NASA is building/has built (my guess is that they are majority complete) two ASRG units that will be placed in "bonded storage" (what the heck does "bonded" mean in this context?).
NASA is building/has built (my guess is that they are majority complete) two ASRG units that will be placed in "bonded storage" (what the heck does "bonded" mean in this context?). The problem is that the ASRGs would not be flight proven before this mission would enter build phase--although who knows when that will be?
I think that the likely power source would be an MMRTG. NASA is building another one for Mars 2020, which maintains the experience/production base. NASA is building/has built (my guess is that they are majority complete) two ASRG units that will be placed in "bonded storage" (what the heck does "bonded" mean in this context?). The problem is that the ASRGs would not be flight proven before this mission would enter build phase--although who knows when that will be? So I think that NASA would take the most conservative option and go with the MMRTG for a multi-billion dollar mission.
Maybe they can test fly the ASRG unit and recover it for refueling with a space capsule.
Any idea what (or when) the first ASRG-equipped mission might be? Someone's got to step up and just do it so we can get a better idea of its true performance potential.
Quote from: Blackstar on 07/26/2013 12:48 pmNASA is building/has built (my guess is that they are majority complete) two ASRG units that will be placed in "bonded storage" (what the heck does "bonded" mean in this context?). Just 'secure' I beleive, but perhaps even with armed security. We see a lot of that here in Halifax with all the container traffic.
Quote from: robertross on 07/26/2013 12:54 pmQuote from: Blackstar on 07/26/2013 12:48 pmNASA is building/has built (my guess is that they are majority complete) two ASRG units that will be placed in "bonded storage" (what the heck does "bonded" mean in this context?). Just 'secure' I beleive, but perhaps even with armed security. We see a lot of that here in Halifax with all the container traffic.I'm guessing that it means storage in clean-room/controlled conditions, as opposed to being stuck in a warehouse. NASA kept the DSCOVR spacecraft in a temp and humidity controlled container at Goddard for many years, I believe, before retrieving it for refurbishment.
not the typical definition of bonded storage; it would need to state that explicitely (or be clean room/controlled by default with the added feature of being in bonded storage).Bonded is essentially lock & key with tamperproof features to ensure no tampering is possible without someone knowing about it.
Quote from: EE Scott on 07/26/2013 07:44 pmAny idea what (or when) the first ASRG-equipped mission might be? Someone's got to step up and just do it so we can get a better idea of its true performance potential.The next real opportunity will be with the next Discovery or New Frontiers selection. I think that the next Discovery selection is not slated to happen before 2016 and the next New Frontiers before 2017 or so. But both are going to slip because of ongoing budget cuts. And even if such a mission was selected, it would take five or more years to build the spacecraft, so we won't see an ASRG mission fly in this decade.The last Discovery selection included three potential missions. Two required ASRGs and the third was conventional. That one, InSight, was selected, probably because it was the least risky of the three missions.There are people inside of NASA who were pushing for an ASRG mission, but they did not win out.
The pace of progress is maddening to me. There are so many promising ways to stretch resources, like ASRG, or aero capture/braking, etc. But if we don't fly the first mission to try out these new technologies and techniques, we are stuck with the same capabilities. I guess we don't even have the budget to choose a decent amount of conventional mission profiles, let alone something that pushes the boundaries.
Quote from: EE Scott on 07/27/2013 02:59 amThe pace of progress is maddening to me. There are so many promising ways to stretch resources, like ASRG, or aero capture/braking, etc. But if we don't fly the first mission to try out these new technologies and techniques, we are stuck with the same capabilities. I guess we don't even have the budget to choose a decent amount of conventional mission profiles, let alone something that pushes the boundaries.With the Discovery program NASA had three mission options:-TiME (Titan lake lander), ASRG, probably the most expensive of the missions-Comet Hopper, ASRG, probably medium expensive-InSight, Mars lander, solar panels, proven hardwareWhen I say "expensive," you have to understand that Discovery is cost-capped. That means that technically, all three mission proposals cost the same (~$475 million, I think). But TiME and Comet Hopper were more likely to go over budget than InSight.When we say that we want NASA to take more risk, we also need to understand that we (or Congress, people in general) are just as likely to criticize those decision-makers when things don't go perfectly. So when TiME went over budget, people would complain and call for the leadership to be punished/fired, etc.In addition, NASA's planetary budget was going down. In that environment, the safest course of action is to pick the cheapest mission, or at least the one that is unlikely to bust its cost cap.
With the Discovery program NASA had three mission options:-TiME (Titan lake lander), ASRG, probably the most expensive of the missions-Comet Hopper, ASRG, probably medium expensive-InSight, Mars lander, solar panels, proven hardware
- TiME: Low technical risk (essentially a reflight of Huygens hardware with an added ASRG)
Based on that, Insight had the lowest technical and science risk, and therefore was least likely to go overbudget. Plus, it's not a confidence that they announced Insight shortly after MSL landed...
I got the impression that the science return from all 3 proposals was considered very good and technical maturity/low risk alone sealed the deal for InSight.