Author Topic: Pluto Orbital Mission  (Read 23597 times)

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13997
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: Pluto Orbital Mission
« Reply #40 on: 09/27/2017 09:05 am »
'Hopping Around' on Pluto? Exciting Lander Mission Concept Presented at NASA Symposium

http://www.americaspace.com/2017/09/26/hopping-around-on-pluto-exciting-lander-mission-concept-presented-at-nasa-symposium/

Offline TakeOff

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 392
  • Liked: 85
  • Likes Given: 115
Re: Pluto Orbital Mission
« Reply #41 on: 09/27/2017 11:58 am »
Aerocapture and aerobraking at Pluto. Wow, I'd be damned! At 1/10 000 of Earth sea level atmospheric pressure on Pluto's surface. Still, aerobraking and aerocapture has not really been used, has it? Aerobraking has been tried out several times but has not been a critical part of a mission AFAIK. It looks promising for missions to the 10 known atmospheric bodies in the Solar System and their hundreds of moons. If Pluto has an "atmosphere" useful for aerobraking, then maybe Eris does too.

Is it sure that Pluto's atmosphere is useful for entering orbit? It is a NIAC award so I don't know whether it is a given or the thing to be investigated.

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Pluto Orbital Mission
« Reply #42 on: 09/27/2017 02:18 pm »
Aerocapture and aerobraking at Pluto.


Does it say "aerocapture"? The article is unclear on that. I have a hard time believing that it is possible to get to Pluto and land without some kind of propulsive braking.

Offline vjkane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1269
  • Liked: 617
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Pluto Orbital Mission
« Reply #43 on: 09/27/2017 03:44 pm »
Aerocapture and aerobraking at Pluto.


Does it say "aerocapture"? The article is unclear on that. I have a hard time believing that it is possible to get to Pluto and land without some kind of propulsive braking.

No, this is a landed mission that takes advantage of two key facts: Pluto has very low surface gravity and it has a very thin but extended atmosphere.  If you employ a very, very large heat shield, you can use very thin upper atmosphere to slow down an entering vehicle with very little heating.  There were proposals to have large inflatable re-entry craft that astronauts could use for emergency return to Earth.

This Pluto proposal would use a large inflated balloon and the friction with the thin but extended atmosphere to slow down enough that a small lander could then finish the landing with landing rockets.  Because Pluto's gravity is thin, it could then hop tens or hundreds kilometers away to explore several other locations.

Since the only goal of the balloon is to provide a really large surface area, there's no need for complicated guidance and maneuver capability like there is with aerocapture.

I believe that the same trick would work with Triton.  I don't believe that this approach would work for any other bodies -- the thin atmosphere doesn't extended far enough vertically because the planet's gravity is too high.

A couple of questions I would have would be whether or not the small lander could carry enough fuel to boost itself into orbit for a planetary reconnaissance.  The public information on the proposal emphasizes that the lander must be small so that the balloon only has to slow a small mass.

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Pluto Orbital Mission
« Reply #44 on: 09/27/2017 03:58 pm »
Aerocapture and aerobraking at Pluto.


Does it say "aerocapture"? The article is unclear on that. I have a hard time believing that it is possible to get to Pluto and land without some kind of propulsive braking.

No, this is a landed mission that takes advantage of two key facts: Pluto has very low surface gravity and it has a very thin but extended atmosphere.  If you employ a very, very large heat shield, you can use very thin upper atmosphere to slow down an entering vehicle with very little heating.  There were proposals to have large inflatable re-entry craft that astronauts could use for emergency return to Earth.

Okay, but let's be clear: this is slowing down and landing from ORBIT, not using aerocapture to get into orbit in the first place. The proposal assumes that the spacecraft is already orbiting Pluto, correct?

Offline vjkane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1269
  • Liked: 617
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Pluto Orbital Mission
« Reply #45 on: 09/27/2017 04:16 pm »
Aerocapture and aerobraking at Pluto.


Does it say "aerocapture"? The article is unclear on that. I have a hard time believing that it is possible to get to Pluto and land without some kind of propulsive braking.

No, this is a landed mission that takes advantage of two key facts: Pluto has very low surface gravity and it has a very thin but extended atmosphere.  If you employ a very, very large heat shield, you can use very thin upper atmosphere to slow down an entering vehicle with very little heating.  There were proposals to have large inflatable re-entry craft that astronauts could use for emergency return to Earth.

Okay, but let's be clear: this is slowing down and landing from ORBIT, not using aerocapture to get into orbit in the first place. The proposal assumes that the spacecraft is already orbiting Pluto, correct?
No, the large surface area of the balloon plus thin extended atmosphere allows no propulsive* slow down from interplanetary transfer speeds.  No orbiting, no aerocapture.  This is a very clever idea that makes use of past work on very, very large re-entry shields.  Make your shield large enough relative to mass, and the heating is very gentle.  With this approach, you can travel to Pluto at New Horizon speeds without carrying all the fuel needed to decelerate to enter orbit or do a direct landing.  I think this is a genius idea, although we will have to see if all those annoying engineering details work out. 

Here's a link to the press release https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-09/gac-gac092117.php

*After deceleration, the final landing would be done using rockets, but they can probably be pretty low power.  Not much gravity, which enables later substantial hops.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13997
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
Pluto Orbital Mission
« Reply #46 on: 10/27/2017 09:55 pm »
Return to Pluto? Scientists Push for New Mission to Outer Solar System

Quote
A grassroots movement seeks to build momentum for a second NASA mission to the outer solar system, a generation after a similar effort helped give rise to the first one.

Quote
Nearly three dozen scientists have drafted letters in support of a potential return mission to Pluto or to another destination in the Kuiper Belt, the ring of icy bodies beyond Neptune's orbit, Singer told Space.com.

These letters have been sent to NASA planetary science chief Jim Green, as well as to the chairs of several committees that advise the agency, she added.

"We need the community to realize that people are interested," Singer said. "We need the community to realize that there are important, unmet goals. And we need the community to realize that this should have a spot somewhere in the Decadal Survey."

That would be the Planetary Science Decadal Survey, a report published by the National Academy of Sciences that lays out the nation's top exploration priorities for the coming decade.

"This is the way it normally works," said New Horizons principal investigator Alan Stern, who's also based at SwRI.

"First it bubbles up in the community and then, when there's enough action, the agency starts to get behind it," Stern, who has been the driving force behind New Horizons since the very beginning, told Space.com. "Then it lets the Decadal Survey sort things out."

Stern contributed a letter to the new campaign, and he has voiced support for a dedicated Pluto orbiter. Singer would also be happy if NASA went back to the dwarf planet.

"Pluto just has so much going on," she said.

Quote
"I would say 25 years is the longest I think about," she said, referring to how long it may be before another Kuiper Belt mission gets to its destination. "And I hope it may be more like 15 years."

https://www.space.com/38589-new-pluto-mission-letter-writing-campaign.html
« Last Edit: 10/27/2017 09:55 pm by Star One »

Offline redliox

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2539
  • Illinois USA
  • Liked: 683
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: Pluto Orbital Mission
« Reply #47 on: 10/30/2017 10:11 am »
Since revisiting the Kuiper Belt, in addition to Pluto, is a topic my talk in the Ice Giant thread might be relevant plus a pdf on Outer Planet/Kuiper Belt mission possibilities:

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/opag/meetings/feb2017/presentations/Zangari.pdf

While an orbiter/probe for Uranus seems the main route, there may be possibilities for a fly-by coupled with a Kuiper object according to another presentation via the OPAG: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/opag/meetings/feb2017/presentations/Zangari.pdf

These slides show the alignments, and the probable trajectories, a flyby mission could undertake during the ~next quarter-century.  Jupiter alone could probably fling a probe to most objects, but an alignment with one of the other gas giants enhances the ability to tweak the trajectory...

Neptune could send a probe to any of six objects, the largest being Eris itself (so long as you're willing to wait to reach it).  Uranus is sparser with only three, Varuna the major one.  A route via Saturn would be as rich as Neptune, and includes the 2 next most massive dwarfs, Haumea and  Makemake.  This raises a large number of possibilities, all of which depend on the would-be-mission's priorities.  For instance....

If the priority is the Kuiper object, either Saturn or Neptune are your best options because either can give you access to the more prominent bodies; Eris would be awesome to see although it'd probably be a tertiary choice since the next-largest-bodies, including the multi-mooned and uniquely-shaped Haumea, are far more accessible in a quicker time scale.

If the priority is Neptune, you get a great chance for fresh science and, thanks to Neptune's position at the edge with less interference from the Sun's gravity well, a wide range to redirect the probe afterwards.  Studying Triton against Pluto or the Kuiper belt would be great for comparison.  Not as much science as an orbiter naturally, but you get a chance to study both the planet and bodies it affected during its evolution.

If the priority is Uranus or Saturn, there isn't quite as much useful science you could do as compared to the first two.  The best chance would be to drop off a Saturn probe, using the Kuiper probe as the carrier.  Saturn's main gain would be gaining knowledge about its atmosphere and accessing a great selection of dwarfs, whereas Uranus is likewise its atmosphere, structure, and mapping more of its moons.

Between this and the study summary from Amy Simon and Mark Hofstadter, I'd definitely cross Uranus off the fly-by list and only reserve that as a Neptune option.  It is a bonus learning that missions to both Neptune and Saturn could vastly increase our knowledge of the Kuiper Belt as much as New Horizons; I'd definitely like to see the would-be-carrier of a Saturn probe (like ESA's proposed Hera for instance) have an option to fly-by say Haumea afterwards.

"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Offline matthewkantar

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2075
  • Liked: 2506
  • Likes Given: 2211
Re: Pluto Orbital Mission
« Reply #48 on: 10/30/2017 03:27 pm »
Is it possible to aerobrake with a parachute?

Matthew

Offline PeteW

  • Member
  • Posts: 3
  • England
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Pluto Orbital Mission
« Reply #49 on: 10/31/2017 08:04 am »
Aerocapture and aerobraking at Pluto.


Does it say "aerocapture"? The article is unclear on that. I have a hard time believing that it is possible to get to Pluto and land without some kind of propulsive braking.

No, this is a landed mission that takes advantage of two key facts: Pluto has very low surface gravity and it has a very thin but extended atmosphere.  If you employ a very, very large heat shield, you can use very thin upper atmosphere to slow down an entering vehicle with very little heating.  There were proposals to have large inflatable re-entry craft that astronauts could use for emergency return to Earth.

This Pluto proposal would use a large inflated balloon and the friction with the thin but extended atmosphere to slow down enough that a small lander could then finish the landing with landing rockets.  Because Pluto's gravity is thin, it could then hop tens or hundreds kilometers away to explore several other locations.

Since the only goal of the balloon is to provide a really large surface area, there's no need for complicated guidance and maneuver capability like there is with aerocapture.

I believe that the same trick would work with Triton.  I don't believe that this approach would work for any other bodies -- the thin atmosphere doesn't extended far enough vertically because the planet's gravity is too high.

A couple of questions I would have would be whether or not the small lander could carry enough fuel to boost itself into orbit for a planetary reconnaissance.  The public information on the proposal emphasizes that the lander must be small so that the balloon only has to slow a small mass.

I wonder whether you could use this technique to aerobrake at a comet. The density of the coma is much lower than even the atmosphere of Pluto, but it's also much deeper.

Obviously this would be useful for missions to the comet itself, but if you could find a comet travelling in roughly the right direction, you could hitch a ride and use the comet to provide much of the velocity needed to reach the outer solar system.
 

Offline WBailey

  • Member
  • Posts: 44
  • Planet Earth
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 70
Re: Pluto Orbital Mission
« Reply #50 on: 10/31/2017 09:42 pm »
Is it possible to aerobrake with a parachute?

Matthew

How about a toroidal ballute?

Offline Alpha_Centauri

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • England
  • Liked: 336
  • Likes Given: 158
Re: Pluto Orbital Mission
« Reply #51 on: 10/24/2018 09:11 pm »
More on this, it appears they have worked out a way to use Charon to slingshot a Pluto orbiter around the system and eventually out into the Kuiper Belt for an extended mission to other dwarf planets, essentially getting a two-for-one.

https://twitter.com/NewHorizons2015/status/1055197087296643076

https://www.swri.org/press-release/swri-pluto-orbiter-kuiper-belt-charon-gravity-assist?utm_source=SA-Local&utm_medium=Distribution&utm_campaign=Pluto-Orbiter-PR&fbclid=IwAR17PoHnAPR-7K4bniOAzn9QeedNJV13icd57JIzsU1sHlxkXxB-cyodukY
Quote
SwRI TEAM MAKES BREAKTHROUGHS STUDYING PLUTO ORBITER MISSION

A Southwest Research Institute team using internal research funds has made several discoveries that expand the range and value of a future Pluto orbiter mission. The breakthroughs define a fuel-saving orbital tour and demonstrate that an orbiter can continue exploration in the Kuiper Belt after surveying Pluto. These and other results from the study will be reported this week at a workshop on future Pluto and Kuiper Belt exploration at the American Astronomical Society’s Division for Planetary Sciences meeting in Knoxville, Tennessee.

« Last Edit: 10/24/2018 09:15 pm by Alpha_Centauri »

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13997
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
Pluto Orbital Mission
« Reply #52 on: 10/25/2018 08:18 pm »
Game-Changer: A Pluto Orbiter and Beyond

Quote
But it’s also the move into the Kuiper Belt that has Stern’s attention. It makes a Pluto orbiter of this design a multi-purpose spacecraft and leverages our growing experience with ion propulsion. Says Stern:

“This is groundbreaking. Previously, NASA and the planetary science community thought the next step in Kuiper Belt exploration would be to choose between ‘going deep’ in the study of Pluto and its moons or ‘going broad’ by examining smaller Kuiper Belt objects and another dwarf planet for comparison to Pluto. The planetary science community debated which was the right next step. Our studies show you can do both in a single mission: it’s a game changer.”

Quote
From the paper, this is a bit of an eye-opener:

There is a KBO mission possible for every Earth-Jupiter launch window throughout a Jupiter revolution, thus Pluto and every one of the selected 45 KBOs are accessible via Jupiter gravity assist with a flight time of under 25 years and a C3 [excess launch energy] less than 140 km2/s2. Many, but not all objects can be reached via Saturn flyby, and a smaller list still can be compatible with a visit to an ice giant, though it does not necessarily provide a TOF [time of flight] advantage.

Which leads to this:

We found that all five of the non-Pluto KBOs studied by McGranaghan et al [23] can be reached by giant planet swingby— (136199) Eris and (90377) Sedna with Neptune, and (50000) Quaoar, (136472) Makemake and (136108) Haumea via Jupiter-Saturn. Fast-rotator (20000) Varuna is reachable after a Uranus encounter.
« Last Edit: 10/25/2018 08:24 pm by Star One »

Offline redliox

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2539
  • Illinois USA
  • Liked: 683
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: Pluto Orbital Mission
« Reply #53 on: 10/26/2018 03:59 am »
Not surprised they realized Charon could be useful for a gravity assist; in some Uranus orbiter studies they likewise concluded even Uranus' relatively puny moons could be relatively as useful as the Galileans/Titan despite being planetary lightweights.  Good to calculate ahead of time, although getting into orbit around Pluto is the far greater challenge I'd like to hear a solution to.
"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13997
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: Pluto Orbital Mission
« Reply #54 on: 11/05/2019 03:12 pm »
SwRI TO PLAN PLUTO ORBITER MISSION

Oct. 30, 2019 — NASA has funded Southwest Research Institute to study the important attributes, feasibility and cost of a possible future Pluto orbiter mission. This study will develop the spacecraft and payload design requirements and make preliminary cost and risk assessments for new technologies.

The study is one of 10 different mission studies that NASA is sponsoring to prepare for the next Planetary Science Decadal Survey. The results of these studies will be delivered to the National Academy Planetary Decadal Study that will begin in 2020.

The SwRI-led New Horizons mission — which flew past Pluto and its system of moons and then Kuiper Belt Object (KBO) 2014 MU69, the farthest, most primordial object visited to date — has returned data that has made a compelling case for a follow-up mission.

“We’re excited to have this opportunity to inform the decadal survey deliberations with this study,” said SwRI’s Dr. Carly Howett, who is leading the effort. “Our mission concept is to send a single spacecraft to orbit Pluto for two Earth years before breaking away to visit at least one KBO and one other KBO dwarf planet.”

Despite all that New Horizons revealed about the Pluto system and KBOs, it could only begin to explore complex Pluto and its five moons. Additionally, the New Horizons spacecraft carried only a limited payload and many aspects of KBO and dwarf planet science require different kinds instrumentation and the kind of global and temporal coverage that only an orbiter can provide. A Pluto orbiter mission will be designed to answer some of the questions New Horizons discoveries have sparked.

“In an SwRI-funded study that preceded this new NASA-funded study, we developed a Pluto system orbital tour, showing the mission was possible with planned capability launch vehicles and existing electric propulsion systems,” said SwRI’s Dr. Alan Stern, principal investigator of the New Horizons mission as well as the SwRI-funded study. “We also showed it is possible to use gravity assists from Pluto’s largest moon, Charon, to escape Pluto orbit and to go back into the Kuiper Belt for the exploration of more KBOs like MU69 and at least once more dwarf planet for comparison to Pluto.”

For more information, visit Planetary Science or contact Deb Schmid, +1 210 522 2254, Communications Department, Southwest Research Institute, PO Drawer 28510, San Antonio, TX 78228-0510.

https://www.swri.org/press-release/pluto-orbiter-mission-decadal-survey-study

Offline Paul451

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3553
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2518
  • Likes Given: 2181
Re: Pluto Orbital Mission
« Reply #55 on: 11/18/2019 09:06 am »
While it does sound like an interesting mission, I think a Triton Orbiter, and maybe a flyby of another Rounded TNO (How many are there?) would be a far better use of resources and easier to do.
Triton is influenced and changed by Neptune it is not a standalone pristine KBO like Pluto. And why waste your time going onto a further unstudied TNO when with Pluto you've already had the initial flyby data.

For that very reason. You study the unstudied. (Not that Triton is actually unstudied.) Plus a Neptune orbiter gives you a whole pantheon of objects to study, some captured, some naturally formed, some possibly naturally formed but thrown into chaos by the capture of Triton. Plus rings. Plus Neptune itself.

But amongst the TNO's, my preference would be Haumea. It's may represent a unique snapshot of a dynamic process (collision, merging or something similar), including a ring of debris. It colour suggests recent resurfacing. It's not too far out (unlike Eris, for eg), and there's nice gravitational slingshots available in 6 and 7yrs, giving a reasonable mission time (even without a magic fusion drive.) If it is a collision remnant, it could be partially and unevenly stripped, giving us access to the differentiated layers inside a TNO.

Additionally, with Makemake similarly located in the sky, you could build two identical probes for separate launches into the same slingshot, arriving within a couple of years of each other. That should reduce the per-probe cost, while maximising science return. (Makemake is a red TNO, so likely organic rich.) It would also make for a nice burst of public interest, IMO.



My concern about the Pluto proposal is that it will actually reduce any chance of funding for an outer solar system mission. Any attempt to suggest any other outer solar system target except a Pluto orbiter will be shouted down by the SwRI faction. And a Pluto orbiter will lose to Europa/Titan or any inner solar system missions.

[edit: is/it]
« Last Edit: 11/18/2019 12:12 pm by Paul451 »

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13997
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: Pluto Orbital Mission
« Reply #56 on: 11/18/2019 11:14 am »
While it does sound like an interesting mission, I think a Triton Orbiter, and maybe a flyby of another Rounded TNO (How many are there?) would be a far better use of resources and easier to do.
Triton is influenced and changed by Neptune it is not a standalone pristine KBO like Pluto. And why waste your time going onto a further unstudied TNO when with Pluto you've already had the initial flyby data.

For that very reason. You study the unstudied. (Not that Triton is actually unstudied.) Plus a Neptune orbiter gives you a whole pantheon of objects to study, some captured, some naturally formed, some possibly naturally formed but thrown into chaos by the capture of Triton. Plus rings. Plus Neptune itself.

But amongst the TNO's, my preference would be Haumea. It's may represent a unique snapshot of a dynamic process (collision, merging or something similar), including a ring of debris. It colour suggests recent resurfacing. It's not too far out (unlike Eris, for eg), and there's nice gravitational slingshots available in 6 and 7yrs, giving a reasonable mission time (even without a magic fusion drive.) If is is a collision remnant, it could be partially and unevenly stripped, giving us access to the differentiated layers inside a TNO.

Additionally, with Makemake similarly located in the sky, you could build two identical probes for separate launches into the same slingshot, arriving within a couple of years of each other. That should reduce the per-probe cost, while maximising science return. (Makemake is a red TNO, so likely organic rich.) It would also make for a nice burst of public interest, IMO.



My concern about the Pluto proposal is that it will actually reduce any chance of funding for an outer solar system mission. Any attempt to suggest any other outer solar system target except a Pluto orbiter will be shouted down by the SwRI faction. And a Pluto orbiter will lose to Europa/Titan or any inner solar system missions.

I don’t see any subjective evidence to support your final paragraph.

Re: Pluto Orbital Mission
« Reply #57 on: 11/18/2019 10:40 pm »
Regarding aerocapture/aerobraking, I remember that one of the arguments that led to New Horizons' approval for the window it was launched in was that Pluto's atmosphere was beginning to freeze out as Pluto got closer to aphelion (thus, early launch was necessary if any atmospheric studies were to be done).  This many years later, atmosphere condensing to the surface should be even greater and so much the more when a Pluto orbiter would be launched.  Would there be any significant atmosphere left when an orbiter arrived?

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6466
  • Liked: 4572
  • Likes Given: 5136
Re: Pluto Orbital Mission
« Reply #58 on: 11/18/2019 11:26 pm »
My concern about the Pluto proposal is that it will actually reduce any chance of funding for an outer solar system mission. Any attempt to suggest any other outer solar system target except a Pluto orbiter will be shouted down by the SwRI faction. And a Pluto orbiter will lose to Europa/Titan or any inner solar system missions.

I don’t see any subjective evidence to support your final paragraph.

That was completely subjective.
I believe you meant you don’t see any OBJECTIVE evidence there.
And I would agree.
Shouting is not effective mission advocacy works.
If he meant some other method of short cutting debate it should be more explicit.

Note: quoting error due to phone issues
zubenelgenubi: fixed
« Last Edit: 11/19/2019 02:44 am by zubenelgenubi »
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6466
  • Liked: 4572
  • Likes Given: 5136
Re: Pluto Orbital Mission
« Reply #59 on: 11/19/2019 01:23 pm »
That SwRI has found a way to use Charon to modify an orbit around Pluto and even to leave Pluto is not surprising. Pluto and Charon are dual dwarf planets. The barycenter is outside of Pluto. No other destination is so close to balance.

An interesting question is how much they can use Charon’s gravity to reduce the minimum delta-V necessary to effect capture into orbit. (Probably as a function of time of flight.)

The big issue with a “classical” Pluto orbiter is getting enough mass there that it can do the 10+/- km/sec insertion burn with useful spacecraft mass. I’ve heard about a conceptual orbiter smaller than New Horizons that still needed a rocket larger than the Atlas V 551, which is our largest rocket certified to carry RTGs AIUI.  But the rocket equation is so non-linear that any appreciable decrease in the required delta-V can have a major impact on both those requirements.
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1