NASA Selects Two 'New Frontiers' Mission Concepts For Further Study

[alexblackwell]

Donald Savage<br />Headquarters, Washington July 16, 2004<br />(Phone: 202/358-1727)<br /><br />RELEASE: 04-228<br /><br />NASA SELECTS TWO "NEW FRONTIERS" MISSION CONCEPTS FOR FURTHER<br />STUDY<br /><br />NASA today announced the selection of two proposals for<br />detailed study as candidates for the next mission in the<br />agency's New Frontiers Program.<br /><br />The proposals are missions that would drop robotic landers<br />into a crater at the south pole of the moon and return<br />samples to Earth, and a mission that would orbit Jupiter from<br />pole to pole for the first time to conduct an in-depth study<br />of the giant planet.<br /><br />"These two outstanding proposals were judged to be the best<br />science value among the seven submitted to NASA in 2004,"<br />said Dr. Ed Weiler, associate administrator for space science<br />at NASA Headquarters, Washington. "It was a very tough<br />decision, but we're excited at the prospect of the<br />discoveries either of them could make in continuing our<br />mission of exploration of the solar system, and what they<br />could tell us about our place in the universe," he added.<br /><br />Each proposal will now receive up to $1.2 million to conduct<br />a seven-month implementation feasibility study focused on<br />cost, management and technical plans, including educational<br />outreach and small business involvement.<br /><br />Following detailed mission concept studies, due for<br />submission by March 2005, NASA intends to select one of the<br />mission proposals for full development as the second New<br />Frontiers mission by May 2005. The selected New Frontiers<br />science mission must be ready for launch no later than June<br />30, 2010, within a mission cost cap of $700 million.<br /><br />The selected full mission investigations, and the Principal<br />Investigators, are:<br /><br />o "Moonrise: Lunar South Pole-Aitken Basin Sample Return<br />Mission," Dr. Michael Duke Principal Investigator,<br />Colorado School of Mines, Boulder. This inv

 

[JonClarke]

Thanks Alex. My favourite would be the SPAB mission. A colleague on mine is involved in that, he will be pleased it has got this far. After all the Jovian lobby have just had galileo, the lunatics have had to wait 30 years for more samples (apart from meteorites)<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

Although I'm fasinated by the mystery of just what is deep down beneath Jupiter's thick clouds, I think I would favor the moon mission for two reasons:<br /><br />1. I've become a rover junkie.<br /><br />2. The sample return portion could give some experience useful in planning a Mars sample return.<br /><br />Also, What about the upcoming (2012) Jupiter icy moons mission? Couldn't that gather much of the same data as the proposed Jupiter New Frontiers mission? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[alexblackwell]

<i>My favourite would be the SPAB mission. A colleague on mine is involved in that, he will be pleased it has got this far. After all the Jovian lobby have just had galileo, the lunatics have had to wait 30 years for more samples (apart from meteorites) .</i><br /><br />Well, I guess it's safe now to say that there was no joy in Manoa today. The PI's of all the proposals were notified earlier in the day as to selection/non-selection. As the NASA press release shows, Jeff Taylor's Farside lunar SP-AB SR proposal was not selected and, apparently, lost out to Mike Duke et al.'s Moonrise proposal, which, I gather, is a souped-up version of an earlier Discovery Program lunar sample return proposal Duke and his team put together entitled Moonraker. Congrats also to JPL's Scott Bolton, who is currently in Paris, and his team for the Juno proposal. It'll be interesting to see which one of these two makes the final cut.<br /><br />That said, I was puzzled that a New Frontiers Mission of Opportunity (MOO) concept was not downselected to Phase A. I had heard of a few interesting concepts.<br />

 

[alexblackwell]

<i>Also, What about the upcoming (2012) Jupiter icy moons mission? Couldn't that gather much of the same data as the proposed Jupiter New Frontiers mission?</i><br /><br />Not really. New Frontiers specifically solicited, among four different categories, a Jupiter polar orbiter with probes (JPOP) concept. JIMO's mission profile, let alone its likely scientific payload, is not responsive to this.<br />

 

[yurkin]

So I guess this means the Venus in-situ and Comet sample return have been cut. To bad, I liked the venus lander-balloon thing.<br />I think the lunar sample return is a shoe in. The new emphasis on the moon should guarantee it.

 

[thalion]

I personally favor the Juno mission, for several reasons:<br /><br />1.) We know less about Jupiter than we do the Moon.<br /><br />2.) I still think JIMO's ever getting off the ground are dicey, at least until they start building the thing. We may not get another Jupiter orbiter for many years if JIMO croaks.<br /><br />3.) What we learn about the dynamics of Jupiter's atmosphere may be applicable to fluid dynamics on Earth, in the atmosphere and oceans.<br /><br />4.) Answering questions about Jupiter's interior and composition will shed light on Jovian planet formation, which can be extended to exoplanetary systems. This could even have a bearing on terrestrial exoplanets, as we suspect that Jovians can have a strong influence on the development and survivability of terrestrials. <br /><br />All that said, I wouldn't be surprised if the Moonrise mission makes it, if only for simplicity/cost, and as someone else mentioned, the new Moon "initiative".

 

[spacester]

Hi JonClarke, glad to see you here. Wanna plan a Mars mission again? lol, too much time required.<br /><br />Alex, thanks so much for all the contributions here, without out you I'd be clueless on so many space subjects. <br /><br />I have a question. It looks like the SPA mission is going for rocks only and not looking for ice. Is that correct?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mikejz]

I can understand the Probe part of the Jupiter mission, however the orbiter part seems somewhat out of priority. I think that a far cheaper option would be to do a flyby mission where the probes are released and the spacecraft was mostly there for propulsion and data rely. In fact, if the craft did a gravity assist whereby it was sent back towards the inner solar system--it might now even need nuclear power. It would simply use battery power for the period when it receives data from the probes, and then stores that data until it is closer to the sun--and downlink it data back to earth.

 

[alexblackwell]

<i>I can understand the Probe part of the Jupiter mission, however the orbiter part seems somewhat out of priority. I think that a far cheaper option would be to do a flyby mission where the probes are released and the spacecraft was mostly there for propulsion and data rel[a]y</i><br /><br />If you proposed such a concept for the New Frontiers AO, it would have been rejected without review as non-responsive.<br /><br />Remember that the science priorities for NF were identified and recommended by the science community and accepted by NASA. Two of the three <i>mandatory</i> science goals solicited by the NF AO for JPOP concepts were:<br /><br /><b>Understand Jupiter’s gross dynamical and structural properties through determination of the mass and size of Jupiter’s core, its gravitational and magnetic fields, and internal convection;</b><br /><br />and<br /><br /><b>Investigate and characterize the three dimensional structure of Jupiter’s polar magnetosphere.</b><br /><br />There is no conceivable way a flyby mission could accomplish this.

 

[alexblackwell]

<i>I have a question. It looks like the SPA mission is going for rocks only and not looking for ice. Is that correct?</i><br /><br />Correct. The lunar South Pole-Aitken Basin sample return zones are not within the permanently shadowed regions where Lunar Prospector found compelling evidence for water ice deposits.

 

[mikejz]

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/outerplanets2001/pdf/4020.pdf<br /><br />http://www.spacedaily.com/news/decadal-02a1.html<br /><br />Instead of useing craft to deply the probes--use too. One for the probes and the other to enter orbit. It keeps things simple on both probes and less risk. <br />

 

[spacester]

You suppose we could piggyback onto the mission a little spider robot to seek ice?<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dtb99]

Any idea how soon the Moonrise mission proposes to launch? I don't see much available on the web from that group.<br /><br />I note the AOO calls for a launch by mid-2010. <br /><br />If I recall correctly, though, the presidential exploration initiative calls for "new robotic missions to the Moon" by 2008, and I think there was an implication that we should be up to a significant lunar rover mission by 2010-2011. <br /><br />I guess this just puts in perspective how aggressive that timeline is. <br /><br />Politically, it also makes me inclined to bet on Moonrise. If that goes ahead, one can argue that we are making progress on the Moon exploration goals, vs the Jupiter mission doesn't help with Moon/Mars and probably is perceived as being somewhat repetitive of JIMO. I know that is not true in terms of science targets, but that would be my guess as to which way the politics will lean on this choice.

 

[blacknebula]

This is just my opinion, but I hope NASA is more tuned to landing a man on the moon than building more robots. The President's initiative does call for the LRO by 2008, which would be a great asset to future manned exploration. However, I would use the money to invest in manned exploration over a lunar rover stunt, in which a manned mission could bring in more scientific value.<br /><br />A lunar rover could be added "insurance" just in case the Bush space plan doesn't make it that far. However, once you invest a certain amount of funds in a government program, there is no turning back in the eyes of the budget hawks.

 

[alexblackwell]

<i>You suppose we could piggyback onto the mission a little spider robot to seek ice?</i><br /><br />Sure. You got any lying around that you're not using? ;-)

 

[alexblackwell]

<i>Any idea how soon the Moonrise mission proposes to launch? I don't see much available on the web from that group.</i><br /><br />I know a few details of the Moonrise proposal but until the PI, Mike Duke, decides to release them I'll have to remain mum. Same thing goes for Scott Bolton and the Juno concept. These AOs are <i>very</i> competitive.

 

[alexblackwell]

<i>This is just my opinion, but I hope NASA is more tuned to landing a man on the moon than building more robots.</i><br /><br />If NASA is going to run any manned lunar program the same way it's run the Space Shuttle and ISS programs, then I'll take the robots, which have been spectacularly successful over the same time frame.

 

[blacknebula]

Considering that the Bush plan is about exploration, I highly doubt ( and hope ) it is not operated like the shuttle/ISS.

 

[alexblackwell]

<i>Considering that the Bush plan is about exploration, I highly doubt ( and hope ) it is not operated like the shuttle/ISS.</i><br /><br />The Bush plan will be implemented by the same bureaucracy that has been running NASA's manned space flight program. Until I see evidence indicating otherwise, I'll remain skeptical that the president's Vision for Space Exploration will be anything other than old wine in new bottles.

 

[lunatic133]

That is like saying that we oughtn't have bothered with MER, because NASA might make the same mistakes they made with MPL. NASA needs to do things differently, for sure, but they're not going to accomplish much by ditching manned spaceflight forever due to one management failure (the shuttle/ISS).

 

[blacknebula]

It is not so much bureaucracy that doomed the shuttle and space station, as it was the fact that both of these marvels were built without a purpose.<br /><br />The shuttle lost its purpose before it flew. The military constrained the design to a delta-wing, which proved to be futile since the overall weight was still greater than that which could be launched from Vandenberg. Because of the loss of polar satellite capabilites, the shuttle could not launch every 1 to 2 weeks ( like it could anyway ), and the costs had rise. Once Challenger occured, NASA lost both the military and commercial sector, and was then trying to find reasons to fly, which lead to the ISS. <br /><br />The Bush plan has a defined purpose. Moon to Mars.

 

[alexblackwell]

<i>That is like saying that we oughtn't have bothered with MER, because NASA might make the same mistakes they made with MPL. NASA needs to do things differently, for sure, but they're not going to accomplish much by ditching manned spaceflight forever due to one management failure (the shuttle/ISS).</i><br /><br />Well, no one, least of all me, said anything about "ditching manned spaceflight forever due to one management failure," though the Space Shuttle and ISS programs have been plagued with much more than that. What I am fearful of, however, is those who want to sink prodigous sums of money, with disastrous effects on other, namely unmanned, programs, into what has become a vast money pit. Your allusion to the MPL example is instructive. Hopefully NASA will recover its manned spaceflight program the same way it restructured its Mars exploration program. That remains to be seen, though.

 

[backspace]

"Your allusion to the MPL example is instructive. Hopefully NASA will recover its manned spaceflight program the same way it restructured its Mars exploration program. That remains to be seen, though. "<br /><br />Agreed. Though it's important to note that You have JPL handling Mars. It's a much more efficient culture that resides in Pasadena.