Science Eviscerated In NASA Budget, Planetary Society call to action Options

[Guest_Analyst_*]

Also, an interesting Aviation Week guest editorial from the Hubble Telescope's Bruce Margon defending Flagship-class space science missions.

I agree with his points. There are other important factors in (outer) planetary exploration:

- Delta V: To go to Jupiter, Saturn or Neptune you need a large C3 and/or long travel times > big booster
- Delta V: To enter orbit you need to slow down a lot, to enter orbit around a moon even more > large propellant tanks > large spacecraft
- Long travel time means more redundancy and a long time before you get scientific results
- This means long science planning cycles and (together with the higher costs) long intervalls between missions
- If you have a mission every two decades or less you want to carry all instruments you have and may need

You have a bis spacecraft with lots of propellant, instruments and redundancy, something like Cassini. Orders of magnitude more productive compared to Deep Impact but less than one order of magnitude more expensive.

Flagship missions can't be replaced by smaller ones. Period. Physics is against it. ESA knows (Rosetta, Beppi Columbo).

Analyst

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

Bruce:

Look on the bright side - the MEPAG folk talk to *you*!

Bob Shaw

Which brings me to a point Emily isn't going to like -- in that "open" E-mail Bruce Betts sent her on MEPAG's April meeting, he didn't tell her a single goddamn thing that hasn't already been openly known for months. See http://mepag.jpl.nasa.gov/meeting/nov-05/M...irmans_ltr1.pdf and http://mepag.jpl.nasa.gov/reports/Mars_Pro..._SAG_Report.doc . The only reason I got anything before those two public reports came out is because they DID send an emissary to the simultaneous COMPLEX meeting in November, and I was there to overhear him.

I suggest that Emily and I try simultaneously to pry open this oyster and actually get some new information about the things MEPAG discussed at the April meeting and the conclusions they reached.

[elakdawalla]

Which brings me to a point Emily isn't going to like -- in that "open" E-mail Bruce Betts sent her on MEPAG's April meeting, he didn't tell her a single goddamn thing that hasn't already been openly known for months...

Bruce, I work for Bruce Betts, which sometimes gets me more insight, but sometimes less. That is, I have to pick my battles, and I've got other stuff I'm waiting on him for. Feel free to pester him for more information. A phone call will probably get more progress (i.e. he can't put off a reply to a phone call until tomorrow...and tomorrow...and tomorrow...) He's up to his neck in preparations for the upcoming ISDC meeting and is more than usually procrastinatory these days.

As for that inexplicable NASAwatch comment about "finally allowing taxpayer insight," Lou and Bruce have been going to MEPAG for years. I'll be going to both OPAG and VEXAG.

--Emily

[The Messenger]

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.nl.html?pid=20415

With the FY 2007 budget runout, NASA has added $2.4 billion to the Space Shuttle program and almost $1.5 billion to the International Space Station in FY 2008-2010 compared to the FY 2006 budget runout. There is no "new money" for NASA's top line budget within the budget projections available given our Nation's other pressing issues, so, working with the White House, NASA provided sufficient funds for the Space Shuttle and ISS programs to carry out their missions by redirecting funds from the Science and Exploration budgets...

Thus, NASA cannot afford the costs of starting some new science missions at this time. It is important to know that NASA is simply delaying missions, not abandoning them...

The power to delay is the power to destroy.

Earmarks have increased by a factor of more than 30 in number and almost 8 in dollar value
since FY 1997, when NASA was earmarked $74 million, for 6 discrete items. The growth of these
Congressional directions is eroding NASA's ability to carry out its mission of space exploration
and peer-reviewed scientific discovery."

While I agree with Griffin in principle, his hand-picked advisary committee has its own agenda and bias.

[Mariner9]

I will agree that some missions just cry out for Flagship class. The Europa Orbiter is a good example. There are some things in that mission, such as measuring the tidal flexing of Europa, that simply cannot be done without going into orbit around Europa. And even with only a month in Europa orbit you can get high resolution imagary and data collection over nearly the entire surface.

However, Analyst's comments appeared to make the argument that you just can't do Outer Planets missions without going to the Flagship Class.

I doubt that this is what he meant to imply, but I would like to point out that all is not lost. I think the first two New Frontiers missions, New Horizons and JUNO, show that you can go to the Outer Planets for a lot less than Flagship costs.

Looking at the relatively conservative JUNO design, I'm not sure a 3-axis stabalized, nuclear powered, Jupiter orbiter is possible under the New Frontiers cost cap, but if it is we still could have a "Flagship-light" mission launch by the middle of the next decade. As I have argued before, we could still move forward quite a lot by a modern instrument suite flying a variation of the Galileo tour.

I'll grant you that 3-4 instruments on a New Fronteirs "Galileo 2" would not return nearly what 6-7 instruments on a Europa Orbiter would.... but a real-live New Frontiers-3 is worth a lot more than an endlessly studied, 'we hope it gets funded next-year, or the year after that', Europa Orbiter.



Mars Sample Return, anyone? Been studied since the 1980s. And studied. Designed. And then redesigned. Go-it-alone. Partner with the French. Projected for launch in mid-90s. Then projected for the 2005-2007 time period. Then mid 2010s. Latest plan is for launch in 2024.

I'll believe it when I see it.

[Bob Shaw]

As for that inexplicable NASAwatch comment about "finally allowing taxpayer insight," Lou and Bruce have been going to MEPAG for years. I'll be going to both OPAG and VEXAG.

--Emily

Emily:

I think that the perpetrator of that comment has a particular axe (or two, or more - sometimes it seems like a whole hardware store!) to grind! Still, it made *me* laugh out loud!

Bob Shaw

[mcaplinger]

As for that inexplicable NASAwatch comment about "finally allowing taxpayer insight," ...

Uh-oh, this remark has gotten you in trouble with Cowing again

It seems we have a mole here, unless Cowing is a member.

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

I wondered if this might set Keithy howling again. It doesn't take much to do that.

Meanwhile, I'll try prying away at a few other members of MEPAG to see if I can extract any new morsels from them.

[Guest_Analyst_*]

However, Analyst's comments appeared to make the argument that you just can't do Outer Planets missions without going to the Flagship Class.

I doubt that this is what he meant to imply, but I would like to point out that all is not lost. I think the first two New Frontiers missions, New Horizons and JUNO, show that you can go to the Outer Planets for a lot less than Flagship costs.

Good point. My fault, I have to be more specific. I was thinking about orbiters, because I believe you need them to really understand and explore an outer planet and it's moons, rings etc over time. New Horizons is a special case, a late "Voyager" doing an initial exploration of an unkhown world. Once you have been there by a flyby craft, you eigher know it's uninteresting to come back or you need an orbiter.

Well Juno is an orbiter and it's withhin New Frontiers (700 m$). But as you point out: It's a spinning craft with a very limited power supply, it avoids the interesting things (moons, rings) because of radiation and it carries a very limited suite of instruments. It's like a today's Pioneer 10 going into orbit. Maybe worth doing, but limited. It's camera is only for outreach: on a spinner, no filters, low resolution ... No Spectrometers etc.

The only remaining New Frontiers class craft to an outer planet is imo some kind of entry probe. But you better have orbiter for data return (or a flyby "bus") and you get a few hours of data maximum with no global context (therefore you need the orbiter). A Saturn entry probe as long as Cassini is working is an option (you even have a S-band link), but this window is closed.

I hope this clear things up.

I agree with you: better fly something now than nothing ever.

Analyst

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

It would be more accurate to say that missions designed to study the satellites of the outer planets seem to require Flagship-class missions. Missions to study the giant planets themselves can consist simply either of Juno-type orbiters or of flybys that drop off entry probes and relay their data back to Earth -- and in either case, a New Frontiers-type mission is feasible. But Jupiter and Saturn orbiters that fly by their satellites and examine them may break the NF cost cap -- that isn't certain -- and certainly missions that orbit or land on the satellites seem to (although it's just barely possible that we might be able to design a Titan orbiter or stationary lander within the NF cap, given our unique ability to use Titan's atmosphere for aerobraking and thus cut down drastically on the mass of propellant needed by the craft).

There seems to be a consensus developing recently that the next mission to study a giant planet itself after Juno should consist of a craft to fly by Saturn without stopping and drop off one to three Galileo-type vented entry probes, as well as doing Juno-type microwave spectrometry of the planet (an instrument which Cassini lacks), to study its atmospheric composition and structure. This craft could almost certainly be NF-class -- it could even use solar power at that distance for that particular kind of mission. Similar missions could be flown for Uranus and Neptune, which could also somewhat extend Voyager 2's imaging and spectrometry of the Uranus and Neptune systems -- and all such missions could provide adequate "context" for the entry probes. But if you want to study those two planets' moons and rings in any detail, or observe long-term changes in their weather and magnetospheres, you will also need a Flagship-class orbiter.

[Stephen]

Mars Sample Return, anyone? Been studied since the 1980s. And studied. Designed. And then redesigned. Go-it-alone. Partner with the French. Projected for launch in mid-90s. Then projected for the 2005-2007 time period. Then mid 2010s. Latest plan is for launch in 2024.

I'll believe it when I see it.

Yes, a MSR mission is looking increasingly like a desert mirage: every time you approach the thing it recedes further off into the distance.

I notice that 2024 is now within a potentially awkward time frame for unmanned Mars missions. Assuming the VSE proceeds on schedule (a big if) and NASA succeeds in returning manned expeditions to the Moon by the late 2010s then by the 2020s one would it expect it to be preparing for a manned mission to Mars--assuming Mars remains on NASA's manned itinerary. If so then at some point during the 2020s the unmanned Mars program is surely going to be increasingly turned towards supporting the manned one, such as finding potential landing sites. An MSR is really only going to be of use to the manned program if it shows the sampled site to be a potential manned landing site. If its going to require several MSR missions before a site useful to the manned program is found then at some point somebody is surely going to ask what the point is of sending even one and whether the MSR money would not be better spent on other kinds of Mars missions such as more orbiters and/or rovers.

======
Stephen

[Bob Shaw]

Stephen:

In another thread I suggested that unmanned MSR is likely to end up being linked to a manned Mars orbit mission. I don't think manned Mars landings are particularly likely in the nearish term, but that a non-landing mission is - and such a mission, if integrated into an unmanned campaign, could actually do many of the things which are really rather difficult for robotic missions (such as returning samples to Earth) while being (almost) economically bearable.

Bob Shaw

[Stephen]

Stephen:

In another thread I suggested that unmanned MSR is likely to end up being linked to a manned Mars orbit mission. I don't think manned Mars landings are particularly likely in the nearish term, but that a non-landing mission is - and such a mission, if integrated into an unmanned campaign, could actually do many of the things which are really rather difficult for robotic missions (such as returning samples to Earth) while being (almost) economically bearable.

Bob Shaw

If by "unmanned MSR" you mean a probe sent all the way from Earth to link up with the manned mission in some fashion I would consider such a thing to be highly unlikely. If however you mean a probe which the manned mission itself carries into Mars orbit then releases for landing on Mars (a la the subsatellites one or two of the later Apollo missions released into lunar orbit) and then later retrieves in some fashion, that is actually more likely (IMHO), and may even be the way the first manned mission or two will be conducted, although the reasons I would give have little to do with economics.

The moment you decide to put human beings on Mars you have to confront the problem of contamination. Not just the astronauts encountering Martian bugs but of the earthly sort contaminating the Martian environment--not to mention the samples the astronauts will be bringing back. Every human being carries with them a veritable microbial menagerie, in their gut, on their skin, in the air they breath in and out, etc. Some of that menagerie human beings depend on to survive so decontamination can only go so far.

What that means is that the moment human beings land on Mars contamination of the landing site by their hitchhiking menageries is probably inevitable. If that landing site has been chosen precisely because scientists back on Earth are hoping to find evidence of Martian life there then obviously that will complicate the situation for scientists examining samples brought back. However, it will also complicate the mission itself and its procedures. The astronauts, for example, will not be able to simply slip into a spacesuit and step outside through the airlock. They will first have to go through some kind of decontamination procedure to reduce the risk of microbial hitchhikers riding on their shoes or spacesuits. (Whether not they do the reverse as well--decontaminate their suits after coming back in from an EVA--will depend on how seriously the question of Mars life and the risks involved is taken.)

In that context your idea for a manned orbital mission makes a lot of sense. It would be one way of overcoming the headaches. The astronauts and their hitchhiking menageries can stay in orbit (or on Phobos) while (decontaminated) unmanned probes are sent down to do the onsite investigations and do the sampling. If no native Mars life is found future missions can go all the way down to the surface. (If native Mars life *is* discovered the future becomes much more complicated: do future manned missions land regardless or is the surface of Mars to be declared a wildlife preservation zone, offlimits to human beings and their terrestrial microbial menageries?)

======
Stephen

[mcaplinger]

[Juno's] camera is only for outreach: on a spinner, no filters, low resolution ...

JunoCam does have filters -- it's a tricolor pushframe system that uses TDI to get good SNR given the spin rate. I think the images will be pretty spectacular, especially if we can take more per orbit than the very modest baseline.

[Guest_Analyst_*]

It's not Cassisi's ISS, but you are right, I just checked at www.msss.com.
I guess they plan 8 to 12 pictures per orbit, maybe a bandwith limitation?

Analyst