New Horizons 2, Backup mission Options

[Alan Stern]

Alan:
What is the significance of the workshop mentioned in that e-mail? At the risk of being premature, what do you think the chances currently are that NH2 will get off the ground? How soon does serious work have to start in order for NH2 to be able to lift off in 2007 for the JGA to Uranus? Is it possible that these plutionium issues over at Los Alamos could make it difficult to load the RTGs?

The workshop's goals are as stated in the wrkshop announcement: to ask for input to NH2 mission objectives, discuss the results of the NH2 study done this spring by NASA, and solicit desirable science team attributes for NH2.

What do I think the chances are? It is hard to tell. There is a chance we'll get it funded.
There is a chance the timing is too tight to make this happen. The earliest feasible launch is 2008-2009-- just barely in time to make the serendipitous Uranus encounter possible,

-Alan

[Bjorn Jonsson]

Having quickly skimmed through the new solar system exploration roadmap it seems no Uranus mission launches (flybys or orbiters) will happen before 2035 so this looks like an outstanding and cheap opportunity to me. Also this yields (as has been pointed out) an equatorial view of Uranus and its satellites, the camera/instruments is much better than on Voyager 2 etc. (I assume the cameras would carry IR filters to see more atmospheric features than Voyager 2 was able to see).

Unfortunately, given the budgetary situation and problems and cost overruns in various projects (the shuttle, JWST etc.) it seems to me the chances of NH2 happening are close to zero. I sure hope I'm totally wrong.

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

Whhile I agree that the chances of NH 2 flying are extremely small (sorry, Alan), there is a very real chance of a Uranus flyby and multiple entry probe mission occurring in the 2025-35 period. This type of mission might be flyable within -- or close to -- the New Frontiers cost cap; and the fact that NASA, during that period, will be starting to run low in scientifically worthwhile new missions within the NF cost limit will increase its relative appeal.

[Bob Shaw]

Maybe the answer is to gift the currently built hardware to the Planetary Society, so that Cosmos 2 has a target *and* a payload!

Now, any countries out there got some spare Pu for the RTGs...

[Guest_Analyst_*]

Sorry Bruce, but I don’t have your (naive) optimism. Talking about the 2025-35 timeframe today is no more than bad guessing. A new president, a new Congress or a new war and everything changes. Programs get canceled before reaching the pad and new ones emerge just to disappear. This WILL happen several times until 2025.

I even doubt there will be any other mission in the New Frontiers „Program“ besides NH 1. It’s not really a program. There has yet a second mission to be selected and in my opinion it will at best be one „supporting“ the new „Vision“. Not really a science mission, but one scout for a manned lunar landing.

The reason: Money, other priorities like replacing the shuttle (I’m not talking about landing men on the moon or mars).

I fear the same for the Discovery Program, especially after the recent cost overruns and delayed selecting process. Dawn has been scaled back (no laser altermeter and shorter in orbit times than planned) and Kepler is pushed back again and again.

I’m with Alan here. Fly now whatever you can like there is no tomorrow. You don’t know the next years budget, let alone the budget in 25 years.

Analyst

[Alan Stern]

Sorry Bruce,
I’m with Alan here. Fly now whatever you can like there is no tomorrow. You don’t know the next years budget, let alone the budget in 25 years.

Analyst

NH2 would cost <1% of the NASA budget for 3 or 4 years to get built. Predicting nirvana in 20 or 30 years is like someone circa 1985 killing Cassini to await something better ca. 2005 or 2010. The future of 20+ years hence is too far off to bet on. Hell, we
can't predict what will be selected to fly in 2-3 years time.

And now sew you can use: (i) JUNO will likely be selected as NF2-- possibly this coming
week. (ii) NASA will release its NH2 report soon and it will say it would take 8 years
to build the second one, desipite just 4 years to build the first; I understand the
report done before the New Administrator began his shake up, will also say that
a second NH cannot make any significant savings over the first. Expect
a backlash at multiple levels to these ludicrous findings, if the advance
reports are correct.

[djellison]

Somehow, the powers that be dont learn the lessons..2 is better value than 1.

Pioneer 10 & 11
Voyager 1 & 2
Viking 1 & 2
Aqua,Terra (& Aura)
MER A & MER B
NH1 & NH2 should be on this list.

I'm writing a little ( well, a big ) piece on reusing the MER design again. GPS sats, TDRS sats, hell, Iridium, NOAA, Meteosats....the more you make, the cheaper it gets - and the saving is biggest from a volume of 1 to a volume of 2.

Doug

[tedstryk]

Somehow, the powers that be dont learn the lessons..2 is better value than 1.

Pioneer 10 & 11
Voyager 1 & 2
Viking 1 & 2
Aqua,Terra (& Aura)
MER A & MER B
NH1 & NH2 should be on this list.

I'm writing a little ( well, a big ) piece on reusing the MER design again.  GPS sats, TDRS sats, hell, Iridium, NOAA, Meteosats....the more you make, the cheaper it gets - and the saving is biggest from a volume of 1 to a volume of 2.

Doug

You could add all the Mariners except Mariner 10 (remember that all the other lone Mariners were alone because of failure).

[Guest_Analyst_*]

A little OT, but has someone heard more about "Juno" mentioned by Alan than the press release saying it has been pre selected together with a moon lander for further study. Google didn' help.

Any links about this spacecraft and it's instruments? Thank you.

Analyst

[um3k]

You could add all the Mariners except Mariner 10 (remember that all the other lone Mariners were alone because of failure).

Leave out 5, too.

1 & 2 - Venus
3 & 4 - Mars
5 - Venus
6 & 7 - Mars
8 & 9 - Mars
10 - Venus & Mercury

Failed missions are colored red.

[tedstryk]

Leave out 5, too.

1 & 2 - Venus
3 & 4 - Mars
5 - Venus
6 & 7 - Mars
8 & 9 - Mars
10 - Venus & Mercury

Failed missions are colored red.

I ignored 5 because it was really a third backup to the Mariner 3/4 mission, that, with the success of Mariner 4, was reassigned to Venus.

[Guest_Analyst_*]

@tedstryk: Why do you always repeat the complete last posting when answering to it? Nobody needs it twice.

[tedstryk]

I hadn't noticed that.

[edstrick]

Mariner 5 was the Engineering Test Vehicle for Mariner Mars 1964. It was never intended to fly, but was perfectly good hardware left over from the Mars mission. It was reconfigured with some entirely new instruments, plus old ones that flew in 64 (field and particles instruments). The solar panels were reversed on their mounts so the antennas on top of the spacecraft could face outwards from the sun toward Earth instead of inwards.

[MiniTES]

Mariner 5 was the Engineering Test Vehicle for Mariner Mars 1964.  It was never intended to fly, but was perfectly good hardware left over from the Mars mission. 

Hmm. Sounds familiar.