Wish List for Future Outer Planet Missions

blazincajun · Mar 16, 2007

Referring to the Europa mission is there one in the works? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

gunsandrockets · Mar 16, 2007

"The problem here is cost of current launchers. Cassini was launched by the second or third most expensive booster in our fleet, a Titan-IV rocket..." Even as expensive as the Titan IV was (the EELV did meet the cost reduction required), the primary cost of unmanned probes is not the launch costs, it's everything else. I believe the upcoming JUNO probe, considered a less expensive mission, is budgeted for something like 700 million dollars!

qso1 · Mar 16, 2007

I recall having seen some JPL/NASA proposals for a Europa orbiter and even a lander but I'm not sure what became of them. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

qso1 · Mar 17, 2007

True the missions cost more than the LVs, but LVs are a significant percentage of the cost as was the case with Cassini which was about $3.26 billion of which LV cost was $422 million or around 12% of the total and in the typical NASA budget environment, that 12% discourages proposal of even a backup mission to one like Cassini. But as no_way: pointed out, the MERs backed each other up but they were also $850 million total cost with $100 mill in LV costs since they were launched by the much less expensive Delta rockets. http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/faq/mission.cfm http://www.planetary.org/explore/topics/space_missions/mars_exploration_rovers/facts.html <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

gunsandrockets · Mar 17, 2007

"True the missions cost more than the LVs, but LVs are a significant percentage of the cost as was the case with Cassini which was about $3.26 billion of which LV cost was $422 million or around 12% of the total and in the typical NASA budget environment, that 12% discourages proposal of even a backup mission to one like Cassini." Well those numbers just illustrate the point. Is it better to cut the launch cost in half and save 221 million or cut the other expenses in half and save 1,419 million?

qso1 · Mar 17, 2007

Its kind of like being caught between a rock and hard place because one cannot cut the launch costs by too much without scaling back on the LV. OTOH, cutting the mission cost usually means sacrificing something, most likely an experiment. Cassini was one of the last of the multi billion dollar probes to fly. The better faster cheaper probes that followed have dramatically cut the cost of planetary exploration, mars in particular. Eventually, in keeping with what Brellis is advocating, the costs will come down more due to better successive probe designs, particularly in computer and electronics. I suspect the way will eventually be paved for multiprobes of increasing sophistication. I actually posted an image I made for a graphic novel of mine about a year ago showing an unmanned multi probe that was made (Hypothetically) possible because it was to be launched by private enterprise from a manned, lifting body vehicle design. And I did that to illustrate the idea that advances in microelectronics and low cost access to orbit together will result in more ambitious unmanned probe configurations. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

brellis · Mar 17, 2007

In a thread at the unmannedspaceflight forum, someone calculated that thanks to the remarkable durability of the Mars Rovers, as of March 15 the average daily cost of the MER program was exactly $400,000 per Mars sol: a combined total of 2250 sols divided into $900 Million (his estimate of the total cost). Having multiple rovers/orbiters/landers can make that number look really good! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better. </div>

qso1 · Mar 17, 2007

Any way you calculate it, we have gotten our moneys worth out of that mission, and then some...and then some... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

brellis · Mar 17, 2007

It's great to have longterm plans. The Huygens team is crafting a proposal for a multiple-target mission, even while Cassini continues to thrill us with new discoveries at Saturn. It sounds like they're developing a "Wish List" of their own! Fly Me to the Moons “We are preparing a proposal to suggest to ESA a return to Titan for 2020-2025“ This were the words from Athena Coustenis (LESIA- Observatoire de Paris, Huygens DISR co-investigator) that gave me some serious goose bumps... “an exciting project that will take a lot of work and preparation and imagination of new technologies”. Such proposal, that has to be ready for the end of June, presents a fantastic scenario for near future space exploration, my first thought it was that was going to be a mission fully dedicated to Titan but the astronomer answer was able to provide me a even larger smile... Titan and... "Enceladus. We'll study surfaces and atmospheres, from all aspects including the astrobiological point of view...” And if you’re thinking we’re just talking about orbiters here... “Balloon, + probes on the surface + orbiter . Many options are considered and we'll have to study several scenarios. The aim is to bring in completely new technology since the launch won't be before 2020 and perhaps as late as 2025, if the mission is selected this round.” /safety_wrapper> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better. </div>

qso1 · Mar 17, 2007

One can only imagine the wish lists JPL scientists come up with in their brainstorming sessions. It would be interesting how many different missions are proposed before the missions that make it are decided upon. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

spacester · Mar 17, 2007

There is another paradigm not being discussed here. Two, actually. No wait, three of them. LEO Refueling. And re-oxidizering <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> That's one. The essential problem with outer system missions is of course the delta V. The paradigm of every probe ever sent - launching on a direct escape trajectory, rather than going into Earth Orbit first - of course makes sense because you have lower gravity losses. For a given stack, you have a trade-off between useful payload and propellant, and of course the scientists would rather allocate mass to instruments than propellant. That's a given. But apparently they never ever consider a synergistic relationship with LEO operations. They seem unable to think in terms of anything but a c3 /> 0 launch. ESA is talking about missions in the 2020+ time frame for goodness sake, but there is no consideration of the concept of adding dV capability to the craft between here and there. Doubtless the answer would be that since no such re-prop facility exists, that their mission cost would have to include the establishment and maintenance of one. How silly of them! It's like Khan thinking in two dimensions and getting his butt handed to him. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> MITEE and NTR and other ideas are great, I hope they happen. But there is more than one kind of technology development. Sometimes technology development means being more clever with the technology you have in hand. Which is the longer development cycle: Nuclear propulsion or on-orbit propellant transfer? They aren't even close. If you want Europa landers and Uranus probes (had to say it <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> ), you need more total dV than any rocket launch can deliver. You need to find a way to get that dV on board so that you can brake when you get there and still have a significant science payload. Questions? The second ignored paradigm i <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

qso1 · Mar 17, 2007

spacester: There is another paradigm not being discussed here. Me: Months ago I posted an illustration of an LEO propellant transfer vehicle which if it were an actual engineering concept, could be utilized to provide EOD propellant for unmanned probes. Of course, the concept is only for a graphic novel, meaning I don't know exactly how much of the engineering behind it would actually work. I think most of it would but I'm not an engineer or scientist by profession so I can't say with 100% certainty. The current problem with a propellant transfer vehicle is designing one to serve as many types of orbital vehicles as possible which in turn drives the size of the vehicle and in the case of my design, the size of the tanks which were reusable. But they had to be brought back to the ground empty by space shuttle. It became quickly evident that a tanker will require some additional logistical capability and I'm sure this was already realized by people who had proposed this type of idea before. Its going to take a private company that can figure out how to maximize the capabilities of a vehicle and still profit from it. Eventually it should be doable and hopefully, another solution to the current limitations imposed on unmanned probe design. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

brellis · Mar 18, 2007

Paradigms? Sounds more like 50 cents to me! <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> hi spacester, thanks for intelligently linking Outer Planet missions with already-proposed Cyclers. But apparently they never ever consider a synergistic relationship with LEO operations. They seem unable to think in terms of anything but a c3 > 0 launch. ESA is talking about missions in the 2020+ time frame for goodness sake, but there is no consideration of the concept of adding dV capability to the craft between here and there. They are generally talking about missions that will rely on technology that doesn't yet exist; perhaps they will also consider integrating missions with LEO and Cycler systems as well. One way is to have your departure burn provided by a booster stage. Not just taking on propellant, but mating with a fully fueled departure stage. This could be the same hardware used to send cargo craft to EML1 or to Luna directly. You boost your Europa lander with that stage and then turn her loose. She's got a full load of propellant, added at LEO, and she's going to arrive there at a tangent to Jupiter's orbit, minimizing the capture dV. The departure stage can do a Martian flyby (as can the probe, for that matter, on the other side of the planet) ala Aldrin recycler, return to Cis-lunar space and be re-used. A cycler system aids in construction of and transport to and from Moon & Mars bases, also serves as comm relay, fueling station, holding station, and sample-testing station for outer planet missions. There's a nice package. Love it! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better. </div>

pathfinder_01 · Mar 18, 2007

The problem with LEO refueling is it is a chickenegg thing. If LEO refueling capability were available, then it would be used. However because no such capability currently exists outside of the ISS and no one wants to add the riskcost of developing it to their budget. It is just easier to drop some experiments or do gravitational assists. That is sort of the problem with unmanned missions. With a manned mission you would want to do anything you could to reduce the mission time and there is little you could do to reduce mass. With a probe you can take years to get there with little consequence and you can divide the mass of the mission many ways( I.e. launch two probes instead of one). What I would find interesting is greater use of electric propulsion like Smart and Deep Space one and the upcoming dawn mission. I also would love to see the development of small nuclear reactors for such missions and perhaps something like the proposed mars telecommunication orbiter. I would love to put something like that in orbit around Jupiter and drop small landers on several moons.

Swampcat · Mar 18, 2007

"The problem with LEO refueling is it is a chickenegg thing. If LEO refueling capability were available, then it would be used. However because no such capability currently exists outside of the ISS and no one wants to add the riskcost of developing it to their budget. It is just easier to drop some experiments or do gravitational assists." You guys need to get out more <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />. Check out this thread in SB&T for information on a company that recently announced their intention to provide repropping service on orbit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ------------------------------------------------------------------- "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."Thomas Jefferson </div>

brellis · Mar 18, 2007

You guys need to get out more <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />. or similar reasons, there are two places I know I don't belong: under the hood of an automobile and discussing business <img src="/images/icons/crazy.gif" /> One time I had accidentally meandered into an SB&T thread about what to do with ISS. I found my post far too quixotic and unbusinesslike, so I started this thread in Amazing Images <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> I'm glad some people with business sense are pursuing goals in space. If they do get to the moon before NASA, I hope they're magnanimous enough to give publicly-funded explorers access to their unilaterally-claimed Lunar property. <img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better. </div>

rocketman5000 · Mar 18, 2007

Spacester, Your post put a couple of interesting thoughts in my head. The first is that DARPA has a mission in the works to demonstrate in orbit automous docking and propellant transfer. The second is if you have on orbit refueling you could pack your probe with many more instruments. I would launch the probe with empty tanks to reduce the mass.

spacester · Mar 18, 2007

Thanks to all for the supportive posts. Yes, you launch the probe with empty tanks, that's the idea. Yes, DARPA is testing repropping in 2007, but ESA is talking about probes circa 2020 without a hint of knowledge of the concept. It's just silly. Myopic. My main point is that if we are going to become space-faring, we need to break down the barriers between specialties. The Planetary Scientists need to embrace business plans. The would-be commercial space operators need to embrace the nobility of pursuing science for the sake of knowledge itself. The space agencies need to facilitate, not frustrate that process. And Congress needs to provide adequate and stable funding and get the heck out of the way. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

thalion · Mar 19, 2007

My wish list is pretty simple: 1.) A Europa orbiter to map the surface at high resolution and determine once and for all the properties of the ice shell and any possible subsurface ocean. 2.) A New Horizons-style flyby of Uranus and Neptune, one that will give us the advantage of sensors optimized for that distance, as well as 30+ years of technological improvement since Voyager. For me, everything else is gravy.

3488 · Mar 20, 2007

Hi Thalion. Yes I agree with you. But I would add to your list. A follow on to Galileo & Cassini orbiters to Jupiter & Saturn. The Jupiter orbiter to drop another atmosphere probe (with cameras) to map in detail the entire surface of all four of the Galileans (Io, Europa, Ganymede & Callisto), image in more detail Jupiter's innermost moons (Metis, Adrastea, Amalthea & Thebe), & perhaps enconter one or more of the outer moons, i.e Himalia, Elara, Sinope, Pasiphae, etc. The Saturn orbiter likewise with the main moons as well an a camera equiped atmosphere probe. An Io orbiter & lander. Orbiter to map @ high resolution the entire globe of the volcanic moon. Also to measure & spectrally measure the aurorae & a radar to accurately measure mountain heights, caldera depths, globe deformation during an orbit, changes in features, ie. Loki, Tupan, Tvashtar, Pele, etc. Lander to photograph the landscape, sniff the 'atmosphere', measure radiation, chemically analyze the surface, tilt meters & seismometer. Titan orbiter & lander, much like the Io one, but designed for Titan. Follow on from the New Horizons type encounters with Uranus & Neptune, Cassini / Galileo type orbiters to the two blues!! Uranus oribter to fully map (or as close as possible) the entire surface of all five of the major moons @ high resolution (Miranda, Ariel, Umbriel, Titania & Oberon), encounter a few of the minor moons such as Puck, observe the weather in the atmosphere of Uranus multispectrally & image the rings at high resolution. Deploy atmosphere probe similar to Huygens. Neptune, the planet itself as with Uranus (atmosperic entry probe, weather, rings, etc), encounter Proteus & Neried closely, map as much of Triton as possible at high resolution & monitor geyser activity. Perhaps even a Triton lander, to follow the same basic design as my proposed Io lander, but speci <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before". Linda Morabito on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.http://www.launchphotography.com/ http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearthhttp://web.me.com/meridianijournal </div>

Wish List for Future Outer Planet Missions

blazincajun

Guest

gunsandrockets

Guest

qso1

Guest

qso1

Guest

gunsandrockets

Guest

qso1

Guest

brellis

Guest

qso1

Guest

brellis

Guest

qso1

Guest

spacester

Guest

qso1

Guest

brellis

Guest

pathfinder_01

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

brellis

Guest

rocketman5000

Guest

spacester

Guest

thalion

Guest

3488

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page