Is the shell around the lander an actual structure or some bounding box sort of thing? It's a little hard to tell, it looks like the lander stack slots into the doughnut-shaped carrier and pops out the top before dumping the shell?
There are similar issues with Mars sample return. Every time I see somebody suggest that they should add ISRU to the Mars sample return architecture I cringe. That's adding unproven and complicated technology to something that is already difficult to do, and it does not actually improve the result, it only adds risk (a good rule of thumb is that if you are going to add risk, you should also have a good benefit to the mission for doing so).
OT comment by me, but adding operational ISRU allows increasing the returned sample mass by about an order of magnitude. Despite the advances in analytical techniques, sample size and diversity is still very important. I quite agree with the point of added complexity but I'll match your cringe with my eye roll over the greatly reduced return any day. OK, back to the scheduled program.
–Lander •Science!!!
Quote from: Dalhousie on 04/20/2016 11:39 pmOT comment by me, but adding operational ISRU allows increasing the returned sample mass by about an order of magnitude. Despite the advances in analytical techniques, sample size and diversity is still very important. I quite agree with the point of added complexity but I'll match your cringe with my eye roll over the greatly reduced return any day. OK, back to the scheduled program. I fully agree with you that untested, unproven, theoretical technologies that are high risk have far greater performance than tested, proven, existing technologies. Absolutely true. On Mars. On Europa. Everywhere.
Quote from: Blackstar on 04/21/2016 12:26 amQuote from: Dalhousie on 04/20/2016 11:39 pmOT comment by me, but adding operational ISRU allows increasing the returned sample mass by about an order of magnitude. Despite the advances in analytical techniques, sample size and diversity is still very important. I quite agree with the point of added complexity but I'll match your cringe with my eye roll over the greatly reduced return any day. OK, back to the scheduled program. I fully agree with you that untested, unproven, theoretical technologies that are high risk have far greater performance than tested, proven, existing technologies. Absolutely true. On Mars. On Europa. Everywhere.Nothing theoretical, untested, or unproven about ISRU. TRL varies between 3 and 6 depending on type under discussion.
Nothing theoretical, untested, or unproven about ISRU. TRL varies between 3 and 6 depending on type under discussion.
The House bill also specified that, of the $5.6 billion allocated for NASA’s science programs, $260 million go towards a mission to Europa. NASA requested less than $50 million for the Europa mission, while the Senate’s bill did not specify an amount for that proposed mission.The additional Europa funding is not surprising, as Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas), chairman of the CJS subcommittee, has been a leading advocate for a Europa mission for several years, adding funding well above any NASA request for a spacecraft to help determine if the icy moon can support life.
Looks like the politicians are trying to force NASA's hand this.QuoteThe House bill also specified that, of the $5.6 billion allocated for NASA’s science programs, $260 million go towards a mission to Europa. NASA requested less than $50 million for the Europa mission, while the Senate’s bill did not specify an amount for that proposed mission.The additional Europa funding is not surprising, as Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas), chairman of the CJS subcommittee, has been a leading advocate for a Europa mission for several years, adding funding well above any NASA request for a spacecraft to help determine if the icy moon can support life.http://spacenews.com/house-bill-offers-19-5-billion-for-nasa-in-2017/
It's not forcing NASA's hand. It's forcing the OMB/Obama administration's hand. And this has been going on for a number of years now. There are people at NASA who would love if the administration asked for sufficient money to fund a Europa mission. But the administration is not doing that, so Congressman Culberson is forcing it on them.
Obama's administration definitely had zero interest in NASA, that's proven obvious by now; even (Bill) Clinton and George (W) Bush before him showed at least slightly more interest. Not terribly surprised NASA's the Cinderella of the situation, although at least the Planetary Science program is fairing vastly better than it was in the 1980s.Steering back to the proper topic though, it is still heartwarming to know Europa hasn't been forgotten. Clearly it will be funded and become the next flagship after Mars 2020. The real fun part will be seeing IF it flies aboard SLS or not, which is also part of the funding fun.
Will it be able to reach completion as a project if there is a repeated stance of indifference by the next adminstration?
And yes, you are right about Europa. It will indeed be interesting to see what happens.