Jason 2 launched: the benefits of recurring designs for science missions

[h2ouniverse]

<p>Jason2 has been launched. Congratulations to team members from NASA, CNES, and US & French industry...</p><p>http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/080620-jason2-launch.html</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">A NASA's declaration is heavily frustrating however imho:&nbsp;</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><em>"Jason-2 also</em></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><em>&nbsp;is </em><em>designed to last five years</em><em>, and as of now there is no firm decision on a Jason-3. NASA has said that, as a research agency, <strong><font size="3">its job is not to produce multiple copies of the same hardware</font></strong>. It will not be taking part in any future Jason missions. </em></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><em>CNES has adopted the same view as NASA, but has said it has a spare model of the same satellite platform used for Jason-2 and is willing to contribute that to a Jason-3 effort. "</em></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">So NASA refuses to consider using recurring designs. But there is no reason for scientists not to benefit from more missions for the same money. It is abnormal imho &nbsp;that an agency prefers to fund new developments on platform and instruments... Most science missions can use recurring platforms and instruments, at least partially. CNES had ordered several identical platforms (three used on Jason1, Calipso, Jason2 in collaboration with NASA, the other two on SMOS and CoRoT, and one remaining as a white tail). This has enabled to decrease costs considerably. What a pity that with all its power and skills, NASA is not interested in a similar apporach, that would further magnify its scientific achievements. NASA's Phoenix should yet be a splendid example of how successful such an approach is, both in terms of cost and in terms of technical quality. But NASA canceled New Horizons 2, where ten such missions would have been desirable.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">A pity...</span></p>

 

[neuvik]

<p>Perhapse NASA is leaving room for private firms to take on such projects.&nbsp;&nbsp; Weather stations are always bragging about their new Doppler radar, soon they will be braging about their new satilites.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>NASAs goal is not to dominate the space market, they posted in their mission statment "<font face="Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular" size="2">To research, develop, verify, and transfer advanced aeronautics and space technologies." &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;</font> They helped develope those climate research satilites now its time for commercial entities, or specialized government agencies to take over. &nbsp; Further New Horizons missions are just on the back burner at the moment. &nbsp; NASA has warrent for specific missions now, the Kupiter belt can wait just a little longer heh. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">I don't think I'm alone when I say, "I hope more planets fall under the ruthless domination of Earth!"</font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff">SDC Boards: Power by PLuck - Ph**king Luck</font></p> </div>

 

[chode]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> NASA has said that, as a research agency, its job is not to produce multiple copies of the same hardware. It will not be taking part in any future Jason missions. Posted by h2ouniverse</DIV></p><p>That statement&nbsp;is completely at odds with&nbsp;almost everything NASA has ever done (can you reference a document?). They almost ALWAYS produce multiple copies of the same hardware. (Explorer, Surveyor, Mariner, Pioneer, Voyager, Viking, MER, Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, SST...</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Regards</p>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Jason2 has been launched. Congratulations to team members from NASA, CNES, and US & French industry...http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/080620-jason2-launch.htmlA NASA's declaration is heavily frustrating however imho:&nbsp;"Jason-2 also&nbsp;is designed to last five years, and as of now there is no firm decision on a Jason-3. NASA has said that, as a research agency, its job is not to produce multiple copies of the same hardware. It will not be taking part in any future Jason missions. CNES has adopted the same view as NASA, but has said it has a spare model of the same satellite platform used for Jason-2 and is willing to contribute that to a Jason-3 effort. "So NASA refuses to consider using recurring designs.<br /> Posted by h2ouniverse</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>You are getting the wrong impression. It has nothing to do with the spacecraft design.&nbsp; NASA is done doing this type of research mission, it is time for NOAA to take over this.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>

 

[h2ouniverse]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That statement&nbsp;is completely at odds with&nbsp;almost everything NASA has ever done (can you reference a document?). They almost ALWAYS produce multiple copies of the same hardware. (Explorer, Surveyor, Mariner, Pioneer, Voyager, Viking, MER, Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, SST...&nbsp;Regards <br />Posted by chode</DIV><br /><br />Hi Chode,</p><p>&nbsp;You are right to recall all these fanstastic achievements. They should be&nbsp;incitations not to drop this policy of reusing recurring proven designs. As far as reference of NASA's quote is concerned, unfortunately I have to rely on Spacenews' journalist accuracy. I really hope NASA is not going to go this way.</p><p>Regards</p>