Author Topic: Proposed Europa Missions  (Read 641095 times)

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
Re: Proposed Europa Missions
« Reply #680 on: 01/16/2015 06:50 pm »
Back on the topic of cubesat parasite payloads as a part of EC, I am familiar with several of the proposals that have been funded as part of the JPL program. There are unquestionably instruments that can significantly increase scientific return and can fit onto a cubesat. To add a few details about the program: 10 studies from various institutions were funded and the proposals are targeting a 3U size with the possibility of expanding to 6U if it can be justified. Depending on the proposal's goals, either a solar powered, long(ish) lived cubesat or a battery powered, short duration cubesat might be acceptable. I can confirm that at least one proposal team is considering solar power; it is not impossible at Jupiter given the low power requirements of some of the instruments in question.

Yeah, we had a solar powered concept we've been studying under an SBIR that was designed with for Titan. It's a 6U though, not a 3U, and we haven't done the thermal analysis yet (we just finished Phase 1) to see if the 3-6W of power we could get at Saturn would actually be enough. Cubesat solar at Jupiter or Saturn is probably feasible, just hard to get enough collecting area.

~Jon

Offline ThereIWas3

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 948
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 338
Re: Proposed Europa Missions
« Reply #681 on: 01/16/2015 06:52 pm »
Besides using mass for shielding there are also magnetic methods.  (It works for planet Earth)  There are several engineering problems to be solved though.  Superconducting magnets, power source, and how not to mess with your stuff that is inside the field.

Offline JH

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 396
  • Liked: 281
  • Likes Given: 72
Re: Proposed Europa Missions
« Reply #682 on: 01/16/2015 07:03 pm »
Yeah, we had a solar powered concept we've been studying under an SBIR that was designed with for Titan. It's a 6U though, not a 3U, and we haven't done the thermal analysis yet (we just finished Phase 1) to see if the 3-6W of power we could get at Saturn would actually be enough. Cubesat solar at Jupiter or Saturn is probably feasible, just hard to get enough collecting area.

~Jon

I'm pretty impressed that you were able to squeeze a square meter of high efficiency solar arrays into a 6U cube sat. But, yeah, once you go beyond Jupiter, solar becomes crazy hard.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7829
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Proposed Europa Missions
« Reply #683 on: 01/29/2015 04:07 pm »
This is an interesting article. I haven't read it all the way through, but it has some interesting observations on how Culberson squares his skepticism of climate science with his claim that he is supporting the "scientific consensus" on the need for a Europa mission:

http://news.sciencemag.org/funding/2015/01/money-chase-2016-new-head-key-house-science-spending-panel-likes-limited-government?utm_campaign=email-news-latest&utm_src=email


Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7829
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Proposed Europa Missions
« Reply #684 on: 01/30/2015 03:46 am »
Some people who want a Europa mission will be happy with the president's proposed budget.

Offline redliox

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2539
  • Illinois USA
  • Liked: 684
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: Proposed Europa Missions
« Reply #685 on: 01/30/2015 11:24 am »
This is an interesting article. I haven't read it all the way through, but it has some interesting observations on how Culberson squares his skepticism of climate science with his claim that he is supporting the "scientific consensus" on the need for a Europa mission:

http://news.sciencemag.org/funding/2015/01/money-chase-2016-new-head-key-house-science-spending-panel-likes-limited-government?utm_campaign=email-news-latest&utm_src=email

It's encouraging to hear a few in government have genuine science interests.

Definitely would love to hear the budget details as they come, most obviously regarding Europa.
"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Offline mikelepage

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1218
  • ExodusSpaceSystems.com
  • Perth, Australia
  • Liked: 855
  • Likes Given: 1358
Re: Proposed Europa Missions
« Reply #686 on: 01/30/2015 03:33 pm »
This is an interesting article. I haven't read it all the way through, but it has some interesting observations on how Culberson squares his skepticism of climate science with his claim that he is supporting the "scientific consensus" on the need for a Europa mission:

http://news.sciencemag.org/funding/2015/01/money-chase-2016-new-head-key-house-science-spending-panel-likes-limited-government?utm_campaign=email-news-latest&utm_src=email

It's encouraging to hear a few in government have genuine science interests.

Definitely would love to hear the budget details as they come, most obviously regarding Europa.

Also interesting that he's keen on the idea of a Europa penetrator on the first mission.  I still have trouble picturing how that would actually work though.  I mean, you need something to remain on the surface so it can transmit back anything it finds, so do you then have a tether attaching the transmitter to whatever drills down into the ice?  How long do you make that tether? :)  And how do you make this whole craft as small as it needs to be?


Offline vjkane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1269
  • Liked: 617
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Proposed Europa Missions
« Reply #687 on: 01/30/2015 03:51 pm »
Also interesting that he's keen on the idea of a Europa penetrator on the first mission.  I still have trouble picturing how that would actually work though.  I mean, you need something to remain on the surface so it can transmit back anything it finds, so do you then have a tether attaching the transmitter to whatever drills down into the ice?  How long do you make that tether? :)  And how do you make this whole craft as small as it needs to be?
Check out these links on penetrators:

http://futureplanets.blogspot.com/2010/05/europaganymede-penetrator.html

http://futureplanets.blogspot.com/2009/04/europa-hard-landers-and-penetrators.html

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7829
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Proposed Europa Missions
« Reply #688 on: 01/30/2015 06:18 pm »
I can see a penetrator adding a lot of cost to the mission. How does it affect the baseline design? Is there room/mass for a penetrator to be added to Europa Clipper? Do they have to change a lot of the work they have already done? And how do planetary protection requirements affect this, including the cost? Up until now, EC has been designed so that nothing touches the surface ever, but adding a penetrator now means that something does touch the surface.

I'm not saying that it is a bad idea. But it may be a bad idea.

Offline vjkane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1269
  • Liked: 617
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Proposed Europa Missions
« Reply #689 on: 01/30/2015 08:03 pm »
I can see a penetrator adding a lot of cost to the mission. How does it affect the baseline design? Is there room/mass for a penetrator to be added to Europa Clipper? Do they have to change a lot of the work they have already done? And how do planetary protection requirements affect this, including the cost? Up until now, EC has been designed so that nothing touches the surface ever, but adding a penetrator now means that something does touch the surface.

I'm not saying that it is a bad idea. But it may be a bad idea.
Congressmen don't need to worry about those things.  I cannot imagine that the Clipper will carry any kind of lander.  However, the advanced work on landers that Congress funded this year may advance the data at which a lander will someday fly

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7829
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Proposed Europa Missions
« Reply #690 on: 01/30/2015 08:21 pm »
I can see a penetrator adding a lot of cost to the mission. How does it affect the baseline design? Is there room/mass for a penetrator to be added to Europa Clipper? Do they have to change a lot of the work they have already done? And how do planetary protection requirements affect this, including the cost? Up until now, EC has been designed so that nothing touches the surface ever, but adding a penetrator now means that something does touch the surface.

I'm not saying that it is a bad idea. But it may be a bad idea.
Congressmen don't need to worry about those things.  I cannot imagine that the Clipper will carry any kind of lander.  However, the advanced work on landers that Congress funded this year may advance the data at which a lander will someday fly

I agree with that. I would also add that throwing some technology money at penetrators is not necessarily a bad thing (although throwing too much money at it, when it is not going to fly for decades, is nonsensical). There may be some better ways to spend Europa money, however. For instance, advanced sensors.

Offline redliox

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2539
  • Illinois USA
  • Liked: 684
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: Proposed Europa Missions
« Reply #691 on: 01/30/2015 08:46 pm »
I can see a penetrator adding a lot of cost to the mission. How does it affect the baseline design? Is there room/mass for a penetrator to be added to Europa Clipper? Do they have to change a lot of the work they have already done? And how do planetary protection requirements affect this, including the cost? Up until now, EC has been designed so that nothing touches the surface ever, but adding a penetrator now means that something does touch the surface.

I'm not saying that it is a bad idea. But it may be a bad idea.
Congressmen don't need to worry about those things.  I cannot imagine that the Clipper will carry any kind of lander.  However, the advanced work on landers that Congress funded this year may advance the data at which a lander will someday fly

I agree with that. I would also add that throwing some technology money at penetrators is not necessarily a bad thing (although throwing too much money at it, when it is not going to fly for decades, is nonsensical). There may be some better ways to spend Europa money, however. For instance, advanced sensors.

A penetrator would be awesome, but I have to side with Blackstar in that it's probably impossible for the time being.  It certainly would need a good investment put into it; last thing we want to see is a repeat of Deep Space 2.  Ultimately it would depend on how much money gets thrown Europa's way, and beefing up the orbiter's instruments would be wiser, such as restoring the mass spectrometer to ion-neutral capability or adding a UV spectrometer.
"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Offline Donosauro

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 170
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Proposed Europa Missions
« Reply #692 on: 01/30/2015 09:35 pm »
Also interesting that he's keen on the idea of a Europa penetrator on the first mission.  I still have trouble picturing how that would actually work though.  I mean, you need something to remain on the surface so it can transmit back anything it finds, so do you then have a tether attaching the transmitter to whatever drills down into the ice?  How long do you make that tether? :)  And how do you make this whole craft as small as it needs to be?
Check out these links on penetrators:

http://futureplanets.blogspot.com/2010/05/europaganymede-penetrator.html

http://futureplanets.blogspot.com/2009/04/europa-hard-landers-and-penetrators.html

It seems like representative Culberson has in mind some much more capable kind of penetrator than those you wrote about on your blog, since he expects it to penetrate the Europan crust and to reach its ocean: "...I put in the technology money so that NASA could develop the penetrator that we'll need to get below the ice and down into its ocean."
« Last Edit: 01/30/2015 09:50 pm by Donosauro »

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7829
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Proposed Europa Missions
« Reply #693 on: 01/31/2015 02:02 am »
It seems like representative Culberson has in mind some much more capable kind of penetrator than those you wrote about on your blog, since he expects it to penetrate the Europan crust and to reach its ocean: "...I put in the technology money so that NASA could develop the penetrator that we'll need to get below the ice and down into its ocean."

Either he misunderstands what is possible, or he is talking about generic technology/study money not intended for a penetrator on the Europa Clipper. Considering how close he is to this subject, I don't think he misunderstands this stuff.

For some of those of us who worked on the Decadal Survey, we always had a worry that Culberson's zeal for Europa was so great that he would essentially unbalance the rest of the planetary science program in order to fund a Europa mission. I remember attending an event after the DS was released where he seemed skeptical/negative about the Mars cacher rover that was at the top of the list of the DS flagship missions. But for a long time his power was limited. Also, for a long time the JPL Europa option was too big to fund and would have wrecked the entire planetary budget, so it was not going to get approval from anybody.

I can say that some of the things I have heard in the past few months, and some of the things Culberson has said, indicate that he will not unbalance the planetary science program in favor of a Europa mission. He has indicated an interest in funding basic technology and in getting planetary a top-line budget equivalent to what it was several years ago before the administration started cutting it.

But this is from the above-linked article:

"Culberson’s stance leaves him open to the charge that he is substituting his judgment for that of scientific experts. That’s especially problematic for a lawmaker who emphasizes that his support for the Europa mission is driven not by his own fascination with its frozen oceans but by his desire to reinforce the consensus of the scientific community.

The consensus Culberson is referring to is a 2011 decadal study for planetary science, written by a panel convened by the U.S. National Academies. He regards such decadal studies, which identify high-priority research areas and often help set agency spending priorities, as “the gold standard” for setting NASA’s direction. And he vows that the CJS bills his panel produces will continue to require NASA “to fund and fly” the survey’s priority missions. (At the top of the report’s list was a trip to collect, and eventually return, samples from Mars, part of a multistep approach to exploring the Red Planet that NASA is pursuing.)"



Now that is written in such a way as to be a bit ambiguous. Does it mean that Culberson is going to fund all of the DS priorities, or the "priority missions"? And does that simply mean that he will make sure it funds Mars 2020 and Europa Clipper, but ignores everything else?

There is an invisible gorilla in the room, which is that the administration has essentially zeroed-out the New Frontiers program line. New Frontiers funds missions to other parts of the solar system. The New Horizons Pluto mission is a New Frontiers mission. If Culberson primarily cares about Europa Clipper and doesn't care about New Frontiers, that could leave NASA with a planetary program that essentially does Mars missions and a Europa mission and nothing else for the next decade plus--no comets, no asteroids, no Moon, no Venus, or any of the other possible missions other than the next Discovery mission selection.

And I would note that that is NOT what the Decadal Survey's priorities were. It did not say "flagships first, then all the other stuff." In fact, it put the flagships after the other stuff.

I actually suspect that Culberson knows this and I would not be surprised to see him put some money into the New Frontiers program. But right now that is uncertain.

Offline vjkane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1269
  • Liked: 617
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Proposed Europa Missions
« Reply #694 on: 01/31/2015 03:16 am »
There is an invisible gorilla in the room, which is that the administration has essentially zeroed-out the New Frontiers program line. New Frontiers funds missions to other parts of the solar system. The New Horizons Pluto mission is a New Frontiers mission. If Culberson primarily cares about Europa Clipper and doesn't care about New Frontiers, that could leave NASA with a planetary program that essentially does Mars missions and a Europa mission and nothing else for the next decade plus--no comets, no asteroids, no Moon, no Venus, or any of the other possible missions other than the next Discovery mission selection.

After the decision to do a new start for Clipper, the key question is when is the expected launch.  If it is around 2024, then current funding can support Mars 2020, Discovery missions around every 3.5 years, and Clipper but no new New Frontiers (by my budget analysis).  If Clipper is pushed to 2022 (I don't see anyway to do it before then as still do the missions in the pipeline), then the next Discovery AO would need to be pushed out.  (This is all assuming relatively flat planetary budgets.)

I am a big fan of New Frontiers missions and I am sad to see the program effectively shutting down for the next while.  That said, the planetary science community is just one stake holder in setting planetary priorities.  NASA management is another, and so are the NASA centers, OMB, Congress, and the public.  A program that includes more frequent Discovery missions and the top two priority Flagship missions is much better than I had hoped for just a couple of years ago.

We got MSL in its final form (the 2003 Decadal Survey called for a modest technology demonstration rover), Mars 2020, and now Clipper because of political issues outside the purvey of the Decacal Surveys.  Flagships get a great deal of visibility and therefore political momentum.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Proposed Europa Missions
« Reply #695 on: 01/31/2015 04:27 am »
I was truck with hos comment that he wanted to take some of the OMB power over setting NASA's priorities. Quite interesting to this particular mission (given how they still haven't allowed an ATP).

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Proposed Europa Missions
« Reply #696 on: 01/31/2015 05:15 am »
After the decision to do a new start for Clipper, the key question is when is the expected launch.  If it is around 2024, then current funding can support Mars 2020, Discovery missions around every 3.5 years, and Clipper but no new New Frontiers (by my budget analysis).  If Clipper is pushed to 2022 (I don't see anyway to do it before then as still do the missions in the pipeline), then the next Discovery AO would need to be pushed out.  (This is all assuming relatively flat planetary budgets.)

I've heard rumblings that they might select two of the current round of Discovery proposals and then stagger their development. That would give more flexibility in terms of making a Europa mission happen while the political winds are blowing for it, and then once it is entrenched and a separate line item (like JWST), go back to a more regular Discovery schedule. But that might simply be wishful thinking on the part of those people proposing for Discovery.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7829
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Proposed Europa Missions
« Reply #697 on: 01/31/2015 03:53 pm »
I've heard rumblings that they might select two of the current round of Discovery proposals and then stagger their development. That would give more flexibility in terms of making a Europa mission happen while the political winds are blowing for it, and then once it is entrenched and a separate line item (like JWST), go back to a more regular Discovery schedule. But that might simply be wishful thinking on the part of those people proposing for Discovery.

I go with wishful thinking. The problem is that delays don't save money--the proposing team still has to keep their team together during the delay and this costs NASA money. No team can guarantee that the team they said would be available in year 1 will be available in year 3, unless they are paid to be available.

This is what happened with Juno. NASA selected the mission and then immediately delayed it, and I think that increased the cost of the mission by 100 million or so.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7829
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Proposed Europa Missions
« Reply #698 on: 01/31/2015 03:57 pm »
I was struck with his comment that he wanted to take some of the OMB power over setting NASA's priorities. Quite interesting to this particular mission (given how they still haven't allowed an ATP).

That's part of the ongoing struggle regarding NASA funding. There has long been the perception that OMB budget examiners have been setting NASA priorities without executive oversight or direction. I won't say if I believe that is true, but the claim has been that certain projects have been rejected (and others have been pushed) because OMB civil servants have their own priorities aside from the White House's priorities. For example, they have been opposed to both flagships in general and Mars sample return in particular, essentially for the same reason that they will end up costing lots of money.

If you look at what Culberson has done the past few years with Europa, you see that he's been trying to essentially get Congress to set the budget priorities for planetary science, following his interpretation of the Decadal Survey.

Offline vjkane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1269
  • Liked: 617
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Proposed Europa Missions
« Reply #699 on: 01/31/2015 03:59 pm »
This is what happened with Juno. NASA selected the mission and then immediately delayed it, and I think that increased the cost of the mission by 100 million or so.
I heard in some meeting or other -- I think it was an OPAG meeting -- that the Juno team did a classic job of using the extra time to do early engineering work and reduce risk.  The NASA official said there might be a lesson in the longer development time for all missions.  If there was, it wasn't followed, presumably because it adds costs to every mission.

 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0