I'm afraid your Venus rover in a decade and titan rover in 20 years are both far too optimistic. For either of those to be true - we would be seeing them in this decedal survey manifest of proposals - and we don't. moreover, the technical readiness for either simply isn't there. I'm afraid you're probably going to have to double those figures.

Incidentally the IBM SiGe process that Georgia Tech characterized at extreme temperatures in the article above was developed to make high performance transceiver chips. Very popular with GPS, cell phones, etc. It's not a NASA spin-off, it's a consumer spin-off. The process is more expensive than the standard processes used to make microprocessors and most consumer chips. A typical SiGe chip is very small and has just the RF stuff on it, so it's combined on a circuit board with all the other more vanilla process chips. They make only the small chunk of circuitry they need for high frequency RF with SiGe.

What seems to have been done is what NASA/the government are good at... doing research in the niches that private industry simply can't be bothered with. Why didn't they know this rather mature process had good low temperature performance? No one had yet paid to figure it out. A few million bucks later, it turns out things are still working pretty good at -180C.

The automotive industry just might push the standard temperature range higher. I've heard of them wanting chips working at pretty damn high temperatures since they're everywhere in cars now. But the market for chips that work below -55C is absolutely minimal. It's neat that SiGe appears to be pretty reliable to very low temps. Now they just have to work on the circuit boards.

What?

It's my understanding that most of this proposal is possible now, with funding. Obviously some serious testing would still need to be done but accepting the plan is all that is needed to move forward.

Just in case you don't have access to the draft, I've included it below.
Click to view attachment

These are proposals, ideas, a wish list.

There are no Venus rovers currently planned or funded.

A Venus 'in situ' explorer is proposed as one of three finalists for the New Frontiers program - but it is not a rover.

I'm hoping the research here pans out

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/SiC/

It would be great for a Venus rover, or even a Venus lander. Powering it and connecting to it would be interesting. Hell, maybe we'll have to launch a Venus lander/rover in a giant OVEN to keep it warm enough to operate!

But I agree... 10 years? I'd be surprised if we see anything other than paper rovers and landers for the next 25.

Price of Venus mobile explorer is estimated around 10 billion dollars. This is simply too much for any space agency.
Look here: http://sites.nationalacademies.org/SSB/SSB_059331
Another problem is shortcoming of plutonium.

What about Venera D? I was under the impression it had moved past the concept stage.

Venera D isn't surface mobile explorer. Project Venera D consist of unmobile lander, orbiter, high altitude balloon(s) and maybe small dropping probes.

Ah, understood. For some reason I was thinking it had an inflatable balloon to hop with.
Nevermind. Thanks.

Interesting, I hadn't yet heard about this proposal.

A slight correction, though it doesn't change the necessary cost feasibility:



So ~$2bn instead but the price is still too high for a mission. They also note in the in the trade tree that wheels, as would be on a Venus rover, introduces too many complexities and a helium balloon-like transfer is instead preferred. I'm a little puzzled by that with as much research as has gone into the four Mars rovers but I'm sure there is a more detailed reason. Regardless, I stand corrected, it likely isn't to happen in the next decade.

A mission I'm quite interested in is a flying drone observer sent to Mars. I can't find the name of the proposal but I was puzzled at the time that they claimed it would be powered by batteries and only last a couple of hours. Meanwhile the Solar Impulse team were releasing news about their first trip around the globe with a successful trip through a full night. I'm very hopeful to see these two technologies joined at some point. What better way to take a lot of data quickly over a vast area than from an aerial vehicle. Among other things, it would allow study of Olympus Mons and Valles Marineris, two very interesting geologic locations that are unlikely to be explored by rovers.

Edit: ARES Platform

Here's a crazy idea for a power source. How about running a Stirling engine between the Venus atmosphere and a block of frozen water? As the water warms, melts, and evaporates, it could provide a heat sink. As the steam heats up, the engine would be less efficient, but the steam itself could power a piston or rotate the generator once its pressure is significantly higher than the exterior; steam at Venus temps should easily be 200+ bars (if allowed past planetary protection).

Basic b-o-t-e calculations (per kg of H2O)
Starting at -200 C to 0 C, ~1.5 kJ/kg = 300 kJ
Latent heat of melting = 334 kJ
0 to 100 C, ~4.2 kJ/kg = 420 kJ
Latent heat of vaporization = 2260 kJ
100C to 460C, ~6.4 kJ/kg = 2350

Total heat required to raise from -200C to +460C = 5.66 MJ.

A kg of gasoline, as a comparison, has about 44 MJ/kg. Now granted, you probably wouldn't get very high efficiency, and the whole time your cold area is going to get heat leaking in, but it is an interesting thought exercise.

Think about the surface conditions on Mars. Chilly, dry, but with electrical heaters 'normal' terrestrial electronics and electro-mechanics work ok

That simply isn't true on Venus. I doubt anything of the mobility system of MER would work on Venus. It's just too different.



Batteries for the electronics, a small rocket engine for the



Aeronautics on Mars and Earth are very different. Solar Impulse used solar power ( lots of power at Earth ) and a very very efficient airframe

On Mars - the solar power is about half that on Earth ( so already, you're fighting a losing battle ). PLUS - you need an airframe as light and efficient as Solar Impulse just to get off the ground at all, because the air density is so very thin on Mars you have to have an astonishingly efficient airframe travelling at high speed just to generate enough lift to get off the ground.

Solar powered airplanes on Mars are an engineering challenge far far over and above Solar Impuls, and might not even be possible with anything on the engineers shopping list of today.



How about orbiters? You can take a lot of data, quickly, again and again, mapping those sites That's what killed Ares really, CRISM on MRO producing 6m/pixel hyperspectril Vis-IR mapping spectrometer data, HiRISE producing 25cm/pixel imagery etc etc.

I remember pre-MRO orbit insertion, there was some talk that 25cm wouldn't be achievable due to atmospheric effects. Now that has been put to rest, are there any thoughts on how high resolution we could get from an orbiter? 5 cm or maybe even less? Would be crazy to read the sundials on the MERs from space!

Well in that case, send up boosters to attach to the old KH-11s and send them all to Mars. Should expand the imaging capabilities a bit.

Umm - no. Even if the KH11's still existed ( which they don't - I think they've all reentered ) - they have nothing for which a very significant propulsive upper stage (>10tons to Mars...that's one hell of an ask for any existing booster) could dock on to, they're not designed for the thermal environment for a cruise to Mars, they don't have solar arrays qualified for operation at Mars, and they're not equipped with communications equipment to talk to Earth from Mars either.

Obviously, ZLD was joking slightly. But the question does remain, would larger-than-MRO-HiRISE telescopes be worthwhile in Mars orbits, or would they lose out due to atmospheric distortion? It looks like the equation for a diffraction limited telescope is pretty linear at this size, with doubling the resolution requiring double the mirror diameter. So getting 5cm resolution would require an ~ 3m telescope. Getting that into Mars orbit is left as an exercise for the reader. But a 1m or 1.5m telescope could be reasonably sent to Mars, giving 8cm resolution.

A linked array of small telescopes could push the limit down. Add a laser and 'adaptive optics' applied to the array and you take care of the slight atmosphere. I doubt if there is a theoretical limit to resolution of the martian suface that can be obtained from orbit.

There's a limit on the data rate that can be sent back to Earth, and a limit to the value of increased resolution scientifically.

That's price of Mobile Venus Explorer, which isn't in fact as much mobile (two landings, one flight and that's all).

$7B - 10+B estimate is from Venus Flagship Mission Study (Tab.A.1, Fig.A.3, Fig.A.5).

"A linked array of small telescopes could push the limit down."

Proposed imaging instrument for "extinct" mammoth JIMO: http://www.optics.rochester.edu/workgroups...0_2004MIDAS.pdf

Wow! Actually says there can be up to 6 science instruments attached, according to the document. So it's sort of the whole imaging suite. Which is good, because it's 550 lbs.

Vote for your favorite Decadal Survey missions in a poll at my blog, Futureplanets. Early votes (before I could post the announcement) had some surprises for me. Should be fun.

In two months, we can compare our choices with those made by the voters that really counted.

Me as well; I actually voted for the third most-popular mission purely because I think that Uranus & Neptune have not received nearly enough attention. (Won't debate the scientific merits of that viewpoint, but obviously there is always knowledge to be gained regardless of the target.)

I think it's time for another flagship to Jupiter's moons, but that then dictates the smaller missions don't go there. I do think one class or another should visit a planet beyond Saturn as well.

post removed

I can't see that anyone else has reported this: ESA have today announced the four shortlisted mission candidates for the M3 medium-class mission for launch around 2022.

Marco Polo, which narrowly lost out in the competition for consideration for an earlier M1 or M2 mission slot, is through again. Also of planetary science interest is exoplanet-characterization mission EChO. It doesn't look like ESA are going to provide a full list of the 47 submitted proposals, but I understand that there were many planetary proposals submitted.

NASA just announced the three candidates for the next Discovery mission:
- A Mars Geophysical Monitoring Station
- the Titan Mare Explorer (yes!!!!!)
- the Comet Hopper
see http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/na...-121343498.html

more info on GEMS http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AGUFMDI43A1938B
and an image of the Phoenix-based lander http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/mars/mul...a/pia13990.html

and an interesting presentation on the "Comet Hopper"
ftp://ftp.astro.umd.edu/pub/jess/CHopper_...9_JMS_final.ppt
turns out GEMS is the only solar-powered proposal of the three candidates

NASA to Announce New Planetary Science Mission
NF3 will be announced in a few hours. place your last bets...

Scientifically, I prefer SAGE. I'm very excited to see a return to the Venusian surface. Institutionally, I prefer OsirisREX since the SciOps center would be here in Tucson at the old Phoenix building. However, knowing NASA, it'll be MoonRISE.

my favorite would definitely be SAGE, then Osiris, then MoonRISE. No matter what, I still find the Moon boring...

SAGE...I like fuzzy planets.

If the word "Planetary" in "New Planetary Science Mission" is to be taken literally, then it must mean a Venus mission, since neither the Moon nor an asteroid are considered planets.

Just posted at NASA multimedia:
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogaller...dia_id=90571421

OSIRIS-REx: Journey to an Asteroid

OSIRIS-REx will pluck samples from an asteroid and return them to Earth. The samples could help explain our solar system's formation and how life began. OSIRIS-REx (short for Origins-Spectral Interpretation-Resource Identification-Security-Regolith Explorer) has a planned launch date in 2016. When it returns to Earth, scheduled for 2023, it will be the first U.S. mission to carry samples from an asteroid back to our planet.

Planetary is essentially solar system exploration. You can play a semantics game if you like - but that's what it is. Discovery program missions to comets, asteroids, moon, mars and elsewhere are all 'Planetary' in the budget.

The actual announcement of OSIRIS-REX is up now:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/fea...osiris-rex.html.

I have no stake in any (but I do like atmospheres). But, semantics aside, this sounds planetary enough for my tastes.

with Hayabusa 2 and OSIRIS-Rex approved I doubt that Marco Polo will get a chance to fly. I believe a more sensitive proposition would be for ESA to finance its contribution to one of these mission.
Anyway, there was recently an interesting paper in Astronomy & Astrophysics (with free access) on the target body of Marco Polo:
New observations of asteroid (175706) 1996 FG3, primary target of the ESA Marco Polo-R mission

There's a new proposal for the next stages in exploring Europa coming from a NASA Europa Science Definition Team. The basic idea is to carry only geophysical instruments that must make measurements from orbit on an orbiter. High data rate remote sensing -- presumably cameras and imaging spectrometers -- would be carried on a Jupiter orbiter that would make multiple flybys of Europa.

You can read an EPSC abstract here. I have some additional analysis at my blog here.

Bad news from Russian space science program - Izvestia (in Russian language), Google translation.

It looks, that Russian Solar system research is gone for next few years (except cooperation in ExoMars project).

And some better news from Russian space program.
Missions are not canceled, but postponed. They want to work on reliability issues, which is good idea.

been unsuccessfully trying googling for more info on the just selected Interplanetary NanoSpacecraft Pathfinder In Relevant Environment (INSPIRE) JPL CubeSat
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?rele...ml&rst=3706
hailed as "the world's first CubeSats to be launched beyond Earth orbit" (I think this title should go to the Japanese Shin'en, even if it never reported back to Earth).

I've been trying too but no luck yet. The image with the release hinted at a lunar flyby. Meanwhile Pam Clark and colleagues have been promoting ideas like this as well, specifically for the Moon.

Phil

some details of INSPIRE (not much, in reality)
http://www.space.com/20022-tiny-cubesat-sa...-for-space.html

US restarts PU-238 production ( well a test really ).

http://news.yahoo.com/u-restarts-plutonium...-013110181.html

Great to hear.

NASA Wants $100 Million To Catch An Asteroid

Interesting infografic: http://i.imgur.com/lYdRVRi.png

I was just going to comment on the potential revolution(s) introduced by the EELT and other large telescopes (2 others somewhat smaller in development; one of those in limbo) that will come online in the next 5-10 years.

EELT is supposed to provide a resolution of up to 0.001 arc seconds, which would mean, roughly speaking, that Kuiper Belt objects could be imaged with about the same resolution that HST imaged Ceres and Vesta, including ~100 pixel views of Pluto.

This would also allow the separation of exoplanets from their host star for systems over 50 light years away, although the practical possibilities for observations will depend upon techniques for canceling out the star's glare.

When 2 or 3 telescopes with comparable power are available, it should be a significant boost for astronomy, accomplishing some things that might be done with spacecraft now and some things that can't be done at all now. JWST will already be online and filling other niches.

Yet another chart (from a tweet from Emily): https://twitter.com/elakdawalla/status/758726644341223424

Maybe I'm the only one who's antsy, but the news last year stated explicitly that the next one or two Discovery mission finalists would be selected "by September 2016," which is now in the past. At the very least, the announcement is late, and presumably, the decision hasn't quite finalized yet, either.

I suppose that's all there is to say about it… a deadline was slipped without any public notice of why, what it might mean, or when the actual announcement will be. Maybe it's just an organization being late… Maybe the lack of an update says something about the program direction as a whole?