Author Topic: New Frontiers 4  (Read 29859 times)

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6914
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 515
  • Likes Given: 584
Re: New Frontiers 4
« Reply #40 on: 01/25/2016 11:27 AM »
Let's talk about mid-outer solar system targets, specifically the ice giants and the KBOs. Assuming a launch date in the mid-2020s, what sort of planetary alignments would we have for favourable multi-target flybys, even if the mission is ultimately intended to be an ice giant orbiter?

I'm thinking of an Orbiter simulation I saw on YouTube of a flyby of Saturn and Uranus on the way to Eris.
« Last Edit: 01/25/2016 11:27 AM by Ben the Space Brit »
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10751
  • Liked: 2273
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: New Frontiers 4
« Reply #41 on: 01/25/2016 12:28 PM »
Let's talk about mid-outer solar system targets, specifically the ice giants and the KBOs.


Not a subject for New Frontiers 4.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7748
  • UK
  • Liked: 1236
  • Likes Given: 168
New Frontiers 4
« Reply #42 on: 01/25/2016 11:18 PM »
Another thought (although probably should put it in the Ice Giant thread) since you mention budget: partnership with ESA.  They have a good interest in Uranus too but lack a budget as well.  Given the success of Cassini/Huygens, perhaps collaborating with them would help constrain expenses while maximizing science.  How do you think that situation would affect budget specifically?

That is probably how it will happen. But it will still be a flagship-class mission.

And it will probably be Neptune & not Uranus as I believe by then Neptune will be the more favourable of the two to reach from Earth.
« Last Edit: 01/25/2016 11:18 PM by Star One »

Offline ccdengr

  • Member
  • Posts: 68
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: New Frontiers 4
« Reply #43 on: 01/26/2016 06:02 AM »
You cannot do a meaningful, scientifically worthwhile ice giants mission on a New Frontiers budget. It has to be flagship-class.
Citation needed.  In your opinion?  Per some Aerospace Corp cost model?  Seems like a very definitive statement for something that has so many variables in reality.

Offline vjkane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 530
  • Liked: 81
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: New Frontiers 4
« Reply #44 on: 01/26/2016 10:52 AM »
If a SEP stage is used, then Uranus probably would be reachable

Offline vjkane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 530
  • Liked: 81
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: New Frontiers 4
« Reply #45 on: 01/26/2016 11:02 AM »
I don't know of any study of an orbiter that isn't flagship class. A flyby mission might be done within a NF budget, but the Decadal survey explicitly concluded that the science return wouldn't be worth the cost. An atmospheric probe would just add to the cost for the orbiter even if the probe were supplied by a foreign agency

That said the Aerospace model is probably biased towards high outer planet estimates.  Not a criticism of them. Their historic model data is for multi billion dollar missions. With new horizons, Juno, juice the model probably will be readjusted

I have heard from several scientist and mission architects that they believe the Decadal Enceladus mission estimates were pulled too high as an example. But I don't think we will get a compelling ice giant mission in a new frontiers budget

Offline ccdengr

  • Member
  • Posts: 68
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: New Frontiers 4
« Reply #46 on: 01/26/2016 03:36 PM »
I don't know of any study of an orbiter that isn't flagship class.
IMHO, the system is caught in a feedback loop where no one dares to suggest lower-cost missions because the cost models don't "validate" them.  If a hard cost cap was imposed, and sensible cost-benefit trades were made in a capability-driven way instead of the usual Parkinson's Law/everything but the kitchen sink approach, who knows what might be possible?

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7436
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1433
  • Likes Given: 4468
Re: New Frontiers 4
« Reply #47 on: 01/26/2016 03:49 PM »
I don't know of any study of an orbiter that isn't flagship class.
IMHO, the system is caught in a feedback loop where no one dares to suggest lower-cost missions because the cost models don't "validate" them.  If a hard cost cap was imposed, and sensible cost-benefit trades were made in a capability-driven way instead of the usual Parkinson's Law/everything but the kitchen sink approach, who knows what might be possible?
What a great idea! Now the hundreds of investigators and engineers have found their solution to enter the much easier New Frontiers and Discovery classes. How silly have all the professionals in the field been that they only bid on the most difficult mission class because they didn't thought of "design to cost".

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10751
  • Liked: 2273
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: New Frontiers 4
« Reply #48 on: 01/26/2016 05:04 PM »
You cannot do a meaningful, scientifically worthwhile ice giants mission on a New Frontiers budget. It has to be flagship-class.
Citation needed.  In your opinion?  Per some Aerospace Corp cost model?  Seems like a very definitive statement for something that has so many variables in reality.


You're new here. Go and read the Neptune thread for starters:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33971.0




Offline vjkane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 530
  • Liked: 81
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: New Frontiers 4
« Reply #49 on: 01/26/2016 05:04 PM »
Sarcasm aside, I believe that the problem comes up in fairly brief assessments such as those in the Decadal survey where there isn't time to do lots of trade off studies. For example subsequent Uranus studies found issues with the design assumptions in the survey's Uranus probe.

For Enceladus on the other hand the community has been pursuing design to cost studies.  I don't know how mature they are.

No one I've talked to believes that a Uranus orbiter can be done for less than a flagship cost.  Now there are studies to see if the costs can be dropped from around $3b to $2b

Offline mkent

  • Member
  • Posts: 92
  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Liked: 85
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: New Frontiers 4
« Reply #50 on: 01/26/2016 11:49 PM »
All of this discussion is moot.  The possible targets for New Frontiers 4 were laid out in the announcement of the Announcement of Opportunity:

Comet Surface Sample Return,
Lunar South Pole-Aitken Basin Sample Return,
Saturn Probe,
Trojan Tour and Rendezvous,
Venus In Situ Explorer, and
Ocean Worlds (Titan and Enceladus)

The first five were dictated by the Decadal Survey; the last one was added by Congress.  No other missions will be considered for New Frontiers 4, so proposing a Uranus or Neptune orbiter is a waste of time.

Offline simonbp

Re: New Frontiers 4
« Reply #51 on: 01/27/2016 08:46 PM »
At the AGU conference in December, I chatted with Jim Bell about the Trojan mission his team plans to propose (and he said that this information could be shared).  They are looking at a mission that would orbit at least one asteroid and flyby several more to study the heterogeneity of these objects.

Yeah, it's kind of Lucy on Steroids. But that also means that it only has a chance if Lucy (with is just a multiple flyby mission) does not win Discovery.

Offline vjkane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 530
  • Liked: 81
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: New Frontiers 4
« Reply #52 on: 03/02/2016 09:36 PM »
There is an Ocean Worlds hearing on Capitol Hill on Thursday.
Starts at 10:30 Eastern

You can watch it at

http://appropriations.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=394422

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10751
  • Liked: 2273
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: New Frontiers 4
« Reply #53 on: 03/05/2016 09:29 PM »

Online redliox

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1666
  • Arizona USA
  • Liked: 311
  • Likes Given: 54
Re: New Frontiers 4
« Reply #54 on: 03/05/2016 10:43 PM »
Very informative synopsis Blackstar.  It sounds like they're getting a solid plan on schedule, and the plan seems to be the flyby orbiter with a short-term lander launching separately.  Culbertson is surprisingly intelligent for the average politician, and I only wish his polite exchange of conversation with the scientists could be the norm of Congress and the (U.S. at least) government in general.  A very good read.
"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Offline Graham

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 216
  • New York
  • Liked: 209
  • Likes Given: 110
Re: New Frontiers 4
« Reply #55 on: 03/05/2016 11:14 PM »
I fear that by including a lander the project will easily go over budget and be subject to tons of delays. By splitting them up hopefully at the very least the flyby will be saved, and at best we'll have a lander too
« Last Edit: 03/06/2016 04:27 PM by Graham »
I have loved the stars too fondly to be fearful of the night
- Sarah Williams

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10751
  • Liked: 2273
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: New Frontiers 4
« Reply #56 on: 03/06/2016 10:54 PM »
Very informative synopsis Blackstar.  It sounds like they're getting a solid plan on schedule, and the plan seems to be the flyby orbiter with a short-term lander launching separately.  Culbertson is surprisingly intelligent for the average politician, and I only wish his polite exchange of conversation with the scientists could be the norm of Congress and the (U.S. at least) government in general.  A very good read.

I did not write it.

And I'd note that there's a separate thread for Europa discussions. I included that here because of the connection to New Frontiers 4.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7748
  • UK
  • Liked: 1236
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: New Frontiers 4
« Reply #57 on: 06/29/2016 08:37 PM »
Jeff Foust ‏@jeff_foust
Green: draft Announcement of Opportunity for next New Frontiers mission due out this summer; final AO in January 2017. #SBAG

Offline hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3158
  • Liked: 351
  • Likes Given: 682
Re: New Frontiers 4
« Reply #58 on: 08/10/2016 02:51 AM »
New Frontiers 4 draft AO
https://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewrepositorydocument/cmdocumentid=529393/solicitationId=%7BCC7546D5-3DBD-E646-19F6-45CE5BFC0738%7D/viewSolicitationDocument=1/NF4%20Draft_release8-9-16.pdf

Quote
Comments on Draft AO Due: September 30, 2016
Notices of Intent Due Date: TBD
Proposal Due Date: TBD

ANNOUNCEMENT OF OPPORTUNITY
NEW FRONTIERS PROGRAM
NNH16ZDA008J

FOREWORD

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Science Mission Directorate (SMD) is releasing this Announcement of Opportunity (AO) to solicit Principal Investigator (PI)-led space science investigations for the New Frontiers Program.

Proposed mission investigations must conform to the mission themes described in Section 2.4.
The AO Cost Cap for a New Frontiers mission is $850M in NASA Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 dollars for Phases A through D, not including the cost of the Expendable Launch Vehicle (ELV) or any contributions. NASA expects to select up to one New Frontiers mission to proceed into Phase B and subsequent mission phases. The selected missions will launch no later than December 31, 2024.

Proposers should be aware that this New Frontiers AO closely follows the updated Standard AO and the Discovery 2014 AO. This has resulted in major changes from the previous New Frontiers AO issued in 2009. Some of the major changes include:
The value of foreign instrument contributions are limited to one-third of the PI-Managed Instrument Cost.
A standard launch capability is offered as Government Furnished Equipment (GFE). Higher performance or larger fairing will be charged to the PI-Managed Mission Cost.
Phase E and F costs, excluding the development of ground or flight system software and the development, fabrication, or refurbishment of test-beds, which will be considered deferred Phase D work, are no longer under the AO Cost Cap.
Proposers are now required to use one parametric cost model as a benchmarking exercise and to report the input file and results in their submission.
The use of lightweight Radioisotope Heater Units, small radioactive sources, and/or the use of Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (MMRTGs) is permitted.
A variety of NASA-developed technologies are available for infusion into missions.
Plans for Student Collaborations, Science Enhancement Options, and Technology Demonstration Options have been deferred to Step-2.
In addition to the listed major changes, this AO incorporates a large number of additional changes relative to previous New Frontiers Program AOs, including both policy changes and changes to proposal submission requirements. All proposers must read this AO carefully, and all proposals must comply with the requirements, constraints, and guidelines contained within this AO.

Offline hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3158
  • Liked: 351
  • Likes Given: 682
Re: New Frontiers 4
« Reply #59 on: 12/09/2016 08:48 PM »
« Last Edit: 12/09/2016 09:21 PM by hop »

Tags: