Anyone who complained that the Obama administration was ignoring Mars was not correct.
Quote from: Danderman on 12/04/2012 09:43 pmAnyone who complained that the Obama administration was ignoring Mars was not correct.It's only another Rover. The public won't be interested until it's humans.
Quote from: Longhorn John on 12/04/2012 09:48 pmQuote from: Danderman on 12/04/2012 09:43 pmAnyone who complained that the Obama administration was ignoring Mars was not correct.It's only another Rover. The public won't be interested until it's humans.The amount of public interest shown in Curiosity has shown that not to be the case.
Quote from: Star One on 12/04/2012 09:53 pmQuote from: Longhorn John on 12/04/2012 09:48 pmQuote from: Danderman on 12/04/2012 09:43 pmAnyone who complained that the Obama administration was ignoring Mars was not correct.It's only another Rover. The public won't be interested until it's humans.The amount of public interest shown in Curiosity has shown that not to be the case. I think the interest will decline unless this rover offers something new over MSL. I'm curious if it will end up with instruments that can do significantly more than MSL.
MEDIA ADVISORY: M12-234NASA'S JOHN GRUNSFELD SPEAKS WITH MEDIA ABOUT NEW MARS MISSIONWASHINGTON -- NASA's associate administrator for science, astronautJohn Grunsfeld, today announced plans for a robust multi-year Marsprogram, including a new robotic science rover to launch in 2020.Grunsfeld will host a media briefing on these plans at 7 p.m. EST (4p.m. PST) today at the annual meeting of the American GeophysicalUnion meeting in San Francisco.The briefing will be held in the Moscone Convention Center West, 747Howard St., Room 3000. Reporters attending must be registered aspress for the meeting.The briefing will be streamed live online and reporters will be ableto ask questions via an online chat. Instructions are available fromthe meeting website at:http://go.nasa.gov/QEQeAUMedia also may e-mail questions in advance of or during the briefing.Send e-mails with name and media affiliation to Steve Cole at[email protected].The briefing will also be broadcast via UStream at:http://www.ustream.tv/nasajpl2For information about NASA Mars activities, visit:http://www.nasa.gov/mars
Isn't it a bit fluffy to boldy claim involvement with ExoMars after pulling out? I assume that noted hardware was already built/or paid for by the time of the cancellation?
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 12/04/2012 10:38 pmIsn't it a bit fluffy to boldy claim involvement with ExoMars after pulling out? I assume that noted hardware was already built/or paid for by the time of the cancellation?Sort of, yes. The Electra relay package was going on TGO no matter what, and contributing the instrument to the rover is a pretty small contribution relative to the original NASA/ESA plan.
This effectively means Mars Sample Return, as we know it, is dead. The new rover may have some caching capabilities, but sample return is now basically put off until someone decides to actually send humans.As for what the new rover will have on it, digging through the old Astrobiology Field Laboratory studies (the original MSL-derived follow-on) could be informative.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrobiology_Field_Laboratory
This effectively means Mars Sample Return, as we know it, is dead. The new rover may have some caching capabilities, but sample return is now basically put off until someone decides to actually send humans.
U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who has been critical of past cutbacks in NASA's planetary science program, applauded the plan announced today.However, Schiff said he favored launching the rover in 2018 — when the alignment of Earth and Mars is more favorable, permitting the launch of a heavier payload. "I will be working with NASA, the White House and my colleagues in Congress to see whether advancing the launch date is possible, and what it would entail," he said.
QuoteU.S. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who has been critical of past cutbacks in NASA's planetary science program, applauded the plan announced today.However, Schiff said he favored launching the rover in 2018 — when the alignment of Earth and Mars is more favorable, permitting the launch of a heavier payload. "I will be working with NASA, the White House and my colleagues in Congress to see whether advancing the launch date is possible, and what it would entail," he said.http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/04/15678579-nasa-plans-2020-mars-rover-remake?liteCould they get this built and launched in five to six years?
Wow, a congressman who knows orbital mechanics. Not sure if I believe it or if he just heard the fact from somewhere. How many extra kg could this 2018 opportunity give a mission anyway in comparison to a 2020 launch?
spare MMTRG for Curiosity will be used for new rover, and will use more Curiosity spare parts and team for new rover.Could have done something for 2018, but did not have enough for budget, so delay for a rover.
Total cost for MSL 2.0 is $1.5 Billion to include the cost of the Launch Vehicle.Hopeful we make it this time. This coincidentally is another Mars Flagship in terms of cost.Respectfully,Andrew GasserTEA Party in Space
When was it ever alive?This announcement changes nothing WRT sample return, except this rover may have caching capabilities.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 12/04/2012 10:58 pmWhen was it ever alive?This announcement changes nothing WRT sample return, except this rover may have caching capabilities.There had been a lingering chance of a sample return mission (which Chris just wrote up last week) in the 2020s, following from its recommendation by the Decadal Survey. That now seems very unlikely, as there would be huge resistance to two very expensive Mars surface missions in a row.
Following the "What Comes After MSL" thread there was talk of a few options for the cashing rover. Is this a much bigger more capable rover than the rovers in the latest MSR studies?
Quote from: simonbp on 12/04/2012 11:28 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 12/04/2012 10:58 pmWhen was it ever alive?This announcement changes nothing WRT sample return, except this rover may have caching capabilities.There had been a lingering chance of a sample return mission (which Chris just wrote up last week) in the 2020s, following from its recommendation by the Decadal Survey. That now seems very unlikely, as there would be huge resistance to two very expensive Mars surface missions in a row.We will need some orbiter type missions to replace aging missions. Mars Odyssey is gonna need to be replaced at some point. Even if it is just a relay comm mission. Obviously we want science on board but we need to relay data. But there are people who they can do that. Respectfully,Andrew GasserTEA Party in Space
Maven does include a relay package. Any future orbiters would almost surely include relay capability. European (etc) assets may be able to relay, as well.
Caching not assured: open to science definition team.
MAVEN gets to Mars in 2014. TGO gets to Mars in 2016 or 17. Figure both of them can operate as relays for up to 10 years. You don't need to think about a replacement orbiter until late in this decade. Not a problem.And you don't need relays. You can operate without them.
Quote from: Blackstar on 12/04/2012 11:40 pmMAVEN gets to Mars in 2014. TGO gets to Mars in 2016 or 17. Figure both of them can operate as relays for up to 10 years. You don't need to think about a replacement orbiter until late in this decade. Not a problem.And you don't need relays. You can operate without them.But doesn't operating without relays slow down data delivery?
While the mission will welcomed by hard-rock Mars scientists, it will have some enemies.First, it is another strike against planetary scientists who want to explore places further out in the Solar System. The astrobiological significance of the Jupiter moon Europa, which harbours a salt water ocean under a thin shell of ice, has long intrigued scientists. But most Europa mission designs have come in with price tags of several billion dollars.
Possibility that Britain may contribute life detection instrument.End press conference.
Thanks to arachnitect for some of the play-by-play coverage. Much appreciated!
There is no Pu-238 funding at this time - I would like to ask Mr. Grunsfeld where he got that information.Respectively,Andrew GasserTEA Party in Space
Landing the rover is difficult and expensive the science is the juicy part. I think NASA should supply the technology but that doesn't mean they want to pay for it unfortunately.
Quote from: arachnitect on 12/04/2012 11:53 pmPossibility that Britain may contribute life detection instrument.End press conference.Pricked my ears up! Can't believe how much the UK is getting mentioned in space stuff lately! Brilliant man. As soon as someone gets the recording of that up, it'll be used for a seperate article to the new rover announcement. Ran out of time for an expansive article tonight, but there's a lot of good stuff, especially relations to human exploration, in that event.
I don't like it.Big fan on Mars and sample return but I don't think it's worth it to pass up Europa.Mars is now enjoying a 5th rover while Europa can't get one orbiter?I hate it when one of my jaded rants comes true.From the ESA service module thread.QuoteLanding the rover is difficult and expensive the science is the juicy part. I think NASA should supply the technology but that doesn't mean they want to pay for it unfortunately.Was it about the money?
Yes Blackstar that is true but it's a message for ESA."You want a large payload on Mars, land it yourself. This technology is USA developed, we're mighty proud of it and we're not giving it away"
But it saves NASA money by not building the rover themselves?Was it about the money or was it about ownership of the rover?
Quote from: Tea Party Space Czar on 12/04/2012 11:44 pmThere is no Pu-238 funding at this time - I would like to ask Mr. Grunsfeld where he got that information.Respectively,Andrew GasserTEA Party in SpaceIt's probably in the budget request, which is what this whole announcement is predicated on.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 12/05/2012 12:11 amQuote from: Tea Party Space Czar on 12/04/2012 11:44 pmThere is no Pu-238 funding at this time - I would like to ask Mr. Grunsfeld where he got that information.Respectively,Andrew GasserTEA Party in SpaceIt's probably in the budget request, which is what this whole announcement is predicated on.This is quite the announcement!I'm glad that the Pu-238 issue has been brought up - first thing I thought of.It might be in the budget request, but my question would be: will they be able to generate enough in time, considering where they currently are?I'm thinking if all goes well (and people are trained up in time), it shouldn't be an issue, but I don't have the time to review my notes from Dwayne's postings on the subject.first update thread: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16912.0latest update thread: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30183.02nd update to add: 4.8 kilograms PU-238 used in the Curiosity Mars Rover
Why is it cheaper this time around?Will it stay within the specified cap?
I've now had a look at the other 3 prospective MSL landing sites and I like Mawrth Vallis Nili Fossae has always been my favourite but I'm not sure NASA likes it.The Mars team deserves this one with their tremendous public outreach for Curiosity. Well done to them.I'll keep crowing about Europa and hopefully it's moved up in the 2020s.I just stumbled on this link.http://marsoweb.nas.nasa.gov/landingsites/Really goes to show how big Mars is and how much there is to explore.I hope it gets a better name than the last one
Hoping there's some life detection stuff in it, would love to see even better cameras too. And I'd love it if this new rover ends up in a landing site at least as spectacular if not better than Gale Crater. Valles Marineris? Or somewhere by a giant volcano? Can they land by the polar caps?
A partial video reply of the announcement:Published on Dec 4, 2012 by VideoFromSpaceNASA will launch a new Mars science rover with new tools to study the Red Planet. Former astronaut and associate administrator of NASA's Science Mission Directorate John Grunsfeld outlines the next 8 years of Mars exploration.
Interesting, but he's not a great public speaker.
Quote from: spectre9 on 12/05/2012 06:22 amI've now had a look at the other 3 prospective MSL landing sites and I like Mawrth Vallis Nili Fossae has always been my favourite but I'm not sure NASA likes it.The Mars team deserves this one with their tremendous public outreach for Curiosity. Well done to them.I'll keep crowing about Europa and hopefully it's moved up in the 2020s.I just stumbled on this link.http://marsoweb.nas.nasa.gov/landingsites/Really goes to show how big Mars is and how much there is to explore.I hope it gets a better name than the last one What's wrong with the name Curiosity then?Be nice if after this they moved onto getting something to Titan, that must be a pressing scientific objective beyond Mars.
Personal opinion on the name I guess. Not to my taste.Titan is going to be eclipsed by Saturn making missions difficult. Once NASA has an ASRG spare I'm sure they will take a look at doing a Titan mare boat but it has to be very cheap under strict cost caps.There are no real pressing objectives beyond Mars they all have a priority. It's way of bringing order to Chaos with so many tantalising targets for scientific exploration in the outer planets.Link to the presentation here.http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24381.0
SAN FRANCISCO — The unmanned rover that NASA plans to launch toward Mars in 2020 should gather up Red Planet rocks and dirt for delivery to Earth someday, some experts say."I hope and expect that its main mission will be to collect and cache a well-chosen set of samples for eventual return to Earth," Steve Squyres of Cornell University, principal investigator for NASA's Opportunity Mars rover, told SPACE.com via email.
Once NASA has an ASRG spare I'm sure they will take a look at doing a Titan mare boat but it has to be very cheap under strict cost caps.
I'd read that a zoom camera and a stereoscopic camera were originally intended for Curiosity but left out.
I think John is a refreshing change from the typical “wooden” persons that would have his position and responsibly. The man is totally down to earth and displays a lack of ego than many “less accomplished” individuals...
Quote from: Rocket Science on 12/05/2012 03:54 pmI think John is a refreshing change from the typical “wooden” persons that would have his position and responsibly. The man is totally down to earth and displays a lack of ego than many “less accomplished” individuals...One of those people who had the position was Alan Stern. You considered him "wooden"?
The new rover may have some caching capabilities...
1-Question 1: Will there be enough plutonium 238 for this mission? Or will they have to fly a ASRG instead of a MMRTG?2-Question 2: What orbiters will still be operation for this mission. Odyssey certainly won't last, MRO probably won't last. MARVEN orbit is so high it may have limited com relaying ability, all that will be left (hopefully) is just one ESA orbiter. should there be another push to get a dedicated telecoms orbiter?
MARVEN orbit is so high it may have limited com relaying ability,
We will need some orbiter type missions to replace aging missions. Mars Odyssey is gonna need to be replaced at some point. Even if it is just a relay comm mission.
Quote from: FOXP2 on 12/05/2012 10:54 pmMARVEN orbit is so high it may have limited com relaying ability,Actually it is a better orbit, it will be in view longer, allowing for more data to be transmitted.
Legit question: How hard is it to modify the cruise stage of the EDL sequence to be able to also (aero)brake into orbit after detaching the decent stage, to then remain in orbit as a comsat?
Quote from: simonbp on 12/04/2012 11:28 pmWe will need some orbiter type missions to replace aging missions. Mars Odyssey is gonna need to be replaced at some point. Even if it is just a relay comm mission.Legit question: How hard is it to modify the cruise stage of the EDL sequence to be able to also (aero)brake into orbit after detaching the decent stage, to then remain in orbit as a comsat?
I get the impression that some of you guys read one post and then ask the same questions that have been answered multiple times before in earlier posts.
So the plan is to send a rover taking samples, storing them carefully and then - wait for another mission (robotic or human, who knows) to bring the samples back.This mean that after some years spent on the surface the rover will meet with a lander (still to be budgeted), and pass it the big bag of samples it will have collected.
Quote from: Blackstar on 12/06/2012 01:06 amI get the impression that some of you guys read one post and then ask the same questions that have been answered multiple times before in earlier posts.Well some of us don't have the time to be on this forum often or long enough to read all the posts, perhaps if you would be so kind as to quote/link the answers to those questions, can't seem to find anything via search.
Quote from: Archibald on 12/06/2012 07:04 amSo the plan is to send a rover taking samples, storing them carefully and then - wait for another mission (robotic or human, who knows) to bring the samples back.This mean that after some years spent on the surface the rover will meet with a lander (still to be budgeted), and pass it the big bag of samples it will have collected.Well, it will be met by a smaller "fetch" rover, the job of which is to retrieve the sample container. It would be rather fruitless if the caching rover were to fail before the return mission arrives. But yes.
1. Legit question: How hard is it to modify the cruise stage of the EDL sequence to be able to also (aero)brake into orbit after detaching the decent stage, to then remain in orbit as a comsat?2. Also: What's the delta v to get to Mars GSO above the rover landing site, so as to remain always in view?3. I'm thinking that a manned mission base requirement could well be a GSO relay, so that maintaining comms is basically no more than a home cable dish. Any need to demonstrate the technology? It'd be fun...
I think that it a good idea,
Quote from: FOXP2 on 12/06/2012 12:24 amI think that it a good idea,It is a bad idea
Not our job.
Quote from: FOXP2 on 12/06/2012 03:52 amQuote from: Blackstar on 12/06/2012 01:06 amI get the impression that some of you guys read one post and then ask the same questions that have been answered multiple times before in earlier posts.Well some of us don't have the time to be on this forum often or long enough to read all the posts, perhaps if you would be so kind as to quote/link the answers to those questions, can't seem to find anything via search. Just read earlier in the thread so that you don't ask a question that has been answered three times before and look like a newbie.
Quote from: Jim on 12/06/2012 01:06 pmQuote from: FOXP2 on 12/06/2012 12:24 amI think that it a good idea,It is a bad ideaHow not to be a dick, jim, lesson #1: "Say "that a good idea, but..." and then state show stopping detriments without stating them as such. Instead of saying "that a bad idea." Observe: "I think that it a good idea, but it would add a lot of mass." Now if you really think flying a lander and orbiter together is a "bad idea" take that up with the designers of Viking, Mars Express, ExoMars, etc. QuoteNot our job.I doubt its your job to be on this forum either. In short if your going to waste time chating on an internet forum, I see no reason to not be constructive and helpful... well unless being the opposite is fundamental to your personality.
Now if you really think flying a lander and orbiter together is a "bad idea" take that up with the designers of Viking, Mars Express, ExoMars, etc.
I think that it a good idea,It is a bad ideaHow not to be a dick, jim, lesson #1: "Say "that a good idea, but..." and then state show stopping detriments without stating them as such. Instead of saying "that a bad idea."
I did, I can't find answers to -What is the max max range of Electra?-What is Electa bit rate at that max range?-Could ASRG be used on this upcoming rover?
I thought the cruise stage had it's own RCS, radio, etc. Forgot they were all on decent. Was really just curious about how much extra mass it would be. A lot.I wish I knew orbital mechanics. Speaking just of delta v, shouldn't it be possible for a craft designed to do so, to (aero)brake just enough to be captured by Mars in a high eliptical orbit that can then transition to MSO, for some delta-v savings?Or do you really have to capture into a low orbit and then boost back out?
I thought the cruise stage had it's own RCS,
Quote from: FOXP2 on 12/06/2012 05:26 pmI did, I can't find answers to -What is the max max range of Electra?-What is Electa bit rate at that max range?-Could ASRG be used on this upcoming rover?ASRG will NOT be used on this rover. Mentioned earlier in the thread. I could explain a million reasons why, but the simplest one is that NASA will not put ASRG on a $1.5 billion mission until it is flight tested first on a cheaper mission. Another reason is that you don't want to "clone" Curiosity and then put an entirely different power system on it. That would add risk to the design.
Relay is not an issue. I don't know why you guys seem to be obsessed with it, but once MAVEN's primary mission is over it's going to be used for relay until it falls out of the sky. And ESA's going to have an orbiter too. There will be plenty of comm. I work with Mars scientists and they're not worried about the relay issue. Not an issue. There are better windmills to tilt at.
Quote from: FOXP2 on 12/06/2012 05:26 pmNow if you really think flying a lander and orbiter together is a "bad idea" take that up with the designers of Viking, Mars Express, ExoMars, etc. Mars express is not a relevant example since Beagle was a secondary.No US lander since Viking, Pathfinder, MPL, MER, Phoenix, MSL haven't flown with orbiters and that goes with future ones too.
Quote from: Jim link=topic=30528.msg988527#msg988527 How not to be a dick is not to ask to be spoon fed data. I am not going to waste time helping someone who is lazy and makes unsubstantiated comments.<snipped a bunch of crap>
How not to be a dick is not to ask to be spoon fed data. I am not going to waste time helping someone who is lazy and makes unsubstantiated comments.
Quote from: FOXP2 on 12/06/2012 11:18 pmQuote from: Jim link=topic=30528.msg988527#msg988527 How not to be a dick is not to ask to be spoon fed data. I am not going to waste time helping someone who is lazy and makes unsubstantiated comments.<snipped a bunch of crap>Some people here need to recognize who the hell they are talking to before they start popping off at the mouth and lobbing grenades. Grenade lobbing is good when you know who you are targeting and know what your doing... you know neither.
We are on the ball for restarting Pu238 production. We need to finish ITAR first.
Thank you for the explanation on relay - we will be fine. Can we let that dead horse lay there... dead... pretty please?
1. Pathfinder, MPL, MER and all weighed a 1/3 as much as Viking (~1 ton total mass per mission verse 3.5 tons for viking) and were launched on much smaller cheaper Delta II verse Viking on Titan IVs. 2. In fact only MSL reached and exceeds viking by 300 kg and was launched on the the Titan IV successor, the gloriously expensive Atlas V. MSL weighs 0.9 tons plus 2.5 tons for the EDL system, Viking lander only weighed 0.6 tons plus 0.5 tons for heat shield..
Oh so you have the money then?
Quote from: FOXP2 on 12/07/2012 03:15 amOh so you have the money then? Money isn't the issue. It is politics.
Is someone going to talk about repurposing the ejected off-set weights, too?
Quote from: Robotbeat on 12/06/2012 08:47 pmIs someone going to talk about repurposing the ejected off-set weights, too? Actually, it is by far the easiest mass to repurpose. You see there were other methods to offset the flight angle for control. The weights were the lowest risk. I like the trim tab option the best. High loads for sure, but I will guess the tab might have weighed 30kg. That would have freed up 120kg for more useful payload. That is a massive number.What would you have done with that mass?
...Viking lander only weighed 0.6 tons plus 0.5 tons for heat shield..
Quote from: FOXP2 on 12/06/2012 11:18 pm...Viking lander only weighed 0.6 tons plus 0.5 tons for heat shield.. How much did the Viking cruise stage, eer orbiter weigh again? That is why it flew on a Titan! If you had separated the two, it could have flown on smaller rockets, maybe.
Quote from: kevin-rf on 12/07/2012 10:00 amQuote from: FOXP2 on 12/06/2012 11:18 pm...Viking lander only weighed 0.6 tons plus 0.5 tons for heat shield.. How much did the Viking cruise stage, eer orbiter weigh again? That is why it flew on a Titan! If you had separated the two, it could have flown on smaller rockets, maybe.Out of interest would the Falcon 9 be capable of launching this rover along with its EDL and cruise stage?
Quote from: Star One on 12/07/2012 05:14 pmQuote from: kevin-rf on 12/07/2012 10:00 amQuote from: FOXP2 on 12/06/2012 11:18 pm...Viking lander only weighed 0.6 tons plus 0.5 tons for heat shield.. How much did the Viking cruise stage, eer orbiter weigh again? That is why it flew on a Titan! If you had separated the two, it could have flown on smaller rockets, maybe.Out of interest would the Falcon 9 be capable of launching this rover along with its EDL and cruise stage?Considering MSL launched on an Atlas 541, don't you mean Falcon Heavy?
That's a good point and by then the FH should have clocked up enough flights to prove its reliability for such a mission.
Quote from: Star One on 12/07/2012 05:28 pmThat's a good point and by then the FH should have clocked up enough flights to prove its reliability for such a mission.For the just announced next rover, Falcon (9 or Heavy) needs to be Nuclear certified.
Jim and Blackstar would be the ones to answer that. Since the Atlas V is the only nuclear currently certified launcher, it is more likely that the next rover will be going on an Atlas V. I am curious since the 2018 and 2020 windows are more favorable than MSL's, will they be dropping a solid or two off of the Atlas? (531? 521?).
But would keeping them and launching it in the 541 configuration allow the rover to reach a greater area of Mars?
Quote from: Star One on 12/07/2012 05:46 pmBut would keeping them and launching it in the 541 configuration allow the rover to reach a greater area of Mars?No, if you can reach Mars, you can reach all of Mars. Launching on a 541 in a more favorable windows gives you either more mass to Mars (if the Sky Crane can land the extra mass) or more margin in the event of LV under performance.
Quote from: kevin-rf on 12/07/2012 05:33 pmQuote from: Star One on 12/07/2012 05:28 pmThat's a good point and by then the FH should have clocked up enough flights to prove its reliability for such a mission.For the just announced next rover, Falcon (9 or Heavy) needs to be Nuclear certified. I would guess that's an involved process?
The planetary science community is being eaten alive by launch vehicle costs, and they long for the return of the Delta II or something in that cost range. So they (NASA and the scientists) would definitely want to switch, even if that required sinking money into nuclear certifying a new vehicle.
Is this true though? Launch costs are 5-10% of a planetary mission and well understood. It is the spacecraft that are expensive and most likely to suffer unreasonable cost growth.
There are several recent missions, including Juno and New Horizons, that got slammed by those increases--not only Delta II going up in cost, but being forced to shift from a Delta II to the more expensive Atlas V because DII was being phased out.
Quote from: Blackstar on 12/08/2012 01:46 pmThere are several recent missions, including Juno and New Horizons, that got slammed by those increases--not only Delta II going up in cost, but being forced to shift from a Delta II to the more expensive Atlas V because DII was being phased out.I find it hard to believe that either one of those two missions could have launched on Delta II in the first place, given their mass and C3 requirements. What am I missing here?
Quote from: ugordan on 12/08/2012 01:53 pmQuote from: Blackstar on 12/08/2012 01:46 pmThere are several recent missions, including Juno and New Horizons, that got slammed by those increases--not only Delta II going up in cost, but being forced to shift from a Delta II to the more expensive Atlas V because DII was being phased out.I find it hard to believe that either one of those two missions could have launched on Delta II in the first place, given their mass and C3 requirements. What am I missing here?I was referring to other missions that have had to move from Delta II to Atlas V.Cost increases happened to Delta II, they happened to Atlas V, and the retirement of the Delta II forced a transition to the more expensive Atlas V.
Interesting, I didn't know that. Any likelihood of using Falcon 9 or is it far too early for them to trust it at this point?
Grunsfeld asked in his talk for voluntiers for the science definition team for the new rover and a few hands were raised. (more of joke) In this process a more astrobiology rover or a more geology rover or a more geophysics rover might be the outcome strongly depending on the group selected to do the science definition.
Even if they can use MSL spare parts it will be challenging to stay below 1.5 G$. For me this sounds like: Do not change anything which means significant cost increase.
Quote from: stone on 12/08/2012 06:26 pmGrunsfeld asked in his talk for voluntiers for the science definition team for the new rover and a few hands were raised. (more of joke) In this process a more astrobiology rover or a more geology rover or a more geophysics rover might be the outcome strongly depending on the group selected to do the science definition. It's going to end up as astrobiology with sample caching for future Mars sample return. There is no way that they can build this rover and not have caching and still satisfy the Mars community. The Mars community is pretty united in support of sample return.
Quote from: Dalhousie on 12/07/2012 08:47 pmIs this true though? Launch costs are 5-10% of a planetary mission and well understood. It is the spacecraft that are expensive and most likely to suffer unreasonable cost growth.It is absolutely true. Consider that a Discovery class mission is approximately $500 million (recent ones have been in the $425-$450 million range). Launch vehicle costs are running $150 million. That is way more than 5-10% of the cost. And it means that three rockets are the equivalent of another mission.NASA did some budgetary shuffling to alleviate the direct pressure on individual programs by removing the vehicle cost from the Discovery and New Frontiers program caps. The reason was that vehicle costs were rising so fast that they were killing the principal investigators doing the missions. Suppose you are a PI on a Discovery mission and when you start building your spacecraft your Delta II is only going to cost $70 million, but by the time you get ready to launch, it has increased by $20 million. That has carved out $20 million that you could have used for your spacecraft. (Jim might have better numbers on this, but Delta II costs increased dramatically. I think that they more than doubled in a decade. Delta II was running at something like $60-$65 million in 2000, and probably like $120 million by 2009, as the result of the phase-out. Once it was phased out, even if you had a small spacecraft, you had to stick it atop a $150 million Atlas. And if you think this is bad, consider people in the Earth sciences and heliophysics, where they typically build a spacecraft for $250 million. You think they want to spend $150 million on a launch vehicle?)There are several recent missions, including Juno and New Horizons, that got slammed by those increases--not only Delta II going up in cost, but being forced to shift from a Delta II to the more expensive Atlas V because DII was being phased out.What NASA did in response was to lower the cost cap for the spacecraft (I don't know by how much) and remove the launch cost from the cap limit. That gave the PI less money, but insulated them from increasing launch vehicle costs. However, you can figure this out--NASA still had to pay the rising costs of the launch vehicles, so they ultimately do less missions.If you look in any report about the planetary science program produced in the last five years you will find that they discuss the negative impact of rising launch costs. It is a very big deal.
Thanks for this. I was thinking of MSL where the launch cost is (or was) only about 5%. But spacecraft cost is still the biggest component, and this suggests that it might be better to ry and reduce costs with these for a bigger impact.
This has been all very informative. But what have been the factors in driving up launch costs in recent years, why have launchers become so expensive?
If caching is involved, I am assuming that selecting a landing site for this rover pretty much also means picking the landing site for the followup sample return mission. If so, what limits does this put on site selections? Latitude? Terrain? Elevation of site?
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/2013decadal/whitepapers.cfm?Category=MSIf it discovers something very interesting, we just might send the 2020 rover back to Gale Crater. Considering the increased complexity, they might start thinking about site selection now!
Quote from: Star One on 12/08/2012 10:03 pmThis has been all very informative. But what have been the factors in driving up launch costs in recent years, why have launchers become so expensive?I don't know this all that well. Jim might know, if he is reading this thread.There are several factors that I know of. Delta II infrastructure costs (like the pad) were covered by the USAF and so NASA really only had to pay for the launch vehicle. For reasons I don't understand, the Delta II costs started going up before the USAF stopped using the Delta II. They rose pretty rapidly too. Now I think I read somewhere that in some ways Delta II costs were actually artificially high because USAF had a rapid-launch requirement for Delta II in order to replace sick GPS satellites. That meant that they kept full crews on contract, etc. If USAF had dropped that requirement, then Boeing could have run a more efficient infrastructure for Delta II and the costs would have been lower for USAF. But once USAF decided not to cover the infrastructure costs at all, NASA got hit with the full expense. Like USAF, NASA moved to the Atlas V. USAF covers the infrastructure costs on Atlas and Delta, and NASA goes along for the ride.Atlas V and Delta IV costs started increasing rapidly several years ago. I don't know why. United Launch Alliance claims that the reason has to do with the "unfair" (my word, but that's what they imply) way in which the government contracts with them. There is some kind of requirement that they be able to guarantee costs and capabilities many years in advance, and this leads to ULA high-balling the costs to cover the possibility that things might be expensive for them and eat into their profit margin. I don't know about it, don't understand it. Lots of people claim that it really comes down to ULA having a monopoly on launches for the US government, so they can charge whatever the heck they want and don't need to try and keep things inexpensive. The recent announcement by USAF that they will buy at least three Falcon 9 launches in the next several years may help to break this monopoly. We'll see.But I'd rather not turn this into a discussion of the Falcon 9. As you may have seen elsewhere on this site, some people here think that the Falcon 9 has magical powers and can defeat Voldemoort, and I'm a little tired of their... enthusiasm.
Which is why it's a shame that the caching capability was left of Curosity (to contain cost, as I understand)
The cacher that was supposed to go on Curiosity....
For me - layman getting news from space websites and forums - it was a lot more sinister than that.MSL then had serious problems with money - and someone wanted to put some fancy, costly and useless bondoogle on it, getting away with it only because money for cacher was from different pot. I was rather... annoyed with this and thought this money would be better spend helping MSL's financial troubles instead of making toy destined to stroke Stern's ego. Fortunately, someone saner axed it.
For instance, you might want a broader range of samples rather than a high probability of getting just one kind of sample.
daheck does Orion have to do with it...And actually, doesn't need SLS. Other launch vehicles would work.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 12/10/2012 11:37 pmdaheck does Orion have to do with it...And actually, doesn't need SLS. Other launch vehicles would work.Politics. Get an Orion mission around Mars, which proves the systems, and then you have a goal to finally land people on the moon. That's all.Not a snowball's chance, I know, but still intriguing.
Well, if it were a manned orbital Mars mission, I could see Orion being used (in addition to Deep space hab and propulsion unit). Not otherwise, though. Way too pointless to send Orion.
Very good series of posts.What I was talking about was using a human orbital mission to Mars that would happen anyway (not THAT unrealistic) to simply retrieve a MSR canister in Mars orbit. If you happened to have a manned mission to Mars orbit, how difficult would it be to retrieve a canister that happened to also be in Mars orbit around that timeframe?
Quote from: Robotbeat on 12/11/2012 10:24 pmVery good series of posts.What I was talking about was using a human orbital mission to Mars that would happen anyway (not THAT unrealistic) to simply retrieve a MSR canister in Mars orbit. If you happened to have a manned mission to Mars orbit, how difficult would it be to retrieve a canister that happened to also be in Mars orbit around that timeframe? If you want something done right, you better do it yourself. Meaning, if the science community really wants sample return from Mars, they should (and would) plan for all parts of the mission themselves. It would be folly to do the first steps and then expect the human program to finish the job, for the simple reason that if the human program runs into trouble, the first thing they will dump overboard is any requirement that they did not generate themselves, such as the requirement to retrieve samples.There are lots of examples of this in the past, but the best and most obvious one is the International Space Station. When ISS went way over-budget in 2002/3 NASA was told to get the costs under control and to cap the overall cost. Goldin was kicked out and O'Keefe brought in to do this. The solution was to toss overboard all of the science equipment and plans then in the pipeline.
Personally, If you want sample return done right, it would be cheapest to send a geologist and have him pack the samples for return. And if he stays behind, that's 180lbs of extra samples
f you want something done right, you better do it yourself. Meaning, if the science community really wants sample return from Mars, they should (and would) plan for all parts of the mission themselves, .. for the simple reason that if the human program runs into trouble, the first thing they will dump overboard is any requirement that they did not generate themselves, such as the requirement to retrieve samples.There are lots of examples of this ... When ISS went way over-budget in 2002/3 NASA was told to get the costs under control and to cap the overall cost. Goldin was kicked out and O'Keefe brought in to do this. The solution was to toss overboard all of the science equipment and plans then in the pipeline.
NASA is taking the first step towards the ultimate scientific goal for the red planet, Mars Sample Return.
Quote from: Blackstar on 12/15/2012 12:14 pmNASA is taking the first step towards the ultimate scientific goal for the red planet, Mars Sample Return. Since this would be the "ultimate" goal, one wonders whether or not there would be a "penultimate" goal after bringing home these few pounds of rocks. And after that, an "ultra-penultimate" goal? "Super-ultra-double-plus-good-penultimate"? Are they saying this be the last robotic Mars mission? I think not.Just from a grammatical standpoint, the word "ultimate" is being overused. I wish they'd quit hyping stuff.
Not to split hairs, but the penultimate goal is the one that comes before the ultimate goal rather than after it.
The rover announcement was a major, and welcome, surprise for Mars scientists. But it raises many questions. For starters, considering that Grunsfeld only expected to have $800 million available for a 2020 mission, how is NASA able to afford a $1.5 billion rover? NASA officials would only say that the money is “already in the budget.” But does this mean that it is being cut from other programs like New Frontiers, Discovery, and operational missions like Cassini? The planetary decadal survey addressed the entire solar system and one of its major recommendations was that NASA should seek to balance its program. If the 2020 rover comes at the expense of exploring the rest of the solar system, NASA will have simply found another way to subvert the planetary decadal survey, and the planetary science community’s wishes.
...Attempting to keep the lid on MSL overruns is what cost Stern his job.The minimal sample cache was not driven by ego. It was a sincere attempt to make some progress towards Mars Sample Return. ...
I heard Stern himself explain it. And the money came from his discretionary account ... (... he allocated $2.5 million for the cacher). I know some people thought it was a way to claim that MSL/Curiosity was doing sample caching when it was not. Who knows? It was a pretty minor aspect of the whole project.
The minimal sample cache was not driven by ego. It was a sincere attempt to make some progress towards Mars Sample Return.
HOUSTON — While it sizes up high-value landing site candidates for its next Mars rover, NASA is developing strategies for protecting dozens of potential rock and soil samples cached on the red planet for harvest and return to Earth at some time in the future. The Mars 2020 science objectives are to reach a landing site with ancient astrobiological potential and geological diversity, look for rocks with high potential for biosignatures, and acquire and preserve samples of rocks and ...
Mars 2020 rover may get a drone for scouting. Can potentially triple rovers daily travel distance.http://www.popsci.com/nasa-to-test-drone-scout-for-mars-2020-rover?src=SOC&dom=tw