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
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
Quote from: Blackstar on 01/29/2015 04:07 pmThis 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=emailIt'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?
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.
Quote from: Blackstar on 01/30/2015 06:18 pmI 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
Quote from: vjkane on 01/30/2015 08:03 pmQuote from: Blackstar on 01/30/2015 06:18 pmI 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 flyI 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.
Quote from: mikelepage on 01/30/2015 03:33 pmAlso 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.htmlhttp://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."
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'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 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).
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.