possible that some disqualifying factor regarding that one other proposal boosted Envision by default. Given the short time between the decisions, though, it might also be that Envision had already essentially won before ESA even knew what NASA was doing.

10 m/pix seems like a lot better than 75 m/pix but it comes down to whether or not Venus has some phenomenon that becomes visible with the better resolution. One thing that certainly happens a lot on Venus is for older surface to be embayed by newer lava flows, so better resolution will allow improved relative chronologies. I think, by analogy, of the martian gullies that are apparent at MGS resolution but were not at worse resolution. Does Venus have some phenomenon of interest like that? We'll only know when we have the data. Well, I guess we could scrutinize the backgrounds of the Venera images looking for such justification, but that's a pretty microscopic fraction of the surface, and we know that some of that – like most of Venus – is pretty featureless lava plain.

DAVINCI+ will show us some complex terrain at higher resolution before Envision arrives, so there will be some idea before Envision's data comes in, but way after the selection process.

Posted by: vjkane Sep 8 2022, 01:11 AM

Moderators: This discussion is getting a bit off topic. Feel free to move to a better topic.

Last year, I did this table to compare the VERITAS and EnVision missions.

Posted by: volcanopele Sep 8 2022, 03:11 PM

Thanks vjkane. Yes, I think at this point further discussion about the different capabilities of the various missions to Venus really should go in the Venus sub-forum, and not here. But I think the point stands that in recent competitions, NASA has been more than willing to send multiple missions to the same or similar target when those missions could answer different scientific questions. Given that, I don't think an Io Observer is hampered by EC or JUICE as neither have an Io focus even if both could observe Io from a distance because an Io Observer would be able to answer scientific questions better than either could. Similarly, an Enceladus mission in this AO wouldn't be hampered by the previous NF selection going to Titan, also in the Saturn system.

Posted by: mcaplinger Sep 8 2022, 05:56 PM

If you look at the entire history of Discovery and NF mission selections, I'm not sure what conclusions you could draw. IMHO a lot of the selection seems to be done on the basis of non-scientific considerations (cost, cost phasing, mission schedule flexibility, real or perceived technical maturity, NASA center assignment, etc.) To think it's 100% about the science is naive. I'm not accusing anyone here of naivety but it's worth pointing out.

I'm not sure what this discussion is doing under Mars&Missions/Past and Future in the first place. Agreed the Venus-specific stuff could go elsewhere.

Posted by: vjkane Sep 8 2022, 11:32 PM

Reading the tea leaves, perhaps there have been phases in selection biases. For one, remember that the final selection is up to the science AA's choice. There was a time (I believe when GRAIL's selection was part of that period) when there were criticisms that NASA was being too conservative and risk adverse. The current AA seems to be willing to go for bold choices such as Dragonfly.

There also seems to be a willingness to go for themes such as small bodies in the selection of Lucy and Psyche and then DAVINCI and VERITAS. And then to state that subsequent proposals in that theme (such as the multifly asteroid proposal MANITIS) weren't selected to achieve programmatic balance.

One could argue that Venus was excluded from the draft NF5 candidate list based on programmatic balance. (Include NASA, ESA, and India, there are four approved missions in the next decade).

However, this announcement was just posted on the https://www.lpi.usra.edu/vexag/resources/nf5/:


Special Notice regarding the Fifth NF5 Community Announcement

On Sept, 7, 2022, NASA released its fifth Community Announcement Advanced Notice regarding the Forthcoming Release of the New Frontiers 5 (NF5) Announcement of Opportunity (Link here: https://newfrontiers.larc.nasa.gov/NF5/)

In the announcement, the “Venus In Situ Explorer” (“VISE”) theme was omitted from the list of allowed Mission Themes.

VEXAG has requested from the NF5 program office clarification of, and rationale for, this change.

The 12 May 2021 NASA Community Announcement on NF5 indicated that the results of the Decadal Survey would guide the NF5 solicitation, and the Decadal Committee responded on 25 May 2021 that it would retain the existing New Frontiers mission theme list [OWL, p22-30].

As the Venus Assessment Group, we are seeking the thoughts and inputs of the Venus science and technology communities regarding this decision by NASA, so that we may accurately represent your views to the upcoming CAPS meeting in late September, and to NASA as they gather feedback for the NF5 Draft AO, due out in November.

A Google form that can be filled out anonymously is available here: (https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeDl_4U_3vsi5RYTcMQnK4w684bUKxNbXNSIRc0c2g_tMwMrA/viewform). We hope to compile feedback and discuss by Friday September 23, 2022 ahead of the CAPS meeting. We’ll accept later responses, but can’t guarantee we’ll be able to consider them before CAPS.

NASA wishes to have feedback on the Community Announcement by October 31, 2022.

Sincerely,
Noam Izenberg, Chair, OBO the VEXAG Steering Committee

Posted by: nprev Sep 9 2022, 08:29 AM

Topic moved to Exploration Strategy subforum.

Posted by: volcanopele Sep 9 2022, 06:20 PM

I saw that announcement... Sigh, what is NASA going to say beyond the obvious: "Because DaVINCI+ was selected for Discovery". If IVO had been selected, it was pretty much a given that Io Observer would've been removed from the NF-5 list.

And yes, Mike, there are lots of considerations that NASA takes into account for mission selection, and they will use all of them to evaluate which mission to select. After being burned twice expecting "programatic balance" to be one of the considerations, it's clear that those other considerations, like *cough* "mission schedule flexibility," seem to be having greater weight.

Posted by: vjkane Sep 10 2022, 10:42 PM

https://www.leonarddavid.com/chinas-director-of-moon-exploration-phase-four-update/?utm_source=pocket_mylist states that China has decided to use the Chang'e 6 mission to return samples from the far side of the moon. From previous information when there were at least two regions in contention, China had stated that the far side mission would target the SPA if memory serves me correctly.

This would seem to make a mission being selected by NASA for the NF5 competition for an SPA sample return less likely. The samples from Chang'e 6 likely will have been on Earth for several years before an NF5 mission could launch.

Posted by: Explorer1 Sep 11 2022, 04:04 AM

It's probably academic, but the Wolf Amendment may be an obstacle to US research on any samples returned by China anyway.
I recall an exception was made for some minimal cooperation with LRO during Chang'e 4's landing, but who knows if physical samples would get a waiver like that. It's dependent on lots of factors which we can't discuss on this forum regardless...

Posted by: mcaplinger Sep 11 2022, 06:21 PM

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.

Posted by: vjkane Sep 11 2022, 07:56 PM

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.

Posted by: StargazeInWonder Sep 12 2022, 01:21 AM

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.

Posted by: vjkane Sep 12 2022, 03:51 AM

The Chinese have racked up success after success in their lunar and Martian missions. Not sure that this a fair comparison.

Posted by: StargazeInWonder Sep 12 2022, 04:54 PM

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.)

Posted by: JTN Aug 30 2023, 09:17 PM

New Frontiers 5 Announcement of Opportunity delayed from this year until no earlier than 2026; mission themes may be revised (sources: https://spacenews.com/nasa-confirms-multi-year-delay-in-next-new-frontiers-competition/, 'community announcement' on https://newfrontiers.larc.nasa.gov/NF5/)

Posted by: vjkane Sep 1 2023, 12:55 PM

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

Posted by: StargazeInWonder Sep 1 2023, 06:07 PM

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.

Posted by: volcanopele Sep 1 2023, 06:55 PM

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.

Posted by: mcaplinger Sep 1 2023, 07:58 PM

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-public/atoms/files/Decadal-Strategy-Planetary-Science-and-Astrobiology-2023%e2%80%932032.pdf

Posted by: volcanopele Sep 8 2023, 01:16 PM

Discussion of JIRAM's mirror issues moved to a separate topic:

http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?showtopic=8778

Posted by: rlorenz Sep 26 2023, 02:19 AM

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.



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)

Posted by: bobik Oct 14 2023, 03:44 PM

There is some kind of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFMMbksRV80 of joint ESA-NASA PI-led competed missions.

Posted by: vjkane Oct 14 2023, 11:56 PM

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